conaly wrote:

Swiss has five A340-300 to replace first and so does Edelweiss by the way. And those we can expect will be replaced by A359 (LX) and B789 (WK) as soon as possible.

I‘d rather expect A359 for both LX and WK.
The WK CEO has already mentioned his preference towards the bus in a recent interview.

conaly wrote:

Why do so many of you expect a replacement of the LX 77Ws soon? The oldest LX 77W had its first flight in December 2015, that is YOUNGER than the newest Lufthansa B747-8. You will see those for another ten years with LX, I am sure. I don't think ANY of the current orders is intended to replace just a single 77W. Maybe in five years we could see some plannings with that.

Swiss has five A340-300 to replace first and so does Edelweiss by the way. And those we can expect will be replaced by A359 (LX) and B789 (WK) as soon as possible.

I agree. Those 777s aren't going anywhere soon. (I suspect it may just be wishful thinking.)

Terrier79 wrote:

conaly wrote:

Swiss has five A340-300 to replace first and so does Edelweiss by the way. And those we can expect will be replaced by A359 (LX) and B789 (WK) as soon as possible.

I‘d rather expect A359 for both LX and WK.
The WK CEO has already mentioned his preference towards the bus in a recent interview.

I was mentioning the 789, because Lufthansa's current GE-powered Dreamliners were thought to be transferred to another airline once their RR-powered ones arrive. It was not yet decided which one will get them, however WK was mentioned as one of multiple possibilities. However, if WK prefers the larger Airbus, it would be plausible so see those with WK as well.

Sorry for double post, some new information just came in:
https://www.aero.de/news-44620/Lufthans ... -A380.html

The A350-1000 will replace the A380 in MUC. The A380s will go to FRA and will be successively replaced by 777-9 there. Timeframe depends on when Boeing figures out their delivery schedule, which is still not fully clear yet. The 747-8 will stay until the next decade and will be the last quad jet with Lufthansa.

¿How many widebodies on order for LH?

pabloeing wrote:

¿How many widebodies on order for LH?

Including yesterday's announcement ...

33 x A350-900
10 x A350-1000
20 x 777-9
7 x 777-8F
2 x 777F
36 x 787-9

FluidFlow wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

conaly wrote:

Swiss has five A340-300 to replace first and so does Edelweiss by the way. And those we can expect will be replaced by A359 (LX) and B789 (WK) as soon as possible.

I‘d rather expect A359 for both LX and WK.
The WK CEO has already mentioned his preference towards the bus in a recent interview.

Jep pretty sure WK will get 359s as well, just after LX. The reason is pretty simple, WK often gets aircraft handed down from LX. So in the very distant future, LX can also transfer 359s down to WK when they get something even newer.

The fleet strategy of LX and WK are very very aligned, we will hardly see different types of aircraft. LX will switch to 350s so it is pretty set in stone that WK will get 350s too.

Plus the CEO of WK mentioned that their pilots can currently fly both SH and LH as all planes are Airbus and that he values this flexibility.

I see LX and Wk 343s being replaced by 359s and 789s. I am curious if OS and 4Y will look at starting any replacements. If they do either the 789s or the 359s fit in well. The 333s in the combine LH group with the B748s, B77Ws, A333s will remain for a bit. I am not sure about the B744s. Whether they will be replaced prior to the B779s being introduced. But if I look at LH group as a whole, I do see them eventually having a fleet of B779, A35K, B78X, A359, B789 fleet for their WB fleet.

JLGordon wrote:

Just have in mind that they are doing heavy checks on 346 and 744. Including complete paint for some. These A/C will all fly until the next heavy would be due and then being replaced by new ones. Just a normal timeline.
And for me, the 350K is too much plane for Swiss to take. And moving old 777 from Swiss to LH, without LH having the infrastructure and personnel for it: Never.

Why would the A35K be too much plane for LX? It's the same size as the 77W, actually slightly smaller since LX has their 777s at 10ab.. I do not think they will be retired for at least a decade but I would be shocked if the A35K didn't end up at LX eventually..

conaly wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

conaly wrote:

Swiss has five A340-300 to replace first and so does Edelweiss by the way. And those we can expect will be replaced by A359 (LX) and B789 (WK) as soon as possible.

I‘d rather expect A359 for both LX and WK.
The WK CEO has already mentioned his preference towards the bus in a recent interview.

I was mentioning the 789, because Lufthansa's current GE-powered Dreamliners were thought to be transferred to another airline once their RR-powered ones arrive. It was not yet decided which one will get them, however WK was mentioned as one of multiple possibilities. However, if WK prefers the larger Airbus, it would be plausible so see those with WK as well.

We don't know but it seems like the perfect fit for those GE 787s is OS.. I believe their 777s are GE powered, not sure about the 767s but both fleets are in their 20s, so I would expect a replacement soon.. LH gave hints in the announcement, when they said 767s and 772s would be removed from the group..

DCA350 wrote:

conaly wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

I‘d rather expect A359 for both LX and WK.
The WK CEO has already mentioned his preference towards the bus in a recent interview.

I was mentioning the 789, because Lufthansa's current GE-powered Dreamliners were thought to be transferred to another airline once their RR-powered ones arrive. It was not yet decided which one will get them, however WK was mentioned as one of multiple possibilities. However, if WK prefers the larger Airbus, it would be plausible so see those with WK as well.

We don't know but it seems like the perfect fit for those GE 787s is OS.. I believe their 777s are GE powered, not sure about the 767s but both fleets are in their 20s, so I would expect a replacement soon.. LH gave hits in the announcement, when they said 767s and 772s would be removed from the group..

Their 767s have PW. Their 777s have GE.

I understand the talk about passing the GE-powered 787s to a smaller airline and I believe that's what LH have said will happen. But that ultimately means that it wouldn't be so easy to swap planes between LH, OS, LX and whichever other entities get them. Standardising on the RR Trent would have advantages.

Five 787s with GE isn't really enough for any of the prospective carriers. So I could see two ways forward.

1. Buy more 787s with GE (the seven announced yesterday?) to create a credible sub-fleet.
2. Only acquire RR-powered 787s for commonality. Then, in time, dispose of the five GE planes. (Placing five well-maintained 787-9s with GEnx engines is unlikely to be difficult).

No one will be surprised that I'd prefer the second option!

I don't think different engine is much of a problem here. Lufthansa group airlines had mixed engine fleets for a very long time. LH group's A320ceo-fleet is fully mixed with CFM (A319, A320, A321) and IAE (A319, A321), the NEOs currently have PW on A320 and A321, soon LEAP A320s and A321 will arrive as well. The three (+ four stored) 4Y A330-200 are GE-powered, while all current A330-300 with LH, LX, 4Y and SN are RR-powered. In the past LX, LH, WK and SN did even have GE and/or PW powered A330-200/-300.

Lufthansa Technik is doing maintenance on any engine type anyway. I have the feeling some overestimate the impact of a different engine types. There are multiple airlines around that have mixed engine fleets. And Lufthansa group is not planning to get rid of the GE powered Dreamliners any time soon, they want to keep them with one of their group's airlines. Could be OS, could be WK, maybe even 4Y or SN. Not having those airplanes would probably be much more problematic than having them with the "wrong" engine.

Seemingly they change old ideas pretty quickly once the situation changes. For example the reactivation of the A380 was ruled out for a long time and suddenly they are coming back. The 777-9 should've been the replacement for the 747-400, now they are expected to replace the A380. And maybe on two years they want to keep both of them, who knows. The A340s and B747-400 should've been long gone and now some of them are getting C-checks and new liveries. What I want to say is that regardless of what the current situation is, it will change at one point or another. Nothing is ever final with Lufthansa.

conaly wrote:

Sorry for double post, some new information just came in:
https://www.aero.de/news-44620/Lufthans ... -A380.html

Wow, that article is quite revealing. Some translated excerpts:

Lufthansa is stationing ten A350-1000s at the Munich hub. The aircraft ordered from Airbus this week will be delivered "quite quickly" - and will "gradually replace" the A380 at the Munich hub, said Lufthansa boss Carsten Spohr on Friday at the annual press conference in Frankfurt.

The exit date for the A380 depends on the "delivery speed" of the 777X, Spohr said. "Not even Boeing knows that from today's perspective."

So the A35K delivery slots are quite near term. Unsurprisingly, it sounds like Spohr doesn't have much confidence in Boeing regarding 777-9X deliveries. Wouldn't be the first.

conaly wrote:

I don't think different engine is much of a problem here.

Agreed.

conaly wrote:

Seemingly they change old ideas pretty quickly once the situation changes. For example the reactivation of the A380 was ruled out for a long time and suddenly they are coming back. The 777-9 should've been the replacement for the 747-400, now they are expected to replace the A380.

Don't forget Spohr saying that the A340-600s would never return.

777luver wrote:

JLGordon wrote:

Just have in mind that they are doing heavy checks on 346 and 744. Including complete paint for some. These A/C will all fly until the next heavy would be due and then being replaced by new ones. Just a normal timeline.
And for me, the 350K is too much plane for Swiss to take. And moving old 777 from Swiss to LH, without LH having the infrastructure and personnel for it: Never.

What’s the timeline for a heavy check? Like how long in between heavy checks do airplanes go?

The normal timeline between heavy checks is about 5 to 6 years. So it gives the operator some time frame to work with.

Had time to review the financial statements.

Below is 2022 breakdown of net EBIT profitability by unit.

Austrian - Loss €1m
Brussels - Loss €75m
Eurowings - Loss €200m
Lufthansa - Loss €432m
Swiss - Profit €472m
Logistics - Profit €1,575m
MRO - Profit €456m
Catering - Loss €182m
Other(IT, training, payments) - Loss €301m

Basically, the airlines with exception of Swiss are loss-making, with group profits driven by cargo and MRO.

https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2022-e.pdf

How much freedom is there for management to move profit or loss between the different parts of LH Group to suit whatever public image they wish to present ?

davidjohnson6 wrote:

How much freedom is there for management to move profit or loss between the different parts of LH Group to suit whatever public image they wish to present ?

Umm, none. People need to stop thinking public companies can just cook the books. There are strict accounting and securities rule and requirements that must be followed. Sure some internal charges will be made for licensing, services, etc., but that's standard and not moving profit/loss to present an image.

Wow, the profitability breakdown is very insightful...I feel there's a lot of talk about OS being very unprofitable, but that 1m loss doesn't look that much compared with other group airlines, even when considering their smaller size...maybe given these figures could've influenced the decision to retire their older aircraft? (Hopefully with brand-new ones rather than intra-group transfers.)

Quite a news marathon this week for the entire LH Group.

According to this article https://www.aerotelegraph.com/boeing-78 ... es-konkret (in German) the decision for OS longhaul fleet to replace aging 767/777s is internally taken and only depends now on external market conditions (as quoted OS CEO Anette Mann during the annual press briefing today). It's going to be the 787 as it ideally fits the airline, current fleet structure and the market. In a 3-class configuration with Business, Premium Eco and Economy, the airline can fit around 220/270/310 seats (787-8/787-9/787-10). The current layout on their 772 accommodates 320 seats and respectively 213 seats with the 763.

----
Question still remains whether they get new ones from previous orders, the new order, NTU's or maybe even the current "sprinter" versions of LH ("78S" and reg's D-ABPA to D-ABPE)

EAF (usually in the know) is predicting nine (9) 787-9s for OS.

https://sites.google.com/view/europeana ... authuser=0

mercure1 wrote:

Had time to review the financial statements.

Below is 2022 breakdown of net EBIT profitability by unit.

Austrian - Loss €1m
Brussels - Loss €75m
Eurowings - Loss €200m
Lufthansa - Loss €432m
Swiss - Profit €472m
Logistics - Profit €1,575m
MRO - Profit €456m
Catering - Loss €182m
Other(IT, training, payments) - Loss €301m

Basically, the airlines with exception of Swiss are loss-making, with group profits driven by cargo and MRO.

https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2022-e.pdf

I am surprised by the results of Austrian. Their loss of 1m€ is not as big as one may expect. What has led to it?

PM wrote:

EAF (usually in the know) is predicting nine (9) 787-9s for OS.

https://sites.google.com/view/europeana ... authuser=0

Wow that would actually be growth! A young and simplified fleet would do them good, let’s hope the hard product is just a good too. Probably the 787 version of the allegris seat?

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

PM wrote:

EAF (usually in the know) is predicting nine (9) 787-9s for OS.

https://sites.google.com/view/europeana ... authuser=0

Wow that would actually be growth! A young and simplified fleet would do them good, let’s hope the hard product is just a good too. Probably the 787 version of the allegris seat?

Apart from the five they are receiving right now, all Group 787s from now will have Allegris.

(Far as I know ...)

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

PM wrote:

EAF (usually in the know) is predicting nine (9) 787-9s for OS.

https://sites.google.com/view/europeana ... authuser=0

Wow that would actually be growth! A young and simplified fleet would do them good, let’s hope the hard product is just a good too. Probably the 787 version of the allegris seat?

Still down by 3 frames as they had 6 772s and 6 763s pre-pandemic

The second B744 to receive the new livery: D-ABVZ just out of the paint shop in Shannon.



Credits: Adrian Kissane

I still don't get the point of these yellow squares next to each door used for boarding?
It clutters a very clean livery, especially on big planes which board through door 2L too

If LH absolutely wants to keep a link to their traditional legacy yellow which they use in their uniforms and on many commercial features on the ground and website, they should have gone for a livery including it, rather than this nonsense solution which we see here. Something only beancounters can come up with: get a livery with just 2 basic colours (white and dark blue) and then add a yellow sticker next to the boarding doors so the eye of the customers picks up some of the predominant company colour which they will see for rest of their flight.

sabenapilot wrote:

I still don't get the point of these yellow squares next to each door used for boarding?
It clutters a very clean livery, especially on big planes which board through door 2L too

If LH absolutely wants to keep a link to their traditional legacy yellow which they use in their uniforms and on many commercial features on the ground and website, they should have gone for a livery including it, rather than this nonsense solution which we see here. Something only beancounters can come up with: get a livery with just 2 basic colours (white and dark blue) and then add a yellow sticker next to the boarding doors so the eye of the customers picks up some of the predominant company colour which they will see for rest of their flight.

They're stickers the crew can use to write a welcome message to guests. They can be written on with markers. It's up to you to decide whether or not it's a good idea, but that's why they're there.

DABYT wrote, "The second B744 to receive the new livery: D-ABVZ just out of the paint shop in Shannon."

Like D-ABVM new livery, LH has seemingly applied the thicker white circle in the LH tail logo and richer blue tail color on D-ABVZ. What a great looking plane and photo to capture it. I hope that they do this improved tail logo and blue paint with the 747-8 repainting, too. D-ABYA tail logo is too thin of a circle and too dark blue -- dull looking.

atcsundevil wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

I still don't get the point of these yellow squares next to each door used for boarding?
It clutters a very clean livery, especially on big planes which board through door 2L too

If LH absolutely wants to keep a link to their traditional legacy yellow which they use in their uniforms and on many commercial features on the ground and website, they should have gone for a livery including it, rather than this nonsense solution which we see here. Something only beancounters can come up with: get a livery with just 2 basic colours (white and dark blue) and then add a yellow sticker next to the boarding doors so the eye of the customers picks up some of the predominant company colour which they will see for rest of their flight.

They're stickers the crew can use to write a welcome message to guests. They can be written on with markers. It's up to you to decide whether or not it's a good idea, but that's why they're there.

These are no stickers. It is a painted part of the livery. If you look closer on more detailed pictures, even the grey color of the door framing is different in this area of the so called "Welcome panel".
Once I boarded a plane and somebody had painted the "Girl with the balloons" on it. Sad I didn’t take a picture. It made me smile.

I think the yellow welcome panel is a nice feature. Especially if the crew members use it the way it is designed to be used:



Credits: Claus Harder

JLGordon wrote:

These are no stickers. It is a painted part of the livery. If you look closer on more detailed pictures, even the grey color of the door framing is different in this area of the so called "Welcome panel".
Once I boarded a plane and somebody had painted the "Girl with the balloons" on it. Sad I didn’t take a picture. It made me smile.

I just assumed they were stickers, but clearly it's not based on the picture. I haven't really looked too closely at it when I've boarded in the past. Either way, I find it to be a nice touch. I've only seen it actually used by the crew a handful of times though.

DABYT wrote:

I think the yellow welcome panel is a nice feature. Especially if the crew members use it the way it is designed to be used:



Credits: Claus Harder

thank you for this perfect example for best usage of the welcome panel.
Captain Claus Harder is one of the most active and talented ones. Check out his IG page to see plenty of great examples (https://www.instagram.com/quax747/).
In my opinion, sketching a popular sight or a building of the aircrafts' destination gives particularly a special touch during boarding.

It is the people and their passion that brings these things to life. Sadly, there is not many of them. Which means, that for most flights, this is a bland yellow thing without the life it deserves.

JLGordon wrote:

It is the people and their passion that brings these things to life. Sadly, there is not many of them. Which means, that for most flights, this is a bland yellow thing without the life it deserves.

Indeed, nice concept in theory, but in practice nobody hardly ever uses it, especially on the short haul flights.
I can't blame those crews, they do several sectors a day and have very short time in between, which indeed means that for 95% of the time it's just a bland yellow thing (sticker or painted canvas, who cares?), which is at odds with the rest of the livery.
Even if you like the idea itself, there's no need for it to be yellow: could have been gray or even white too, and thus disappear into the background if not used.

mercure1 wrote:

Had time to review the financial statements.

Below is 2022 breakdown of net EBIT profitability by unit.

Austrian - Loss €1m
Brussels - Loss €75m
Eurowings - Loss €200m
Lufthansa - Loss €432m
Swiss - Profit €472m
Logistics - Profit €1,575m
MRO - Profit €456m
Catering - Loss €182m
Other(IT, training, payments) - Loss €301m

Basically, the airlines with exception of Swiss are loss-making, with group profits driven by cargo and MRO.

https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2022-e.pdf

Back in 2018 and 2019, LH management (Spohr) forced Austrian into austerity measures because they were not profitable. Austrian did not get a single new aircraft order. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/austri ... -its-costs
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/fas ... ew-planes/

Spohr is a hypocrite because now in 2023 with LH deeply unprofitable, it still continually gets new widebody aircraft deliveries and orders. And LH aircraft are getting brand new and expensive cabin retrofits. I think LH should be put into austerity measures, too.

max999 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Had time to review the financial statements.

Below is 2022 breakdown of net EBIT profitability by unit.

Austrian - Loss €1m
Brussels - Loss €75m
Eurowings - Loss €200m
Lufthansa - Loss €432m
Swiss - Profit €472m
Logistics - Profit €1,575m
MRO - Profit €456m
Catering - Loss €182m
Other(IT, training, payments) - Loss €301m

Basically, the airlines with exception of Swiss are loss-making, with group profits driven by cargo and MRO.

https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2022-e.pdf

Back in 2018 and 2019, LH management (Spohr) forced Austrian into austerity measures because they were not profitable. Austrian did not get a single new aircraft order. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/austri ... -its-costs
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/fas ... ew-planes/

Spohr is a hypocrite because now in 2023 with LH deeply unprofitable, it still continually gets new widebody aircraft deliveries and orders. And LH aircraft are getting brand new and expensive cabin retrofits. I think LH should be put into austerity measures, too.

You realize that 2022 was not a normal year, right? The first half was heavily impacted by the Omicron wave so it doesn't make any sense to compare with years prior COVID.
It's great that OS was nearly in the black numbers and hopefully they will get 787s to renew the WB fleet.
For 2023, Spohr mentioned the goal to have all airlines profitable.

max999 wrote:

Spohr is a hypocrite because now in 2023 with LH deeply unprofitable, it still continually gets new widebody aircraft deliveries and orders. And LH aircraft are getting brand new and expensive cabin retrofits. I think LH should be put into austerity measures, too.

While I don't disagree ("we're a premium carrier that doesn't offer food intra EU", "Cityline 2.0. go - pilot shortage - no CL 2.0 - high wage demands - yes CL 2.0" etc)

I think pseudo factual linkages such as "no profit-no planes" are the only way to exert political power and force an old state carrier to make painful cuts. I wonder how they will bring ITA in line. They ordered plenty of planes and they just gave a30% raise....

fraT wrote:

max999 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Had time to review the financial statements.

Below is 2022 breakdown of net EBIT profitability by unit.

Austrian - Loss €1m
Brussels - Loss €75m
Eurowings - Loss €200m
Lufthansa - Loss €432m
Swiss - Profit €472m
Logistics - Profit €1,575m
MRO - Profit €456m
Catering - Loss €182m
Other(IT, training, payments) - Loss €301m

Basically, the airlines with exception of Swiss are loss-making, with group profits driven by cargo and MRO.

https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2022-e.pdf

Back in 2018 and 2019, LH management (Spohr) forced Austrian into austerity measures because they were not profitable. Austrian did not get a single new aircraft order. https://www.aerotelegraph.com/en/austri ... -its-costs
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/fas ... ew-planes/

Spohr is a hypocrite because now in 2023 with LH deeply unprofitable, it still continually gets new widebody aircraft deliveries and orders. And LH aircraft are getting brand new and expensive cabin retrofits. I think LH should be put into austerity measures, too.

You realize that 2022 was not a normal year, right? The first half was heavily impacted by the Omicron wave so it doesn't make any sense to compare with years prior COVID.
It's great that OS was nearly in the black numbers and hopefully they will get 787s to renew the WB fleet.
For 2023, Spohr mentioned the goal to have all airlines profitable.

I don't think your argument is correct when LH is compared to its competition. 2022 was normal for many airlines.
Swiss - Profit €472m
Air France - Profit €483m
KLM - Profit €706m
https://www.airfranceklm.com/sites/defa ... elease.pdf
British Airways - Profit £332m
Iberia - Profit €382m
https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files ... esults.pdf

If the Lufthansa GROUP would be run less German centric and be truely metal neutral, it would basically strip naked Lufthansa airlines in FRA and move most of its long haul flights to the cheaper, more natural hubs in the periferal group bases, and grow MUC.

Lufthansa airlines has by far the highest CASM of any of the airlines of the group and is heavily reliant on massive European feed to fill a global long haul network from FRA due to the fact it is operating from the smallerst of cities (tiny Frankfurt vs Paris or London).

FRA should be downsized to just a focus city for point-to-point and most of the longhaul flights there moved to either MUC, ZRH, VIE or BRU depending the desitnation, so as to benefit from the lower CASM of the local airline there as well as the natural savings from a shorter trip length: double dipping even!

The impact on the GROUP's bottom line of such a transformation would be massive, but of course its never going to happen because for the light to be seen, Lufthansa GROUP should be run flag neutral, preferably by a multinational management team, rather than the bunch of Germans who think their own country is the alpha and omega of European aviation and all the rest should just orbit around it.

sabenapilot wrote:

If the Lufthansa GROUP would be run less German centric and be truely metal neutral, it would basically strip naked Lufthansa airlines in FRA and move most of its long haul flights to the cheaper, more natural hubs in the periferal group bases, and grow MUC.

Lufthansa airlines has by far the highest CASM of any of the airlines of the group and is heavily reliant on massive European feed to fill a global long haul network from FRA due to the fact it is operating from the smallerst of cities (tiny Frankfurt vs Paris or London).

FRA should be downsized to just a focus city for point-to-point and most of the longhaul flights there moved to either MUC, ZRH, VIE or BRU depending the desitnation, so as to benefit from the lower CASM of the local airline there as well as the natural savings from a shorter trip length: double dipping even!

The impact on the GROUP's bottom line of such a transformation would be massive, but of course its never going to happen because for the light to be seen, Lufthansa GROUP should be run flag neutral, preferably by a multinational management team, rather than the bunch of Germans who think their own country is the alpha and omega of European aviation and all the rest should just orbit around it.

Well... LH was German and is German. Why would they take over European competition and weaken themselves? It's clearly not first best from a European perspective, but from LH's perspective it is.

Plus I think you're underestimating FRA. high Speed trains bring millions of people there within 1-2 hrs.

Because it's a stock listed company and shareholders want to make more money, maybe?
The day some activist shareholder pops up, the current management is in for a rough ride explaining why they have decided to miss out on hundreds of millions of extra profit yearly.

It simply makes no sense to keep running a global hub in a small city as FRA without much -if any- O/D traffic on much of its long haul routes, especially not with the highest cost airline of the entire group now that there's ample choice from within.

The only way it can be made to work is by constantly buying every surrounding airlines that might form a threat and keep those periferal group airlines small by preventing them from growing into the markets LH serves from FRA: OS coud just as well serve whatever LH serves in India for instance, just as SN could take over quite a lot of the routes to say Canada/the US, especially as there will be preclearance in BRU soon and both can do it much cheaper too. Geographically, these are the more natural hubs so to say and on top they come with a very big cost advantage. both airlines have a CASM lufthansa can not match, not even after 3 restructuring plans, yet not even a tiny portion of the group's capacity from FRA is shifted in all those years to take benefit from this, is it, let alone a significant part of it.... truely amazing indeed, because for the rest Lufthansa's management knows the price and value of every little tweak they do.
Seriously?

Oh well, maybe the Lufthansa group is in need of an external and certainly non-German CEO after Spohr to see the light?

In a perfect (for LH) world, there would be a megahub in DUS or CGN or somewhere close to DUS. Unfortunately neither DUS nor CGN has anywhere near the capacity to support such a hub, so in the real world, along with the long-after-effects of history, LH has to put its primary hub somewhere else... namely stay with FRA

sabenapilot wrote:

Because it's a stock listed company and shareholders want to make more money, maybe?
The day some activist shareholder pops up, the current management is in for a rough ride explaining why they have decided to miss out on hundreds of millions of extra profit yearly.

It simply makes no sense to keep running a global hub in a small city as FRA without much -if any- O/D traffic on much of its long haul routes, especially not with the highest cost airline of the entire group now that there's ample choice from within.

The only way it can be made to work is by constantly buying every surrounding airlines that might form a threat and keep those periferal group airlines small by preventing them from growing into the markets LH serves from FRA: OS coud just as well serve whatever LH serves in India for instance, just as SN could take over quite a lot of the routes to say Canada/the US, especially as there will be preclearance in BRU soon and both can do it much cheaper too. Geographically, these are the more natural hubs so to say and on top they come with a very big cost advantage. both airlines have a CASM lufthansa can not match, not even after 3 restructuring plans, yet not even a tiny portion of the group's capacity from FRA is shifted in all those years to take benefit from this, is it, let alone a significant part of it.... truely amazing indeed, because for the rest Lufthansa's management knows the price and value of every little tweak they do.
Seriously?

Oh well, maybe the Lufthansa group is in need of an external and certainly non-German CEO after Spohr to see the light?

Interesting that you think that BRU has so much O/D potential to the US but DL and AA have a combined 7 weekly flights there. VIE is not served at all by those two carriers.
While FRA is neither the capital nor the biggest city in Germany, it does have some significant corporate travel since Germany is not a centralized country. And people often seem to forget, that FRA is the center of the Rhein-Main region with approx 6 Million people living there. If you add the Rhein-Neckar region plus cities like cologne which can be reached in about an hour by train, the catchment area is much bigger than some other metropol regions in Europe.
Adding to that the airport is very well connected to the train system and even though Deutsche Bahn has its own issues, the intermodal concept is very important for LH.

LH has already shifted some traffic to MUC and is highly critical of the airport company in FRA. Last summer was a mess and public services strikes will likely continue in Germany until a contract is reached.
However thinking that transferring flights to BRU and VIE would benefit the LHG results is interesting when those cities/airports cannot even attract two of the the biggest carriers in the world.

Again, I am happy that OS seems to be on the right track and SN as well. Let's see whether the ITA deal goes through. It will be interesting to see how LHG will tackle the problems there.

sabenapilot wrote:

It simply makes no sense to keep running a global hub in a small city as FRA without much -if any- O/D traffic on much of its long haul routes, especially not with the highest cost airline of the entire group now that there's ample choice from within.

Since you choose to ignore the train connection arguments and seem to not look at a map of metropolitan areas in Germany I think this discussion is useless. There was a thread here where a user showed the number of headquarters within reach of FRA was huge, too. Better/comparable to MUC and better than BER if I recall correctly.

sabenapilot wrote:

especially not with the highest cost airline of the entire group now that there's ample choice from within.

Source?

xl0hr wrote:

Since you choose to ignore the train connection arguments and seem to not look at a map of metropolitan areas in Germany I think this discussion is useless. There was a thread here where a user showed the number of headquarters within reach of FRA was huge, too. Better/comparable to MUC and better than BER if I recall correctly.

That is true. From the 40 DAX companies, only two have headquarters in Berlin (Siemens partly and Zalando) whereas 5 are in or around Frankfurt plus three more within an hour drive of FRA.

xl0hr wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

It simply makes no sense to keep running a global hub in a small city as FRA without much -if any- O/D traffic on much of its long haul routes, especially not with the highest cost airline of the entire group now that there's ample choice from within.

Since you choose to ignore the train connection arguments and seem to not look at a map of metropolitan areas in Germany I think this discussion is useless. There was a thread here where a user showed the number of headquarters within reach of FRA was huge, too. Better/comparable to MUC and better than BER if I recall correctly.

sabenapilot wrote:

especially not with the highest cost airline of the entire group now that there's ample choice from within.

Source?

„a small city as FRA“ with all due respect, this is ridiculous and - as pointed out by others- has been explained several times. The Rhein-Main metropolitan area has about 5.8 million inhabitants. In addition there is the bordering Rhein-Neckar metropolitan area with about 2.4 million inhabitants.

Best regards from…. well, Frankfurt

While the city of Frankfurt in fact is not that big, it's positioned right in the middle of the western half of the country, next to main autobahns, railway lines and high speed rail connecting it to both the Ruhr valley and southern Germany. This is why Frankfurt has grown to become by far the most important German hub airport.

Noshow wrote:

While the city of Frankfurt in fact is not that big, it's positioned right in the middle of the western half of the country, next to main autobahns, railway lines and high speed rail connecting it to both the Ruhr valley and southern Germany. This is why Frankfurt has grown to become by far the most important German hub airport.

And people forget that Germany was splitted and the military bases near FRA were key for its development along with being a financial centre.

Noshow wrote:

[…]and high speed rail connecting it to both the Ruhr valley and southern Germany.

… and - if I may add- even Northern Germany. There is a nice high speed nonstop connection from Hamburg to Frankfurt airport with only one extra stop in Hanover. I often see passengers traveling to China and Vietnam in that train.