Over the years, Lufthansa has shifted many long haul routes from FRA to MUC. What is causing this to happen?

FRA-KIX was ended for MUC-KIX. Could it have been possible for LH to sustain service to KIX from both FRA and MUC, like other asian destinations served?

This year, FRA lost service to SAN, GIG, and BKK. These routes have been moved to MUC permanently.

Lufthansa has done well serving long haul destinations from both FRA and MUC together, it just seems strange to see certain routes dropped from FRA. With the A350 mostly based in Munich, it seems like new routes can be served with that aircraft without FRA losing service.

I imagine it has to do with LH basing the A350 fleet in MUC and the 747/330/340 fleet in FRA for mx & crew reasons

3D101CA wrote:

Over the years, Lufthansa has shifted many long haul routes from FRA to MUC. What is causing this to happen?

This was discussed here before the Pandemic. Something to do with LH not being happy with FRA and moving routes to MUC out of spite.
https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... on-munich/

airbazar wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

Over the years, Lufthansa has shifted many long haul routes from FRA to MUC. What is causing this to happen?

This was discussed here before the Pandemic. Something to do with LH not being happy with FRA and moving routes to MUC out of spite.

Yeah, can’t search on this site, but this happens every few years. LH throws a fit about how much they pay in fees to FRA and move capacity to MUC.

Lufthansa is not happy with the costs at FRA. That's why they made it clear that they are not dependent on FRA airport.
First they moved part of the A380 fleet to MUC and now they move routes there.
Of course they will never give up FRA but they proved that they can fill longhaul planes as well in MUC.

If there is very little KIX-FRA origin traffic and the vast majority is connecting passengers why not move it to MUC where there are plentiful slots.

Just a thought, but maybe as business travel has changed to give way to more premium leisure or VFR travel, maybe it is more advantageous to serve MUC over FRA for a number of markets. Aside from connecting people to Berlin or other parts of Germany FRA’s market was business, not tourism. If the market maintains its shift away from business travel I could see why MUC is a better place to bring people into Germany, both for connections and tourism.

It’s a fallacy that we’re seeing swathes of business travel disappear. Transatlantic business travel is already back to 90%+ of pre-Covid levels, while globally it’s back to 60% despite most Asian markets being closed until recently. I expect the long-term impairment to business travel caused by Covid will be minimal.

It makes sense for LH not to place all eggs in the FRA basket where possible. It’s a congested, high-fee airport and from an operational risk perspective, it’s prudent not to be overly reliant on a single airport. Witness how BA grinds to a halt during a LHR meltdown.

Expansion at MUC is also a good defensive move as it deters new carriers from entering what is a strategic market for LH. Protecting market share at MUC will be a key strategic priority for LH.

As people have said, the ongoing feud between LH and FRA over fees, the infrastructure and even at one point, FRA allowing FR to fly from the airport which LH, as we know, doesn't like any competition anywhere, has been the driver.

The movement of a portion of the 380s was significant at the time (5 IIRC), and it also reflected that MUC with the new terminal 2 pier is a world class hub, while FRA, let's be honest is a jumbled mess as a connecting hub. IMO that is the driver atm. LH group was devised around the multiple hub operation which allows many connections across the hubs at different times of the day from either FRA, MUC, ZRH or VIE. With pax down, for many destinations, the traffic isn't there yet to support the model to that level, so instead say, having 4-5 a day to PVG spread across four hubs, the major one being FRA, while volume is down you can spread fewer flights across fewer hubs, and out of FRA and MUC, MUC is going to win, as it is a better and more efficient airport.

Munich must generate more local traffic too. Frankfurt is a connecting hub, it’s not a big city

I haven't been through either but for some reason, maybe I read it somewhere, Munich is the nicer airport. Which one is the better connecting hub in terms of seamless transition, passenger experience, delays...etc?

For the original poster, here's some information for you that is helpful to the situation:

In "Human Geography" (a class I teach), a Primate City is a city in a country that completely dominates the country in terms of politics, economics, and culture. Most (but not all) Latin American colonies were set up by Spain to follow this pattern, where one location would dominate everything, and everywhere else would be "out in the provinces".

But it is not restricted to just Latin America: all one has to do is play a game of "Name Another City In This Country!", and if you can't, you are most probably dealing with a country and a Primate City. For example, take a class of average 14-year old high school freshmen (yes, I teach in the U.S.).

Round one: "name a city in England". They respond in unison, "London!" Now ask them to name another. Silence.

Round two: "name a city in France". They respond in unison, "Paris!", but again silence when asked to name another.

These are examples of Primate Cities. Yes, there are other cities of great importance, and yes, we know of others; however, can you picture British culture without London? French culture without Paris? And where are foreign airlines gong to want to fly to FIRST in these countries? Birmingham? Lyon?

So now that we understand the terminology, we move on to places WITHOUT a primate city - such as Canada and the U.S.A. Which is more important to the U.S. - Los Angeles, or New York City? Or Chicago? Which is more important to Canada - Ottawa or Vancouver?

Which leads us to Germany - a country that does NOT have a Primate City. This country, which has only been truly united into one from its long history of independent trading cities and fiercely independent kingdoms chose Berlin as its capital because the Prussians made it their capital city (they were the main unifying force), but it has no history of domination as does London or Paris. Frankfurt, in fact, is only the 5th or 6th largest city, but it is the banking center of the country, and is the O&D point for a lot of money coming into and leaving the country.

But it is by no means the only starting and ending point for people touring this wonderful country. Munich, Stuttgart, Koln, Dusseldorf, and Hamburg are economic powerhouses in their own rights, and as such generate their own levels of O&D traffic both within Europe and around the world.

In the early days of plane travel (through the mid-1970's), Lufthansa needed only one hub, and given the facilities available already at FRA, they went with that. The infrastructure was developed to support the hub, and it just became understood that other locations would take a connecting flight to FRA, and passengers could depart for the rest of the world from there.

But this single-airport-centric model of airline operations no longer works for Lufthansa. FRA is surrounded by environmentalists who want nothing more than to shut down all airplanes, automobiles, and even trains from the general area. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, but not by much - constraints to its operations required LH to split hub operations.

Which proved to be taken up by the fairly new Munich airport, the the German state of Bavaria. This airport, built away from the city center, was built with the capacity to not only ease the FRA hub, but to also serve the region's O&D passengers.

Think of it like United serving the state of California: yes, technically the hub is SFO (despite the technicalities of hub versus focus city); however, LAX generates vast amounts of O&D on its own, and as such, can handle connecting passengers as well. Neither detracts from each other; in fact, they compliment each other.

Thus ends today's lesson on Primate Cities and their effects on airline operations. I hope this answered some of your questions!!

cedarjet wrote:

Munich must generate more local traffic too. Frankfurt is a connecting hub, it’s not a big city

It’s true that Munich has a considerably higher population figure compared to Frankfurt. But both metropolitan regions have about the same population figures (about 6 million each). I would even tend to consider the Rhine-Neckar metropolitan area when counting the population figure of Frankfurt‘s catchment area, since Frankfurt is your main airport if you live or work in cities like Mannheim or Ludwigshafen. Then Frankfurt clearly wins.

And yes, I was born within the Rhein Main metropolitan area so I simply had to reply.

A lot of this has to do with staffing. Since the A350 fleet flew through COVID, MUC based pilots never really lost currency. I know that whether SAN goes back to FRA or adds FRA in addition to MUC is an open question.

Lufthansa wanted a second hub when Frankfurt was not expanding anymore due to political pressure of the local government. They picked Munich in the wealthy south and even co-developed the airport with their own Lufthansa connecting terminal and a lot of local based staff for administrative and technical functions. It is now like a second Lufthansa in the south. MUC is a nice, well working airport apart from missing direct long range high speed train connections like at Frankfurt. In the meantime Frankfurt "woke up", expanded and slowly renovates its own, worn out infrastructure.