I made a quick calculation and average passenger numbers for the GRU flight where about 230 pax/flight. This results in an loadfactor of just 70%. How is this possible I thought GRU was one of the top destinations for KLM? Is KLM the only airline with such low loadfactors to GRU or has this something to do with te stiff competition here?
Programs: Flying Blue, BA, AAdvantage, United Mileage, Skywards
Posts: 15
I think it's because of the high fares. The KLM-fare to GRU is almost €300 expensiver as the fare of the cheapest airline.
OKe.. with KLM you have a non-stop flight, but I don't care changing aircraft in another country, and for €300 you can do alot of other things , that's my opinion...
I made a quick calculation and average passenger numbers for the GRU flight where about 230 pax/flight. This results in an loadfactor of just 70%. How is this possible I thought GRU was one of the top destinations for KLM? Is KLM the only airline with such low loadfactors to GRU or has this something to do with te stiff competition here?
Over the past couple of seasons, there have been massive capacity increases to Brazil from many European destinations, following the collapse of Varig. It seems that the Europe - Brazil routes are starting to saturate again, and the daylight sectors, such as KLM's AMS GRU, seem to be suffering relatively more than the overnight flights. Mind you, we are supposed to be in the peak season for Europe - Brazil travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KL660
I think it's because of the high fares. The KLM-fare to GRU is almost €300 expensiver as the fare of the cheapest airline.
OKe.. with KLM you have a non-stop flight
You are only looking in the nonstop AMS GRU market. It is normal that the prices for the nonstop flights are higher. KLM's pricing is likely more competitive in other markets.
I made a quick calculation and average passenger numbers for the GRU flight where about 230 pax/flight. This results in an loadfactor of just 70%. How is this possible I thought GRU was one of the top destinations for KLM? Is KLM the only airline with such low loadfactors to GRU or has this something to do with te stiff competition here?
klm312
Your question could be addressed with two major answers:
1. Yields. Although loads for the KL flight had been lower than as reported early in 2007 and during 2006, yields for GRU continue very healthy. In my mind, GRU would be perfect for KL B77W in case they decided for a bigger premium cabin, but not in the current configuration with a massive Y cabin.
Nevertheless, many airlines continue to report very high loads, and AF is a clear example, with average loads above 85% for 2007 and in December and January above 90% (overall loads for 4 daily flights to GRU and GIG). AF has shown impressive number for Brazil. KL, for some reason, could not follow AF performance.
2. Fierce competition and saturation, as mentioned above ny Nick. TAM alone had introduced a massive capacity increase and then we had the return of Varig (now managed by GOL) introducing new routes and further capacity. TAM CEO stated that TAM should start at least 8 new flights Brazil-Europe in 2008. TAM is due to receive 4 brand new B77W (premium configuration) in 2008 alone...
GRU also saw the arrival of "new player", such as EK B772LR DXB-GRU eating a lot of connections made in Europe, and even Air China now lands in GRU 3 x week. KE is also expected to resume GRU in 2008.
Today's KL791 to GRU had originally been scheduled to operate with the new B77W, but the aircraft was changed a couple of days ago to a B772ER because of low loads. KL791 left to GRU a while a go with just 97 passengers on board. That is extremely few for the 327-seat B772ER, let alone for the planned B77W, which will instead fly to Dubai later this afternoon.
Are there any chances that KLM will chance the flight to an overnight flight to improve the performance? Is KLM the only airline with such low loads or are other airlines also suffering from this problem?
Are there any chances that KLM will chance the flight to an overnight flight to improve the performance? Is KLM the only airline with such low loads or are other airlines also suffering from this problem?
klm312
As mentioned before, other airlines are showing better performance. AF is an example, with average 2007 loads at +80% and in December and January staggering 90% loads for 4 daily flights (2 daily GRU plus 2 daily GIG).
Just to highlight the difference between KLM and TAM, TAM B77Ws will be configurated with 6F 38J and 310Y...TAM will take delivery of 4 x B77W during June/July 2008!
Are there any chances that KLM will chance the flight to an overnight flight to improve the performance?
I don't believe that KLM will change the operational pattern to be double overnight. The airline couldn't do so without making sacrifices elsewhere, as the utilization of the 777s would go down because of the move, as the aircraft would sit in GRU for several hours.
the loads you mentioned where total loads, but do you also have the average WBC loads for the same period??
WBC loads would look higher but that wouldn't tell you anything, since the loads I am posting here are total loads including both revenue and nonrevenue passengers. Today, the WBC load is 24/35 yet only 16 of those 24 are revenue passengers, so the picture of total WBC loads is skewed at best, since many nonrevenue passengers would end up in WBC if there are seats available.
I'm very interested in this kind of numbers and I was wondering where you get this information, if it's public and if you would like to share this info with me??
As mentioned before, other airlines are showing better performance. AF is an example, with average 2007 loads at +80% and in December and January staggering 90% loads for 4 daily flights (2 daily GRU plus 2 daily GIG).
Just to confirm hardiwv's statement, TAP's January loads from LIS to GIG (12 weekly) and to GRU (11 weekly) in January were both of 82%. All flights are operated daylight in the southbound sector.
Today's KL791 to GRU had originally been scheduled to operate with the new B77W, but the aircraft was changed a couple of days ago to a B772ER because of low loads. KL791 left to GRU a while a go with just 97 passengers on board. That is extremely few for the 327-seat B772ER, let alone for the planned B77W, which will instead fly to Dubai later this afternoon.
Could you confirm today's flight (20th Feb) KL428 DXB-AMS was operated by the 77W? I've just looked on Expertflyer and it indeed says 77W, BUT, I have just controlled it all of 2 hours ago and in the flight plan it was filed as B772.
Is it possible that if this trend of very low loads continue, KLM will deploy the 77W somewhere else? As of now KL971/972 is still scheduled to recieve 77W action 4 times weekly and it seems that klm could very well use this extra capacity somewhere else in the schedule.
Could you confirm today's flight (20th Feb) KL428 DXB-AMS was operated by the 77W? I've just looked on Expertflyer and it indeed says 77W, BUT, I have just controlled it all of 2 hours ago and in the flight plan it was filed as B772.
KL427/428 was planned for the B77W on Tuesday, but the aircraft was again taken of the route because of lower than expected loads (203 passengers on the outbound, 258 on the return). As such B772ER PH-BQF went on the flight and the B77W stayed overnight in AMS.
, that's my opinion...
