It's possible that CI did not work hard enough, but at least they did not give up a major city route that has no direct competition.
It's suppose to be Koror, Palau (ROR), my mistake. I will have those edited.
Please define "direct competition" because BR wasn't the only one to offer service on TPE-CDG. There are KE, SQ, MH, CX, VN, TG, CI, AF, KL...etc with 1-stop connection
My point is, the competition is fierce. If one airline felt they can't cover the high expense, then its time to bow out. It's not like one airline dumped a route means it's the end of the world. It's just less convenience. If every demands and asking government official to launch a inquiry on this silly issue to get nonstop route back for THEIR OWN convenience, hire a private plane then
I think my post was quite clear what direct competition is when I was comparing the TPE-SEA one. Carriers with one or two stops are not considered direct competition, it's more indirect... and I don't recall some of the airlines listed having the routes if their aircraft isn't even operating one of the segments.
Passengers simply complained because EVA kept the cargo route but axed the passenger route, where the bilateral between France and Taiwan had the two combined. It's more like the passengers are asking EVA to drop the cargo route to CDG if they are not going to operate the passenger route (kinda like 站在茅坑不拉屎 - if anyone know how can that be translated into English).
I think my post was quite clear what direct competition is when I was comparing the TPE-SEA one. Carriers with one or two stops are not considered direct competition, it's more indirect... and I don't recall some of the airlines listed having the routes if their aircraft isn't even operating one of the segments.
Passengers simply complained because EVA kept the cargo route but axed the passenger route, where the bilateral between France and Taiwan had the two combined. It's more like the passengers are asking EVA to drop the cargo route to CDG if they are not going to operate the passenger route (kinda like 站在茅坑不拉屎 - if anyone know how can that be translated into English).
And since when how an airline exercise their traffic rights bother passengers and needs to be examined? If that's the case Air France didn't even bother to exercise that rights when they're still holding it. Shouldn't those whiners be complaining about Air France too?
Carriers offering 1 or 2 stops is in-direct competition? I think we have different dictionary then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaichun1216
EVA says they never make money at all since launching this route.
I would like to ask EVA, "If it doesn't make money at all, why not just drop earlier?"
Why not just drop earlier? Because the oil price was about $40-60 per barrel in the good old days and airlines have flexibility to tolerate on how much it can sustain the loss.
I think you also mentioned on a bbs board too that you would like to ask EVA how come you are suffering a massive loss when you are smaller than CI. I would like to ask then how come CI, partially owned by government, is still making a massive loss with the back of the government.
People keep saying they understand airlines is here to make money as business, not a charity group, but somehow the way the question makes it more like you have to meet our demand or you're doomed.
And since when how an airline exercise their traffic rights bother passengers and needs to be examined? If that's the case Air France didn't even bother to exercise that rights when they're still holding it. Shouldn't those whiners be complaining about Air France too?
Carriers offering 1 or 2 stops is in-direct competition? I think we have different dictionary then.
Well, France and Taiwan are two totally different cultural and political playground, plus Air France isn't even Taiwanese, so there's probably no ground for those oversea Taiwanese residents to complain. Routes like Houston got canceled and we hardly see any complaints from the residents there... I wonder why...
If an 80%+ load still means losing money, then maybe there's something wrong with the route that should be adjusted, whether it's the price or anything else that can be done. It's not like they raised the price, lost the customers, then proceed to axe the route. They simply said they are putting the route in halt in October, and the operations stopped in November... just like how they did recently with Auckland, announced in August that they are canceling in September... such short notices.
If carriers offering one or two stop routes also mean direct competition, I guess all the routes China Airlines and EVA Airways offer are in direct competition with everyone, or everyone is in competition with everyone. Ever wonder why Cathay Pacific can quote a price of 7k to 8k on LAX-HKG v.v. in J while EVA Airways can only quote 4k to 4.5k on LAX-TPE-HKG? With EVA's new seats (although slanted), their services aren't that far apart (it's just that EVA isn't in an alliance that hurts a bit more), and those does not warrant a 3k to 3.5k fare difference. The time saved on the direct route played an important role in the prices, which is a positive factor for non-stop flight carriers.
Why not just drop earlier? Because the oil price was about $40-60 per barrel in the good old days and airlines have flexibility to tolerate on how much it can sustain the loss.
I think you also mentioned on a bbs board too that you would like to ask EVA how come you are suffering a massive loss when you are smaller than CI. I would like to ask then how come CI, partially owned by government, is still making a massive loss with the back of the government.
People keep saying they understand airlines is here to make money as business, not a charity group, but somehow the way the question makes it more like you have to meet our demand or you're doomed.
Are you kidding me? "Partially owned by government? With the back of the government?" I sincerely suggest you find out my other posts on that BBS board talking about CI is never owned by government.
Well, France and Taiwan are two totally different cultural and political playground, plus Air France isn't even Taiwanese, so there's probably no ground for those oversea Taiwanese residents to complain. Routes like Houston got canceled and we hardly see any complaints from the residents there... I wonder why...
If an 80%+ load still means losing money, then maybe there's something wrong with the route that should be adjusted, whether it's the price or anything else that can be done. It's not like they raised the price, lost the customers, then proceed to axe the route. They simply said they are putting the route in halt in October, and the operations stopped in November... just like how they did recently with Auckland, announced in August that they are canceling in September... such short notices.
Are you implying that because they know their reason wouldn't stand any ground if they do the same thing against Air France so they choose to bully EVA Air? How typical.
Singapore Airlines also enjoys average 70%+ load factor on TPE-LAX, but they still decided to cut it anyways, is there something wrong with them too? While the short notice is really disturbing, but whatelse they can do?
Are you implying that because they know their reason wouldn't stand any ground if they do the same thing against Air France so they choose to bully EVA Air? How typical.
Singapore Airlines also enjoys average 70%+ load factor on TPE-LAX, but they still decided to cut it anyways, is there something wrong with them too? While the short notice is really disturbing, but whatelse they can do?
I am just telling blunt truth. Obviously... when carriers such as Angkor Airways/Far Eastern Transport suddenly puts an halt in operation, who did the government and people go to ask to pick up the passengers and get the routes start again? You think Korean Air was going to send the passengers to Taiwan from Jeju? It has to be the airlines of the respect nations (In this case it was China Airlines and Transasia Airways) that were asked to help on getting the passengers home and/or take over the routes.
Singapore Airlines TPE-LAX v.v. is hardly a proper comparison to EVA Airways TPE-CDG v.v. when you have China Airlines 2 Daily, EVA Airways 17 Weekly (2 Daily now), and Malaysia Airlines 1 Daily (I think 5 weekly now?) in competition for the route. All these airlines were providing non-stop services to Los Angeles where there are 45 weekly flights scheduled, and if Singapore Airlines doesn't want to compete for this low yield route anymore, it's understandable that they pull out since we know Singapore Airlines has lowered their premium fares on TPE-LAX v.v. by a significant amount when you compare to NRT-LAX v.v. or HKG-SFO v.v. However, EVA Airways was not competing with anyone directly in Paris.
I am just telling blunt truth. Obviously... when carriers such as Angkor Airways/Far Eastern Transport suddenly puts an halt in operation, who did the government and people go to ask to pick up the passengers and get the routes start again? You think Korean Air was going to send the passengers to Taiwan from Jeju? It has to be the airlines of the respect nations (In this case it was China Airlines and Transasia Airways) that were asked to help on getting the passengers home and/or take over the routes.
Singapore Airlines TPE-LAX v.v. is hardly a proper comparison to EVA Airways TPE-CDG v.v. when you have China Airlines 2 Daily, EVA Airways 17 Weekly (2 Daily now), and Malaysia Airlines 1 Daily (I think 5 weekly now?) in competition for the route. All these airlines were providing non-stop services to Los Angeles where there are 45 weekly flights scheduled, and if Singapore Airlines doesn't want to compete for this low yield route anymore, it's understandable that they pull out since we know Singapore Airlines has lowered their premium fares on TPE-LAX v.v. by a significant amount when you compare to NRT-LAX v.v. or HKG-SFO v.v. However, EVA Airways was not competing with anyone directly in Paris.
I know you're telling the truth. But my stance is, the demand and request by these people is totally Absurd, unjustified. Period. Taiwan is already a ridiculous country on to certain level and it doesn't need more of that.
Whether there's a direct competition or not, IF the yield is low or the loss is huge that couldn't sustain a service anymore, it's time to pull out. What EVA Air is doing is no different to SIA. And why should EVA be heavily criticized for this just because of they were the only one flying this route?
I guess when Ci and Transasia fly FAT customers home, they are essentially doing it for free? As there's no way they can get any money from FAT for this .
But I suppose it could be worthwhile in order to obtain a route? This is probably the carrot the Taiwan govt gave to TransAsia (a private airline) but they can simply order Ci (largely state owned) to do it.
OH yeah and Taiwanese are famous for stupid demands. They were the ones that invented the "I am not happy so I refuse to disembark the aircraft even though I have arrived" methodology.
Try that one in the USA??? OH boy !! The lot will be arrested but in Taiwan? Guess what? They got what they wanted as compensation !!
Whether there's a direct competition or not, IF the yield is low or the loss is huge that couldn't sustain a service anymore, it's time to pull out. What EVA Air is doing is no different to SIA. And why should EVA be heavily criticized for this just because of they were the only one flying this route?
I am stating it to refer on whether EVA worked hard or not before they axed the route (raise fares, cut down service, frequencies, what not). News report in Taiwan tends to criticize almost anything, but that's not my intent. SIA did not announce a pull out in October when it's September, they planned it half year ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy525
I guess when Ci and Transasia fly FAT customers home, they are essentially doing it for free? As there's no way they can get any money from FAT for this .
But I suppose it could be worthwhile in order to obtain a route? This is probably the carrot the Taiwan govt gave to TransAsia (a private airline) but they can simply order Ci (largely state owned) to do it.
I believe they did it for free.
I am unsure if Transasia Airways actually got a route that was formally FAT's, but China Airlines did take the Palau one.
