Indeed, I was talking about extremes when discussing TPE-HKG or NCE-PAR.
I believe that on these routes, the economics of using large-bodies is obvious. But AF cannot maintain a fleet of big planes just for a couple of destinations, too difficult to manage. The question is whether operating solely narrowbodies is economical in the European context and why is it so different in the Asian context.

Let me start with some facts:
1. Many Asian airlines have a mixture of LH (longhaul) and regional (R) aircrafts (acs). The Rs are either single-aisle ac or widebodies configured with regional seats; these widebodies have many more seats than the same ac configured LH. CX and SQ only have widebodies (both LH and R) but they also have a regional subisdiary (Dragonair and Silk) that have narrowbodies (KA also has widebodies). But Asian airlines use widebodies on a large number of routes, not only the busiest like HKG-TPE.

2. Using a LH 777 (re A330) in lieu of a R 777 (re A330) mean losing a lot of seats. For example CX 77W (with F) has 276 seats compared to 398 on its regional config. CX A330-300 has 242 seats in LH (no F) and 311 in R. Just as an example, AF A321 (212 seats) has more seats than its LH A330-200 (208 seats) with J and PE. Using only LH acs for regional runs would be uneconomical and difficult to manage crew-wise (hard to replace a 777 crew by an A320 crew at the last minute).

3. On the other hand, using a LH wideboy for regional runs optimizes its utilization. Basically, it means that CX can fly a larger number of routes with the same number of aircrafts, or that it saves on investing in a larger number of aircrafts. I wonder whether AF LH fleet is used to its maximum.


4. In summary, the widebody model can only work if the airline has a fleet of R widebodies and periodically uses LH acs.

5. Quality is an important element of competition in Asia (besides price and convenience). Having the chance (it is a somewhat random element) to be flying in a LH ac, with great J seats or good Y seats with avod is an element of attraction even for a short flight.

I believe that the question of ‘flexibility” is vastly oversold, especially for AF which makes it very difficult to change flights at the last minute except for a few business pax (see Orbitmic’s post). Having more frequencies is indeed useful at time of booking. But going back to my example of ORY-NCE with some 20 daily flights, I fail to see the benefits of being able to choose between 3 flights departing within an hour span. But irishguy28 is right that pax prefer more options rather than less. On the other hand, it is much cheaper for the airline to operate one ac with 400 seats than 2 acs with 200 seats each (landing fees, fuel, staff, slot availability). Hence the question is whether the reduced frequencies mean a significant loss of customers to other airlines. Do four daily flights rather than seven (assuming that there are no constraints on landing slots) entail a commercial loss greater than the cost savings? Of course, Asian airlines can use a mixture of widebodies and narrowbodies depending on routes and demand. Major airlines have decided in favor of widebodies on regional traffic. US airlines also use widebodies.

I fully understand that Europe is different for many reasons. But I wonder whether the future will not see a change.