Old Mar 13, 19, 5:21 am
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Programs: DL Gold, QF, VA, CI
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by east_west View Post
True, but why not go after higher yield NA markets compared to what has been reported as low-yield BKK. Low cost structure means even more profit.

UA reported 14.6c stage-adjusted yields for NYC-TPE, higher than HKG and ICN (on 1 stop flight options, so presumably IAD/BOS would be fairly similar). Non-stop service should only be higher.
This isn't quite an apples to apples comparison as UA's target market are passengers either:
  • Flying to TPE only from SFO, vice versa
  • Connecting via SFO to fly to TPE, vice versa. They can draw passengers from basically any of the domestic ports UA flies to

BR, meanwhile, relies on Tier 1 NA cities with large, predominantly Asian populations who want to connect onwards to Asia via TPE. There may be some OD passengers who genuinely want to fly between TPE and NA, but by and large Taiwan's domestic and overseas population alone are not going to be enough to fill planes for some of these markets, particularly for a min 4 weekly frequency to sustain the market. They need the transit traffic. Currently they have most of the Tier 1 cities covered.

Further, there could be cargo considerations at play which makes the yield for MXP overall higher than a new NA city. Flying to the US East Coast would probably create load restrictions which severely limit their ability to carry higher yielding cargo.
someone0000 is offline