headingwest

Simple question really. Considering that Aegean seems to be going from strength to strength (probably because they treat customers better than a lot of legacy airlines), what are the chances that they'll start a transatlantic service?

I for one would be very happy if they did.

Romanianflyer

In the near future? Close to zero.

Economic situation is still way too volatile. It would be a huge risk I don't think they are willing to take.

Think of it what it would require: you need to have the planes for it, market the new routes out of the continent. Looking back, almost all carriers with only a limited intercontinental network have failed or are still struggling making the routes profitable.

The only recent new additions to transatlantic routes have probably been Norwegian (on a big scale: which is easier to do than just one route, both in marketing and when facing IRROPS) and recently Air Serbia (which has the all-important backing of Etihad).

I don't see A3 fit in there.

Jma12

I don't think it will be cost effective for A3 at this time, as TATL flight requires bigger planes, better entertainment system and more catering. It is much easier and cost less for A3 to have codeshare with it's *A partners.

justforfun

Probably won't happen anytime soon, but if it did it would amazing!

headingwest

Yes. Given the standard of service on their European routes, I'd love to see their offering on a TATL!

Knobbgb

It would be "nice" in a way - prestigious, but I think it would be a HUGE risk and I'd hate to see 20 years of good work building such a good airline be thrown away like that. Adding a small number of widebody aircraft just for one or two routes would be financial suicide - especially when the routes are notoriously low-yielding for 9 months of the year.

I think the only way it would work is if they get some A321 Neo Long Range which are capable of transatlantic crossings from further north in Europe and run one-stop services such as ATH-DUB-BOS or ATH-GLA-JFK or ATH-EDI-YYZ. The risk for that would be much less - they'd have, in effect, two chances to fill each seat - far FEWER seats than on an A330 or whatever, and at least if it wasn't working out they could just use the aircraft quite economically on their existing services.

With just three such aircraft they could easily serve two different North American destinations daily (not to mention a couple of new ones in Europe), with some slack time for maintenance etc. The aircraft would be almost identical to those they have already so there'd be far less extra cost than introducing a new fleet type. ETOPS certification is a hurdle but shouldn't be too difficult for a long established, well run airline and they'd also need to introduce a proper lie-flat business class cabin.

They're bound to add some A321Neo at some point anyway. The Long Range version would also open up new possibilities in the other direction - India?

Romanianflyer

That's indeed another big factor: it's for a reason that the big US/Canadian airlines only serve ATH for 3 months a year or so, and not year-round.

Admittedly, I'd rather fly A3 than UA any day of the year, but if they can't see it profitable for a year-round route, why should A3? I think you got the biggest reason here!

DrHalxx

Greece is a seasonal route for the US and it's actually a great financial risk maintaining it through the whole year. On the other hand, I haven't seen an empty BA 767 doing the LHR-ATH route for years, and not long time ago most OA A340s doing the same route were also quite full. I don't find it impossible for A3 then to have some wide bodies (A330, A350, 787 you name it) that can be utilised in the popular medium-haul european routes. The only revenue problem though might be the space occupied by the lie-flat seats in the front.

Also, no-one knows what's the deal with momma LH. A3 started as LH Groups local feeder in Greece.

benberg2013

It would be nice to use the upgrade coupons for "proper" business

KLouis

Chaps, we've had the exact same discussion on A3 flying long haul about one year ago, using the same arguments (e.g. flights to India, upgrade coupons for "real" C, etc.).

sokolov

Toronto, maybe. Weren't there two single plane airlines who tried ATH-YYZ recently? Yes, they failed. But a proper airline could be able to do it, starting as a seasonal service, with good code shares within North America and fair one-way prices.

Maybe one plane is not enough.

And then the question is what to with the plane(s) the rest of the year so that they earn money.

Knobbgb

Yes, but isn't this kinda what Cyprus Airways was also trying to do with their A330s? A totally different animal I know, but it also serves as a warning. Those OA A340s might have been quite full in the summer, but what were loads like in the winter? Already now A3 sometimes downgrade their Heathrow flights to A320 in the winter months. I took the redeye out of Heathrow twice
last winter on an A320 with maybe only a 75% load factor.

irishguy28

Aer Lingus announced the biggest-ever expansion in their transatlantic network ever last year; it takes them to over 2 million seats this year, an increase of 17% on last year, and the number of routes increased from 9 to 12 (Hartford, Connecticut to start in September)

Aegean are at the wrong end of Europe to benefit from scooping up passengers for any transatlantic services, though - most of their network would require a significant amount of backtracking.

headingwest

Sorry, I didn't see that thread. Feel free to ask the moderator to close this thread if it bothers you.

NWIFlyer

Times change, markets change, demand expands, contracts and moves - what was relevant last year isn't necessarily relevant now (although it's probably worst ...).

There's nothing stopping us having an annual discussion if that's of interest, so equally there's no reason why this thread shouldn't stand alone as a barometer of current thoughts.

/mod