Loads Drop Significantly After Move to FCO
May 3, 2008, 6:03 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,380
Loads Drop Significantly After Move to FCO
Alitalia (2): intercontinental traffic decreasing after the transfer to Fiumicino airport
Rome, Italy - Rome-Tehran is the only exception
(WAPA) - Intercontinental traffic decreasing after the flights' transfer to Fiumicino airport. According to press sources, recorded diminutions concern all the flights but Rome-Tehran.
A practical example: Malpensa-Boston flight, once with 90% load factor, has decreased to 60% in the first week after the transfer, then it's dropped to 56% in the 2 following weeks. Strong losses on connections with Dubai (-31%), Osaka (-27%), Buenos Aires (-23%), New York (-16/18%), and less on Miami (-5%). (Avionews)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?co...ante=index.php
Rome, Italy - Rome-Tehran is the only exception
(WAPA) - Intercontinental traffic decreasing after the flights' transfer to Fiumicino airport. According to press sources, recorded diminutions concern all the flights but Rome-Tehran.
A practical example: Malpensa-Boston flight, once with 90% load factor, has decreased to 60% in the first week after the transfer, then it's dropped to 56% in the 2 following weeks. Strong losses on connections with Dubai (-31%), Osaka (-27%), Buenos Aires (-23%), New York (-16/18%), and less on Miami (-5%). (Avionews)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?co...ante=index.php
May 3, 2008, 6:27 pm
#2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: MA
Programs: DL DM/2MM Marriott Platinum, HH Diamond,
Posts: 8,906
Uh, maybe the loads dropped because we had no idea whether the airline would be flying after mid-April. I know I booked three biz class BOS-FCO on CO via EWR rather than bet on whether or not AZ will be there when I need them.
May 3, 2008, 7:24 pm
#4
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: LIS
Programs: FB LTPE, TP Gold, All Gold
Posts: 1,175
It's obviously not representative and FCO always had nonstop flights from JFK, but still... yesterday's AZ609 (JFK-FCO) was full.
Anyway, as RobertS975 has said, it will be very difficult to determine, at this particular moment in time, what is to blame for the decrease in loads. And it might be relevant to note that the route which hasn't known any decrease is one in which competition is not particularly fierce (Iran Air has only one weekly flight THR-FCO and one weekly flight THR-MXP)...
Anyway, as RobertS975 has said, it will be very difficult to determine, at this particular moment in time, what is to blame for the decrease in loads. And it might be relevant to note that the route which hasn't known any decrease is one in which competition is not particularly fierce (Iran Air has only one weekly flight THR-FCO and one weekly flight THR-MXP)...
May 3, 2008, 9:30 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 31,978
Given that choice I would always go with CO ... much better product.
May 3, 2008, 10:29 pm
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,380
Ehh... possible, but AZ has been in shambles for years... this is really nothing new. Plus, AZ's customer-base has largely relied on Italian travelers who have been more likely to fly AZ than US-carriers in general.
May 4, 2008, 5:21 am
#7
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London LON; Rome FCO
Programs: KM P, DL S | SPG G, HH S | Hertz PC, Sixt Plat
Posts: 1,370
I think it's a biased article. There's a strong political lobby pro-Malpensa and it's obvious they try to jeopardise any move.
In fact, a booking hard slow down happened since March (when the 'hub' was the smaller Milan Malpensa).
But the main reason for that is not where the hub is, but the future of the company operations.
Actually, the main concern for travellers is that you don't know what will happen to the company and hence to your own flights.
Since Rome FCO has a lot of direct flights offered by competitors of AZ, it's very easy to change airline and get a direct, hassle-free long-haul flight.
I asked a friend of mine, AZ employee, what about the future of AZ operations. He answered "Really... I don't know but... honestly speaking, for my honeymoon in July I've just booked a KLM flight..."!
I'm travelling a lot on AZ planes and I've tickets for flights till September, both business and leisure trips, and I'm very concerned.
Moreover, I can say that a lot of people having FCO as home airport, are used to fly other airlines after AZ gave up FCO some yers ago and then other companies offered direct flights, eg Cathay Pacific, AA, UA, Emirates, Air Canada, Thai, Malaysia, Aerolineas Argentinas...
I't really hard to get loyal customers when you are unloyal with customers.
Furthermore, the international AZ network is very poor. Maybe that was fit for Milan, but not for Rome. Infact, we don't have here several direct long-haul flights because AZ offers a few destinations and you would have to combine on your own AZ leg with another one offered by other carries, perhaps of other alliances, or book some Skyteam code share flights with AF or KLM...
Indeed, over the past year I had to fly OneWorld and *a nearly twice as much as I flew AZ/Skyteam...
In fact, a booking hard slow down happened since March (when the 'hub' was the smaller Milan Malpensa).
But the main reason for that is not where the hub is, but the future of the company operations.
Actually, the main concern for travellers is that you don't know what will happen to the company and hence to your own flights.
Since Rome FCO has a lot of direct flights offered by competitors of AZ, it's very easy to change airline and get a direct, hassle-free long-haul flight.
I asked a friend of mine, AZ employee, what about the future of AZ operations. He answered "Really... I don't know but... honestly speaking, for my honeymoon in July I've just booked a KLM flight..."!
I'm travelling a lot on AZ planes and I've tickets for flights till September, both business and leisure trips, and I'm very concerned.
Moreover, I can say that a lot of people having FCO as home airport, are used to fly other airlines after AZ gave up FCO some yers ago and then other companies offered direct flights, eg Cathay Pacific, AA, UA, Emirates, Air Canada, Thai, Malaysia, Aerolineas Argentinas...
I't really hard to get loyal customers when you are unloyal with customers.
Furthermore, the international AZ network is very poor. Maybe that was fit for Milan, but not for Rome. Infact, we don't have here several direct long-haul flights because AZ offers a few destinations and you would have to combine on your own AZ leg with another one offered by other carries, perhaps of other alliances, or book some Skyteam code share flights with AF or KLM...
Indeed, over the past year I had to fly OneWorld and *a nearly twice as much as I flew AZ/Skyteam...
Last edited by Alice11; May 4, 2008 at 7:00 am
May 4, 2008, 7:08 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Soon to be LEGT
Posts: 10,928
This situation has not been going on for years. The end of the company may well be imminent. As long as LIN is operating and having an advantage over MXP for shorthauls, MXP will never be a viable hub.
May 4, 2008, 7:34 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: MA
Programs: DL DM/2MM Marriott Platinum, HH Diamond,
Posts: 8,906
The choice of CO on BOS-FCO via EWR vs the nonstop service on AZ was dictated on the viability of AZ alone. I would have much preferred the nonstop flights on AZ rather that the brouhaha of EWR connections in each direction! But I am not much of a gambling man.
May 5, 2008, 6:00 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,380
Nonetheless, MXP has and will remain a larger travel market than FCO. The move to FCO was 100% political, as was widely agreed-upon on this board months ago.
When the announcement to pull-out of hub ops at MXP was made, I recall few experts stating that it made any sense to them then, nor are they now.
The only times I've flown AZ were on connections via MXP to points beyond Italy. I've never flown AZ just to Italy -- as has been said here, CO offers a better product (no argument here!). But AZ's options to North Africa from Boston were second-to-none (and priced low, too).
I think Alice11 just made my point for me.
May 5, 2008, 8:43 pm
#11
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 5,132
OK, I admit it - I contributed to the decreased load factor on AZ post move to FCO. Why you ask? I was booked on reward tix YYZ - FCO on AZ. Then I read (here mostly) how AZ was bankrupt and I figured I didn't want to be stranded when that happened.
So rebooked and flew YYZ - FCO on paid tickets on AC instead.
So rebooked and flew YYZ - FCO on paid tickets on AC instead.
May 6, 2008, 3:57 am
#12
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ZRH
Programs: QF, UA, DL, AB
Posts: 401
I believe (almost) everybody on FT knew that this was going to happen. While concentrating operations on one single hub makes sense, the decision of moving the whole thing to FCO is not based on business-related criteria, but is purely political IMO. In this sense the lobby mentioned above exists, but is Rome-based and pro-Fiumicino. This is AZ's real problem and a huge one.
May 6, 2008, 6:04 am
#13
Moderator: Flying Blue (Air France & KLM), France and TravelBuzz!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Paris, France, AF F+ Rouge pour toujours, Flying Blue whatever, LH FTL, HHonors Gold, formerly proud SCC Executive, now IC Ambassador, BA down to nobody, Grand Voyageur Le Club
Posts: 12,400
Trust me, this is not the first time I've heard those exact words!
Nonetheless, MXP has and will remain a larger travel market than FCO. The move to FCO was 100% political, as was widely agreed-upon on this board months ago.
When the announcement to pull-out of hub ops at MXP was made, I recall few experts stating that it made any sense to them then, nor are they now.
The only times I've flown AZ were on connections via MXP to points beyond Italy. I've never flown AZ just to Italy -- as has been said here, CO offers a better product (no argument here!). But AZ's options to North Africa from Boston were second-to-none (and priced low, too).
I think Alice11 just made my point for me.
Nonetheless, MXP has and will remain a larger travel market than FCO. The move to FCO was 100% political, as was widely agreed-upon on this board months ago.
When the announcement to pull-out of hub ops at MXP was made, I recall few experts stating that it made any sense to them then, nor are they now.
The only times I've flown AZ were on connections via MXP to points beyond Italy. I've never flown AZ just to Italy -- as has been said here, CO offers a better product (no argument here!). But AZ's options to North Africa from Boston were second-to-none (and priced low, too).
I think Alice11 just made my point for me.
May 7, 2008, 3:43 pm
#14
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London LON; Rome FCO
Programs: KM P, DL S | SPG G, HH S | Hertz PC, Sixt Plat
Posts: 1,370
The outspoken aim of (building up) Milano Malpensa airport was to gather the traffic of North Italy in order to win travellers that were used to fly via Zurich, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and London, mainly on European and trans-atlantic routes. Closer hub = more travellers, that was supposed to be the solution to the problem (...)
That means that:
a) it was a plan mainly for northern Italy
and
b) it was a plan figuring out Alitalia as a carrier providing 'outbound' flights to people in northern Italy
and
c) it was a plan contemplating as only competitors Swiss, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM and BA
and
e) Malpensa should have been an hub, not the hub
The plan didn't work for several reasons:
a) From West to East in northern Italy, there're several airports: Genoa, Turin, Malpensa, Milano Linate, Bergamo, Brescia, Verona, Venice, Treviso, Trieste. That means a lot of competitor airports very close each other (only a few dozen kms!). It's still easier and time-saving for people in other northern cities to fly to Rome or other European hubs than get Malpensa. Hence, Malpensa is not an airport for the North, but only an airport for a small city.
b) The plan didn’t include a strategy for inbound traffic, both for business and leisure. That has been a huge problem for the tourism industry in Italy (which obviously has Rome as a main destination) and resulted into a problem for Alitalia too.
c) The plan was backward, poor, euro-centric and it didn’t figure out the new trends of the MEA and Asia-Pacific regions, and their main global cities/hubs/carriers: new routes, new hubs, new competitors, and such. A shift to South-East.
d) The plan didn’t foresee new European competitors, like Austrian and its hub, nor the growing national airlines, mainly partners of Lufthansa (eg Air One and Air Dolomiti, the latter based in north-east). The domestic market share of Alitalia is pretty low if compared to that of AR or LF.
e) The hub was not supported by an up-to-date fleet, with an adequate number of long-haul planes.
f) Alitalia focused on European flights and obviously it didn’t cope with low-cost carriers, both Italian and European.
g) According to the Alitalia statistics, people from Milan preferred Linate, a small city airport with main links to Rome and closer European hubs (that's obvious to anybody here) and
h) Moreover, most AZ passengers were used to fly from foreign destinations to other foreign destinations (eg, North American cities to Mumbai), but Alitalia was obviously forced to spend money and deploy planes and crew members only to feed the hub Malpensa, which hadn’t its own traffic. That was worth € 200.000.000 / year.
i) Rome has always been much bigger than Milan, then growing faster than Milan, with much more leisure traffic and increasing business traffic. Alitalia gave up FCO. While it wasn’t the Alitalia hub, it had very good connections thanks to other foreign airlines and it got 10+ million passengers than Malpensa, the hub…
j) Malpensa, almost 100% owned by local governments, has been poorly, badly managed. Usually, Italians from every region didn’t like to fly via Malpensa
k) Especially in the center-right wing, main Italian parties have strong support in Lombardy (that explains the ‘hidden’ political agenda for a company owned by the national government)
l) a lot of business in northern Italy, is generated by small businesses, SME. That means that their travel 'policy' is very similar to that of leisure travellers: low-cost flights, cheap fares, no business class... Very different from corporate travel
l) The plan didn’t solve the main problems of Alitalia: service level, innovation, fleet, number of international routes, connections, business partners, management, trade unions, etc.
Market rules!!
There’s much more, anyway.
That means that:
a) it was a plan mainly for northern Italy
and
b) it was a plan figuring out Alitalia as a carrier providing 'outbound' flights to people in northern Italy
and
c) it was a plan contemplating as only competitors Swiss, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM and BA
and
e) Malpensa should have been an hub, not the hub
The plan didn't work for several reasons:
a) From West to East in northern Italy, there're several airports: Genoa, Turin, Malpensa, Milano Linate, Bergamo, Brescia, Verona, Venice, Treviso, Trieste. That means a lot of competitor airports very close each other (only a few dozen kms!). It's still easier and time-saving for people in other northern cities to fly to Rome or other European hubs than get Malpensa. Hence, Malpensa is not an airport for the North, but only an airport for a small city.
b) The plan didn’t include a strategy for inbound traffic, both for business and leisure. That has been a huge problem for the tourism industry in Italy (which obviously has Rome as a main destination) and resulted into a problem for Alitalia too.
c) The plan was backward, poor, euro-centric and it didn’t figure out the new trends of the MEA and Asia-Pacific regions, and their main global cities/hubs/carriers: new routes, new hubs, new competitors, and such. A shift to South-East.
d) The plan didn’t foresee new European competitors, like Austrian and its hub, nor the growing national airlines, mainly partners of Lufthansa (eg Air One and Air Dolomiti, the latter based in north-east). The domestic market share of Alitalia is pretty low if compared to that of AR or LF.
e) The hub was not supported by an up-to-date fleet, with an adequate number of long-haul planes.
f) Alitalia focused on European flights and obviously it didn’t cope with low-cost carriers, both Italian and European.
g) According to the Alitalia statistics, people from Milan preferred Linate, a small city airport with main links to Rome and closer European hubs (that's obvious to anybody here) and
h) Moreover, most AZ passengers were used to fly from foreign destinations to other foreign destinations (eg, North American cities to Mumbai), but Alitalia was obviously forced to spend money and deploy planes and crew members only to feed the hub Malpensa, which hadn’t its own traffic. That was worth € 200.000.000 / year.
i) Rome has always been much bigger than Milan, then growing faster than Milan, with much more leisure traffic and increasing business traffic. Alitalia gave up FCO. While it wasn’t the Alitalia hub, it had very good connections thanks to other foreign airlines and it got 10+ million passengers than Malpensa, the hub…
j) Malpensa, almost 100% owned by local governments, has been poorly, badly managed. Usually, Italians from every region didn’t like to fly via Malpensa
k) Especially in the center-right wing, main Italian parties have strong support in Lombardy (that explains the ‘hidden’ political agenda for a company owned by the national government)
l) a lot of business in northern Italy, is generated by small businesses, SME. That means that their travel 'policy' is very similar to that of leisure travellers: low-cost flights, cheap fares, no business class... Very different from corporate travel
l) The plan didn’t solve the main problems of Alitalia: service level, innovation, fleet, number of international routes, connections, business partners, management, trade unions, etc.
Market rules!!
There’s much more, anyway.
May 8, 2008, 12:41 am
#15
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,539
Lets see how the AP flights MXP-BOS/ORD come along, I haven't seen their product but it wouldn't surprise me if AZ goes bust and AP becomes the flag carrier. I can see that Golden bird on a blue background become red and green respectively. 