Originally Posted by ELY001 (Post 21110714)

Actually I think you are the one missing important points.

1. The pax you mention above are not the ones EL AL would attract. Those types of pax mainly fly non-stop on carriers based where they reside & this conversation never revolved around attracting those specific sorts of pax.

2. There is a connecting market of business pax LY can go after, namely those in the Orthodox Jewish community and high tech types needing to combine Israel/India/China in one trip (and there are quite a few of those out there).

How big is the market of people who REGULARLY TRAVEL between USA and Far East and need a stopover in Israel? Most connecting pax on EK connect there - they don't do it multiple times a month or year, each time leaving the airport for a few days

3. Leisure pax care mostly about price and if LY can offer a good price for connecting fares some (not all, not even a substantial number, but enough to fill seats and maybe down the line add frequencies) of those types of pax will take LY.

While some may go on price, increasingly, many are no longer going purely on price. 3 years ago, my stepsister would fly only based on price. After having flown TLV-LHR-FRA-MUC-EWR, with stopvers ranging from 40 minutes to 6 hours, she no longer does that and uses hipmunk. She's not the only one. People don't *just* look at the price anymore.

4. EL AL still has a reputation as being one of the safest airlines in the world. Potential pax who buy into this legend can be swayed to take LY, particularly if the fare is good.

Yes, this is true. While it's being counteracted by their cabin comfort, if they were to overhaul the cabin interior, this is something in LY's favor. Though how much, I'm not sure. Many people I know believe LY to be the securest airline, but only for Israel flights. Meaning, while they'll fly LY over the competition for the security, they don't believe other flights warrant it. Therefore, if they don't need to fly to Israel, than security won't be a differentiating factor.

5. Contrary to your belief, I think Tel Aviv or Jerusalem as a day stop over is an excellent marketing tool EL AL should use for connecting pax, and there is a market for it. Decades ago when Emirates did the same thing for Dubai there was virtually no day trip/stopover market at all for Dubai. EK helped cultivate one, however I believe there is a market for such stopover trips to either TLV or Jerusalem now and EL AL could grow that market further. (Please note: I am in no way advocating EL AL strive to become like Emirates in the specific sense when I advocate that EL AL cultivate the connecting pax day trip market for TLV and Jerusalem by pointing out that Emirates did something similar for Dubai. I am merely pointing out that the essence of my idea is possible to accomplish and highlighting the Emirates/Dubai example as one where it was accomplished.)

EK may market Dubai for day trips, but that's because the bulk is connecting in the airport, so now that they've built a reputation of a connecting carrier, they can capitalize on that. Before LY can market Tel Aviv or Jerusalem as stopovers, they need to first market themselves as a viable connecting option.
In addition, transportation and other options would need to improve, such as an informtation and service center in the airport that could sell comprehensive day packages. That's not to say it can't be done. However, I think in the chicken and egg approach, building yourself as a connecting airline comes first. Marketing day trips in Israel comes second, and I'm not sure how many pax that would account for.

6. EL AL already flies to North America, Europe, South Africa, India, and the Far East. It wouldnt take much for EL AL to offer competitive connecting fares through TLV, spend a little marketing them, and cultivate this market over time. The O&D exclusive model is old news and no financially sound and reputable carrier (to my knowledge) utilizes this model. It's all about connecting traffic these days.

Again, I ask you the following question: Since EL AL has routes to North America, Europe, Asia, and South Africa, what would be the harm in offering connecting fares through TLV?

The harm? No clue. Maybe it would result in a little extra revenue. Maybe they would lose out (on the first leg, someone O&D who would've paid more for the same seat, etc.). How realistic is that? No idea. I'm not saying it's harmful. I'm saying that LY won't be a real viable alternative for connecting pax on the large scale. Maybe here or there they can fill some niche market, but not enough to drastically increase revenue.

Originally Posted by NYTA (Post 21110803)

By the way - it's quite common to have higher O&D fares than connecting fares so you can't compare the TLV-HKG fare with a FRA-HKG fare. I was in London a few weeks ago and had to go to LA, somewhat last minute for a client that was paying for me to fly in business class. I was in London on a Friday and had to be in LA Sunday so I said I'd just stay the weekend in London and fly Sunday morning.

The BA round trip London to LA was something insane like $8,000 while the Tel Aviv-London-LA ticket was more like $3,500. So for about $4,500 they flew me London to Tel Aviv on Friday night, I spent Saturday with my family, and flew Sunday morning from TLV-LHR-LAX.

The point is that the Londoners who want to fly non-stop pay a premium while BA still fills its planes in markets that are more competitive. I'm willing to bet that not all the TLV-HKG business class flyers are paying the full fare, and this would allow them to get more pax, and more weekly flights, making their business more efficient.

Originally Posted by ELY001 (Post 21110145)

As far as your suggestion for me to start an airline based in Israel to compete with EL AL goes, I am wondering what exactly does that have to do with our current lively debate about whether EL AL should offer connecting fares/services through TLV? I thought the issue/debate which has permeated this thread over the last two days centers on what EL AL should do, and not whether I should start a competing airline.

Originally Posted by ELY001 (Post 21113928)

Josh,

My response to the numbered points in your previous post are as follows:

2. Josh, the size of that potential market as it is right now cannot be measured because such services aren't offered. If those services are offered and marketed then we will have more accurate figures. Point is that every marketplace we have today started more or less from scratch and had to be cultivated. A decade ago there was no market for smartphones because they were not offered. Today they are the norm. Currently there is no connecting pax market through TLV because one is not offered. Let's offer one, cultivate it, and see where it goes.

3. Aside from the anecdotal evidence you provided with regard to your step sisters specific travel desires, do you have actual data?

4. You know this how? After 9/11 EL AL was often profiled by news media outlets the world over as being the safest airline and a model for aviation security. I do not recall those media outlets and security experts saying EL AL is the safest airline ONLY for flying to Israel. They were discussing EL AL's security as a model for others to follow.

5. The reason why the bulk of pax at Dubai connect and the reason why a large number opt for day trips during their connection was precisely because this service was offered and cultivated by Emirates. It didn't just exist out of thin air. You, however, advocate not doing the same with EL AL and Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem.

6. Again you are looking at it from the vantage point of a non existent market with non existent data. Let EL AL offer the competitive connecting fares and see where they go. Even if the revenue initially is minute, an airline whose financial situation is as precarious as EL AL's needs every little bit of revenue it can get. Besides, even if doing the above increases EL AL's 81% load factor by 1 or 2 points, it would be a success given that not much had to be invested by the company to get that.

As far as Yosithezet's reiteration of the suggestion I start a competing airline, I will defer to my previous statement.

Originally Posted by ELY001 (Post 21113928)

As far as Yosithezet's reiteration of the suggestion I start a competing airline, I will defer to my previous statement.

Originally Posted by damaxer91 (Post 21116206)

All of this back and forth is sadly pointless. All of my conversations with El AL management have been like talking to the wall. They don't know enough about the competition to realize that they are falling way behind and are also unwilling to listen to any criticism from "outsiders" regarding major issues. Until that happens (and the Union issue is solved) they will continue to sail towards Bankrupcy

Originally Posted by yosithezet (Post 21119567)

Which previous statement is that?

Assuming the money exists, why is there a need for anyone to wait for EL AL to go bankrupt rather than just start an airline which provides exactly what they believe will win the day?

Originally Posted by yosithezet (Post 21119567)

Which previous statement is that?

Originally Posted by joshwex90 (Post 21119915)

I don't think it's "me versus everyone else." Others have been saying the same thing as me, namely that TLV can't truly serve as a viable connection airport until LY can fly through Arab airspace. (I know you disagree.)

Originally Posted by NJFlyGuy (Post 21096093)

The challenge to building a hub at TLV is that most of the nearby countries won't allow LY to overfly their airspace. LY's routes to the Far East have to either go north over Turkey and back SE or down the Red Sea and around Saudi Arabia, rather than taking a direct route. This adds considerably to the flight time and therefore fuel costs. Can LY overcome that? Is there enough demand to overcome that? Heck, does LY want to overcome that?

Back to one of the earlier topics here, I imagine that US' PHL-TLV route is a goner one way or the other. Either AA will drop the route entirely (out of not wanting to pay up the TWA debt) or it will shift it to MIA as part of moving many of US' international routes out of PHL (since AA already has a hub in NYC, a much larger and more prestigious market that is within driving distance of PHL).

Originally Posted by orthar (Post 21108390)

What you're missing is that the actual stability doesn't matter. The average traveler (business or leisure) will not read or care about said articles written by PhD's, as knowledgeable as they might be.
What matters to travelers is the perceived stability, and for various reasons (politics, money, news) the average traveler IMO sees Israel as being a far less safe and legitimate place to fly through. Unless/until a serious war does break out in the gulf, this will continue to be the case and there's nothing LY can do about it.

Originally Posted by clubman (Post 21103875)

What benifits? If traveling premium classes LY have nothing special to offer and if traveling Y, prices would have to be extremely competitive, something LY isn't very good at...

As for thinking a stopover in TLV would be so attractive to people you're wrong. Yes it may attract some, but most business travellers are just interested in making their trips as short as possible with as little time away from their families, and then for others the security at TLV alone would be enough to put them off.

Originally Posted by ELY001 (Post 21119925)

Aside from Yosithezet, I have not seen another poster explicitly express the above idea you put forth. But anyway, our debate is not and should not center around how many people agree with what we say. It should center around ideas and being able to defend them.

Originally Posted by joshwex90 (Post 21121267)

Along with a post from clubman I believe, all stating the general idea - TLV isn't a viable hub for now. Flyoevers need to be permitted to allow shorter flights, and security would need to make transfers much more painless

Originally Posted by joshwex90 (Post 21119656)

While I know in jest, it's more expensive to start an airline than reform an airline. Entry costs exceed LY's negative profit