Incorrect. SQ, CX and TK all have a business model that is heavily reliant upon being a connector airline.

Precisely.

You're wrong, of course, that Emirates' "business model" isn't found anywhere else in the world. Your closest ally in this thread so far, FD1971, has accused Emirates of stealing the business model forged by the likes of Singapore Airlines and KLM.

Anyway: time to give us some of your own analysis. You have claimed that it is obvious that things are "going wrong". Can you set down a list of the things that are going wrong? And explain your understanding of the problems behind each point?

Thanks.

Given that we were talking about US-India traffic flows, I think your amendment is totally wrong!

I don't know if you've ever crossed the Atlantic with a European carrier (I kind of feel you have never set foot on a plane that didn't have a rego starting with "N") but, on Lufthansa and BA flights in particular, you might be surprised at the numbers of passengers that are travelling to/from the subcontinent.

But I suppose you will come back at me and say that, as BA and Lufthansa require at least 2 flights to carry these people, they are clearly losing money on these passengers. Your hard and fast "no profit on connecting pax" rule.

The Canada point might at first glance seem a little plausible, until a quick check of Expertflyer shows that fares in all comparable fare classes ex-YYZ are cheaper than ex-JFK...in premium classes especially so. Both sectors have equal (+/- 20mi) stage lengths and the same a/c type (A380).

So by your own logic, all the JFK fares and similar stage length destinations aka east coast US are not just profitable, but have quite a premium attached.

Here's another explanation for the AC service. YYZ has a massive indian disapora population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Canadians. Clearly there is VFR demand at the very least. Now AC has the unit costs to operate service a little profitably - it's flying a 787 at the very least, so check one box for your view of real-world airline economics - and has been a big cost cutting campaign: http://www.bloomberg.com/article/201...rzIDzvrAk.html.

So perhaps there is money in India after all...

So you're relying on a single data point that barely could represent anything significant, and random 'reports' on airfares to build an expectation that something doesn't even exist 'Arabian dream' will be tested.

Well allow me to enlighten:
1- Month to month and year on year fluctuations in passenger traffic is only the norm.
2- Airfares ARE supposed to drop as they should in some way follow the cost of fuel. If fuel is down by 50 percent, the least you could expect from an airline is to drop fares or revise fuel surcharges. This is a normal and expected event.

Couple these two points together and you may begin to realise that YOU're dreaming.

Since when did MH and Air Asia become "major" competitors of SQ??

Maybe eventually you will learn to link to your sources. But hey - let's put your factoid into context:



With those huge capacity increases, and huge increases in passenger numbers - which far outstrip growth in any other IATA region - the small "drop" in load factor in March must be seen in its proper context. IATA sees no problem with the Middle Eastern airlines or the outlook for the economies in the region. And yet, by taking one single index from the full report - the first time this year this figure has been below the North American equivalent - you thrust it forward as if it is the vindication that proves that your suspicions and doubts were correct.

With double-digit capacity growth each month, it is hardly suprising that load factors are dipping. But note that the dip in load factor is hardly relevant, given the huge increase in capacity (It represents a drop of 0.01% on the previous month!!!). And despite all that - the double whammy of double-digit capacity increases and a falling load factor - the Middle Eastern airlines still had a higher load factor in January and February than the robust North American aviation sector.

Please...you said above that it was clear that a number of things were wrong...tell me what the problems are?

I sprayed coffee all over the screen when I read that!!!

I can just imagine the hordes of travellers who dither between SQ's First Class suites out of SIN, or Air Asia's sardine cans from the low cost KLIA2 terminal...

:D:D:D:D:D

Whoops...

A good article in Flightglobal regarding how Vietnam is benefiting from the ME3 connectivity. It shows how the hub and spoke system is hard to beat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ines39-411754/

Vietnam experienced strong growth in visitor arrivals from Western Europe in 2014, but this correlated with heavy capacity growth to Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi in recent years by the big three Middle Eastern carriers.
Although Vietnam is not in Thailand’s league as a Southeast Asian tourist destination, it has a great deal to offer foreign visitors. It has vibrant cities, unique historic landmarks and fine beaches. It also has one of Asia’s most distinct cuisines, made famous by the country’s national noodle soup, pho.

According to Vietnam’s National Administration of Tourism, visitor arrivals from all key western markets rose in 2014. In theory this boost in arrivals should benefit flag carrier Vietnam Airlines, but capacity numbers from Flightglobal’s Innovata networks data service suggest that a good number of these new arrivals may be flying through the Persian Gulf.

Key Western European arrival markets include France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Tellingly, no Middle Eastern country is listed as being among a key source of visitor arrivals.

FlightMaps Analytics shows that Vietnam has direct connectivity with only three Western European cities: Frankfurt, Paris, and London.

To Frankfurt and London, Vietnam Airlines is the only carrier. To both European cities, it operates 17-times-monthly from both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City with Boeing 777-200 aircraft.

On Paris routes, it competes with Air France, which flies 13-times-monthly to Ho Chi Minh City.

While Innovata shows that Vietnam Airlines steadily increased Western European capacity up to 2012, it has cut back in the last two years. This has coincided with a massive surge in overall Middle Eastern capacity in 2013 driven by Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad Airways.

Etihad’s growth is noteworthy in the context of Vietnam’s 45% increase in arrivals from Germany during 2014, as the Abu Dhabi-based carrier enjoys strongconnectivity to Germany, as together with equity alliance partner Air Berlin it serves Berlin, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, and Munich.

The Middle Eastern carriers are not the only source of transfer traffic into Vietnam, of course, as this connectivity is also offered by other regional network players such as Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific.

Nonetheless, the one-stop connectivity to Vietnam that Middle Eastern carriers offer from Europe’s secondary cities is very difficult for the region’s big network carriers to challenge – let alone a secondary carrier such as Vietnam Airlines.

The management of Vietnam Airlines can probably relate all to well with counterparts at Thai Airways International and Malaysia Airlines, which share the common experience of a low cost upstart at home and mounting long haul pressure from the Middle East.

I would have to agree.

I don't feel that the OP is bona-fide poster; in so far as (s)he ignores the vast majority of questions; never links to sources; relies on Twitter and "journalists" who share her/his agenda as proof (there may be safety in numbers, but there is no evidence being provided by any of these "sources"); and (wilfully? ignorantly?) misconstrues data or selectively takes only the isolated figure/fact that fits with her/his opinion, and completely ignores the rest.

The OP displays no willingness (or, perhaps, capacity) to engage with the subjects being raised; and it's not that the subjects are actually all that difficult. (Aviation Management is not rocket science; there are at least two engineers in here who can understand math!!!). In fact, the OP's blinkered approach makes me wonder what her/his agenda here actually is.

Is it a testing ground, with a reasonably intelligent and educated public, to see what pseudo-arguments might fly or sway the uninterested/disinterested/politicos/journos/general public? Is it a testing ground to see what rebuttals and counter-arguments they will have to prepare to counter?

That really does sound like your one and only metric. :confused:

In any case, a third of the US3 service two non stops to India from the US.

Agreed, but IMHO, EK is overdoing it with its unlimited marketing budget and the aggressive campaign working against it.

PR firms care about their revenue, pay enough they will go after anyone without reason. You see that everywhere. Now competition is fighting back and shoring up political support. At the end of the day it has to deal with sovereign nations with their own airlines.

I think it need to call off its PR dogs. At least stop them from portraying it as a grizzly bear and start portraying it as cuddly bear.

If you watch CAPA Americas Summit 2015 seminar on Gulf vs US, no one seems to be worried about EY, and EY's message is very clear "partnership" not takeover, not invasion. QR has AA and QR has 10% in IAG.

Perhaps that is the strength of EK's hub strategy for their US flights: Premium passengers on their US flights can transfer to non-India destinations as well. Hop on an EK A380 JFK-DXB (not the one that stops in Milan) and compare the demographic upstairs vs downstairs, you'll see my point. (I know, it's somewhat racist to assume that someone who looks Indian is flying to India, but it's a convenient first approximation).