coolfish1103

Well, the thing is 787-9 and 77W in the least dense seating are only 19 seats difference. I find it difficult to believe that Premium Economy will sell better at Milan in comparison to Vancouver (even if it's only 4 weekly). I do agree that the number of seats in Royal Laurel does decrease by quite some portion but I am unsure if it's better to dump the Premium Economy passengers altogether to AC and CI? CI has the dense and loose configuration of Premium Economy for the 77W and 359 but BR does not (while many airlines opt for small Premium Economy Cabin). This seems to become a problem now for BR to operate.

The good news is with Ho down, Sun isn't interested in starting Milan. There won't be fierce competition from the start. The free frequencies probably went to the resumption of 6/5 LAX flight.

AF already dumped CI for that guarantee sell. CI no longer offers award tickets for this code share route as well.

flyingeverywhere1

I'm not really sure how the slot allocation in Taiwan works, but shouldn't CI return their 2 weekly frequency to the govt since they are only operating 3 out of 5 to Italy? And BR can use the 2 allotted to them originally and the 2 that CI is not using? why is there a need to apply for exemptions from the Italian govt?

coolfish1103

When airlines are allocated rights, they have up to 6 months to operate the frequencies. You are also allowed to fly once every 6 months to get it utilized (meaning fly 5 weekly every 6 months. CI did that for Vancouver for a year or two before CAA steps in and ask for the rights to be forwarded to BR if CI has no desire of using it (that is also because BR wanted the rights).

If a bilateral/route already has an existing carrier, that carrier will be awarded with rights up to 7 weekly before a new entrant is allowed to enter. Meaning if an existing bilateral/route had less than 7 weekly of service, it will always be allocated to 1 carrier only, and such carrier will have the rights to solely operate until the frequencies are increased to 7 weekly. The original Italian bilateral allowed 2 weekly from each side between Taipei and Roma (signed in 1995). Additional frequencies may be requested, so CI has been operating Roma 2-3 weekly in the past. I believe the new Italian bilateral was made back in 2009 where they added Kaohsiung and Milan with frequencies increased to 7 from each side, which allowed a second carrier to step in. Since 2009, the frequencies have not been fully used by either BR or CI, but BR is only allowed to start Milan as CI has the full rights of Roma to itself (while CI can add frequencies to Roma or start Milan).

BR did not want to operate just 2 flights to Milan, so they asked for extra frequencies. However, I find these routes not as desirable if CI is unable to get Rome to work past 3 weekly for the past years, regardless whether it was via Bangkok, Delhi or a direct flight, Roma has been at most 3 weekly. Milan may have more business travelers than Roma, but it is also not a very favorable destination for tourists.

Technically it really depends on how much BR wants the frequencies. As of now, BR already got the 2 extra frequencies from the Italian government, so I don't think there's any need for them to request such frequencies from CI through CAA. CI will not lose the frequencies allocated to them as long as they operate in full every 6 months and/or CAA never request them to be returned. I hardly doubt BR can maintain 7 weekly in Milan if flights like Amsterdam are still 3-4 weekly, not to say they will only get 2 weekly off CI which won't make it a daily flight. They are better to allocate the planes to Barcelona instead.

As for Munich, like someone said, it won't happen unless Germany decides to revise the bilateral. This is also the reason why Vienna is so popular among the destinations in Europe for the Taiwanese carriers, cause they can't fly to Munich!

flyingeverywhere1

Thanks for the detailed explanation coolfish1103! These bilateral rights seem to be a real bottleneck for development for EVA to grow with all the planes coming in..

coolfish1103

There are also factors where the bilateral rules may not be followed, such as

1. When the routes are to be awarded, an airline has safety incidents/concerns the past 1.5 years then they will not be on the awarded list.
2. When there are restrictions set in the bilateral itself where it only allows specific number of carrier from each side.
3. When cargo frequencies are also in play.
4. Fleet. If it's long haul, then only BR and CI are in concern.
5. Other situations such as location based (TSA specific) or for the China routes where you can start charters from non-TPE/TSA hubs.

irishguy28

But CI no longer codeshares on the AF CDG-TPE-CDG flights. The CI codeshares ended on March 29 last - and therefore only lasted for one year.

I flew a CI ticket that included CI codeshares on CDG-TPE and back earlier this year. Back in January, I was alarmed to receive two separate cancellation notices; both the CDG-TPE flight, and then the TPE-CDG flight, were cancelled. A quick investigation showed that these Air France flights were still operating. Having contacted CI to find out what was going on, it was then explained that they had dropped their codeshare on the route - and they ended up rebooking me on the same flights, but under the AF code. It was a business ticket, so perhaps that's why they went automatically for "restoring" the ticket, rather than re-routing via AMS, FRA or VIE.

if you search on the CI website, you will see that flights to/from Paris are routed via Frankfurt/Amsterdam/Vienna on AF codeshares to connect with CI flights from/to those ports, and never on the direct AF CDG-TPE and v.v. flights.


Business Traveller: China Airlines to cease codesharing on Air France’s Paris-Taipei flights
Air Journal (FR): Taipei : China Airlines suspend son partage avec Air France

iamamadscientist

This is off topic, but DE did operate a former 744 (D-ABTD) to TPE. This was on behalf of LH because of requirements of the People Republic of China I think this was the same reason why KL created KLM Asia. They would have risked their traffic rights to Mainland China. I cannot back this up with a source, I found it in a German forum and added the KL input. The 744 was later transferred back to LH.

iamamadscientist

BR is lately getting much more active in Germany, they were only offering flights from FRA and MUC with connections by LH, now they are having a dedicated website promoting other cities as well:

https://flights.evaair.com/en/flights-to-germany

I did some dummy bookings from TXL. TXL-LHR operated by BA or EW and onwards by BR.

So maybe something is in the works with respect to the bilateral.

hayzel7773

coolfish1103

To be honest both EVA and StarLux have been getting green lights from the government in light speed to get anything approved (whether now or back in the 1990s), I hardly find a couple weekly flights in Europe given to CI stolen (not to say they had their fair share given to them as well).