One does, however, need to be a little careful not to squeeze too hard on the customers, lest they decide a transfer in IST or BEG is not really all that bad after all. Once the habits change, there tends to be some hysteresis in the process that is required to change them back.

OTOH, if the C cabin if full of people who don't really care about the price, and there isn't a decent direct alternative, LH will sell the space (and I suspect that is the case on this route). In theory that opens the opportunity for a competitor to compete with better product, but some routes are too thin to even fight over...@:-)

If you go for an adjective like brilliant for something this you'll run out of praises once LH goes beyond short term cost reduction.

How do you know it is currently profitable? Where is your evidence?

Here is my take:
Another great example of desperate Aviation Management; making an unprofitable flight profitable on the short term by employing a cheaper aircraft that will dent yield in the long run.

Absolutely, but history has shown us one thing:

If LH cannot make it work ex Germany, hardly anyone can make it work, even with a strong partner less ruthless than Lufty.

Not surprisingly, hardly any route is picked up by the competition after LH pulled out. If you exclude routes that are being operated due to political reasons, in Europe many routes to/from BRU are among those, it is even worse.

Alas, they are transporting live human beings, not potatoes, at least a part of whom still have the common sense to evaluate market alternatives and see if there's an option that doesn't make travelling miserable both physically (seat) and mentally (IFE).

Otherwise, what would there be to stop LH from NEKing the long-haul fleet as well? After all, it would save the traveller the hassle of connecting somewhere else.

The traveller concerned better book a whole holiday in Turkey or Serbia (preferably with an extensive spa treatment) after spending 2x6 hours in a NEK seat. Also a psychotherapist for having spent almost 4k EUR for the experience.

Wow, this has to be my favourite statement of yours up to date.

Key Asian markets send their regards, by the way.

Oh boy, now the naysayers are focussing on prime markets and pretend that even oil markets and key destinations in Asia operated in a duopoly (at best) are not profitable.

So you have no evidence. I understand.

Pointe Noire or Ho Chi Minh fit that description. Indian destinations (see wiki post) were operated in duopoly as well to Germany. They were all cut. So LH did cut profitable routes in your opinion?

Still my take:
LH is cutting capacity by ~15%. Not selling F. (Signs of trouble)
Miserable seat for the distance, no IFE in C/Y. Repeat customers for that experience are either highly price sensitive or masochists. The yield will go down long term. Let's see when the reductions/cuts will arrive.

PNR was cut because the contract with Privatair was reduced. The yield was fine. SGN is part of the greater S.E.Asia disaster.

Frankfurt – Osaka Kansai – Tokyo Narita Planned service consolidation for Osaka and Tokyo Narita service will operates until 19JUL14 (from FRA) only. From 20JUL14, both airports receive dedicated nonstop service once again
30MAR14 – 19JUL14
LH740 FRA1320 – 0710+1KIX0810+1 – 0925+1NRT 744 D
LH741 NRT1055 – 1215KIX1315 – 1800FRA 744 D

eff 20JUL14
Frankfurt – Osaka Kansai
LH740 FRA1320 – 0710+1KIX 744 D
LH741 KIX1005 – 1450FRA 744 D

Frankfurt – Tokyo Narita
LH710 FRA1355 – 0750+1NRT 744 D
LH711 NRT0945 – 1425FRA 744 D

3 daily flights between FRA and Japan, all on 747s :eek:

Also to HND? I wouldn't mind trying that out once.

Yes, HND will be the prize route, especially after they switch to the 748, which is just pending gov approval. I imagine 90% of people buying airfare only tickets would rather use HND than NRT. And that the majority of those on package tours where the airport is not guaranteed will be routed out of NRT.

The big surprise is returning NRT to a direct flight. Both ANA and JAL recently announced that they would be switching their LHR flights from NRT to HND with the opening of the new slots at HND.

I would think that a 747 each for KIX and NRT would be a lot of excess capacity. Loading a bunch of package tour passengers at NRT with a stopover at KIX seemed to make more sense.

Oh yeah. The Narita Express is a nice train, but I really feel that extra hour kills me when I arrive in Japan. It'd be much nicer to get straight on the shinkansen from Shinagawa.

None of your business, my friend, if there is evidence or not. ;) Please refer to my second paragraph for a more detailed answer.

I understand that your position relative to the industry reduces the complexity to a certain level. It becomes evident by asking questions like the one above. Therefore, I am truly sorry, but answering such a question would also put me in the fan corner. ;)

Thank you for your take. Repeat customers on routes like that do not care too much whether they paid 5,10,15 or even 50% more for flying nonstop on LH in comparison to some tertiary players, if they can save hours.

In my book, these people are called pros, not surprisingly you find a lot of pros on Lufty whereas you find a lot of leisure travelers, sun seekers, bargain hunters, airline food aficionados on other airlines.

This certainly seems to be true with one of my and TRAVELSIG's personal pet peeves, the lack of a nonstop service ex-EU to CAN...:)

Don't forget FRA-NGO on 344 which may permanently become two-class in due course.

I'll be on LH716 to HND in a couple of weeks in F. :) I didn't see the advantage of the seat-and-bed arrangement for FRA-NRT which is effectively a long day flight arriving in NRT around midnight European time. LH716 leaves FRA early evening and arrives in HND around mid-day which is better for sleeping.

One disadvantage of a later arrival is a later departure from HND for those like myself with a connecting European flight from FRA.

Remember that FRA-NRT was served by the A380 with 526 seats for a few years. 2x747 will be between 660 and 704 passengers depending on the configuration. 748 + 747 will be between 660 and 738 passengers but still fewer than 380 + 747.

Since all 747s will be converted to two-class aircraft within the next year or so, they will have to find an alternative unless they plan to turn some (FRA-NRT? FRA-KIX?) into two-class services.

Yes, had forgotten about Nagoya.

I had assumed they had discontinued the 380 because they couldn't fill it, but now they'll have 150 to 200 more seats in/out of Tokyo than when the were using the 380.

And they had already increased capacity from KIX from the 340 they were once using to the 747.

They must be looking for a lot more passengers ex Europe, since they are definitely not going to find them in Japan. I imagine ANA and JAL depend a lot more on Japanese customers, which is probably why they've dumped all their 747s and are using smaller planes. Their might be a short-term increase in Japanese pax with all the baby boomers retiring, but the rapidly shrinking population is going to have a long-term effect.

At least for pax ex Japan, they could easily do away with F from KIX, and maybe even from NRT, since they'll have 1st class out of HND on the 748.