highupinthesky

You can probably add Swiss, Austrian, Brussel Air etc. to that group. I won't call them zombie airlines. I would call them regional airlines with a small long haul segment. Common for them all is they are all national airlines from a small country compared to Germany, UK etc. They will naturally have ups and downs, which is closely linked to how the countries they operate from are performing.

AlicorporateUK

The comparison, with all due respect, doesn't really stack up. Swiss/Austrian/Brussels all have specific market segments and do not operate a multi-hub strategy, not to mention the fact that they are all under the umbrella of good-old Lufty. SAS has been struggling for quite a while now and its particularly heavy focus on short-haul operations, with a fiercer than ever competition from the usual suspects (i.e. low-cost carriers), will certainly not do them any favour in the years to come.

G

Jainzar

Your quoted airlines are all part of the LH group while SK is part of the SAS group. Does this group even consist of more than one airline and its related service units?

highupinthesky

I know Swiss/Austrian/Brussels are all part of LH group, but they are operated as airlines with a independent customer profile. They each have their own lounges, even in outpost airports served by more than one of the airlines. And I'm not talking about contract lounge. It's real airline operated lounges. Until recently the didn't even use the same ground handling company at CPH airport and there are other airports where this isn't the case either.
If the 3 hubs is the reason SK can't be compared to the 3 regional LH group airlines, you can't compare it to LOT either. The 3 hubs is historically and down to the way the airline was founded.
And which airline hasn't been struggling for a while? LH group just announced a big lose for the first 6 months of 2019.

SAS group is technically 3 national airlines + a number of ground handling companies, cargo companies etc. etc. etc. Despite it being 3 national airlines they are operated as one so in my view SK is one airline.

GUWonder

copperred

IAG is about to have a bigger problem than a mere strike or currency issue; one of its components is about to lose most of its intra-EU flight rights, agreements to fly to countries based on treaties cemented by the EU and pretty much the possible continued existence of their base as a unified nation.

You need to see a zombie airline, come to the US. UA has had more bankruptcies than cats have lives and has an employee/union situation that is closer to open warfare with a few flights thrown in.

oliver2002

TP, LO, SK, AZ and to some extent AY are the only independent mid size carriers left in Europe that have not been swallowed by the big EU3. AY is part of the revenue cartel of IAG and AA, so that is a reliable revenue stream. AZ is most likely to go under in the near future as they are clearly running out of money and no one even wants to look at them. The rest are zombies and will go under in the mid term or be swallowed by one of the EU3. The ME3 or US3 can't swallow them because of the EU ownership rules. VS barely made it thanks to DL.

highupinthesky

Eventually all airlines which are not discount airlines will go under. There are way to much focus on being cheap in the world today. I just hope they will stay afloat for another 30 years, then I'm done flying anyway.

CPH-Flyer

Lufthansa group is not low cost, and there is no indication that they are heading for collapse. They do have a operations in response to the low cost compensation, so does IAG, but that does not mean that they are going full low cost. A successful business should expand to possible niches where it can profitable operate.

GUWonder

highupinthesky

My point is there is a race for the bottom. Either you go discount or you go under. It's not long ago since one of the Asian airlines decided to ditch first class and no one are willing to pay extra to fly on an A380. I can't recall when I last saw an announcement that an airline expanded their premium product (business an up) beyond just installing new and better seats in the planes.

FlyingMoose

But I didn't compare it to a major public transit system in the US.

[Redact reference to deleted comment]

Because ATL is Delta's only hub? Please.

As someone who's lived in the US for 17 years on and off I believe I can speak for it. Comparing rural America or American public transport with European situations is pointless, hence I didn't, SL compared to SJ is a world apart. While I appreciate the segregation the separation of services usually causes, I don't find it acceptable to be put on a SL segment when I paid for a SJ fare. I'm sure you wouldn't want to do 20% of your First class trip by bus. Sweden is governed by incompetence and closing down the only train segment facing the South of the country isn't acceptable. Had they build a second track (or a 2nd highway) which both have been needed for decades, this could have been completely avoided.

CPH-Flyer

Korean did indeed abolish F recently, part of that trend is caused by the airlines themselves. The business class is constantly being improved making it harder and harder to argue to pay for first class. In Korean's case some 787-9 had the same seats in J and F, that does not really help people being willing to pay for F.

There is a race to the bottom in Y but there is quite a number of improvements happening in the business class cabins. BA's new Club World Suite, ANA just launched their new seat, and Virgin Atlantic is launching a new seat for the A350. A number of airlines is adding doors to their business class seats, which is a clear upgrade and expansion of the concepts in J.

And paying extra for the A380, who apart from inaugural flights are willing to pay extra for a specific airplane type? It does not have anything to do with a race to the bottom, that's really about paying for nothing.

highupinthesky

I would still call merging business and first a race to the bottom. Yes do a slight upgrade to one class and remove the class above. The result is you have one less class and the difference between the discount product and the premium product has narrowed. On top of that loyalty programs are being constantly being improved downwards etc. etc. etc.

I would go along way to avoid flying on turbo props and narrow body's like the CRJ's. I hate those birds. Also I prefer the A380's over the A330's. there might not be more space per person, but it feels like it. If I have the choice of 2 routes where one is operated by an A330 and and A380, the A380 would be a plus when I decide which route to take also if it's more expensive.

GUWonder

Long-haul business class today on legacy majors generally has a far better hard product than first class used to have 3+ decades ago or a nearly comparable hard product in-flight.
Long-haul premium economy class isn't so far removed from the weaker business class hard products from say 3+ decades ago. It's only economy class that has gotten much worse than it used to be, except with in-flight-entertainment. First class hard products don't have as much point as they used to have, and they seem to now be mainly around to cater to the airlines' image with a halo effect from the product or from association with high profile individuals being in it and as an upgrade or bonus class for the airlines' favorite passengers.

I consider the airlines' race to the bottom to be most awfully evident in what they do to economy class passengers.

Sweden's economy contracted last quarter a wee bit, with net exports down despite the weak SEK. Given that two of SAS's three hubs rely heavily upon Sweden, this kind of stuff doesn't make SAS's life any easier.