|
   |
Accueil >> Forum >> No connection MXP-VNO Forum Aviation civile
No connection MXP-VNO
Retour à l'index du forum - Poster un message à cette discussion
| |
Message de lpassarotto - Envoyé le 13 Oct 3:57 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 13 Oct 7:56 |
|
| |
With such high fuel prices these days, anything like that(i.e. Suspension of flights) is not only possible but probably inevitable.
I'm not surprised at all that no airline can continue MXP-VNO as it is far from being the highest yield route in Europe. Even high yield routes require strong demand from business travellers and businesses are already looking bad in the European economy for the next 12mths.
When no airlines can fly a route, the most powerful reason usually is no travellers can afford a fare high enough to cover all costs of flying that route.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de lpassarotto - Envoyé le 13 Oct 12:34 |
|
| |
I am sorry but i think here the problem is different.
These two companies make the fly for 3 years in the same days , just 2 hours difference from each other.
Every one has 75/80% of occupation and sometimes more (from the public information of MXP travel office) but.......
They also decide to stop the route only for winter time and erase it at last from their time table (last week).
I think is only problem of war betwen them and who loose is only passengers.
Nobody can do something?
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Fly Paul - Envoyé le 14 Oct 4:12 |
|
| |
Many people make the mistake that lots of people on aircraft = lots of revenue. 11 people on a plane paying Euro100 each is much better revenue than 100 people paying Euro10 each. So lots of people on a plane I am afraid does not mean very much it is what they are paying that matters.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de lpassarotto - Envoyé le 14 Oct 16:08 |
|
| |
You are true Mr Paul but....
you know verry well that is not in this way for the normal airlines company.
Between Vilnius and Malpensa there are no low coast company
here the special price was from 100€ for return ticket, cheap but you can't find it so often usually i flyed for 200/250€ and it was ok for a direct fly; now have to pay not less than 300/350€ and be around all day....
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 15 Oct 10:42 |
|
| |
Ipassarotto:
Have you considered the possibility that the avg fare could be close to Euro500 for MXP-VNO for most airlines to hv a sustainable op<operation> for this route @ today's fuel price level? The key word here is SUSTAINABLE.....meaning not losing $ for too long.
Throughout the history of this industry anywhere in the world, most airlines offer super-low fares and lose $ when they start a route. They don't mind to be unprofitable for a time period in order to build traffic/gain mkt share fm competitors. This is the route investing phase. Ideally, demand will rise, avg fare will go up(e.g. From Euro100->200->350), op costs will remain stable and therefore, their revenue/profitability will eventually improve until they breakeven or make a small profit and then they stay flying that route. This is the route investment return phase. Unfortunately, the opposite can happen too. It's like a gamble.
May be for MXP-VNO, avg fare @ Euro100 or even 200 was never profitable and was meant as limited time/seats promotion to encourage more people to try flying that route. Your 2 airlines succeeded in attracting customers and that's why load factors have been 75-80%. If fuel cost and traffic were stable even @ avg fare Euro350<Enough consumers like you who accept that fare>, the airline can breakeven and remain flying the route. Apparently this is not the case as fuel price has been far from stable and these 2 airlines hv been losing $ even @ 75-80% load factor and hv to cancel this route @ the end.....very very <normal airlines company> reaction.
You mentioned about 2 airlines flying for 3yrs on MXP-VNO. Do you know the crude oil price per barrel 3mths ago(Probably when your airlines were still offering Euro100-200 fare)? Over US$147. Do you know the price 3yrs ago? Below US$60. Let's assume the 2 airlines flying MXP-VNO are the most-efficient in Europe + super-lucky and could breakeven @ Euro200 avg fare target based on 2005 oil price. If you apply the same degree of increase in oil price over 3yrs to the Euro200 avg fare target, these 2 airlines must charge avg fare of about Euro490 this yr to breakeven.
If you think the current airline problems @ MXP-VNO are SPECIAL in today's world, you must be joking with yourself. The whole world is suffering the same kind of problems and U're not the only one hurting. Try to look @ our world beyond Vilnius and Malpensa.
*****************
Fly Paul:
Very well said. I just want to add that for an airlines flying the same aircraft on the same route, the op costs are also usually lower to carry 11pax(Paying Euro100) than 100pax(Paying Euro10).
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de lpassarotto - Envoyé le 15 Oct 14:37 |
|
| |
All what you say is true.
But i think is not the wright way to look at the problem.
3 years is a too long time to check the sustainable of this route.
Even the incrase of jet fuel price is not so important (look at the real barel price is not so high how they let you know and understand from mewspaper, and belive this is one of my work).
I think the most important thing is to fly, to give work to people and revenue/profitability to the owners.
If you erase the line, you will have nothing of that.
Better less then nothing. Specially in this period of crisis....
In effect the story start from something else and i am wright, today on Lithuanian news they start to explane about the war between these 2 airline company and the problems they give to peolpe and what Lithuanian cout will do for them.....
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de lpassarotto - Envoyé le 15 Oct 14:46 |
|
| |
Ah! i am not jocking with myself just.... MXP-VNO is the most frequent fly for me (3/4 times in mounth) and for that it took my attention.
Others problems of other reality i think often arrive from stupid manager which are not only unable to do their work but also want show..... i don't know what but i saw it many times from my experience of 30 years in tourism world.
Any way it will be too long to explane and my english is not so rich.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 24 Oct 9:39 |
|
| |
Ipassarotto:
In all the discussions and news on the print or the web, you are the only person I know that believe <Even the incrase of jet fuel price is not so important >.
Fuel price is exactly the official reason stated by so many airlines around the world why they are either closing completely or taking heavy net reduction of flights. Here are just 2 of many examples in N.America and Asia:
http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=PRNEWS
http://press.jal.co.jp/en/release/200809/001012.html
I can provide more examples if you wish.
Very often, <give work to people> and <revenue/profitability to the owners> are 2 goals that are in direct conflict against each other. Most importantly, canceling a route doesn't automatically mean less work for people and less profit/revenue for owners. The resources(Employment+capital+$) can be shifted to other more productive routes with better mkt opportunity than MXP-VNO. Why must any airlines forced to fly certain routes even if it's unprofitable? That's against the basic principle of free market economy and open-skies concept. Airlines should be free to get in or out of a market whenever they want based on simple supply and demand economics. If the court starts to enforce when and where an airline should fly, that's effectively a return to planned economics(i.e. communism/socialism).....nothing wrong with that too, if that's what the people want and the airlines are 100% owned by the gov't and they don't mind having a non-competitive airlines struggling in the mkt(AZ<Alitalia> today is a perfect example).
<If you erase the line, you will have nothing of that.>. This statement is so untrue. At most, U can only claim <you will have no direct/non-stop service that is cheap and convenient for you>. Of course, one can still fly from MXP to VNO via no more than 1 stop on dozens of other airlines. These services may be even more frequent than the non-stop MXP-VNO and some people, believe it or not, value frequency as a type of convenience as much as speedier non-stop flights.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster un message à cette discussion
|
|
Les messages doivent uniquement être rédigés en anglais. Tout message écrit dans une autre langue sera supprimé.
Les messages ne doivent concerner que des sujets liés à l'aviation civile et ne doivent contenir aucune publicité. Votre IP est conservée.
Les balises de format de texte pouvant être utilisées sont
[B]Votre texte[/B] : Texte en gras
[I]Votre texte[/I] : Texte en italique
[U]Votre texte[/U] : Texte souligné
[S]Votre texte[/S] : Texte barré
Pour inclure une photo Airfleets.net dans votre message, utilisez la synthaxe [P]Numéro de la photo[/P] |
|