Originally Posted by transwede
HH6702
Will a loco route to NYC be less beneficial than say CO or AA with the potential long haul connections?
These are two entirely different operatons, both have their merits. Logically it is an AA or CO product that should offer the best chance of sucess as there is flexibility arising from the opportunity to target a more varied passenger profile, whilst obtaining higher yields from the premium seats & added value with through connections at NYC.
But then whats logic in the airline business ?
The grapevine strongly suggests that CO may add two or three new European destinations by Summer 07, there is nothing to suggest that NCL will be one of these, it's a concept that is raised annually. Personally I feel that AA did NCL no favours & we'll be waiting some time to see CO 752's at NCL who now has to resell itself as able to support a viable NYC service. To do this substantial financial incentives will need to be offered as part of any package to CO or indeed any airline considering taking on this route.
My view is that other than in the marketing, a GSM offering is little more than another holiday route albeit to the US. The difference being purely in the marketing & the hype. You may or not recall that many decades ago NCL did have an offering to JFK in the summer through Jetsave. Albeit that through time the operating restrictions due to available equipment have evapourated, neither those that offered such a product to the North East tourists in those days nor their descendants have identified that the re-introduction of a similar product was worthwhile venture...........