PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Aer Lingus - 2
Thread: Aer Lingus - 2
View Single Post
Old 30th Oct 2006, 16:55
  #128 (permalink)  
akerosid
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I certainly agree with your comment about LHR. I think that with the
likely steep increase in green taxes in the UK - not to mention ever
more stringent security procedures, transit via LHR becomes all the more
undesirable. Indeed, if anything, it should be discouraged - and not
just in favour of AMS, FRA, CDG etc, but in favour of long haul to Asia,
direct.

I have long wondered if EI could team up with EK with regard to its
impending order for 787s (given EK's relationship with Airbus, I think
we can safely say 350s are out?!). EK is still looking at the 787 as an option (although, I think, at present, it's more focused on the larger widebodies, due to the problems with the 380 and 346.)

The thing that concerns me is that with the cost cutting plan DM has
recently signalled, does EI have the commitment to develop the kind of
long haul product EI needs, to be able to compete? If not, maybe it is
best just to feed into EK, or else, to develop the long haul low cost
concept on eastbound routes out of Ireland.

It would suit EK fine, I'm sure, to take feed from EI, but in an age
when we're more focused on the enviornmental friendliness of routes,
isn't it better to take them right to a major Asian hub, such as BKK or
HKG. It would be a bit of a pyrrhic victory just to change one connection point (LHR) for another, DXB.

Also, EI is no longer in oneworld and I think that while there is some
scope for developing a r'ship with AA, most US carriers are trying to
develop capacity on long haul routes? Wouldn't they rather operate their
own services?

With regard to the environmental issues, it occurred to me that with ever more stringent environmental issues and standards, is it realistic or fair for the EU to continue to insist on the current 1:1 on t/a routes. If O/S fails to get the go ahead when the EU meets the US later this year, we could still be stuck with the current regs if the EU decides to dig its heels in. Perhaps the govt could argue that the obligation placed on it by another EU agency trumps this and in that way, get around it? Worth a try?
akerosid is offline