Originally Posted by
jabird
I count 11 destinations in East Asia (SIN & East) served by Finnair from HEL, and one in N.America (JFK) +YYZ seasonal. That is disproportianate to what would be expected, considering the population & incomes in HEL. It can't just be because being in that location makes HEL a natural hub - there must be something to do with the differences in sector length.
Why can't it be? Add the fact that the home carrier in Helsinki is motivated to build a transfer business, specifically focused on Europe to East/NE Asia, around its advantageous location and I don't think you have to bring crew-saving arguments into the equation to explain the network density there. (AMS is another example. The number of direct flights which KL operates from AMS is considerably more than the local population would justify - it's the connecting traffic which they have built up over the years which enables this level of service.)
And following on from Phileas's point about saving costs by having a fuel stop in UK-BGR-LAX, I recall seeing a reference a few months back to a paper (by someone in Rolls-Royce? or am I imagining that?) about how a major saving in overall long-haul airline fuel consumption could be achieved by simply stopping for fuel en route rather than flying very long non-stop sectors. Does anyone have the reference to this? (Yes, I know that passengers want to go non-stop. But sooner or later, if fuel prices continue to climb and one-stop flights are appreciably cheaper, they'll be priced accordingly and passengers will make their own choices.)