Aer Lingus - 6
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@VanBosh
I doubt there is that much demand for North African routes such as Cairo. Moscow is already served albeit quite sporadically by S7.
The only mid-haul Eastern routes that "could" be a work (with alot of provisos) would perhaps be to Mumbai or Karachi. Having said that these routes are already technically served ex DUB through connections with EY and EK.
Far East routes have been long mooted and there have been countless rumours of a China DUB dirct flight, but I can't see anything happening before EI are operating A350s.
That only leaves theoretical routes to the likes of Lagos or Rio. In the former case whilst there would definately be enough pax to make the route viable there are many extraneous issues which would be problematic....to put it mildly. As for Rio, thats something of an imponderable, are there enough Brazilian migrants and Irish tourists to make it work?!
For that reason, I think the only routes to emerge will be new sectors to North America.
C
I doubt there is that much demand for North African routes such as Cairo. Moscow is already served albeit quite sporadically by S7.
The only mid-haul Eastern routes that "could" be a work (with alot of provisos) would perhaps be to Mumbai or Karachi. Having said that these routes are already technically served ex DUB through connections with EY and EK.
Far East routes have been long mooted and there have been countless rumours of a China DUB dirct flight, but I can't see anything happening before EI are operating A350s.
That only leaves theoretical routes to the likes of Lagos or Rio. In the former case whilst there would definately be enough pax to make the route viable there are many extraneous issues which would be problematic....to put it mildly. As for Rio, thats something of an imponderable, are there enough Brazilian migrants and Irish tourists to make it work?!
For that reason, I think the only routes to emerge will be new sectors to North America.
C
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that if SFO is combined with a shorter route (I'll take JFK as an example) it could potentially be done with a single extra aircraft (plus less ground time).
Let's take EI 105/104, currently occupying one aircraft:
EI 105 DUB 1045 - 1320 JFK
EI 104 JFK 1740 - 0525* DUB
We'll add one more aircraft and borrow the timings from the old DUB-SFO operation I was asking about the other day.
So the first aircraft does:
Monday:
EI 105 DUB 1045 - 1320 JFK
EI 104 JFK 1740 -
Tuesday
- 0525 DUB
EI 147 DUB 0950 - 1250 SFO
EI 146 SFO 1500 -
Wednesday
- 0915 DUB
EI 105 DUB 1045 - 1320 JFK
EI 104 JFK 1740 ...
and so on.
The second aircraft does the same but 24 hours later (DUB-JFK on Tues, DUB-SFO on Wed,...).
Of course you can move the SFO schedule to partially even out the ground time before and after the SFO rotation, but in principle, by "borrowing" some of the ground time from an existing aircraft, it seems to me that it should be possible to add an SFO route with a single additional aircraft.
Result: with two aircraft you have the daily EI104/105 JFK and (if you want it) a daily SFO. More likely would be a less-than-daily SFO and some extra frequencies elsewhere.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that Aer Lingus have tweaked their Gold Circle scheme so that transatlantic crossings in economy class no longer get points unless you book a flexible fare.
I've got to wonder why they bother having a frequent flyer scheme at all...
I've got to wonder why they bother having a frequent flyer scheme at all...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Cyrano: I was the one who mentioned 1.5 A330 for SFO. I didn't refer to it as a magic number however. I get this from statement's previously by EI execs, they stated that to offer an attractive offering to the West Coast would require 2 fleet units which they did not have to spare. The issue with West Coast ops is the vulnerability to tech disruption. Now I am not sure what EI consider "an attractive offering" but I would assume it means 4/5 per week.
So yes,with a bit of tweaking EI could probably operate 4x weekly DUB-SFO with a single unit. But this would affect other routes and/or could still be very tight and prone to disruption. So by freeing up the "SNN A330" and dropping DUB-ORD back to daily.......suddenly you have the extra flex in fleet rotation to plan 5x weekly with perhaps a spare aircraft 2 days a week. (East coast ops easily allow 2 sectors per 20-22 hours, West coast would take ~27 hours per 2 sectors,assuming 2-3 hours on the ground)
Remember that EI do not dedicate specific aircraft to specific routes, the A333's and A332's have a pattern that moves them onto different routes through the month. 4x weekly and prone to delays is a lot less attractive to 5x weekly and reliable.
Ultimately of course the EI network planning section will make these decisions, not any of us. It could be that the West Coast is a no go area for EI until the A350 arrives, and all our chat is pie in the sky.
@Noxegen......I agree totally. It should be 'points per miles travelled' or 'points per Euro spent'. Fair across the board. Don't penalise GC members for getting a good deal on ei.com. I have read similar complaints from GC members on other sites.
So yes,with a bit of tweaking EI could probably operate 4x weekly DUB-SFO with a single unit. But this would affect other routes and/or could still be very tight and prone to disruption. So by freeing up the "SNN A330" and dropping DUB-ORD back to daily.......suddenly you have the extra flex in fleet rotation to plan 5x weekly with perhaps a spare aircraft 2 days a week. (East coast ops easily allow 2 sectors per 20-22 hours, West coast would take ~27 hours per 2 sectors,assuming 2-3 hours on the ground)
Remember that EI do not dedicate specific aircraft to specific routes, the A333's and A332's have a pattern that moves them onto different routes through the month. 4x weekly and prone to delays is a lot less attractive to 5x weekly and reliable.
Ultimately of course the EI network planning section will make these decisions, not any of us. It could be that the West Coast is a no go area for EI until the A350 arrives, and all our chat is pie in the sky.
@Noxegen......I agree totally. It should be 'points per miles travelled' or 'points per Euro spent'. Fair across the board. Don't penalise GC members for getting a good deal on ei.com. I have read similar complaints from GC members on other sites.
Last edited by DollarBill; 26th Feb 2013 at 15:08.
West Coast operations for Aer Lingus should not pose any scheduling issues, sure it takes just over 24 hours for the round trip, but New York and (particularly) Boston round trips are well under 24 hours (Boston to Dublin is normally around 6 hours sector time) and it is straightforward to integrate the two. Talk that it needs 1.5 or 2 aircraft to achieve is incorrect. I suspect even posters on the spotters page here could show them how to do it.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People seem very confident that SFO will be launched, I have dought even though they have the A332 available to do it. The JFK schedule above doesn't work out as its all A333 and EI will not drop to A332 to make SFO work, now it is workable but not as posted above.
1 - New YYZ service will reduce pax on ORD
2 - New SFO will have major affects on there ORD service and not that EI will be concerned it would quiet possibly spell the end of IAD with United.
3 - SFO has major costs involved and I don't think it will be profitable for EI if they restart it and as said above it will reduce profitability on other T/A routes.
If that is the case then that will be the only chance for it to be a success for EI. Do we know if it even made a profit when they last operated.
1 - New YYZ service will reduce pax on ORD
2 - New SFO will have major affects on there ORD service and not that EI will be concerned it would quiet possibly spell the end of IAD with United.
3 - SFO has major costs involved and I don't think it will be profitable for EI if they restart it and as said above it will reduce profitability on other T/A routes.
There is an Abu Dhabi rumour regarding San Fran through Dublin. The West Coast is a huge hole in their route map.
Last edited by Jamie2k9; 26th Feb 2013 at 21:22.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People seem very confident that SFO will be launched, I have dought even though they have the A332 available to do it. The JFK schedule above doesn't work out as its all A333 and EI will not drop to A332 to make SFO work, now it is workable but not as posted above.
1 - New YYZ service will reduce pax on ORD
2 - New SFO will have major affects on there ORD service and not that EI will be concerned it would quiet possibly spell the end of IAD with United.
3 - SFO has major costs involved and I don't think it will be profitable for EI if they restart it and as said above it will reduce profitability on other T/A routes
1 - New YYZ service will reduce pax on ORD
2 - New SFO will have major affects on there ORD service and not that EI will be concerned it would quiet possibly spell the end of IAD with United.
3 - SFO has major costs involved and I don't think it will be profitable for EI if they restart it and as said above it will reduce profitability on other T/A routes
A YYZ service would reduce pax on the DUB-ORD route, which would mean the additional 4 weekly flights operating this summer, wouldnt be needed.
All of the rumors are all just that for now...rumours! But, a lot of them make sense. Adding the 757's for SNN and to use on a new route ex DUB make a lot of sense. The aircraft are being added through the least risk method. If they dont prove profitable, theyre not stuck with 3 aircraft sitting idle!
Was there not once rumours of United operating a DUB-SFO route ?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A YYZ service would reduce pax on the DUB-ORD route, which would mean the additional 4 weekly flights operating this summer, wouldn't be needed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder which is more critical to the success of an EI route, passengers starting/ending their journey in Dublin and connecting into JetBlue or United or passengers going on an EI flight ex US thru DUB and onto Europe or vice versa.
Obviously EI would prefer the latter as it gives them two sectors but I wonder which delivers more pax?
I'm sure any additional capacity would be used for the DUB hub operation?
Obviously EI would prefer the latter as it gives them two sectors but I wonder which delivers more pax?
I'm sure any additional capacity would be used for the DUB hub operation?
Last edited by VanBosh; 27th Feb 2013 at 07:39.
SFO has major costs involved and I don't think it will be profitable for EI if they restart it and as said above it will reduce profitability on other T/A routes.
JAS
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DUB-SFO costs were more about low J class yield and high fuel costs than about airport charges. I'm not discounting charges but they were a lower factor.
Personally I think EI will wait for the A350 for DUB-SFO unless they get good 'new route' discounts from DAA and some form of guaranteed J class fares from the Irish/USA business community.
While I agree that Ireland-USA East routes are a lot less than 24 hours, thats if you do a quick turn on the other end. But EI don't always do quick turns,better to tweak the return time to suit pax requirements.
Eg. EI105 departs DUB at 1030, arrives back in at 0500 the next morning. So the guts of 20 hours due to the long turn on the ground at JFK.
And when being an armchair CEO and making up schedules/route maps, you have to take into account A332 vs A330 integration as well as planned maintenance downtime in between flights. Hence the cycling of aircraft through the route network. It is not as simple as "6 hours Eastbound plus 7 hours Westbound plus 2 hour turnaround= 15 per day for East coast flight".
Personally I think EI will wait for the A350 for DUB-SFO unless they get good 'new route' discounts from DAA and some form of guaranteed J class fares from the Irish/USA business community.
While I agree that Ireland-USA East routes are a lot less than 24 hours, thats if you do a quick turn on the other end. But EI don't always do quick turns,better to tweak the return time to suit pax requirements.
Eg. EI105 departs DUB at 1030, arrives back in at 0500 the next morning. So the guts of 20 hours due to the long turn on the ground at JFK.
And when being an armchair CEO and making up schedules/route maps, you have to take into account A332 vs A330 integration as well as planned maintenance downtime in between flights. Hence the cycling of aircraft through the route network. It is not as simple as "6 hours Eastbound plus 7 hours Westbound plus 2 hour turnaround= 15 per day for East coast flight".
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Belfast, Ireland
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don`t know too many people in the San Francisco bay area who chose to fly via ORD to Ireland. They usually take a direct service to Heathrow and connect onwards to Cork, Dublin, Belfast, so I doubt the EI ORD service would be greatly affected by a reinstatement of the SFO-DUB service.
Regarding the EI Gold Circle scheme, it`s a joke now. I used to fly EI every month but now I increasingly use other airlines who actually credit my travel in their frequent flyer schemes!
Regarding the EI Gold Circle scheme, it`s a joke now. I used to fly EI every month but now I increasingly use other airlines who actually credit my travel in their frequent flyer schemes!
Last edited by CCR; 27th Feb 2013 at 12:02.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland nowadays
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding alternating an aircraft between SFO and an East Coast destination, you also have to remember that if you leave no margin to deal with delays, one bad one could be affecting schedule for days. As things stand, short-haul aircraft rest for the night, while the turnaround times for long-haul are so long that any delays are fairly rapidly absorbed.
As for the changes to the Gold Circle Program... You now get more points for flying BA across the Atlantic than for flying on EI. EI have to be the only airline in the world that incentivises flying with a competitor.
As for the changes to the Gold Circle Program... You now get more points for flying BA across the Atlantic than for flying on EI. EI have to be the only airline in the world that incentivises flying with a competitor.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cork
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of Gold Circle, I got an email recently to do a survey for Aer Lingus where they appear to be thinking about launching a credit card which will garner you GC points. It would be great if it happens.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair's proposal to complete its purchase of EI has been formally rejected today.
FR, of course, is throwing its toys out of its cot and announcing an appeal. It claims political interference, but given the quality of its proposals for alternative competition in the market, one has to wonder if the government actually needed to lobby. FR's proposals became more laughable by the day. Flybe? Come on, seriously!
Anyway, FR is likely to string this along for quite a while. I suspect that part of MO'L's anger is pressure from the board and shareholders pretty angry about this plan; FR is stuck with a shareholding worth far more than its original price and on top of that, how many millions spent on legal fees (excluding the appeal now imminent). This has been a hugely costly exercise for FR.
Some time ago, EI lost a legal bid to force FR to sell its shareholding; there is no legislation to force FR to do so, but I am wondering if the failure of this third bid changes things. We can say this of FR's shareholding:
1. It does nothing for EI; FR contributes nothing to EI, and never has done.
2. With the failure of this bid, it has no future strategy for EI.
3. Its continued shareholding in its principal competitor cannot be said to be in the best interests of the consumer or the market.
You can create a legal test from the responses to these statements (phrasing them as questions), which can be built into legislation, and FR should, in fairness, be given the opportunity to respond. It should be given the opportunity to show that its continued shareholding serves a constructive purpose and the best interests of the consumer; personally, I don't believe it can do so.
I realise that the British OFT has still to rule on FR's shareholding in EI, but even if for "optics" alone, I'd much rather see any compulsory sale coming from Ireland rather than the UK.
FR, of course, is throwing its toys out of its cot and announcing an appeal. It claims political interference, but given the quality of its proposals for alternative competition in the market, one has to wonder if the government actually needed to lobby. FR's proposals became more laughable by the day. Flybe? Come on, seriously!
Anyway, FR is likely to string this along for quite a while. I suspect that part of MO'L's anger is pressure from the board and shareholders pretty angry about this plan; FR is stuck with a shareholding worth far more than its original price and on top of that, how many millions spent on legal fees (excluding the appeal now imminent). This has been a hugely costly exercise for FR.
Some time ago, EI lost a legal bid to force FR to sell its shareholding; there is no legislation to force FR to do so, but I am wondering if the failure of this third bid changes things. We can say this of FR's shareholding:
1. It does nothing for EI; FR contributes nothing to EI, and never has done.
2. With the failure of this bid, it has no future strategy for EI.
3. Its continued shareholding in its principal competitor cannot be said to be in the best interests of the consumer or the market.
You can create a legal test from the responses to these statements (phrasing them as questions), which can be built into legislation, and FR should, in fairness, be given the opportunity to respond. It should be given the opportunity to show that its continued shareholding serves a constructive purpose and the best interests of the consumer; personally, I don't believe it can do so.
I realise that the British OFT has still to rule on FR's shareholding in EI, but even if for "optics" alone, I'd much rather see any compulsory sale coming from Ireland rather than the UK.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A YYZ service would reduce pax on the DUB-ORD route, which would mean the additional 4 weekly flights operating this summer, wouldn't be needed.
The 757 could operate YYZ 4 times weekly, and operate ORD 3 weekly if they wanted to keep the connections through DUB. Or they could use the 757 to operate the extra ORD rotations on a daily basis? Either way, the 757's add a lot of flexibility to the fleet, create a great low risk opportunity to open new routes, and can help further develop Dublin as a hub
Reducing the ORD service will then defeat the Hub at DUB. Only this summer is the ORD schedule allowing decent connections. The new 05.25 arrival and 15.45 departures are what is needed to offer similar service like they do to JFK and BOS. ORD was the only destination behind. Connecting traffic through DUB is very important to Aer Lingus and removed ORD flexibility would be a bad move and as a SFO service couldn't many connections bar London and a few other spots in the UK. significant risk in restarting SFO and reducing ORD and EI only said when the UA reports surfaced that SFO wasn't in the plan short term. Anyway I am sure that Mueller will make the right decision at the end of the day.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see why a YYZ route would result in lower pax numbers to ORD; yes, they are fairly close geographically, but they're entirely different markets. For one thing, EI does a lot of onward connections with UA via ORD and it wouldn't have the same coverage of the US market from YYZ. Likewise, in the event of a route to YYZ, I'd expect to see EI do a deal with Westjet, for onward domestic flights in Canada.
I certainly agree that the 757 proposal looks very interesting; why wait until the 321NEO is around before developing new, smaller markets. Why let US carriers with the right equipment (other 757s!) steal its markets from under it?
--------------------------------------------------
Just further to the news on the EU rejection of FR's plan, some excerpts from the EU response:
Some excerpts from the commission's press release I linked above:
* In 2007 the Commission prohibited Ryanair's first attempt to acquire Aer Lingus (see IP/07/893) and this decision was upheld by the EU General Court (MEMO/10/300).
* Commission took into account changes in market circumstances since 2007, [...] market positions of Ryanair and Aer Lingus have become even stronger; combined market shares going up from 80% in 2007 to 87% in 2012 for short-haul flights out of Dublin. [...] number of routes to and from Ireland operated in competition by Ryanair and Aer Lingus has increased from 35 in 2007 to 46 in 2012.
* There is competition from other scheduled carriers on only 7 of these 46 routes.
* EI and FR are the only scheduled carriers focused on point-to-point connections to/from Ireland, instead of feeding into hubs like LHR (BA), FRA (LH), etc.
* Proposed merger would therefore have removed the "currently vibrant competition between Ryanair and Aer Lingus"
* "In short, customers' travelling options would have been substantially reduced and it is unlikely that competitors would have been able to sufficiently constrain the merged entity in its market behaviour. Higher prices for passengers would have been the likely outcome."
On Ryanair's proposed remedies, particularly the divestiture of large parts of EI operations to FlyBe and cession of slots to IAG/BA for a guaranteed period of three years:
* Commission's investigation demonstrated that these remedies were insufficient
* Flybe not a suitable purchaser capable of competing sufficiently with the Ryanair/Aer Lingus merged entity.
* IAG/BA would not constrain the merged entity to a sufficient degree and would have little incentive to stay on the routes beyond a 3 year period
* Insufficient degree of certainty over whether remedies would/could be put in place in a timely manner
* Insufficient degree of certainty over whether the remedies would work in practice for a sustained period of time
* Views and perspectives on FR remedy packages from "large number of market participants in Ireland and internationally, including competitors, customers, travel agents, consumer associations, public authorities and airport operators." This was done three times, based on the varying remedy packages proposed by FR.
I certainly agree that the 757 proposal looks very interesting; why wait until the 321NEO is around before developing new, smaller markets. Why let US carriers with the right equipment (other 757s!) steal its markets from under it?
--------------------------------------------------
Just further to the news on the EU rejection of FR's plan, some excerpts from the EU response:
Some excerpts from the commission's press release I linked above:
* In 2007 the Commission prohibited Ryanair's first attempt to acquire Aer Lingus (see IP/07/893) and this decision was upheld by the EU General Court (MEMO/10/300).
* Commission took into account changes in market circumstances since 2007, [...] market positions of Ryanair and Aer Lingus have become even stronger; combined market shares going up from 80% in 2007 to 87% in 2012 for short-haul flights out of Dublin. [...] number of routes to and from Ireland operated in competition by Ryanair and Aer Lingus has increased from 35 in 2007 to 46 in 2012.
* There is competition from other scheduled carriers on only 7 of these 46 routes.
* EI and FR are the only scheduled carriers focused on point-to-point connections to/from Ireland, instead of feeding into hubs like LHR (BA), FRA (LH), etc.
* Proposed merger would therefore have removed the "currently vibrant competition between Ryanair and Aer Lingus"
* "In short, customers' travelling options would have been substantially reduced and it is unlikely that competitors would have been able to sufficiently constrain the merged entity in its market behaviour. Higher prices for passengers would have been the likely outcome."
On Ryanair's proposed remedies, particularly the divestiture of large parts of EI operations to FlyBe and cession of slots to IAG/BA for a guaranteed period of three years:
* Commission's investigation demonstrated that these remedies were insufficient
* Flybe not a suitable purchaser capable of competing sufficiently with the Ryanair/Aer Lingus merged entity.
* IAG/BA would not constrain the merged entity to a sufficient degree and would have little incentive to stay on the routes beyond a 3 year period
* Insufficient degree of certainty over whether remedies would/could be put in place in a timely manner
* Insufficient degree of certainty over whether the remedies would work in practice for a sustained period of time
* Views and perspectives on FR remedy packages from "large number of market participants in Ireland and internationally, including competitors, customers, travel agents, consumer associations, public authorities and airport operators." This was done three times, based on the varying remedy packages proposed by FR.