Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jul 2012 17:50

Suppiah wrote:Would have faced tough competition from our unionised AI staff though..

KFA engineers on AI management request, did clear a AI aircraft after the mangalore accident and the AI engineers union did kick up a nasty fuss over the incident. Morons.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 28 Jul 2012 18:31

<del>

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 28 Jul 2012 22:47

Kingfisher Airlines almost got grounded by ex-DGCA chief Bharat Bhushan.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Aug 2012 10:43

Praful Patel, aide sunk Air India, former Indian Airlines chief says

ankitash · Post by **ankitash** » 23 Aug 2012 02:10

Air India Can be Utilized to Fulfill Strategic Objectives - Indian Defence Analysis

Air India is much maligned for its poor state of affairs. It loses a staggering amount of money each year, due to political interference, a bloated and inefficient workforce, corruption, and incompetence/mismanagement.

Political interference manifests itself in many ways. Firstly, Air India deals with incredible inefficiency because of the procedures it must deal with as a PSU. A timeless read on this topic is Jitender Bhargava’s “The Cost of Being a PSU.” A good example of this cost is the recent Boeing 787 fiasco. I have yet to find somebody who can explain to me why the Ministry of Textiles should sign off on Air India’s delivery. If the government expects Air India to be run as a business, it must be permitted to act as a business. Once the board has approved compensation and delivery, the matter should be finished.

Political interference can also be found in Air India’s route choices, Air India’s lack of freedom in hiring/firing employees (hence bloated and inefficient workforce), and corruption throughout the system. A recent audit report on the corruption in the Ministry of Civil Aviation can be found here. It is really mind numbing to see how much Air India is hurt by government corruption.

However, Air India is unlikely to be privatized in the near future for a few reasons. Firstly, it’s unlikely that a private investor would want to touch AI in the condition it is in. And secondly, it’s unlikely that the government mantris will want to give up one of their playthings. So, with the reality of state-ownership set in, the government should look at how the Maharaja can be better utilized to fulfill State objectives.

Air India already does carry out many functions for the government. Air India is extensively used for armed forces and government charters. The president of India flies exclusively on Air India, and AI does not get compensated properly for such flights. Government estimates show that current president Pratibha Patil’s travels have costed Air India almost 170 crores. Air India is also required to keep slack in the schedule for last minute government routing changes, a significant cost to AI.

However, there are ways in which the government can take advantage of Air India’s capabilities without destroying AI’s profitability. In order to better understand some of these possibilities, we can look at 2 better-run flag carriers – Air China, and Turkish Airlines.

Air China is the official flag carrier and one of many state-owned carriers in China. The airline is, according to the Chinese government, the largest airline in the world by market capitalization, and the most profitable carrier in the world. It is extremely difficult to believe the latter, since Air China is rather inefficient, and it doesn’t command very high yields. Regardless, Air China is doing far better than our own Air India, and there are some lessons that can be learned from it.

Any airline’s biggest asset is its route network. Commercial air service has a variety of positive benefits – it increases both economic and political ties between the cities served, and can be of great strategic value.

Air China serves many routes which serve a strategic purpose. The most notable is service on the Beijing-Pyongyang sector – Air China is the only non-DPRK carrier to fly to DPRK. This service strengthens ties between the Chinese and North Korean governments and economies, and helps China keep its neighbors close. Air China also serves Ulaan Bator, the capital of Mongolia. This destination keeps the Mongols close to the Chinese.

However, destinations don’t need to make less commercial sense to have strategic importance. Air China’s services to neighbors like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam all are very profitable in addition to their strategic importance.

The Chinese state-owned carriers not only keep their own neighbors close, but they also project China’s diplomatic power throughout the world. Apart from Bhutan (which only Bhutanese carriers serve), every neighbor of India has service by a Chinese carrier, an important part of China’s strategy to surround India with allies.

Strategic interests aren’t just important internationally – Air China’s destinations domestically also work to facilitate rapid and comprehensive domestic connectivity, and to bring prosperity to less developed areas. Tibet and Xinjiang, the two areas of China which are seperatist, have lots of air service, helping integrate the areas with the rest of the country.

The route network which Air China and the Chinese state-owned carriers have built helps fulfill strategic foreign policy and domestic objectives, and demonstrates how state-owned carriers can be utilized well by their governments.

Another example of a carrier which is utilized by its government well is Turkish Airlines. Unlike Air China or Air India, Turkish is only partly state-owned – 51% of the airline is in private hands. This partial privatization helps cut down on inefficiency and corruption, but still allows the government to utilize the carrier in an effective way.

Turkish’s route network contains a variety of routes of strategic importance. The airline serves every Middle Eastern country, bringing Turkey closer to other Arabic countries. Turkish also serves quite a few EU destinations, notably in Germany. This brings Turkey closer to the European countries which Turkey wants to partner with.

However, what is most remarkable about Turkish’s route network is how they have linked with countries which Turkey has declared of national strategic importance. Turkey has been working to import raw materials and develop infrastructure in Africa. Turkish not only serves all the major African destinations, like Accra, Addis Ababa, Johannesburg, Cairo, Dakar, Lagos, Khartoum, Tunis, Casablanca, Dar es Salaam, and Tripoli, but it also serves second tier cities too. Turkish serves Sabha, Benghazi, and Misrata (Libya), Abidjan (Ivory Coast), Kinshasa (Congo), Kigali (Rwanda), Mogadishu (Somalia), and Entebbe (Uganda) from its hub in Istanbul, strengthening business and political ties and increasing cultural diffusion (improving soft power).

Turkish also has a very impressive Central Asian route network, a region which India has been working on developing stronger ties with. Almaty and Astana (Kazakhstan), Baku, Ganja, and Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan), Batumi and Tbilisi (Georgia), Bishkek and Osh (Kyrgyztan), Dushanbe (Tajikistan), Tashkent (Uzbekistan), Ashgabat (Turkmenistan), and Ulanbator (Mongolia) are all destinations in the Turkish Airlines network.

After seeing how well other countries use their flag carriers as a tool, we can come back home and compare to Air India. Commercial air service can be used to further India’s “Look East” and other international development policies.

Air India already attempts to tailor its route network to serve the government’s wishes. Its low cost subsidiary, Air India Express, serves migrant gulf traffic returning home. The carrier has been very successful with the goal, with high load factors. Air India also serves 2 cities of significant strategic interest from its legacy Indian Airlines network – Kabul and Yangon. However, even these cities are underserved (Yangon is only served twice weekly).

In contrast to the limited routes of strategic value, Air India wastes lots of money on politically mandated prestige routes. A loss of $60 million each year is posted on Air India’s route to Toronto, yet the route is continued due to political pressure. Politicians want service to Chicago, not Congo, despite the fact that the latter would be a far more useful destination.

It’s time that Air India takes a look at the fundamentals of how it crafts its route network. There is no dearth of carriers who can take you from Toronto to Delhi, and the traffic which flies that route is likely to fly regardless of whether Air India is there or not. Where the opportunity for Air India to shine is in routes which require patience and a government cash backstop to develop. Routes which further India’s foreign policy aims and bring new economic partnerships.

Alas, the babus and mantris will likely never realize the golden opportunity which they are missing out on.

Air India Can be Utilized to Fulfill Strategic Objectives - Indian Defence Analysis

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 09 Sep 2012 02:03

AI's first B787 Dreamliner lands at New Delhi

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 09 Sep 2012 04:31

Hope AI re-start their services out of Washington DC again. Looking forward to flying AI again after having a not that great experience with Jet Airways. They refuse through check-in from Jaipur to Brussels via Mumbai, as the domestic part was bought separately, even though paid in dollars. No benefit in flying Jet if they cannot give through check in facilities for their own connections.

Private Airlines like Jet and KF has been largely a flop in my experience. For the Jaipur-Mumbai sector they did not even provide any meals. Had to buy their cold sandwiches on board. Surprising to get relatively better food on the United segment from Brussels. Even the seats had ample leg room and quite comfortable.

Emirates is going to go head on with Qatar with a direct service from Kochi to Washington DC this month. There were big billboards all over town in Kochi advertising the new service. I am sure it will be a one-stop connection via Dubai. Still good to have another option to keep prices down.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 09 Sep 2012 10:09

Mean while in Kerala. CIAL is studying the viability of starting an "Air Kerala".
Kerala to get own airline (though ToI feels that the Air line is just ready to start).
Cochin International Airport I guess was the first to be made in the cooperative model, when various governments just was not interested in giving Kerala a good airport. So if "Air Kerala" succeeds this again may be a "first".

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 09 Sep 2012 11:34

one of the very good Airlines right through 70s till recent times QUANTAS yes Rain man Dustin Hoffman preferred is merging operations with Emirates. First time traveled to US in 1987 Dec I did Mumbai to London on Quantas they were superb and the next leg London to NY JFK was Pan Am so so

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2012 20:28

imo Air Kerala should focus like the Air Asia model - no frills low cost service and extra charges for baggage, food etc. operate small aircraft upto 737 size and do only the gulf routes and to other hangouts like singapore, bangakok, KL which might have expat keralites in large nnumbers. try to be profitable rather than build scale at a loss.

only the oil-backed airlines(etihad, qatar, emirates) or semi-govt types like SIA can afford to splurge in this climate.

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 09 Sep 2012 23:39

Asking as a layperson: are there any breakthrough technologies on the horizon that will significantly speed up air travel? It still takes a full day to travel between the US West Coast and India. With nonstop SFO/LAX-India flights which hopefully we will see some of this decade it should come down to 16-18 hours. Is there any chance of this being reduced to 5-8 hours in our lifetimes?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 10 Sep 2012 00:00

Of course. Commercial space flight taking passengers from point A to point B should be common place within 50 years. I can't post a link through this proxy, but searching for "passenger space flight" will throw up links on the search engines.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2012 05:25

But jet lag will incapacitate you for a few days anyway. Is there any solution to that. How do the air crew manage it day in and day out ?

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 10 Sep 2012 06:04

Bade wrote:But jet lag will incapacitate you for a few days anyway. Is there any solution to that. How do the air crew manage it day in and day out ?

Somewhere I read the biological clock sensor is located at mid point between the two eye brows
If some kind of light stoppage or illumination is caused the biological clock can be rest. Probably the tilak bindi bottu or vibhudhi etc are applied for similar reason? I am thinking loud here

Has any one travelled on Airbus A380 the super jumbo jet with capacity of 700 to 800 passengers ?

Wonder how it feels

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2012 07:41

the boeing sonic cruiser was supposed to a lot faster , but since rest of worldwide fleet would be normal jets who do nearly the same speed whether boeing or airbus or embraer, its early arrival times would throw the carefully arranged connecting flight system at hub airports out of gear. that was one of reasons why carriers were cool to it. plus it was a outlandish concept to start with a radical departure from the existing infra.

the basic shape of passenger airliners has not changed since the dawn of passenger airliners in the 1930s.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Sep 2012 12:19

A more down to earth reason might be "kitna deti hai?"

Airlines are known to fly at speeds which give maximum range for minimum fuel. This turns out be around ~800 kmph. Hence, they are reluctant to increase speeds for poor fuel economy.

Incidentally, even long range cruise missiles travel at similar speeds to maxmize distance yet remain light enough to be launched from all platforms unlike supersonics *cough* Brahmos *cough*

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2012 13:45

Airlines are known to fly at speeds which give maximum range for minimum fuel. This turns out be around ~800 kmph. Hence, they are reluctant to increase speeds for poor fuel economy.

a more low drag or high lift airframe could change the equation to more favourable for higher speed - and it carries passengers like the sonic cruiser did...it could have worked had enough people bought into the idea.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 10 Sep 2012 15:00

pentaiah wrote: Has any one travelled on Airbus A380 the super jumbo jet with capacity of 700 to 800 passengers ?

Wonder how it feels

We flew from LHR to DXB on A380 last year, obviously in cattle class. Felt good. Very little noise/vibrarion. Good space inside. Landing was heavy.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Sep 2012 16:45

Here is Airbus plan for 2050

Airbus unveils its 2050 vision for ‘Smarter Skies’

Airbus Smarter Skies Concept Image

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 10 Sep 2012 23:51

So a 13 minute reduction in flight time between Europe and NA. Hardly the game changing leap I was hoping for -- and this is forecast for 2050.

I guess 16 hours is the best we'll be able to do for India-US flights even a few decades out. Quite disappointing.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Sep 2012 00:12

Abhijeet wrote:Asking as a layperson: are there any breakthrough technologies on the horizon that will significantly speed up air travel? It still takes a full day to travel between the US West Coast and India. With nonstop SFO/LAX-India flights which hopefully we will see some of this decade it should come down to 16-18 hours. Is there any chance of this being reduced to 5-8 hours in our lifetimes?

I wouldn't be so optimistic on SFO-India non-stop flights. The reason being that it is not a technological hurdle that prevents such flights. The 777-200LR can easily fly this route. And it is one of the more efficient jets around. The problem is financial. Airlines like Delta and AA closed down their east coast to India non-stop flights even though they had a very good response. (IIRC AA had a ORD-DEL flight and Delta first had JFK-BOM and then Atlanta-BOM). I think Continental(now United) and AI are the only two airlines which have non-stop flights from NYC now, and AI is going to remain pathetic mess for the foreseeable future. Jet never even tried, preferring to stop in Brussels. No other airline seems interested either. Ultra long-haul flights just don't seem to be that profitable.

The problem with high speed flight is the same. Airlines can't afford it. BA and Air France could never really afford the Concorde either. They continued to fly it for purely H&D purposes till it got too much during the post-9/11 downturn. And this for an aircraft which was a technological marvel with an enviable safety record.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Sep 2012 00:29

If the long haul non-stops are at 90% full capacity for each flight why the lower margin in profits ?

So is it that with one-stop over europe, they get to price each segment at par with the long hauls and hence find it more profitable ? So it not a case of loss, but a case of more profit by doing shorter segments for the Euro based airlines. That leaves just the middle eastern ones and Air India for India bound passengers. I am happy with ME connections, since the hop to any Indian city from there is a short one following a civilized stopover and change, unlike the cesspool of Mumbai.

After all these years, they still do bus transfers and with check-in luggage too that you need to lug. I will avoid Mumbai like the plague for another decade or so. CSIA guys do not want to be a big player from the looks of it.

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 11 Sep 2012 00:49

The reason I'm (sort of) optimistic on nonstop BOM/DEL-SFO flights is precisely because the hurdle is not technical but economic. Hopefully at some point there will be enough affluent flyers for it to make economic sense. Perhaps business class only flights.

The fact that it is viable to have nonstop SIN-EWR flights (18 hours, I think) and DXB-SFO flights (15 hours) indicates that SFO-BOM (16 hours) or SFO-DEL (15 hours) should also be viable financially at some point. Hopefully before I'm too old.

Anyway, I'll give up on ever expecting a 5 hour SFO-India trip. Doesn't look like it's happening.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 11 Sep 2012 08:14

EWR-SIN is a 100-seater all business class flight. India has some such small J-class only flights, like the ones operated by Lufthansa and Japan Airlines, catering mainly to a stable business clientele. I think Singapore Airlines operated an economy+business class version of EWR-SIN, but it was not profitable.

SFO-DXB works because DXB is a megahub for Emirates, with timed connections to various points in India. Unless AI or Jet run a similar hub out of BOM or DEL with seamless single-ticket connections, SFO-BOM/DEL will not work well. It's not merely a matter of economics but logistics.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Sep 2012 08:27

Bade wrote:If the long haul non-stops are at 90% full capacity for each flight why the lower margin in profits ?

So is it that with one-stop over europe, they get to price each segment at par with the long hauls and hence find it more profitable ?

Ah Bade Mian, as a Fyzzicist, you should look to basic Fyzzics for the answers and not Kanspiracee theories in the true traditions of the Kerala commies!

The answer to your kweschun is that it is cheaper to carry fuel by ship than by air! Given the extremely high cost of fuel nowadays, long stop, long distance operations like SFO/BLR , ORD/DEL etc are simply ultra expensive.

If my answer was cryptic, consider this. The plane in addition to it's passengers and empty weight also carries the fuel and the fuel fraction is a significant weight and a large part of that fuel is used to carry itself!

Now if you fly nonstop from say India to US, you will be carrying a large amount of fuel most of the way (okay, ideally, you should carry just enough fuel to land and taxi to the gate with bone dry tanks. If you can stop at Oierope , you need to carry just enough fuel to fly to Oierope and you carry a far less amount of fuel to a far less distance. You put some more fuel in Oierope and fly on to the US. Overall, this will result in far far less fuel consumption and indeed ticket prices than if you fly all the way from India to US non stop!

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Sep 2012 08:30

Suraj wrote:SFO-DXB works because DXB is a megahub for Emirates,

SFO-DXB will work in the DXB to SFO leg , the return will a loss and will break even at best. The secret of DXB /Emirates is extremly low oil prices there (no taxes), a very low cost workforce(all the Gelf folks who will never raise a lal jhanda there, and yes, the Gelf airport job at DXB will actually be less paying than the one in Kochi or TVM, if everything is considered) and very low financing cost .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2012 10:04

unless they have Cheen govt type 0% financing and no real obligation to pay back with interest, I dont see how Emirates/Qatar/Etihad could be ordering the highest number of long haul airliners ....
I wonder to what extent the local economies are gaining from it though. I figure most folks just prefer to use as transit rather than stick around and do tourism there.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 11 Sep 2012 10:10

Good points about the Emirates cost structure, vina. Those matter too. I would think though, that DXB-SFO would be the lower yield one because of the higher fuel burn in that direction, though ? Both directions are heavily composed VFR traffic from the middle east and subcontinent, anyway.

US-India, particularly west coast-India, is not just a matter of Indian affluence. It presents a range issue for current aircraft technology; above 7000mi, the fuel fraction eats into passenger and cargo capacity so such an extent that it does not work . Take the kangaroo route (London Heathrow - Sydney) between two rich countries with tremendous leisure and business traffic. Why do all those flights stop in Singapore or other ASEAN points, or even HK, instead of say, London-Darwin-Sydney or London-Perth-Sydney ? The London-(Australian port)-Sydney nonstop route is just not economically feasible though it is within the range of A340-500, B777ER/LRs or B747-400s. Ditto for west coast-India:
Los Angeles - New Delhi: 8013 mi
Los Angeles - Bombay: 8709 mi
San Francisco - New Delhi: 7706 mi
San Francisco - Bombay: 8406 mi

Two routes that barely broke even on a B777 LR or ER:
Chicago - New Delhi: 7483 mi
New York - New Delhi: 7318mi

Theoretical kangaroo route without ASEAN stop:
London-Darwin: 8620 mi

The only two flights above 8000mi that work are business-class only (read, light high-yield pax load, lots of fuel + cargo):
Los Angeles - Singapore: 8770 mi
Newark - Singapore: 9300mi

A comparatively long route that was canceled:
New York - Bangkok: 8600 mi
The Thai's, despite 4x our per-capita income, and an excellent ASEAN hub, could not sustain this. They also cancelled their Los Angeles - Bangkok nonstop.

The longest flight with a 'regular' passenger profile that's been in operation is:
Newark - Hong Kong: 8000mi

In effect, ~8000mi flights can only be sustained between major financial centers, and even then, viability drops off exponentially beyond 8000mi. No point in blaming poor starving SDREs for lack of non stops from west coast - it'll still bleed money with current aircraft technology because all but one of them are much longer than even the longest 'regular' flight in service, which runs between two major financial centers with high-yield business traffic.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2012 11:02

airbus did prove the A330 could fly 22 hrs nonstop from london to east australia but onlee with pilots, no load and full fuel probably.
this massive fuel load is why it will be a great MRTT.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Sep 2012 15:55

vina-bin-ct, the DC-Doobai-Doha United flight was full onlee. SFO-Doobai may not have takers till your commie ghosts from KL find the true paradise in large numbers.

As for non-stop flights to India from the US, I am ok with pseudo ones like Air India used to do with a stop to refuel and get some passengers too. It is just that the security requirements that need all to disembark and go thru check again that is a put off. The worst part is that all said and done Indian airport hubs (Mumbai, Dilli too maybe) have no clue how to handle passengers with onward connections to destinations in India. This whole caste system of Intl and domestic separation is laughable. They want all Intl passengers to carry their luggage by bus to the domestic terminal. Civilized countries do things differently. In DC for instance, following immigration and baggage collection and customs, you will find a luggage check-in counter within the same terminal. The folks in Mumbai the non-commie paradise have found clever means to fleece you further. Pay baksheesh for the guy who loads the bus and the guy who unloads it for you at the other end.

No wonder we mallus roll in laughter at people crying foul for 'Nooku-kooli'. Creating unnecessary work is in similar vein in the 21st century in name of creating employment for the local goons.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Sep 2012 16:26

Just a day ago or so, saw a full page ad by United on Euro fares. DC to Brussels was $1030 r/t. I paid $1050 for r/t to Mumbai via Brussels using United for the Brussels leg. Now you see how margins are kept with some local fleecing. Wonders of capitalism onlee. But SDREs like yours truly can still find bargains everywhere.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Sep 2012 16:39

The worst part is that all said and done Indian airport hubs (Mumbai, Dilli too maybe) have no clue how to handle passengers with onward connections to destinations in India. This whole caste system of Intl and domestic separation is laughable. They want all Intl passengers to carry their luggage by bus to the domestic terminal. Civilized countries do things differently. In DC for instance, following immigration and baggage collection and customs, you will find a luggage check-in counter within the same terminal.

Ah.. That is why you should fly into BIAL and not places like Dilli and Mumbai. If you want to do el ' Cheapo fares by flying into Mumbai, you need to put up with the pain as well ! Fair onree, no ?

Trouble is it is usually lot more difficult to get flights into S. India (Chennai and BLR) from N. America / Oierope.

Best is to take the Lufthansa/BA/Air France/Jet , one stop connection .. ie, DC to Oeiro Hub and directly into BLR/Chennai with a 2 hr layover to stretch your legs and use the restroom. Rest of all the options are rubbish onree, especially the Naan-Shtaap 15 hr flights (the bathrooms soon start getting un useable). That 2 hr break after a 7 hr flight is extremly useful. Jet too, you should have flown to S. india from Brussels. That one stop Euro Hub to S.India is a little bit more expensive , but worth it I think.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 11 Sep 2012 18:57

Bade wrote:vina-bin-ct, the DC-Doobai-Doha United flight was full onlee. SFO-Doobai may not have takers till your commie ghosts from KL find the true paradise in large numbers.

As for non-stop flights to India from the US, I am ok with pseudo ones like Air India used to do with a stop to refuel and get some passengers too. It is just that the security requirements that need all to disembark and go thru check again that is a put off. The worst part is that all said and done Indian airport hubs (Mumbai, Dilli too maybe) have no clue how to handle passengers with onward connections to destinations in India. This whole caste system of Intl and domestic separation is laughable. They want all Intl passengers to carry their luggage by bus to the domestic terminal.

I am not sure about the bolded part, especially in mumbai till a couple of years back. I was on NorthWest/KLM's AMS-BOM-BLR flight, with the BOM-BLR leg on Jet. There was a Jet counter at the international terminal where I dropped off my luggage after clearing customs, and took the airport bus to domestic terminal with only my carry ons. This is similar to what happens in US too, where you can drop off luggage at the counter after clearing customs.

I don't know if things have changed in BOM over the last couple of years though.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Sep 2012 19:20

I took the Jet connection from Jaipur to Mumbai on way to Brussels just last week. There is no facility at the domestic side to drop off luggage for International transfers. The lines were long and our connecting flight was 3 hours away, but they (Jet) were requesting passengers to take taxi out to the Intl terminal. And they expect people to connect out of Mumbai. Fat chance. Right now if we have to fly anywhere north in India, the choices are limited as one has to connect via Mumbai and they feed on that to grow fat, but provide no convenience to passengers.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Sep 2012 19:25

Vina-saar, Blr/Chn are no great options either for someone traveling further south to KL. You will get fleeced by the taxi and hotel wallahs for overnight stays. Same story as in Mumbai, slightly better onlee with all the steel and glass. Chennai I am not sure, since I have not transited through ever, even this time it was a domestic segment and just saw the new terminal from inside the flight during the pit-stop to Delhi. Fares are coming down for ME connection to TVM/Kochi/Kozikode. So tata byebye to Jet/KF connections be it from Mumbai or Blr.

From all the traveling in India, it looks like folks have not figured out how to do Intl transfers out of the country with a connecting flight from India. Going in is usually slightly better, and varies at times. From my experience only AI has figured it out both ways. I can do thru check in from Kochi/TVM all way to DC on return segments with no issues.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 11 Sep 2012 19:30

With the Dreamliners arriving, word is, after a long time, AI is restarting services to Oz with DEL-MEL.

The more profitable BOM/DEL - SYD slot will be given to Jet.

This is what an AI pilot says.

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 11 Sep 2012 23:10

Good information on the long flights -- thanks.

The catchment area in terms of population for BOM-SFO (West India) or DEL-SFO (North India) is easily large enough to sustain business class only flights, but I agree that it will take a several-fold increase in per capita incomes to make it financially viable. Or perhaps a breakthrough in fuel efficiency.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Sep 2012 23:31

If business class seats only flights were viable would they not be in the offing already for many sectors for the long haul ? I mean why would any airline fill up space with economy seats at all if that were the case. The argument makes very little sense.

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 12 Sep 2012 00:13

I think the business class only flights are smaller than regular flights. If airlines can profitably run a route with x business+y economy seats rather than just x business seats they would obviously do that. Economy seats have a thin margin but are still profitable, so it makes sense for an airline to cram a plane with as many business/first seats as demand can fill and then the remainder with economy seats.

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 12 Sep 2012 00:17

My wife recently did India-SFO in business on Emirates. Great flight with flat beds (and they have a free Mercedes pick up at both ends!), but still a LONG flight nevertheless -- prompting my original question on when the flight times would become more reasonable. Apparently the answer is never.

The awful distance was one of the worst things about living in the Bay Area. Going to California from India was (and still is) like traveling to a different planet.