His reason is the believe that LH would then thin out Vienna and prefer Munich as LH hub.
He claims that OS needs to be under Austrian control and influence.
Ok I am German, but this doesn't have an impact on the logical discussion.
While I can fully understand the desire to keep OS in Austrian hands, I believe he miss judges the Vienna issue.
In times of open sky the developed Vienna hub would be an asset for LH and any other potential airline considering a stake in OS, that should not be given up, rather further developed.
Some of the routes OS recently closed (like Shanghai) could even be reopened by among others utilizing LH ground handling in those destinations and therefore get the route easier profitable. Those customers they have just pumped to MUC themselves by shutting the routs down would probably come back.
So I believe that VIE would be rather more growing with having OS a strong partner then shrinking.
Seeing how ZRH hub is not at all down, but rather growing under Swiss with LH ownership now, I would expect similar for VIE.
The Austrian Minister just doesn't like the German Airline to take it over for national pride and got influenced by OS management who 'hates' LH dominance. (some national feeling I can understand of course, but economically its wrong)
I say that the Minister is on the wrong track here. What do you guys believe?
AustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Typical political b/s. Can't imagine that LH would close down VIE to a only regional hub. Even now, it's a nice airport to navigate through, and with the opening of the new SkyLink terminal next year, that would probably improve.
Second to say, much smaller l/h wise OS hardly can be made, what destinations have they now with 767/777s? JFK, IAD, ORD, YYZ, BKK, DEL, NRT, PEK. Maybe I forgot one or two, but that's hardly a large long-haul network. Most of them aren't even daily, btw.
So I think, OS could only profit from getting under LH control. But then again, our dear politicians would have to find a new company to give some cabinet drop outs highly paid jobs ...
For sure, I'd always prefer VIE to FRA!
Edited for additional thought.
[Edited 2008-05-11 09:19:03]
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
LXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 1316 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 964 times:
Quoting Flyglobal (Thread starter): Seeing how ZRH hub is not at all down, but rather growing under Swiss with LH ownership now, I would expect similar for VIE.
the OS netowrk is very interesting especially when looking at their wide variety of Eastern European destinations not served by LH and LX. Hence I doubt OS will see a decrease in it's long haul network I also wouldn't expect to see it grow drastically, mainly because of MUC and ZRH however it will play a key role in the Lufthansa Group especially because they serve various unique destinatiosn not offered by LH or LX as said.
AviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 1936 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 929 times:
Ah the famous excuse of LH's ambitions of reducing the hub of an acquired competitor and re-routing the passengers via MUC or FRA; we got to hear the same crap when LH was about to acquire LX and are still waiting for ZRH hub to be reduced to a regional one. OS has already been cutting capacity in the past few months, all happening without LH intervention.
What critics seem to forget is that if LH closes down the VIE hub (if they were to take over OS), it does not automatically mean that LH would be able to re-route all of those passengers via FRA, MUC or ZRH. It might even backfire on them, as (pissed off) passengers could easily switch to one of the other major European carriers like AF/KL or BA.
Quoting Flyglobal (Thread starter): Seeing how ZRH hub is not at all down, but rather growing under Swiss with LH ownership now, I would expect similar for VIE.
I admit, I was quite sceptical at the begining, but having seen what LH has done at ZRH is amazing stuff. Besides, why would LH invest millions into LX, then expand LX just to reduce them to a regional status after a few years, wouldn't make sense at all. Same could be applied for OS.
Fiatstilojtd From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 871 times:
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 1): But then again, our dear politicians would have to find a new company to give some cabinet drop outs highly paid jobs ...
Sad, but I have to admit you hit the nail on the head with this sentence. That is their biggest concern.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 7906 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 850 times:
Well the Austrians better pull their head out of the sand, otherwise they might wake up one morning and find their national pride carrier on the brink of a total collapse.
The Swiss experience should really show how well a carrier can do under Lufthansa ownership while still maintaining its brand individuality and hub network.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Fiatstilojtd From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 828 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5): Well the Austrians better pull their head out of the sand, otherwise they might wake up one morning and find their national pride carrier on the brink of a total collapse.
The Austrian people do...since ages, but the politicians don't, thats the problem.
IliriBDL From Germany, joined May 2007, 316 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 806 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
I don't think LH would change VIE's status from a hub to something less. LH knows better than that, so the minister should try another argument against LH overtaking OS.
FlySSC From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 5155 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 710 times:
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 1): Can't imagine that LH would close down VIE to a only regional hub.
VIE is already a "regional hub" on the European scale, compared to FRA, CDG, LHR, AMS, MUC, or even MAD !
OS is a gateway to Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics. They have to play this card if they want to stay competitive. A merging LH-OS à la AF-KL is very possible and would certainly be profitable for OS.
Everybody knows that only 3 "Majors" will lead in Europe BA, AFKL, LHLX.
If medium sized airlines like OS or SK want to continue to exist and play a role, they will have to work in cooperation with one of te 3 Majors in one way or another.
Talaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 670 times:
Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 3): What critics seem to forget is that if LH closes down the VIE hub (if they were to take over OS), it does not automatically mean that LH would be able to re-route all of those passengers via FRA, MUC or ZRH. It might even backfire on them, as (pissed off) passengers could easily switch to one of the other major European carriers like AF/KL or BA.
And don't forget that airports like FRA don't have that much room for expansion either. At least on the short run.
Quoting Flyglobal (Thread starter):
His reason is the believe that LH would then thin out Vienna and prefer Munich as LH hub.
He claims that OS needs to be under Austrian control and influence.
It's clearly all about pride and, as said before, being able to get some friends into nicely paid jobs in the top positions of OS. Having said this, I really don't imagine a future for OS other than with LH. There is only so many destinations VIE can keep from O&D traffic, and I guess those would be maintained and even potentiated. I see it more of a sinergy-seeking investment (reducing costs on airports where they both operate, expand network etc.) than a plain take over to erase competition. With LH expanding to secondary cities, especially in India and China, I'm sure they are willing to keep connecting passangers to "mainstream" destinations in the US and Asia out of the way, so as to free some slots and space in FRA for newer, more niche routes like the recently announced Pune. There's no point on shutting down flights from VIE to say, ORD or PEK when VIE can keep them running on O&D and maybe a small number of connecting passengers.
Why would LH want to set up (yet another) flight to a city it already serves (probably daily) just to feed traffic from an airport that can already bear that flight? It's just a waste of aircraft, slot and money. At least from my point of view.
NG1Fan From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 532 times:
Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 7): I don't think LH would change VIE's status from a hub to something less. LH knows better than that, so the minister should try another argument against LH overtaking OS.
I agree completely with this argument. Unfortunately, they are also playing the 'populist' line and pandering to Kronenzeitung readers.
This notion of national airlines serving the national interest went out when these flag carriers were privatised anyway. OS swallowed NG and VO (and Rheintalfug, if I'm not mistaken). While the gov't still holds a parcel of shares, OS has for ages been operating on 'commercial' principles, paying lipservice only to 'national interests'
In the case of operating a business, the public purse has no relevance. And yes, Austrians are touchy about the large neighbour to the north, but everyday life for the average Austrian will not be affected.
There is also this quaint national tradition wrt to 'politicised' jobs called 'Proporz'. Which means that the ruling parties will split gov't of quasi-gov't jobs according to party affiliation. This is partcularly evident in any public utility, public broadcasting, and, it seems with the airline business (in which the gov't retains a parcel of shares).
So if all these obstacles can be overcome and the business of running the airline can be left to business professionals (as opposed to gov't appartchiks), then it will be for the better. Even if that means LH or any other interest gets involved.
AustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 380 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 8): Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 1):
Can't imagine that LH would close down VIE to a only regional hub.
VIE is already a "regional hub" on the European scale, compared to FRA, CDG, LHR, AMS, MUC, or even MAD !
I am aware of that, that's why I wrote
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 1): Second to say, much smaller l/h wise OS hardly can be made, what destinations have they now with 767/777s? JFK, IAD, ORD, YYZ, BKK, DEL, NRT, PEK. Maybe I forgot one or two, but that's hardly a large long-haul network.
The arguments brought up by our politicians in the past included that if bought by LH, there would be no more l/h flights out of VIE but only commuter service to FRA and MUC. And this is political b/s IMHO.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2061 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 263 times:
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 12): (Reply 1):
Second to say, much smaller l/h wise OS hardly can be made, what destinations have they now with 767/777s? JFK, IAD, ORD, YYZ, BKK, DEL, NRT, PEK. Maybe I forgot one or two, but that's hardly a large long-haul network.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 65 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 79 posts, 
...
From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 1316 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From United States, joined May 2000, 7906 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 5155 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 2008, 27 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 388 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
