Thursday, December 10, 2015

Adria to introduce new Tirana service

Adria Airways to expand Tirana operations in 2016

Adria Airways will launch flights from Tirana to Munich from March 28, 2016, bringing the total number of destinations it serves from the Albanian capital to five. Flights will operate four times per week, each Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, and will replace Lufthansa's existing service, which will cease on March 26. The news comes after Adria's CEO, Mark Anžur, said the airline would scale back its network growth in 2016, although plans to expand operations from Tirana have been on the cards for some time. The Slovenian carrier is maintaining seventeen weekly flights from Tirana this winter season, which includes services to Ljubljana, Frankfurt, Brussels and Paris (operating via the Belgian capital during winter and nonstop during the summer).

Earlier this year, CEO Anžur emphasised Tirana's importance to Adria's network, as well as the carrier's plans for the city. "We have a 5% market share in Tirana and we are the third busiest carrier. Albania is fast growing and traffic is mainly focused on Italy. On the other hand, there is also strong growth in traffic between Albania and Germany", Mr Anžur said. He added, “Next year we plan to base an aircraft in Tirana and have three daily flights to a number of destinations. We are considering at least two new routes. Italy is a very real possibility". The Albanian capital would become Adria's fourth base outside of Ljubljana, complementing Pristina, Lodz and Tallinn (where Adria is operating flights on behalf of Nordic Aviation). Tickets for Adria's new Tirana - Munich service are already on sale through the airline's website. The flights will operate with an Airbus A319 aircraft with further details available here.

Adria plans to add two aircraft to its fleet in 2016 and rationalise its operations in a bid to boost its load factor. "2016 will be a year of consolidation. We will work to maximize the efficiency of existing routes, rather than opening new ones. We have had flight operation problems because of a lack of crew, so we have to fix that and work on our load factor. In 2017, we are planning on growing again significantly", Mr Anžur said. Furthermore, Adria intends on adding a Bombardier CRJ700 aircraft to its fleet next year and an additional, high density, Airbus A319 or A320. At the same time, it will retire its aging CRJ200 jet.

129 comments:

  1. Nice to see another new route but a return ticket on these flights is 220 euros! Who are they kidding with this "hybrid" airline nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can someone explain to me what is it that you get on an Adria flight and what you have to pay. Does this apply to all of their flights or just those to/from Ljubljana?

      Delete
    2. You get terminal check-in and a checked bag. You don't get any food or drink, not even water. I can live with that on 2 hour flights if it saves me 5-10 Euros. This, I believe, applies to all their routes.

      Delete
    3. Thanks. I'm fine with that too. I just think their prices are a bit too high for this concept.

      Delete
    4. You get a sandwich and a drink only on LJU-SVO route.

      Delete
    5. how much cost the water now?

      Delete
    6. Three Euros. ;)

      Delete
  2. Does this mean Lufthansa will no longer be flying to Tirana?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they will end Munich but start Frankfurt next summer. It's operated by Lufthansa Regional.

      Delete
    2. So Adria will compete with Lufthansa on the Frankfurt route.

      Delete
    3. No, it will complement it! Out of TIA with the morning wave at FRA and inwards to TIA in the afternoon wave from MUC.

      Delete
  3. If it didn't work for Lufthansa, why would it work for Adria? Anyway I wish them good luck. I think Tirana is very underserved so it's a good market to be involved with at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because LH is switching to FRA to offer more connections to TIA pax, not because it didn't work for them. If I am not mistaken TIA pax should be able to catch outward connections from MUC in the afternoon/evening and inward connection from FRA in the morning. Such a set up works great for PRN, particularly for North American routes.

      Delete
    2. All that set up competes with JU's flights to America.
      Is it a sign that JP is aligning with the LH group against JU's North American operations?

      Delete
    3. Naravno, sluze LH, samo ce ubrzati njihovu propast

      Delete
    4. Good question! I flew with LH MUC-TIA recently and it was around 60% full. I was wondering if this route is profitable. Now we know the answer. LH is switching to FRA in an last attempt to save the route..

      Delete
    5. Wasn't there a piece of news some time ago on how Wizz Air is/was negotiating with Albanian authorities regarding some flights? It makes me wonder what would become of Adria in TIA if W6 was to enter the market. I am sure quite a few Albanians are using W6 out of Ohrid.

      Delete
    6. Anon 12:37, I also had a flight with LH MUC-TIA at the end of October: almost full. And with JP TIA-LJU at the beginning of November: completely full. However neither your information neither mine proves nothing: These are simply two observations about 3 different flights and nothing else. Come on, how on earth can you come with such a statement on a base of a single flight experience. It is nice to publish a single flight experiences, yes. But that’s it: a single flight experience!

      Delete
  4. OT figures for LJU November growth:
    M2M; 11,2
    Y2Y; 10,7

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Close to 1,5 mio PAX this year. Nice and bravo!

      Delete
  5. LATVIJA DAJE 80 MILIJUNA EUR AIR BALTICU DA NE KUPUJE SSJ

    Latvijski parlament je podržao financijsku injekciju od 80 milijuna EUR kojim želi spriječiti AirBaltic da kupi SSJ i da umjesto toga kupi Bombardierovu CSeriju. Vlada želi spriječiti kupinu SSJ kao dio svojih sankcija protiv Rusije. Prema pravilima EU vlada može investirati u nabavu aviona u državnoj kompaniji samo ako istovemeno postoji i privatni investitor. A on se ponašao u liku i dijelu njemčakog bankara Ralfa Dietera koji će investirati 52 milijuna EUR za 20% dionica Air Baltica.

    Kako se sve lijepo posložilo, baš slučajno... I ni slučajno ovo ne smijemo nazvati niti protekcionizmom, niti protivno liberalnoj ekonomiji u koju se zaklinje EU, niti to smijemo uspoređivati sa mjerama EU koje su dovele do bankrota Maleva, Estoniana, Cyprusa...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Purger, please. Malev, Estonian and Cyprus bankrupted themselves. What a cheap shot to lay the blame at EU's door.

      Delete
    2. Looks like the only country they are putting economic sanctions on is themselves.

      They are paying a lot of money just so they can fly an unproved design when a cheaper and proven design is already offered.

      Delete
    3. Which is the "proven design"? The Sukhoi?
      And Bombardier is the unproven manufacturer? Lol!

      What they are paying this money for is to remain INDEPENDENT from Russia and Putin!
      They did not like being enslaved to the Soviets, just like the vast majority of ex-Soviet union nations and the former Eastern Block nations.
      They want nothing to do with Russia's regime and its oligarchs.
      It is their country and have the right to be independent and not a satellite.

      Delete
    4. @ Nonymous 9:44 AM

      Sure they did. And in all 3 cases EU decision that companies must give back multi-million state injections in company did not have any influence at all to stop operations day or two after EU decision.

      Delete
    5. Last anon.

      You are absolutely right, that's why Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia refused to join Russia's customs union... oh wait.

      Sukhoi has proven to be a good aircraft and Interjet absolutely loves it. Mind you, even if the aircraft originates from Russia, a great percentage of its parts and technologies comes from the West.

      Mind you, the C-series is not doing great and they are struggling to get new customers as well as to finalize the product. Not to mention that the new generation of Embraer jets outperforms them quite a bit.

      Delete
    6. Belarus and Kazakhstan are well known bastions of Democracy. Rules for 20+ years by dictator like "presidents".
      Armenia is unfortunate because it has Turkey in the south and Azerbaijan in the North.
      It needs Russia to protect it.
      The Baltic states thankfully joined the E.U. and Putin can not try to recreate the Soviet Empire with them included.

      Delete
    7. Azerbaijan is to the east of Armenia, Georgia is to the north. Armenia was on path to enter the EU sphere of influence and then in the last minute chose against it and turned to Russia. Anyway, this is a political discussion which has no place here.

      That said, SSJ remains a wonderful regional aircraft and I hope we get to see more of it flying around western Europe.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous @11:07
      Your geographical ignorance only confirms the political one.

      Delete
    9. ovi Baltijci su jos goriji nego mi

      Delete
    10. Anonymus 11:07 what is exactly democracy for you? Which country is democratic? Just a question for you.

      Delete
    11. Purger, you are either significantly less astute than I expected or intentionally misleading with regards to bankruptcies of the airlines in question. EU was not running these airlines when they amassed debt that they could not reply. The airlines' boards did. EU institutions stepped in to ensure that the same market rules apply to all operators. Applying the same rules to all operators does not bankrupt airlines, incompetent management does. Needless to say, the system is not perfect, far from it. But blaming the EU for the bankruptcy of an airline is outright wrong and inaccurate. As a EU taxpayer I am glad that we have joint institutions that ensure we all act and operate within the same legal framework and the same rules apply to all. I can assure you the Hungarians, the Estonians and the Cypriots were fully aware of the legal framework and regulations.

      Delete
    12. Yes, what you are writing is theory which is not always applied in practice. Can you please tell me how the aid CY got was any different from the one JP got? Or how the one BT got was unlike the one MA received?

      I can speak for CY and they weren't ruined by their board but by the government which ignored the problem for way too long. The airline was also bullied into getting the A332 in stead of the B763 which would have been a much better fit.

      Delete
    13. Exactly my point Nemjee...

      Delete
    14. "Applying the same rules to all operators does not bankrupt airlines, incompetent management does. "

      So why don't we do it retroactively and order BA/AF/LH to repay all the state subsidies since say 1930's or 1950's if to be generous?

      Delete
    15. Anon 2:25 +1

      Purger,

      Thank you for sharing this. I was it yesterday and i was laughing. For all of you that say politics and aviation don't mix only in exYu, I hope you got your answer.

      Delete
    16. Nemjee (and by implication Purger),
      I anticipated that you would join the discussion because you’re a Cypriot I gather.
      Again, you both surprise me with your arguments. I am not arguing the EU framework is perfect, far from it, however if practice does not match theory then you can challenge a legal decision in court. There are means to do so.
      The difference between the ‘loans’ that CY and JP received from their respective governments probably lied in the fact that one had a chance, albeit small, to eventually repay the loan and the other had none whatsoever. Perhaps one had assets that objectively could cover a significant part of the loan and the other had not. And, very importantly, perhaps because in the case of BT a private investor is contributing a EUR 52 million investment in addition to the EUR 80 million investment by the Latvian government as majority stakeholder. If MA was able to find a private investor to put in 65% of the amount that the Hungarian government investment then perhaps the European Commission would have ruled differently.
      But the absolutely critical point that you made, and Purger stated that he ‘exactly’ agreed with you, is in your second paragraph. CY was bankrupted (ruined in your words) by the Cypriot government (its majority stakeholder), which is exactly my point. It was at this point that it became clear that airlines like CY were not operated as sound businesses, had no chance of ever returning the government ‘loans’ and, therefore, the ‘loans’ are tantamount to state aid. Hence, illegal.
      Stopping ‘state aid’ does not bankrupt businesses because such businesses are already bankrupt in a market economy. Their outgoing are higher than their income and have no funds of their own to fill the gap nor can they find a private (non-state) investor to take a financial risk and fill even part (perhaps more than 10-20%) of that gap. This is anti-competitive when they are competing with the likes of A3, U2, BA, LH, or W6.
      Anonymous 2:25 PM, if such regulations existed in the 1930s or 1950s then both MA and CY should have taken BA, AF and LH to the European Commission. As I stated in my previous post, MA and CY should have been fully aware of what market they were joining in 2004, and I can assure they did. You can’t have your cake (EU aid of all sorts) and eat it!

      Delete
    17. But what you said there is someone in EU who decide if some company have chance to survive and by that standard decide would EU put sanctions or not. Come on, I really hope it is not working that way and I hope EU does not make existential decisions by someone subjective discretionary decisions. It would be more than questionable and illegal.

      In same time how can EU know if there would be investor in Malev when they announce that Malev should return money to Hungary. It was not even the subject of the investigation or decision. Let me remind you it was very fast, EU wait for several years from real event doing nothing, not even formal or informal investigation and then very urgently ordered „return“ in just few days. That decision influence potential passengers not to use Malev because they were afraid that Malev would bankrupt (so they will not be able to use ticket they would pay for) and in same time Shell and other suppliers for same reason ask for paying in advance. There is no company which can survive that. So Malev run out of cash in just few days, doesn’t matter they had enough cash for several month before EU announcement. I am not really for conspiracy theory but why they wait 6 years without investigation, why they react so urgent after not doing anything for 6 years, why they did not give some time for Malev to find buyer… But for sure Malev urgent termination of operations was benefit for Ryanair who luckily just had 7 planes and crew to jumping into gap, and, what is bizarre, BUD airport which profit from contract with Hungary that in such case it will be paid from Hungarian budget for difference in traffic.

      Delete
    18. Actually, the law is the law and it shouldn't operate any other way. As far as CY goes, Aegean was offering to buy it a few months before the shutdown. With that in mind it made it the most stable airline among the ones we mentioned above yet it still failed.
      BT shouldn't have survived especially not since it is located in a much smaller and poorer market than Cyprus.

      At the end of the day, both Hungary and Cyprus were problematic for the EU while Slovenia and Latvia were both far more docile to the austerity measures and whatnot coming from Brussels. Unfortunately when it comes to EU policies there is more than mere logic, there is a lot of interest above everything else. Trust me, I have been working as a lobbyist since 2012.

      Delete
    19. Gents, I genuinely respect both of you but we have to agree to disagree today.

      European Commission does not decide if an airline survives or not, but looks into whether an airline within the European Union market is getting an unfair advantage over other airlines. I am happy about that. Sure at times this favours the big boys, but everyone within the EU has a say. So does Cyprus and Greece and they oversee the analysis that is done by experts that are superior to all three of us combined. I trust the institutions and I absolutely, completely reject any conspiracy proposition.

      Again, we're moving very deeply into politics and I want this to be my last contribution on this topic. I have many years of experience working on 'investigations' and as an investigator we are always looking at finding the route cause of a problem. In my opinion, you are both utterly wrong on this topic. The route cause of the demise of CY is the management of the airline and the majority stakeholder is behind the management. Their failure manifested itself in illegal state aid. OK, I concede, perhaps both JP and BT should have been asked to return their state 'loans,' although I believe the findings of the European Commission, but what has caused the bankruptcy of these airlines is bad management. Absolutely no doubt about that. So, we can argue about the findings of the EC but in a market economy these airlines were well and truly bankrupt before the EC even began to investigate them. Otherwise, no state owned company would ever have to go bankrupt, i.e. hello North Korea and fantastic financial results of every state owned company under the leadership of the Dear Leader.

      Before I go, one more point to make (a completely political one): would it be fair to expect a fellow European to pay up Cypriot government debts while the same government expects to be able to lend to a failing airline EUR 60 million, who in turn competes with the likes of U2, for example, that has to operate within the rules of a market economy?

      Delete
    20. Real topic here is if EU really follow its rules or not? Or to be more specific does it have double standards? It can not be that in one case it is a rule, and in other, well we will not follow them so strict. That is not "same conditions" and basics of "liberal economy".

      It can not be about investment (as Nemjee said Aegean and Ryanair was running for buying Cyprus so company had future). Also Malev was not in good shape but was not near to bankrupt. It was result in panic of potential passengers and suppliers. On that way EU can make panic in any airline, bank etc.

      But one more thing, can you tell us different in BT or JP that did not have to give back subventions and CY, MA or OV that was forced to bankrupt because of state subventions.

      P.S.
      And if EU job is to force all companies that does not have chance to survive than at least 60% of EU airlines will be shut down. For sure that is not job of "liberal economy dedicated institution".

      Delete
    21. I never said I disagreed when it came to who is to blame for CY's demise, or MA's for that matter. What I was getting at is that there is a reason why the capital of the European Union is nicknamed 'Fort Brussels.' A lot of decisions which are taken internally are done without transparency and with little consultation with outside agents. It's mostly done between EU bureaucrats in Brussels. Cyprus Airways was dead in November but it was kept artificially alive until the end of the holidays since so many people booked their flights already.
      I mentioned Aegean's wish to purchase CY because one of their requirements was for the government to completely withdraw itself from the airline and to allow them to fire as many people as they wanted. The government agreed to this but Brussels refused to acknowledge this proposal because they said it was too late. Once the government changed Aegean was no longer interested, especially since their merger with Olympic got the green light.
      The real reason why they refused to do this is because they wanted the Communist regime gone. They had their candidate lined up who was ready to do all they wanted- which he eventually did.
      There was a list of companies that needed to be shut down and unfortunately CY was one of them. Mind you, CY only started recording losses after 2000. Before that it was highly profitable.


      And to answer your question as someone who lived in Cyprus both before and after the EU accession. In case of Cyprus they should have because for a whole decade (2004-2014) Cyprus was one of the rare countries in the Union that gave more money to Brussels than it got in return. Cyprus never entered the EU for economic reasons, it did because Greece convinced them to do it for military and security reasons. Funny thing is that when CY entered the Union we were one of the rare countries where prices actually went down. So it would have been moral if Cyprus was helped in its time of need but all they got was that its citizens were robbed through the shameful bail-in programme. However, that's life... and politics. :)

      Delete
  6. ponedjeljak 7.12. u 19:25 Fort de France - Paris Orly
    Air France Boeing 777-300
    99%
    kasnio 3:55 sati (taman 5 minuta manje od roka u kome bi nam morali platiti po 300 EUR)

    utorak 8.12. u 15:25 Paris CDG - Zagreb
    Air France Embraer 190
    92%
    kasnio 30 minuta

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Purger,

      Da kojim slucajem ne znate kakva je popunjenost na OU letovima za Pariz? Jel imaju codeshare ili interline sa AF?

      Delete
    2. Imaju code-share sa AF i to AF stvarno koristi. Zbor toga je OU i prešla na terminal 2D (radi konekcija jer AF je na 2E), dok je prije bila na Star Allianceovom terminalu 1. Ovisno o konekciji najčešće u jednom smjeru budem na OU, a drugom na AF. I sada sam trebao biti na OU letu u povratku, ali su me rerutirali radi kašnjenja od 4 sata iz FDF.

      Popunjenost OU je izuzetno dobra na CDG. Koristim ovu liniju 10-tak puta godišnje i popunjenost je uvijek preko 80% nemalo puta i 90%, pa čak i više.

      Radi toga i AF od 3. mjeseca Embraer 190 HOP!a zamjenjuje sa vlastitim A318. To je povečanje AF kapaciteta od 31% iliti 22.692 dodatna sjedala godišnje. I Croatia vrlo često koristi A320 na ovoj liniji umjesto A319.

      Delete
    3. OU's Ex-Yu routes are feeding AF's latin america routes

      Delete
    4. Moiim Nemjee i drugi put.

      Delete
  7. This is the same case with another legacy/hybrid/whatever the hell they call themselves/Company officially known as Brussels Airlines.
    VIE-BRU return usually costs eur 300 and yet same story as with Adria - u get nothing on board

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brussels Airlines is successful though and expanding.

      Delete
    2. You can fly from BRU to ZAG for just 80€ with Brussels Airlines!

      Delete
  8. OT: Adria today (right now on press conference) shows his brand new entertainment system on board of all a/c https://www.adria.si/en/onair-magazine/article/theres-something-new-in-the-air/

    ReplyDelete
  9. MUC-TIA-MUC with LH is under 200€ constantly (130€-200€)!

    a MUC-SKP flight with the same pricing would be very competitive (a bus to sh*tty FMM alone cost 30€ return). I dont get it why LH is leaving SKP entirely to overpriced OS. Such a shame!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If LH is scared of W6,it wouldnt fly to BEG and SOF too

      Delete
    2. MUC flights will be half O&D and transfer pax a totally different market

      Delete
    3. Sorry but you can't compare the BEG and SOF markets with SKP.

      Delete
    4. W6 don't fly to Munich. They fly to Memmingen which is 150 km from Munich. You can't compare the 2 things.

      Delete
    5. MUC-TIA-MUC is not below 200 on a regular basis. Quite the opposite actually. And the problem with the current MUC flight is that it leaves relatively early and it makes it very hard to connect from many arriving flights. So it wasn't an ideal connecting flight. The Frankfurt flight leaves a little later, which makes it much better for connecting flights.

      Delete
    6. it is uder 200€. Go and check the fares!

      Delete
  10. A nije Nuznet, na zalost...danas potrpеdsеdnica Vladе Srbijе i ministarka građеvinarstva, saobraćaja i infrastrukturе, prof. dr Zorana Mihajlović razgovarala sa ambasadorom Mеksika u Srbiji, Hosеom Evaristom Ramonom Šilotlom Ramirеzom. "AVIO LINIJA DO NJUJORKA MOGLA BI BITI PRODUŽЕNA I DO MЕKSIKA"
    http://mgsi.gov.rs/lat/aktuelnosti/avio-linija-do-njujorka-mogla-bi-biti-produzena-i-do-meksika

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A ovo je jedna od vecih gluposti koje sam pročitao u životu. Zašto osoba koja nema ni najmanjeg pojma o zračnom prometu iznosi gluposti u javnost? Pa ovo nije glupost ovo je idiotarija na 90. potenciju:

      - to bi bilo financijsko samoubojstvo,

      - operacijski to je enormno teško izvedivo i koštalo bi enormno,

      - za Meksiko nema putnika iz Beograda,

      - isto bi ubilo JFK liniju,

      - zna li ministrica da su one stop linije ogroman izuzetak i to samo za ekstremno dugačke linije (što ni Mexico, ni JFK nisu) - što da joj se objašnjava da duplanje aerodromski taksi, vrlo nizak LF na drugom legu uz nedostatak 5. slobode na istom znači financijski gubitak, što da joj se objašnjava utilizacija flote, zna li ona što je to rotacija, koliko traje turnaround, zna li ona uopće kolka je minimalno prihvatiljiva frekvenicija letova prema JFK, zna li kako izgleda groun podrška na pojedinom aerodromu i da to nije kao autobus da dođeš na kolodvor istovariš putnike i utovariš nove i još 100 drugih pitanja

      - zna li ministrica kolika je udaljenost Mexika i JFK?

      - zna li ministrica da nema aviona za to (sa jednim avionom mogle bi se odraditi tek 3 rotacije do Mexika via JFK)

      E bože mili ovo je definitivno GLUPOST GODINE, a tu je konkurencija u regiji stvarno velika!!!!

      Hahahahaha... nemogu stati smijati se. Što bi Balašević rekao: "Mislim da je ludnica kada ostala otključana.... Pre ih zatvarali a danas ih stave ravne pred kamere". Nije sramota ne znati, sramota je iznositi gluparije jer ne znaš!!! I takva osoba je potpredsjednica Vlade Srbije?

      Razumijem potrebu za političkom linijom prema JFK i ona bi još i mogla imati neke šanse (ovakvim konceptom male, ali hajde Srbija bi si financijski mogal priuštiti tu avanturu, a i nešto benefita bi to moglo donositi), ali ovo nadilazi prepotenciju i glupost. Ako ovakvi likovi instuiraju Air Serbiu i stvaraju njenu poslovnu politiku onda ta kompanija nema nikakve šanse u budućnosti.

      Delete
    2. *ground

      Uzgled što je i gdje doktorirala dopredsjednica vlade?

      Delete
    3. Ja predlazem: BEG-JFK-MEX-PEK-BEG. I tako u krug.

      Delete
    4. Na ekonomskom. Al(a)busov kadar.

      Delete
    5. Da se radi o ORD ili YYZ pa da i razumem ali ovo su sve gluposti .
      INN-NS

      Delete
    6. Dal ovu zenu jos neko smatra za ozbiljno?

      Delete
    7. E moj Alene, danas nam je predsednik u Buenos Ajresu pa mozda i produze liniju do dole...

      Delete
    8. Hoces reci da bi tebi imalo smisla da JU leti BEG-ORD/YYZ-MEX? :D

      Delete
    9. Moze odma ko JAT sto je imao 10 sto overa do SYD , JFK-MEX-EZE-ADD-BEG.
      INN-NS

      Delete
    10. Ma dajte ljudi ko i ranih pedesetih kad je postojala linija

      BEG-ZAG-GRZ-VIE-MUC-PRG-WAW, tako i sad JU treba bit inovativna pa napravit liniju:

      BEG-JFK-YYZ-MEX-LAX-SFO-NRT-PEK i nazad.

      Hahahaha...

      Kažeš na ekonomskom? Pa dobri vam doktori ekonomije. Svaka čast.

      Mi na CAF-u imamo nagradu Ivana Rimac (to je ona novinarka koja je rekla da A380 ima dva kokpita i sliječe na brod koji ga transportira iz HAM za TLS). Do sada su ljudi osvajali razinu gluposti od 0,1 do 0,7 Rimaca (samo Ivana Rimac je zaslužila 1,0 Rimca). Ova glupost je zaslužila bar 2,5 Rimca.

      Delete
    11. Alene ti misliš da ministarka zna što je one stop.

      Delete
    12. Najjaca je sa glupostima dr Danica Popovic ona ih ovekovecuje u dnevnom tisku Politika. Ona kao redovni profesor ne zna sta je to underwater mortgage pri tome nju i muza placaju Ameri.

      Delete
    13. Ali ovo je
      - prof.dr.
      - ministrica
      - DOPREDSJEDNICA Vlade

      Halooooo! Prof. dr. i DOPREDSJEDNICA Vlade! Bože mili...

      I misli da je zrakoplovna linija prigradski autobus pa ju malo produžiš i ubaciš koju stanicu... Le-le!!!!

      Delete
    14. MEGATREND kadar !

      Delete
    15. Profesor (redovni) je vise od svega toga. Njima niko nista ne moze. Tako i Danici. Jbt vi ste vase slucajeve korupcije na univerzitetu barem obradili sudski nasi u Kragujevcu i dalje nista.

      Delete
    16. @5:08 ne lupetaj.

      Delete
    17. loše je kada je netko prof.dr. i ovako nešto provali. kada je netko ministar u isto vrijeme to je smak svijeta. a dopredsjednik vlade... o bože...

      no pa i "najprviji" premijer je rekao da je Air Serbija veća od svih ostalih exYu kompanija zajedno; pa da je BEG prvi aerodrom na Balkanu (jel daleko veći Atena, Thesaloniki, Heraklion, Bucharest i Istanbul prema njegovoj nepogriješivosti očito nisu na Balkanu); pa da politički razlozi priječe JU da kupi 4 kompanije u regiji... i niz drugih nebuloza od kojih smo se isto vrijeme smijali i povračali. Onda je i za očekivati da nižerangirana broj 2 smije lupati ovakve gluparije.

      Delete
    18. Meksiko, Kuba, Dominikanska Republika, Tajland... da li Er Srbija planira da bude konkurencija Condoru?

      Delete
  11. I CTN je trebao da se ugleda na ADR i da pocne sa ovakvim poslovanjem.
    INN-NS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marko za to treba imati m*da pa zaprijetiti malo LH da ti ova onda da svoje linije. A u Croatiji ne da nemaju mu*a nego gledaju kako da još više daju da ih LH nagu*i. Sve čekam kad će ih pitat "jel vam možemo poklonit koji avion za Božić".

      Delete
    2. Kako ima ADR i koja je razlika mogli su svoje Q400 zaposliti zimi kod LX ka OS sto radi ili kod SN ista situacija.
      Jel se zna koji Rj ce na kraju doci , hvala unapred?
      INN-NS

      Delete
    3. Ma pitanje je hoće li RJ uopće doći il je to još jedna dječja priča kojih smo se toliko naslušali do sada. A i ako dođe onda je to stvar odluke LH koja će se riješiti aviona koji im ne trebaju, a ne OU i njihovih stvarih potreba.

      Mogli su oni svašta nešto, ali nisu. Već sam jednom postavio pitanje:

      - kako to da u LJU ne lete ni LH, ni LX (prestaje letjeti 6.1.), ni SN, ni OS, nego za njih leti samo i isključivo JP u code-share, a istovremeno u ZAG je tržište podjeljeno 50:50

      - kako to da Austrian koji leti iz svakog sela u široj regiji nema jedino interesa u LJU

      - kako to da JP leti iz još 3 baze i to večinu linija za Lufthansine hubove umjesto LH i pulena, zašto isto to ne čini i OU. OU kilavi čak i sa reciprocitetnim letovima iz hrvatskih destinacija prema LH hubovima, a kamoli da je preuzimala LH linije diljem Europe

      - kako to da Lufthansin LCC Germanwings koji je oruđe za LH ekspanziju i širenje interesa ima najveći broj destinaciju upravo u Hrvatskoj (ona mu je najveće tržište izvan Njemačke sa čak 30 linija), a da istovremeno nema ni jednu jedinu liniju iz LJU.

      I pritom mislim da je to stvar sposobnosti Adrije i nesposobnosti te nedostatka mu*a Croatije.

      Delete
    4. Ja znam da sam cuo od jednog LH inspektora ili sta li je vec ne znam strucan naziva .
      Da je njima veci prioritet HR od SLO zbog turista i zbog toga da kasiraju dobro .
      Naprimer slucaj LX trebali su im regionalni Avioni trebali su prvo pitati CTN dali oni hoce to da lete a ne OS .
      Ali ja licno mislim da se tu radi da Manegment CTN nije zaintresovan kao vecina ljudi u EX YU sa stavom nista se ne isplati ne treba ni pokusati.
      INN-NS

      Delete
    5. Kao što rekoh, CTN ne koristi ni izbliza sve privilegije koje mu nudi Star Alliance, a kamoli da forsira neke stvari koje bi mogli isforsirati da malo pokažu zube. I tu ti Marko vrijede tri pravila tako tipična za Hrvate:

      1. Mi smo veći pape od Pape, pa ako EU nešto ima definirano zakonom mi moramo biti još stroži, još "bolji", još veći europejci, još "kvalitetniji".

      2. Mi tako volimo biti bečki konjušari pa se u beskraj ulizujemo gazdama. Jednostavno kada netko prdne u Lufthansi mi brzo jako udahenmo da posišemo sav smrad da drugima ne smrdi, još gore da ne zasmrdi samom vlasniku prdeca. Kad EU kaže mi bi vas odozada mi se ne osudimo pitati niti da li smijemo vazelin koristit da se oni ne bi naljutili, pa nek boli nije bitno.

      3. Naš vječni kompleks je bolje biti zadnji u gradu nego prvi na selu. To je netorna glupost. A upravo radi toga sve što je Njemačko, pa čak i kad znamo da je sto puta gore, za nas je savršeno. Upravo stoga naši genijalci bi sto puta radije bili minijaturni feeder Lufthansi nego lider u regiji.

      4. I još tome dodaj i ekstremnu nesposobnost uprave, koja ne razlikuje Sabenu od Brusselsa...

      I zato mi se ne usudimo ni pitati, a kamoli pokazati zube, koliko god oni bili majušni.

      Kad je Matković bio kandidat za CEO-a i rekao mi ako ga odaberu prvo odlazi u Frankfur, rekao sam mu "ni u ludilu" nego da

      1. Ode u Dohu na razgovore sa Qatarom (tada Qatar još nije ni letio za ZAG)

      2. Nakon toga stane u Istanbulu i razgovara sa Turkishem.

      3. Tek nakon toga ode u Frankfurt.

      Čak i da je samo popio kavu u Dohi i Istanbulu sa trećim savjetnikom zamjenika direktora Lufthansa bi ga potpuno drugačije gledala. Vjeruj mi u mom poslu minijaturni, nebitni igrači, čim krenu raditi sa konkurencijom odmah nešo dobiju od mene, neku besplatnu uslugu, nešto opreme, bolje uvjete... Naravno tu treba znati mjeru, ne treba pretjerivati, jer kada velikog naljutiš onda te zgnječi ko muhu, ali da se može malo zasiktati, o da, može. A njihove mrvice nama su egzistencija!

      P.S.
      Marko, pa ti znaš normalno komunicirati. Svaka pohvala! Tako treba Sine, to je dobar način...

      Delete
    6. To je za sad svugde u EX YU da se dvore zapadu osim u R Srpskoj .
      Ali svi znamo da je CTN mogao biti prava profitabilna kompanija.
      A st se tice RJ ja mislim da ce napraviti potpuni fijasko.
      Ali koliko svi vidimo da CTN vodi rat sa kompanijama iz sobstvene alijanse ni malo nema saradnje cak koliko ja vidim ih vise postuje AF na liniji za CDG nego LH na liniji za FRA.
      Zato sto ljudi iz ADR spominju mogucu kupovinu QR zato ih sad LH stiti.
      INN-NS

      Delete
    7. E pa dok češ normalno komunicirati ja ću uvijek rado sudjelovati u tome.

      Ne mislim da je RJ loša opcija za CTN, taj avion im opako treba. Naravno ja sam uvijek daleko više za Embraer nego za CRJ, ali tko mene pita. Kako god, koji god da dođe to je ogroman dodataka za CTN i to će bitno poboljšati efikasnosti kompanije, te prihode. Manji avion će omogućiti povečanje frekvencija, ali i letove na destinacije koje do sada nisu bile moguće, a nadam se da će to značiti i prekid totalnih kretenluka poput letanja sa Q400 za BRU i CPH.

      Delete
  12. since this is a MUC topic:

    Germania new flights MUC-PRN 4 weekly

    ReplyDelete
  13. OT: http://beobuild.rs/aerodrom-beograd-stari-planovi-u-novoj-godini-p2580.html

    Ukratko, odlaže se produžetak hodnika C na neodređeno vreme.

    Mislim da će biti ovako: radi se samo za apsolutni minimum za jedan avion za Njujork, JU A330 će biti negde na C3-4 kao kad je bio QR A330. Produžetak C hodnika onda nema razloga da bude gotov pre leta 2017 do kada će valjda doći još jedan A330. Tek onda će POČETI da renoviraju stare A gejtove, pa dok se sredi pista, vatrogasci i ostala infrastruktura, ovim tempom novi terminal neće biti napravljen i predat u upotrebu za manje od 10 godina! Ili nemaju nameru da Air Serbia ozbiljno raste, ili će biti veći haos nego leto na SPU, ili će budući vlasnik aerodroma da izvuče nekog keca iz rukava!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. kako to? pa BEG je rekordno profitabilan? ima se para ko pljeve, što se na rekonstruira?

      il možda sad na naplatu stiže to što se Air Serbija financira preko BEG?

      il se to pokazuje da je prošle dvije godine profitabilnost bila lažna, jer se temelji na uplati države na ime starih dugova Jata koje su uplate gotovo odmah vračene preko dividende istoj toj državi. A pare samo prošle račun da se prikaže navodna profitabilnost.

      kreativno knjigovodstvo? Ma što god... ovo je čistokrvna prevara i kriminal.

      i što sad? Nema se para za širenje, onda se širenje Air Serbije mora raditi na ime smanjenja prometa drugih kompanija u BEG za koje nema mjesta (niti u glavama političara kojima JU mora rasti, ali ni fizički na aerodromu).

      OK, ali tko će plačati račune ako stranaca ima sve manje, a Air Serbija ne plača?

      I dokle će ovaj kvazi sistem moći funkcionirati?

      Delete
    2. Nauci vise da jos ima gejtova u BGD vise nego u ostatku exYU. Za preko Atlantika dovoljno je samo na A1 ugraditi dupli aviomost. Potrebnija su stajalista za avione. I da se ponovo ucini dostupnom aerodromska terasa.

      Delete
    3. Ništa novo, ništa neočekivani imajući u vidu postojanje Saše Vlaisavljevića kao takvog, ali i stratešku odluku da profit ova dva preduzeća (JU i BEG) zapravo ide 100% u JU, pa sad kako to nazvali - subvencija, poklon, šta god.

      Međutim, ja ne vidim da je BEG na granici kapaciteta, a teško da će to biti u narednih 5-6 godina. Taj aerodrom može da opslužuje još ovoliko putnika bez problema, samo sa ograničenjem u slotovima za vreme špiceva.

      Delete
    4. E sad ovo sa brojem gejtova je Vučileva logika. Ti stvarno misliš da BEG ima više gejtova nego ZAG, DBV, SPU, SKP, SJJ, LJU, TGD, TIV, ZAD, PUY, RJK, OHR... zajedno? Svaka čast na realnosti.

      E sad ako BEG ima dovoljno kapaciteta onda CEO i ministrica i premijer lažu jer već dvije godine govore da nema i da treba uči ili u koncesiju ili dogradnju. Ili mi želiš reči da će BEG idućih godina padati po broju putnika pa će i ovi kapaciteti biti dovoljni?

      Beograd ima 27 gajtova (16 od toga su airbridge). Air Serbija ima 20 aviona, od čega realno koristi 17, a dolazi bar jedan A330. To je 18 aviona. Jel to znači da BEG ne smije da primi istovremeno više od 9 ostalih aviona u valovima Air Serbije, te znači li to da će BEG uvesti slotove? Konačno zar Air Serbija više ne planira rasti. Što ako nabave još 3-4 aviona. Koliko će onda biti "ostatak" za ostale prijevoznike?

      Delete
    5. Opsluzivao je BEG i 36 JAT-ovih aviona of čega 5 desetki u jedno vreme..

      Delete
    6. Isti oni pominju i drugu pistu, i let do Mexico DF i tome slično, ne bih baš sve uzimao za ozbiljno. I takođe ne, ne kažem da će broj putnika padati, baš naprotiv - i uprkos tome mislim da BEG ima još dosta neiskorišćenog kapaciteta.

      Ako zaista ovaj JU sa duplo manje aviona nego što ih je nekada imao ne može da stane na BEG... Proširenje B stajanke ili dodatni bus gejtovi kod C stajanke može da se završi za mesec-dva. Takođe, 9 "ostalih aviona" je zapravo baš mnogo, a ne dolaze svi u isto vreme. Uz minimalno radova, tih 9 može postati i 20 ako treba, a sam terminal nije preopterećen.

      Opet, ponavljam, super bi bilo da postoji nova zgrada. Da li je to najprioritetnija moguća stvar - nije. Terminal je relativno udoban, u dobrom stanju, čak i uz jedan ili dva A330 neće se ništa značajno desiti u pogledu gužve.

      Delete
    7. Razvoj aerodroma ne radi se od danas za sutra. Kakve takve planove koje su objavili pre malo vise od 6 meseci vec su, po recima Igora iz Beobuilda, odlozili. Nije pitanje da li ce sledeceg leta avion za Njujork ici sa postojecih gejtova, to je potpuno sigurno, pitanje je kad ce vec jednom poceti dugo odlagana gradnja novih gejtova ili novog terminala? Kako sad izgleda - NIKAD. A izjave da je sadasnje stanje terminala adekvatno ne zelim da komentarisem jer ne zelim da psujem a bez psovki ne moze se opisati pravo stanje.

      Delete
    8. 1. Jat je imao potpuno drugačiju koncepciju letova, osamdesetih godina hubovi nisu postojali, još manje sustav valova, a konekcije su bile više stvar slučaja ili dugog čekanja na aerodromu, nego praksa sustavnih valova ili planiranih konekcija. Tako da odjednom nije bilo više od 10-15 aviona na gateovima.

      2. Dobar dio Jatove flote letio je i iz drugih gradova, ponajviše iz ZAG, SKP, SPU, DBV, SJJ, LJU, i to na mađusobnim linijama bez dodirivanja BEG ili u inozemstvo.

      3. U to vrijeme bilo je daleko manje stranih kompanija koje su letjele u BEG, čak štoviše bitno više stranih kompanija letjelo je za ZAG nego za BEG.

      I ja se pitam kako to da je prije par mjeseci na sva zvona naglašavano kako je kapacitet blizu popunjenosti i da se mora pristupiti širenju, a sada se od toga odustaje. Očito je da novaca nema jer drugog razloga ne mogu dokučiti.

      Delete
    9. Nema para, za sada.. Za sve.. bice

      Delete
    10. Izvini avio mostova dok se ne zavrsi Zag valjda si to shvatio kada pominjem stajanke za avione. Znaci ima dovoljno kapaciteta do 10 miliona putnika. Razne igre da se izmuzu pare za investicijesu samo zasad igre.

      Delete
    11. @6:43 nekada su avioni stajali ispred A izlaza to se valjda zove B stajanka sada tamo retko parkiraju uglavnom tamo iza C (barem kad idem da skupljam sa aerodroma).

      Delete
    12. Anonymous 10:19
      Avio most je gate kao i svaki drugi, osim što je udobniji. Čak i Zagreb ima 16 gateova. Avio most ne povečava protočnost punika niti kapacitete. Na MUC ima jako puno gatova koji nisu avio mostovi, zapravo ne pamtim kad sam zadnji puta ušao na terminal u MUC preko avio mosta. I CDG ima jako puno gateova na E, F, G, K konkursima 2. terminala, koji nisu avio mostovi.

      Dakle argument da BEG ima 16 avion mostova govori o njegovoj udobnosti, nikako ne o kapacitetima i jesu li oni dostatni.

      Odakle informacija da BEG ima 10 milijuna putnika kapaciteta, ja sam čuo da je kapacitiran za 7. No, kapaciteti pritom ne znače samo vršno opterečenje (val) nego se računaju na temelju iskorištenosti cijeli dan. Znači, da je u vršnom opterečenju (Air Serbijini valovi) aerodrom preopterečen sa 5 milijuna putnika.

      Svi mi koji smo putovali kroz BEG u jednom od JU valova znamo koja je ludnica tamo u to doba. O vrlo lošem stanju gateova A6 do A10 bolje ni ne govoriti. To je stvarno ispod svakog nivoa i izgleda vrlo ružno i nereprezentativno.

      Iskreno se nadam da će se povečati upotreba teminala 1, kvalitetnije korištenje kompletnog prostora (a pohvalno je da su napušteni prostori na prvom katu novog terminala iskorišteni i stavljeni u funkciju), da će se otvoriti više sadržaja unutar međunarodne zone (poglavito ugostiteljskih objekata kojih ozbiljno fali) te da će se otvoriti novi gateovi za autobusni ukrcaj jer u protivnom BEG će već ovog ljeta imati vrlo ozbiljnih problema.

      Delete
    13. Čak nije ni istina da BEG ima više zračnih mostova od ostalih aerodroma exYU:

      SKP 6
      PRN 3
      LJU 4
      SJJ 2
      DBV 2
      ostali 17
      BEG 16

      Delete
    14. Da li si ti toliko blesav? Prebroj bridzeve i stajanke za avione u Veneciji. BEG treba samo bolju sortirnicu prtljaga sve ostalo je OK. Zaista postedite me tih glupavih prica o guzvi na BEG aerodromu nije ni prineti pojedinim ostrvima na JFK ili na Malpensi ponekad. Ili Split leti.

      Delete
    15. @11:01 jbg otvorili ste dbv ove godine.

      Delete
    16. Da SPU je pakao i iskreno ga izbjegavam ljeti ko vrag tamijan. Ako imam alternative ne letim preko SPU. No, to ne opravdava BEG. Ako biram između transfera preko BEG ili VIE uvijek odabirem VIE osim ako cijena JU nije daleko niža. To je poanta cijele priče. Mislim da svatko tko smatra da BEG ne treba proširenje, obziljno osuvremenjavanje, face lifting i više ugostiteljskih i drugih sadržaja ili nije realan ili nije otputovao dalje od Balkana.

      No, ovdje se ne raspravlja o tome treba li ili ne, prije dva mjeseca svi su govorili da treba, i putnici, i javnost, i političari, i sam CEO. Treba postaviti pitanje zašto se od toga sada odustaje? Bojim se da na vidjelo kreću prve podljedice sustava financiranja Air Serbije.

      Delete
    17. Ja nisam, tvrdio sam i onda da je gornji kapacitet sadasnjeg oko 10 miliona putnika pusti bandu Dinkicevaca i Vucicevaca. Brini ti bolje o ctn-u.

      Delete
    18. "BEG treba samo bolju sortirnicu prtljaga sve ostalo je OK"

      Egzemplar pogresnog razmisljanja! Ne postoji "okej", postoji samo "sta mozemo bolje da uradimo za ove pare", jer konkurencija ne stoji. Zagreb pravi novi aerodrom, Budimpesta je dobila SkyCourt, Bec i dalje odvlaci putnike. Niko normalan nece reci da je stanje A6 do A10 u odnosu na nove aerodrome okej.

      Da je tako "sve je OK" razmisljala Er Srbija ne bi napravili novi premijum salon, pa vec ima "OK" salon. Nije OK i moze i mora bolje ako hoces da opstanes na trzistu. Nacin razmisljanja mora da se promeni.

      Delete
    19. Ne lupetaj. Napravili su svoj salon kao mnoge kompanije sto imaju svoje salone po vecim aerodromima nece se valjda gurati sa putnicima LH. I zapusili usta delu hejtera. Da li ces ti da izvuces pare iz svog dzepa za novi giga mega aerodrom u Surcinu? Neces nego samo drobis da ti ne budu usta pusta.

      Delete
    20. Nije ni Hrvatska izvukla pare iz svog dzepa za novi aerodrom u Zagrebu. Ako ne znas kako da nabavis pare za aerodrom pusti druge.

      Delete
    21. Opa, znaci Zagreb dobija drugi aerodrom? Jel najavila neka aviokompanija letove za isti ili se neke prebacuju sa starog na novi? I kad je rok zavrsetka novog aerodroma?

      Delete
  14. OT:
    SKP - November 2015
    Arrivals: 51.355 (+26,5%)
    Departures: 58.573 (+26,6%)
    Summary: 109.928 (+26,6%)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8702 passengers more than PRN this month.

      Delete
    2. Good job, Skopie!
      Greetings from Sofia!

      Delete
    3. Did 51.355 passengers land in Skopje or did 109.928 passengers land? I don't understand...

      Delete
    4. 51.355 landed and 58.573 departed from SKP, 109.928 represents the total movement.

      Delete
    5. Oh haha...I've always thought that the number who is presented is the number of the arriving passengers and not arrivals AND departures....

      Delete
    6. All looks good for SKP until fog comes in in December and January !!! Stupid SKP management promises upgrading infrastructure for landing in fog conditions but they remain idle, doing nothing, praying to god for clear sky and loosing customers....

      Delete
    7. The biggest problem is the terrain configuration..

      Delete
    8. Exactly, like people expecting Cat IIIb in SJJ. It's not realistic with high terrain close to the airport.

      Delete
    9. As someone who doesnt know much about the topic, what is the terrain so important? I mean, is it possible to install CAT III? Or because of the terrain it is much more expensive?

      Delete
  15. 116 comments and no word about Slovenian CAA's investigation whether Adria is financially capable to keep its AOC...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, how are we supposed to know?

      Delete
  16. Adria still state owned, using WSlovenian taxpayers money,
    supporting NON REVENUE (more precisely NO PROFIT) flights from Albania (third country) to Germany (third country ).
    I can't get it hoe is this possible.
    plus and minus just make them fly no real money read PROFIT flying in from this route.

    ReplyDelete

Before posting a comment be mindful of other participants and readers. EX-YU Aviation News does not tolerate insults, excessive swearing, racist, homophobic or any other chauvinist remarks or provocative posts with the intention of creating further arguments. Such comments will be deleted as soon as possible. The opinions expressed by those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of EX-YU Aviation News. Thank you for your cooperation.