The Serbian President, Aleksandar Vučić, has held talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, during which he expressed the need for nonstop flights between Belgrade and China to be established. Mr Vučić said a service between the Serbian capital and either Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou is necessary due to strong demand and asked China’s leader to look into the matter. “President Xi said he is taking considerable notice of the request. When he says something like that, you can expect for his words to be put into action within a short period of time”, Mr Vućić said. He added the flights could be operated by either Air Serbia or a Chinese carrier.
Belgrade Airport’s top unserved route in both 2019 and 2020 based on OAG data was Shanghai, followed by Beijing. A total of 145.248 passengers travelled between the two countries in 2019 (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan). Of those, 62.518 flew to or from Shanghai, or around 43% of all China travellers. It was followed by Beijing with 52.123 passengers and Guangzhou with 14.087 travellers. Belgrade was the eleventh busiest unserved route from Shanghai and the seventh busiest European market without flights to China's largest city. Most of the traffic flow between China and Serbia over the past few years has originated from Shanghai. In 2019, Moscow Sheremetyevo was the top connecting airport for travellers between Serbia and China with 69.456 opting to transfer via the Russian capital. It was followed by Doha and Abu Dhabi.
Top five busiest China - Serbia citypairs in 2019
The Serbian capital was briefly served by Hainan Airlines from Beijing in 2017 with a stop in Prague, however, flights were suspended a year later due to low demand. In May of last year, Mr Vučić, noted, “Serbia is very popular in China due to its friendly relations and we are considering for Air Serbia to launch flights to the country in the coming period, with assistance from China. We are in discussions”. Travel between Serbia and China plummeted in 2020 due to the global health emergency. Travel in and out of the Asian country remains tightly regulated due to Covid-19.



Comments
Look at JU's JFK flights, they have interline agreements with AA and B6 but connections are more than limited and are extremely expensive.
I think this time around it will happen because it moved all the way up to the highest level in China.
Finally the truth is admitted, albeit late. I remember the hysteria here when those flights were suspended, many claimed that the flights were full, doing very well but Hainan Airlines needed restructuring bla bla...
This will all give confidence to other players like Air Canada or any of the Chinese carriers. I think they will also discuss the return of Chinese tourists this winter.
BEG - PEK - BEG 2x p/w
BEG - PVG - BEG 2x p/w
BEG - CAN - BEG 1x p/w
BEG - YYZ - BEG 2x p/w
BEG - ORD - BEG 2x p/w
BEG - MIA - BEG 1x p/w
BEG - LAX - BEG 1x p/w
BEG - SIN - BEG 1x p/w
I know LAX might be expensive but this is for experimenting purposes and also Southeast Europe deserves connection with the USA West Coast.
SIN is also for testing purposes and what might be in the future full scale Kangaroo route, as well.
Wait till that bird has a maintenance issue .. will be a complete meltdown.
I hope they get more aircraft and are able to start up more routes like Toronto, China, Singapore, and Australia at some point
We all remember JU and CA selling PEK via VIE for €1.200.
ORD-3X
PEK-2X
PVG-2X
JFK-7X
(Nǚshìmen, xiānshēngmen)
If you recall when Etihad bought JAT several years ago, after rebranding to AirSerbia they restarted bunch of destinations to test demand. Now is the time for long haul sector to do the same.
China is like a continent. To a large extent the airports mentioned in the article are not final destinations, but simply hubs used by pax flying from BEG/from regional destinations via BEG and vice versa.
SVG is named as having most pax, because it is the hub of two SkyTeam carriers: China Eastern and China Southern. I expect a lot of pax flew to SVG from BEG on Aeroflot, another Skyteam carrier. None of these Chinese airlines had at that time a hub in Beijing.
Beijng and Chengdu are hubs of Air China.
Guangzhou is a hub for China South Airlines and Hainan.
This is like flying from NYE to Europe. On many occasions whether you fly to AMS or to FRA depends not on your ultimate destinations, but on your choice of a carrier.
I think thats the catch.
JU knows that China and Canada would work, but if you have one ATR and you have to fly following groups - P2P+EU transfers+Russian transfers+JFK transfers+Canada/China transfers they have only three options -
1. Lease more ATRs and send two at the same time
2. Lease more A319s and send one A319 instead of ATR
3. Do nothing
I think currently they are in the option 3. Not because they want to, but because they do not have $$$ to expand more.
They do charters. And region. And JFK. And Russia. And EU. For now is good.
For near future (22/23) they need at least 5 additional ATRs and 5 additional A319 just to justify 2 new intercontinental routes.
Also Guangzhou and Hongkong are practically one big city connected via Shenzhen .
All these four destinations could be served three times a week year round .
But an expansion of the regional fleet will be needed too .
Mostly additional Atrs but also A320 for the heavily demanded routes and charters .
This is wrong on soo many levels. Where to begin.
A typical A330 crew compliment is 12, plus minus flight time where extra flight deck crew is needed and airline requirements. Keeping crew on 1 week layovers is an extremely inefficient way to use crew. 1-2 days off before and after rotations (depending on distance/time zone changes) means that for almost half the month the crew is operating 1 rotation.
1 per week on a market, especially long haul, means youre practically non existant. Youre pretty much going after low yield traffic as pax like options and frequencies, especially the ones you want upfront in business class. And there are lots of other options (via SVO, IST, CDG, AMS, FCO, VIE, FRA, MUC, DOH, DXB...).
YYZ is the only destination in that list that can be back in BEG in less than 24 hours, in time for full usage where the flight connects with other JU flights.
As for the Kangaroo route, no chance that will ever come back. The only European airline doing that is BA, and that is for prestige and nothing more. An Australian rotation blocks the aircraft for 2 1/2 days. There is a reason why other European carriers stopped flying the Kangaroo route.
Just a short summary as to why that idea is really stupid...to put it lightly.
A colleague of mine was perfectly okay to modify her plans and fly Tibet Airlines from Helsinki to Jinan back in 2019 as it was offered as a preferred option by the corporate travel office, despite the fact that the point of origin was Vienna and the final destination had nothing to do with Jinan, China. Air China from Frankfurt was offered as a second option. Noone even mentioned the possiblity of flying Austrian or any other European or Gulf carriers.
Post-covid, she came to Europe on one weekly China Southern CZ307 from Guangzhou to Amsterdam and made long layovers on both sides of longhaul flight.
On airliners.net there are regular updates on lease prices on the market. Leasing an ATR currently is almost the same price as an A319, depending on its age.
A couple of JU regional destinations could sustain an A319, that is be upgraded from an ATR. Midday TIA, SJJ and SKP could be candidates for an A319 for example.
If JU changed its pricing policy on their regional network they would have more O&D pax further justifying the A319.
In turn, those additional A319's would be used for restoring frequencies on their Euro-Med network, further expansion, while freed capacity with the ATR could go for further regional expansion (OMO, OHD).
This would be sufficient in the short term to feed an additional long haul route in my opinion. Nothing overally drastic. Naturally an airline will grow from there.
I wouldn't agree that JU is doing nothing, they have been rebuilding their network, while slightly downsizing the fleet to conserve cash (reduce further damage to their finances), while finding a couple of opportunities for network growth. Lets wait and see what January brings.
JU has been operating JFK on 1 A330 the past 5 years. They haven't had any major issues doing so.
Other than BA, who operates SYD out of prestige, which other European carrier flies to Australia? There is a reason why this is. Google it.
+1000
@Uros
In addition to what others say, Etihad never bought JAT. It was Jat Airways. And the difference between the two is like between day and night. Please learn something about things you comment.
Any additional route, and especially with additional A330 would just collapse them.
It is quite easy - with their current fleet of 17 aircrafts they maintain charters+region+EU+Russia.
As I said, stretched to its maximum.
Currently they have "free times" on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but basically all other times it is back-to-back all day all night.
So, what they need is additional A319s, restoring of proposed routes from "good ol' times" (Florence, Madrid, Helsinki), add more regional flights (Mostar, Ohrid, Kukes, Cluj, Varna, Cisinau), add Caucasus region (Baku, Yerevan, Tbilisi) and back-to-back Toronto-Shanghai (Toronto-BEG-Shanghai-BEG-Toronto-BEG...) or Chicago-Shanghai or whatever city can work.
JFK performs well, maybe introduce more flights with that additional A330.
I mean, here we are all experts :)
And we would all love to have JU with 08:00 departures to JFK, Toronto, Chicago, Washington and LAX at the same time and on the way back flights to Beijing, Singapore, Sydney, Shanghai and Tokyo.
But we have to be realistic - it will not happen in next few years.
In ideal world 5 A330 are needed to fulfil "promises" to Vinci.
But in reality if we get additionak A330 in 2022 it will be huge success
Two issues are of main concern: direct vs nonstop flight and expressing the need vs agreeing to launch. Are we witnessing complete lack of understanding the matter or simply, to put it mildly, crossing the line on fact-based publishing?
Transfers are transfers - only fraction of them are willing to pay the premium of direct flights