The collapse of Air Berlin has left Germany’s largest city with only one year round route and one seasonal route to the United States - a daily United 767 to EWR, and a seasonal Delta 767 to JFK. Berlin is one of the largest urban areas in Europe, but has sparse service to the US.

It would seem if AA could launch PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD, surely a PHL-TXL could be possible. Even a MIA-TXL or ORD-TXL, even seasonal, would be better than nothing. United too could capitalize on ORD-TXL or even IAD-TXL. Delta could pull something from ATL or DTW.

Bottom line is, this is a huge European city with little service to the US. Someone could capitalize on AirBerlin’s absence.

Not only USA, look at the graph in this article (German only but he bars can be read easily: http://www.airliners.de/berlin-langstre ... isit/45995) there has been a continues decline in the number of long-haul flights from Berlin, even before air berlin went under.

There is simply no market from Berlin. Now that being said it can I think increase a bit lets see who will jump in.

MLIAA wrote:

The collapse of Air Berlin has left Germany’s largest city with only one year round route and one seasonal route to the United States - a daily United 767 to EWR, and a seasonal Delta 767 to JFK. Berlin is one of the largest urban areas in Europe, but has sparse service to the US.

It would seem if AA could launch PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD, surely a PHL-TXL could be possible. Even a MIA-TXL or ORD-TXL, even seasonal, would be better than nothing. United too could capitalize on ORD-TXL or even IAD-TXL. Delta could pull something from ATL or DTW.

Bottom line is, this is a huge European city with little service to the US. Someone could capitalize on AirBerlin’s absence.

Despite being the seat of government, Berlin really has no "government" type industries that you see in say London, or Washington DC. Furthermore, there are almost no multinational companies that are based there, certainly none with any significant American presence. As such, there's little with regards to high end traffic to warrant year round service from both points of sale.

Despite being a "large" city by European standards, Berlin is one of the poorest capitals of the "Western European" cohort.

Couple these two things with a barely functioning TXL and it's not really a big recipe for success.

That being said, AA will start PHL-TXL next summer or I will buy you a currywurst of your choice.

I think there's more to that. TXL's terminal is a dump (and I'm putting it mildly). When the new terminal at BER is finally completed (I think the latest estimate is in about another 50 years, the way it's going), there will be more capacity in a more modern terminal, so at that point I would not be surprised to see new transatlantic service by the US3, possibly JetBlue, and maybe Air Canada or WestJet.

Besides the fact that Berlin is relatively poor according to German standards, it also doesn't help that there are major hubs all around it: WAW, CPH, MUC, FRA and AMS.

Berlin is a hotspot for millennial budget backpacker type travelers who fly the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet within Europe and Norwegian and WOW transatlantic. Not the yields the majors are looking for.

superjeff wrote:

I think there's more to that. TXL's terminal is a dump (and I'm putting it mildly). When the new terminal at BER is finally completed (I think the latest estimate is in about another 50 years, the way it's going), there will be more capacity in a more modern terminal, so at that point I would not be surprised to see new transatlantic service by the US3, possibly JetBlue, and maybe Air Canada or WestJet.

Air Canada already flies seasonally to TXL (on Rouge that is)

Other than leisure-oriented summer seasonal UA IAD-TXL and winter seasonal AA MIA-TXL I just can't imagine other possible U.S.-Berlin routes.

Remember too that from 1945 to 1991 Berlin wasn't the capital of the Federal Republic - until 1949 there wasn't one, and for the rest of the time it was Bonn.

Meanwhile Frankfurt became and has remained Germany's de-facto economic "capital", while the unique limitations on air service into and out of occupied Berlin encouraged the development of FRA (and to a lesser extent MUC) as a hub, providing connecting traffic that Berlin also lacks.

There are some similarities elsewhere - Canberra, for one, is Australia's federal capital but can't even muster service to New Zealand, what with SYD just up the road and MEL only a bit further off.

Switzerland too - although it has no official capital, the de-facto "Federal City" of Berne may as well not even have an airport thanks to ZRH.

XAM2175 wrote:

Remember too that from 1945 to 1991 Berlin wasn't the capital of the Federal Republic - until 1949 there wasn't one, and for the rest of the time it was Bonn.

Meanwhile Frankfurt became and has remained Germany's de-facto economic "capital", while the unique limitations on air service into and out of occupied Berlin encouraged the development of FRA (and to a lesser extent MUC) as a hub, providing connecting traffic that Berlin also lacks.

There are some similarities elsewhere - Canberra, for one, is Australia's federal capital but can't even muster service to New Zealand, what with SYD just up the road and MEL only a bit further off.

Switzerland too - although it has no official capital, the de-facto "Federal City" of Berne may as well not even have an airport thanks to ZRH.

Similar with Ottawa in Canada (YYZ, YUL) and Ankara in Turkey (IST) - being the capital city doesn't necessarily make it the country's primary economic and cultural hub

I would bet on UA IAD-TXL with it's shift towards connections versus EWR. Also wonder if Condor would ever start leisure routes there? Or do they just stick to FRA?

Or maybe Eurowings will fill up the void left by Air Berlin?

Miami-Berlin is one of the largest trans-Atlantic city pairs without service. If EuroWings ever decided to go into TXL long-haul, I'm sure it would be a route for them.

MAH4546 wrote:

Miami-Berlin is one of the largest trans-Atlantic city pairs without service. If EuroWings ever decided to go into TXL long-haul, I'm sure it would be a route for them.

Wow, then Miami-Hamburg must be even higher on that list:

Passengers with end-destination Miami:

In May

BER 827
HAM 1.296

In October 2017

BER 2.235
HAM 3.505

Just two examples.

XAM2175 wrote:

There are some similarities elsewhere - Canberra, for one, is Australia's federal capital but can't even muster service to New Zealand, what with SYD just up the road and MEL only a bit further off.

Not necessarily. Canberra is more similar to cities like Ottawa in Canada or Brasilia in Brazil. Not surprisingly, all 3 are "planned city" to be the capital city. CBR, YOW, and BSB all have fair amount of domestic services but not much international services (For example, BSB is not even connected with LIM or SCL, and has minimal flight to EZE; not too dissimilar from CBR's lack of NZ flights).

As for relative lack of TATL flights - like many already said, it's due to lack of international commerce, the #1 driver for (higher yield) long-haul flights. Of course, it doesn't help that the new Berlin Airport will only open when LHR get its 4th runway, and MIA celebrate its 10th year anniversary for its first TPAC flight to FNJ.

The other problem for Berlin is that it’s just a short hop form Düsseldorf, which has better yields and why LH (via EW) can sustain lower yield TATL services such as RSW, JFK (and soon EWR), MIA, and LAX.

The UA/LH JV might be what keeps TXL-EWR alive as I could see UA downgrading it to a 757 in the summer...while FRA gets a 77W to EWR.

zakuivcustom wrote:

XAM2175 wrote:

There are some similarities elsewhere - Canberra, for one, is Australia's federal capital but can't even muster service to New Zealand, what with SYD just up the road and MEL only a bit further off.

Not necessarily. Canberra is more similar to cities like Ottawa in Canada or Brasilia in Brazil. Not surprisingly, all 3 are "planned city" to be the capital city. CBR, YOW, and BSB all have fair amount of domestic services but not much international services (For example, BSB is not even connected with LIM or SCL, and has minimal flight to EZE; not too dissimilar from CBR's lack of NZ flights).

As for relative lack of TATL flights - like many already said, it's due to lack of international commerce, the #1 driver for (higher yield) long-haul flights. Of course, it doesn't help that the new Berlin Airport will only open when LHR get its 4th runway, and MIA celebrate its 10th year anniversary for its first TPAC flight to FNJ.

Good post but you could probably add the capital of Cameroon which is Yaoundé but main airport within the country being in the ''financial capital'' of Douala.

The Nigerian capital being Abuja but the country's main airport being in the former capital and still the major business centre of Lagos.

Another example could be Casablanca and Rabat in Morocco.

But I'm going a bit off topic!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The other problem for Berlin is that it’s just a short hop form Düsseldorf, which has better yields and why LH (via EW) can sustain lower yield TATL services such as RSW, JFK (and soon EWR), MIA, and LAX.

The UA/LH JV might be what keeps TXL-EWR alive as I could see UA downgrading it to a 757 in the summer...while FRA gets a 77W to EWR.

EWR-TXL does well enough to have been up gauged a few times, from a 757 when it started as a CO flight to a 767-300ER to a 767-400ER. I think this flight is essentially here to stay, thanks to the JV with LH and the feed UA has at EWR (and the fact that it is the only year-round TATL route out of TXL). I don't see UA moving this flight to IAD. They may launch a seasonal IAD-TXL alongside the EWR route, but I don't think this is one of those routes UA will move to draw better connections and feed. NYC is the #1 market to Europe from the US and UA has the route to itself.

LH flew IAD-TXL for a short period in the late 1990s on an A340. It lasted a few months. AA flew ORD-TXL briefly, in 1992 on a 767-200ER and dropped it. Times have definitely changed but the market is essentially served with 1 flight. Even LH couldn't make it work when it briefly took over the AB route to JFK and wouldn't bother handing it over to Eurowings.

Cunard wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

XAM2175 wrote:

There are some similarities elsewhere - Canberra, for one, is Australia's federal capital but can't even muster service to New Zealand, what with SYD just up the road and MEL only a bit further off.

Not necessarily. Canberra is more similar to cities like Ottawa in Canada or Brasilia in Brazil. Not surprisingly, all 3 are "planned city" to be the capital city. CBR, YOW, and BSB all have fair amount of domestic services but not much international services (For example, BSB is not even connected with LIM or SCL, and has minimal flight to EZE; not too dissimilar from CBR's lack of NZ flights).

As for relative lack of TATL flights - like many already said, it's due to lack of international commerce, the #1 driver for (higher yield) long-haul flights. Of course, it doesn't help that the new Berlin Airport will only open when LHR get its 4th runway, and MIA celebrate its 10th year anniversary for its first TPAC flight to FNJ.

Good post but you could probably add the capital of Cameroon which is Yaoundé but main airport within the country being in the ''financial capital'' of Douala.

The Nigerian capital being Abuja but the country's main airport being in the former capital and still the major business centre of Lagos.

Another example could be Casablanca and Rabat in Morocco.

But I'm going a bit off topic!

Or Yamoussoukro and Abidjan. That said, this really isn't irrelevant to the Berlin-Frankfurt situation at all, as the hub of an airline (generally speaking, outside of the USA, Canada, India, or China) would be by its economic capital. The other issue is: when Berlin finally became one, one of SXF or TXL should have been closed to commercial flights immediately if you ask me (probably TXL, with one side maintained for general aviation and the rest as the military base).

I can see a TXL-MIA flight being successful. A month or two back I flew TXL-MAD, and the amount of pax connecting onto MIA was quite astonishing.

I have heard Berlin is very attractive to younger people. Is this true and if so a sign that it will one day generate more traffic?

Planeflyer wrote:

I have heard Berlin is very attractive to younger people. Is this true and if so a sign that it will one day generate more traffic?

no correlation.
young people traffic doesn't establish mid/long routes, old people traffic does....... all about the money.
what's interesting to me is the historical and social evolution of economic Berlin - the largest city (by far) in a wealthy country, but relatively poor/low cost (hence the youth interest); this seems quite unique in the developed world. I presume this is all about reunification. Interesting stuff.

Still - it seems like Berlin will never really develop aviation-wise, unless surrounding big airports/cities undergo some massive collapse.

MLIAA wrote:

Bottom line is, this is a huge European city with little service to the US. Someone could capitalize on AirBerlin’s absence.

devron wrote:

There is simply no market from Berlin.

These two posts make the same mistake in inverse:
conflating market size with market viability, and vice-versa.

It's easy to fill a longhaul flight to Berlin, but good luck doing it at compelling yields.

Loads are rarely the problem, there's definitely a TATL market to Berlin-- but it's not a lucrative one by any means, especially relative to other opportunities.

Midwestindy wrote:

I can see a TXL-MIA flight being successful. A month or two back I flew TXL-MAD, and the amount of pax connecting onto MIA was quite astonishing.

I'm thinking you were seeing a pretty seasonal thing. Not sure that's gonna work outside of summer.
There's just too much cheap capacity running thru CDG, VIE, ZRH, FRA, LHR, etc...... heck, Eurowings is bookable for $425 thru DUS. Who's motivated to deal with another originating city at those fares?

FlyHappy wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I have heard Berlin is very attractive to younger people. Is this true and if so a sign that it will one day generate more traffic?

no correlation.
young people traffic doesn't establish mid/long routes, old people traffic does....... all about the money.
what's interesting to me is the historical and social evolution of economic Berlin - the largest city (by far) in a wealthy country, but relatively poor/low cost (hence the youth interest); this seems quite unique in the developed world. I presume this is all about reunification. Interesting stuff.

Still - it seems like Berlin will never really develop aviation-wise, unless surrounding big airports/cities undergo some massive collapse.

Berlin is not the largest urban area by far in Germany. Within the city limits, yes. But airports serve metro areas, not cities limited by a municipal boundary.

In any case, Berlin is not that bad as many posters point it here. I.e. Berlin has the strongest population growth in Germany, and that is partially due to tech companies establishing in the city, government jobs and also more non-bank financial institution that are looking for a better lifestyle compared to Frankfurt.

Regarding aviation, Berlin has currently 33 million PAX combined in two airports that are completely oversaturated; and all based in local traffic since no carrier has a local hub. So I wouldn't say Berlin is "underdeveloped" in terms of aviation. I am sure if BER had a "normal" airport, Eurowings will have a hub there adding more connecting PAX. So it could add a few millions and maybe become Germany's second largest airport on par with MUC.

I guess the most similar thing in Europe is Barcelona; a large urban market that somehow is more holiday-oriented. At least Berlin has a more "urban" edge to it, making it less seasonal and with more potential in the long term (tech, etc).

SCQ83 wrote:

Berlin is not the largest urban area by far in Germany. Within the city limits, yes.

fine, not "by far", but still - the largest.

SCQ83 wrote:

In any case, Berlin is not that bad as many posters point it here. I.e. Berlin has the strongest population growth in Germany, and that is partially due to tech companies establishing in the city, government jobs and also more non-bank financial institution that are looking for a better lifestyle compared to Frankfurt.

I really don't think anyone was portraying Berlin as "bad". Simply that its notably less wealthy than the obvious aviation centers of FRA/MUC (smaller areas), and in that way, unique.

SCQ83 wrote:

Regarding aviation, Berlin has currently 33 million PAX combined in two airports that are completely oversaturated; and all based in local traffic since no carrier has a local hub. So I wouldn't say Berlin is "underdeveloped" in terms of aviation.

The context is TATL, which I extend to mid/long haul. I question if the realities of geography and distribution would ever really allow that segment of aviation to develop in Berlin.

MLIAA wrote:

The collapse of Air Berlin has left Germany’s largest city with only one year round route and one seasonal route to the United States - a daily United 767 to EWR, and a seasonal Delta 767 to JFK. Berlin is one of the largest urban areas in Europe, but has sparse service to the US.

It would seem if AA could launch PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD, surely a PHL-TXL could be possible. Even a MIA-TXL or ORD-TXL, even seasonal, would be better than nothing. United too could capitalize on ORD-TXL or even IAD-TXL. Delta could pull something from ATL or DTW.

Bottom line is, this is a huge European city with little service to the US. Someone could capitalize on AirBerlin’s absence.

I with you on this, I think the market is hugely underserved. Of course I'm biased being from Berlin, but we have here QR with the 77W, TK with A333 or 77W, Hainan with A332 (sometimes 788), Scoot with the 788, MIAT Mongolian with 767 or 737, depending on the day of the week (service via Moscow) and a huge amount of people funneled through other hubs like LHR, MAD, FRA, MUC, CDG, AMS, HEL, CPH, FCO and so on. In my opinion, despite the city being rather poor for German standards, it should be able to support not only one, but a good amount of nonstop TATL flights to North America.

continental004 wrote:

Berlin is a hotspot for millennial budget backpacker type travelers who fly the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet within Europe and Norwegian and WOW transatlantic. Not the yields the majors are looking for.

True. And at the same time a massive generalisation, which does discount all premium holiday makers which come for sightseeing, the government traffic, the lobbyists working around the German government (LOTS OF THEM), the companies headquatered here (far less than anywhere else in Germany, but still there are some here and the numbers keeps growing year by year) and of course the people of Berlin who have the money for premium travel. Even in a "poor" German town, you have a sizeable amount of "rich" people (to paint the picture as black and white as you did).

And not to forget that TXL is not only the airport for Berlin, but also for the German states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and partly Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Western Poland which is missing a true international airport and has hundreds of busses and group taxis go to both Berlin Airport every day (it takes about 45 minutes from Polands border to SXF and about 75 minutes to TXL).

The area marked in yellow is basically the area served by the Berlin Airports for many destinations. All other German and Polish airports within this area are small, don't see much international traffic and especially no intercontinantal traffic. The times by car, train or bus to the Berlin airports for the whole area is within 1 to 3 hours:

Blerg wrote:

Besides the fact that Berlin is relatively poor according to German standards, it also doesn't help that there are major hubs all around it: WAW, CPH, MUC, FRA and AMS.

This is one reason why the legacy European carriers won't start nonstop service from Berlin, they want to feed their hubs. But this shouldn't stop the US airlines flying non-stop into Berlin. Or "independent" airlines like Norwegian, Level, Condor could jump into the market. This would also fit into the large percentage of low yielding pax.

devron wrote:

Not only USA, look at the graph in this article (German only but he bars can be read easily: http://www.airliners.de/berlin-langstre ... isit/45995) there has been a continues decline in the number of long-haul flights from Berlin, even before air berlin went under.

There is simply no market from Berlin. Now that being said it can I think increase a bit lets see who will jump in.

That graphic is totally misleading if you don't know the facts behind it. That massive decline in connections after 2000/2001 is something you see for nearly every airport in the Western World. We had the worldwide IT bubble go bust in 2000, followed by the stock markets crashing and then the attacks of 9/11 in 2001. Many, many routes were cancelled afer these two events. You will see that afterwards there was a constant growth in Berlin thanks to AirBerlin. Once their financial problems really started in 2012 we saw a slow decline starting with AB shifting many routes to DUS after the opening of BER was cancelled in the same year. Interestingly the longhaul network was always profitable for AB and thus they decided to get more A330s and start new routes in late 2016/early 2017. Too little, too late, as we know now. But that explains the spike in 2017. Then AB went bust and we are down to the few connections shown for 2018. The result was QR and TK upgrading from A320s to VLA widebody jets. And also Scoot and AC Rouge annoucing and starting TXL. So there is hope for more longhaul connections in the future for TXL...

FlyHappy wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I can see a TXL-MIA flight being successful. A month or two back I flew TXL-MAD, and the amount of pax connecting onto MIA was quite astonishing.

I'm thinking you were seeing a pretty seasonal thing. Not sure that's gonna work outside of summer.
There's just too much cheap capacity running thru CDG, VIE, ZRH, FRA, LHR, etc...... heck, Eurowings is bookable for $425 thru DUS. Who's motivated to deal with another originating city at those fares?

I said flight I didn't specify frequency

CARST wrote:

The area marked in yellow is basically the area served by the Berlin Airports for many destinations. All other German and Polish airports within this area are small, don't see much international traffic and especially no intercontinantal traffic. The times by car, train or bus to the Berlin airports for the whole area is within 1 to 3 hours:

That map is quite optimistic.

Poznan is closer to Warsaw than to Berlin (arguably WAW has more connections to, particularly, Asia than Berlin).

Dresden is closer to Prague than to Berlin.

Rostock is closer to Hamburg than to Berlin.

SCQ83 wrote:

CARST wrote:

The area marked in yellow is basically the area served by the Berlin Airports for many destinations. All other German and Polish airports within this area are small, don't see much international traffic and especially no intercontinantal traffic. The times by car, train or bus to the Berlin airports for the whole area is within 1 to 3 hours:

That map is quite optimistic.

Poznan is closer to Warsaw than to Berlin (arguably WAW has more connections to, particularly, Asia than Berlin).

Dresden is closer to Prague than to Berlin.

Rostock is closer to Hamburg than to Berlin.

Bit off topic but AMS is located southwest of the city (not southeast)
and the Hague is much further to the south (close to Rotterdam seaport entrance)

On topic: Germany / Berlin has more or less the same situation as the Netherlands has. the Rotterdam / the Hague area of the country is most densely populated. But most aviation is around Amsterdam. This was caused by the fact that that the "national" airport near Rotterdam was destroyed during WWII, after the war the plans of the new national airport (nationale luchthaven Schieveen) between Rotterdam and Delft did not materialize quickly enough.... this led to the situation where KLM concentrated is operations on AMS. and the rest is history. Eventually a compromise (smaller) airport was build near Rotterdam. But the "battle" for the airport serving the nation was lost to AMS. in the 80s and 90s there was another plan to build a new airport (new RTM) in Schieveen serving the south-east of the Netherlands but this plan was dismissed regretfully.
The Berlin-situation also seems a heritage from the WWII history. Only a collapse of a mayor hub like FRA could "correct" the situation.

The routes could work, but not with TXL. TXL is a point-to-point airport by design and to be honest it is much better to fly TXL-MUC-USA than MUC-TXL-USA. Once the new airport opens, things will look different, but the capacity will already be constrained again.

Berlin well more (Eastern Germany) are still recovering from the effects of WW2 and the Cold War both which have taken an masvie toll on development.

It’s not noticeably different when you visit what was Eastern German, and what was West German I’m the same trip. At times Berlin and Munich feel like they are in two different counties.

In some effect Western Germany has been give an 40 year head start in development, and is very ingreates into the Western world, we’re as the east is still getting there.

As pointed out many many times before, Berlin is in no way economically important to Germany. Without its capital, the German BIP would actually be higher, a major difference to any other country in Europe - as far as I know even the world. Or to put it in other words: while the UK affords their Royal family, Germany happily spends money on its capital.

Depending on which statistic you are looking at, Germany has a total of 11 metropolitan regions. Of those, Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Rhein-Main (aka. Frankfurt) stand out economically. Its polycentric, with every region being important for different industries: Munich: pharmaceutical, IT, automobile, Stuttgart: automobile, Hamburg: aviation, logistics.
Now when things come to Frankfurt, things get a bit more complex. Everyone only sees the city itself, bht it is actually only the small center of Rhein-Main, accumulating many other rather big cities around (Mainz, Wiesbaden, Darmstadt, Offenbach, Hanau, Aschaffenburg, even as far as Fulda, Gießen, Worms, etc.) making it, again depending on the source, the 3rd or 4th largest metropolitan region and, as an undisputed second behind Munich, the 2nd most important economic center of Germany. It is the banking center of Germany with gaining significance due to Brexit, a transportation center to its geographical location close to the center of Germany (airport, railway, roads) and is the world‘s biggest internet traffic point, and at the same time is only an hour away from 4 further significant Metropolitan regions (Köln/Bonn, Rhein Neckar aka. Mannheim/Heidelberg/Ludwigshafen), Stuttgart, and even Rhein-Ruhr (Düsseldorf). That is why every airline starts off with FRA followed by MUC or DUS/CGN most of the time.

Berlin, of all the metropolitan regions in Germany, has the lowest average wages undermined by its proximity to Poland. Economically there is no industry of any significance (not a single DAX company has its head office in Berlin, the biggest employers are Deutsche Bahn, Charite, Vivantes (both hospitals), BVG (Berlin‘s subway) and Siemens). It is proclaimed to be Europe‘s startup heaven, but hardly any startups actually make money, and their prosperity often comes from cheap wages of its employees as well as significant tax cuts.

If you want to take a look at some statistics: (sorry, German, but look at the numbers on page 8)

https://www.statistik-bw.de/Service/Ver ... _07_01.pdf

Berlin, as sad as it may sound, and trust me, I live in this city and love it for what it is, will always remain econically insignificant and therefore only attract tourists for a weekend getaway on a dirtcheap low-cost carrier ticket as well as people in search of something they hope to find here - and it is never money! And no new airport - should it ever open - will change that.

Cheers.

Thilo

SCQ83 wrote:

CARST wrote:

The area marked in yellow is basically the area served by the Berlin Airports for many destinations. All other German and Polish airports within this area are small, don't see much international traffic and especially no intercontinantal traffic. The times by car, train or bus to the Berlin airports for the whole area is within 1 to 3 hours:

That map is quite optimistic.

Poznan is closer to Warsaw than to Berlin (arguably WAW has more connections to, particularly, Asia than Berlin).

Dresden is closer to Prague than to Berlin.

Rostock is closer to Hamburg than to Berlin.

From Poznan its 300km to Warsaw airport, 250km to Berlin-Schönefeld Airport and 280km to Berlin-Tegel airport. The endless stream of Polish cars, busses and group taxis at our airports here confirm this.

Dresden is a bit closer to Prague, but not much. As Leipzig and Dresden both don't get longhaul traffic and Prague is as underserved as Berlin AND the travel time is about the same, we get many people from Saxony flying from the Berlin airports.

Travel time between Rostock and Tegel Airport and Rostock and Hamburg Airport is the same. Slightly above 2 hours. People might go both ways. But the main point is, see above, same case as with Prague, Hamburg is totally underserved, too. In my opinion even more underserved as Berlin, because its the richer city of the two and the metro area has even more people living there. And still Hamburg, as well as Berlin, don't get meaningful TATL traffic, while it's no problem for many secondary US cities to get nonstop TATL service. Something is wrong here.

It's the US airlines who seem to be afraid to tap into smaller European markets. If BA can make Austin work, which has 2 million people living in its metro area, why can't AA make Berlin or Hamburg work which have like 6 million people living in its metro area? And in case of Hamburg we are speaking about a rather rich town.

CARST wrote:

From Poznan its 300km to Warsaw airport, 250km to Berlin-Schönefeld Airport and 280km to Berlin-Tegel airport. The endless stream of Polish cars, busses and group taxis at our airports here confirm this.

Dresden is a bit closer to Prague, but not much. As Leipzig and Dresden both don't get longhaul traffic and Prague is as underserved as Berlin AND the travel time is about the same, we get many people from Saxony flying from the Berlin airports.

Most of the cars in TXL/SXF and shuttle vans come from SZ (Polish cars have regional indicators). And I am not saying that people don't go from Poznan to TXL for long-haul; just saying Poznan (which is a fairly big airport) is equally distant from WAW/WMI. So including Poznan as Berlin's direct influence area for airports is a bit of a stretch. WAW for TATL has arguably a better offer today (EWR, JFK, ORD, LAX).

Regarding PRG, I wouldn't say it is that underserved, particularly for Asia. PRG has 3 daily to Dubai (2x EK and 1x FZ), Shanghai, Xi'An, Chengdu, Seoul... for the US the only advantage is AA to PHL though.

flyinTLow wrote:

As pointed out many many times before, Berlin is in no way economically important to Germany. Without its capital, the German BIP would actually be higher, a major difference to any other country in Europe - as far as I know even the world. Or to put it in other words: while the UK affords their Royal family, Germany happily spends money on its capital.

Depending on which statistic you are looking at, Germany has a total of 11 metropolitan regions. Of those, Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Rhein-Main (aka. Frankfurt) stand out economically. Its polycentric, with every region being important for different industries: Munich: pharmaceutical, IT, automobile, Stuttgart: automobile, Hamburg: aviation, logistics.
Now when things come to Frankfurt, things get a bit more complex. Everyone only sees the city itself, bht it is actually only the small center of Rhein-Main, accumulating many other rather big cities around (Mainz, Wiesbaden, Darmstadt, Offenbach, Hanau, Aschaffenburg, even as far as Fulda, Gießen, Worms, etc.) making it, again depending on the source, the 3rd or 4th largest metropolitan region and, as an undisputed second behind Munich, the 2nd most important economic center of Germany. It is the banking center of Germany with gaining significance due to Brexit, a transportation center to its geographical location close to the center of Germany (airport, railway, roads) and is the world‘s biggest internet traffic point, and at the same time is only an hour away from 4 further significant Metropolitan regions (Köln/Bonn, Rhein Neckar aka. Mannheim/Heidelberg/Ludwigshafen), Stuttgart, and even Rhein-Ruhr (Düsseldorf). That is why every airline starts off with FRA followed by MUC or DUS/CGN most of the time.

Berlin, of all the metropolitan regions in Germany, has the lowest average wages undermined by its proximity to Poland. Economically there is no industry of any significance (not a single DAX company has its head office in Berlin, the biggest employers are Deutsche Bahn, Charite, Vivantes (both hospitals), BVG (Berlin‘s subway) and Siemens). It is proclaimed to be Europe‘s startup heaven, but hardly any startups actually make money, and their prosperity often comes from cheap wages of its employees as well as significant tax cuts.

If you want to take a look at some statistics: (sorry, German, but look at the numbers on page 8)

https://www.statistik-bw.de/Service/Ver ... _07_01.pdf

Berlin, as sad as it may sound, and trust me, I live in this city and love it for what it is, will always remain econically insignificant and therefore only attract tourists for a weekend getaway on a dirtcheap low-cost carrier ticket as well as people in search of something they hope to find here - and it is never money! And no new airport - should it ever open - will change that.

Cheers.

Thilo

Very good post! In my opinion it is also LH's (and thus Star Alliance) intention to funnel as much traffic through FRA and MUC as possible. If you look at daily operations between FRA/MUC and TXL, it is enormous and thus makes it easy for pax to fly TXL - FRA/MUC - TATL. In my opinion that's also the reason why there are only limited long-haul connections from HAM.

CARST wrote:

Travel time between Rostock and Tegel Airport and Rostock and Hamburg Airport is the same. Slightly above 2 hours. People might go both ways. But the main point is, see above, same case as with Prague, Hamburg is totally underserved, too. In my opinion even more underserved as Berlin, because its the richer city of the two and the metro area has even more people living there. And still Hamburg, as well as Berlin, don't get meaningful TATL traffic, while it's no problem for many secondary US cities to get nonstop TATL service. Something is wrong here.

It's the US airlines who seem to be afraid to tap into smaller European markets. If BA can make Austin work, which has 2 million people living in its metro area, why can't AA make Berlin or Hamburg work which have like 6 million people living in its metro area? And in case of Hamburg we are speaking about a rather rich town.

I think you've got these things backwards!
Comparisons of cities on both sides of the Atlantic aren't symmetrical.... Austin can work for BA because it is a geographically isolated (and thus fare-captive) underserved metro, and scooping up planeloads to take them to London isn't exactly a challenging marketing task. You don't even have to try that hard on price to capture the US side, if you're cutting out a stop.
If Berlin is the Austin analog, AA will need to fly from how many cities to be meaningful? PHL, ORD, DAL. MIA? The distance between those US gateways is so much greater than that between the European gateway airports.... and you mostly have excellent rail options to lean on (even short haul ULCC), not available in the US. Hell, NYC and BOS are laughably close, but cannot share a flight market due to unusable ground transport!

I'm all about p2p flying, but your european inter city distances and good ground transport discourage the rise of more long haul gateway airports. Seems to me, these are markets LCC's from Iceland/Ireland will have to themselves, if they choose.

flyinTLow wrote:

...
Berlin, as sad as it may sound, and trust me, I live in this city and love it for what it is, will always remain econically insignificant and therefore only attract tourists for a weekend getaway on a dirtcheap low-cost carrier ticket as well as people in search of something they hope to find here - and it is never money! And no new airport - should it ever open - will change that.

Cheers.

Thilo

Outstanding insight! Thank you for the local perspective, and confirms my personal suspicions from a distance.
It is unfortunate, even personally, I was planning time-constrained visit to Germany this winter with a young family member, and despite have far greater interest in Hamburg and Berlin, I am feeling logistically railroaded into using FRA/DUS/MUC .

Out of curiosity, are IcelandAir/WOW a "well regarded" way for Berliners to TATL ?

FlyHappy wrote:

Out of curiosity, are IcelandAir/WOW a "well regarded" way for Berliners to TATL ?

For Berliners (living the "arm aber sexy" way of life) anything that gets you cheap from Berlin to any place in the world is great. They would consider flying TXL-PVG-DRS if it is cheaper than the direct train

Kidding aside. Many people in Berlin have a different perspective on what air transport should cost, being spoiled by the fierce fight of low-costers in TXL/SXF right now and everyone trying to get a slice of that AB-pie.

The debate misses the point, there is no suitable airport. TXL is not build for long haul, much less for a hub operations. Waiting areas, security controls, baggage transportation - everything is running at way over design capacity.

FlyHappy wrote:

flyinTLow wrote:

...
Berlin, as sad as it may sound, and trust me, I live in this city and love it for what it is, will always remain econically insignificant and therefore only attract tourists for a weekend getaway on a dirtcheap low-cost carrier ticket as well as people in search of something they hope to find here - and it is never money! And no new airport - should it ever open - will change that.

Cheers.

Thilo

Outstanding insight! Thank you for the local perspective, and confirms my personal suspicions from a distance.
It is unfortunate, even personally, I was planning time-constrained visit to Germany this winter with a young family member, and despite have far greater interest in Hamburg and Berlin, I am feeling logistically railroaded into using FRA/DUS/MUC .

Out of curiosity, are IcelandAir/WOW a "well regarded" way for Berliners to TATL ?

I wouldn’t agree with what „flyinTLow“ wrote. Berlin is on the rise. Fast and massive. Yes, is poor compared to West German metro areas, but under its 6 million people in the whole catchment area is there are enough affluent people, too.

Typical for once poor, but „hip“ and „in“ cities, Berlin first drew the artists and film makers into town, who once only were in Cologne and Munich while Germany was divided. But with that scene and cheap rents, you had the start-up scene setting up shop in Berlin. And what once were start ups are now huge National, European or even partly global enterprises. The most prominent example is Zalando who are mostly at fault for H&Ms financial problems in Europe and elsewhere (clothing).

Other companies are pushing their way to the worldstage, too. And beside the start-ups, more and more legacy companies are moving their German or European headquarters to Berlin to get close to the government of Europe’s wealthiest nation. Nike, eBay, Amazon and Pfizer are four of them. German insurance companies are on the move like the AOK. German real estate giant Deutsche Wohnen moved to Berlin last year . And of course, 22 years after the German government moved back to Berlin, some parts are still in Bonn or elsewhere and are very slowly being moved to Berlin to not impact the economy in their current cities too much. The next move will be that of the huge German intelligence service BND (Germany’s CIA/MI6). I could go on with the list for quit a while.

Since World War 2 destroyed Berlin and since the post-war Soviet occupation of East Germany made all industries leave Berlin and the „East“, the city of West-Berlin and later the city of (the reunified) Berlin always lived of the subsidies from West Germany. (FYI: We have a system here in Germany where richer states subsidies poorer states.) BUT that is changing now. In 2018 Berlin will have a positive income stream for the third year in the row. The city is making money. Finally. This is a massive change to decades of a loss making city.

The economic growth of the past 25 years is finally visible in the pure numbers, too. And beside the positive balance of the cities government, we also have a situation of extremely expensive rents and ground prices. The times of cheap land and living in Berlin are over. This might hamper growth a bit, but right now it’s a sign of change here.

Coming to an end with this long monologue:
If this city could fill multiple nonstop flying aircraft to the USA in the early 1990s, why can’t we fill them now, 25-30 years later, with a far better economic situation and a much larger catchment area? The city is underserved...

seahawk wrote:

The debate misses the point, there is no suitable airport. TXL is not build for long haul, much less for a hub operations. Waiting areas, security controls, baggage transportation - everything is running at way over design capacity.

I don't think it does. Part of the debate revolves around the idea that even a new, functional airport (vs new non-functional! ) cannot overcome the economic/geo/historical disadvantages that Berlin seems saddled with now, and for the foreseeable future. Honestly, even the new airport debacle probably stems from these same root issues (ie, "wouldn't have happened elsewhere in Germany").

Wherever your opinion falls on that, it is a legitimate debate. Will new BER induce significantly more TATL? - I am dubious (but happy to be proven wrong!).

Berlin is the hottest shit in Europe. Eventually this is going to create more flights.

CARST wrote:

It's the US airlines who seem to be afraid to tap into smaller European markets. If BA can make Austin work, which has 2 million people living in its metro area, why can't AA make Berlin or Hamburg work which have like 6 million people living in its metro area? And in case of Hamburg we are speaking about a rather rich town.

And AUS has how many TATL flight? Other than the daily BA you're talking about 3w DI (Norwegian) to LGW and 3w DE (Condor) to FRA. One is a long-haul LCC and the other is a leisure carrier. Plus, how is BA flying LHR-AUS any different than DL on JFK-TXL and UA on EWR-TXL? Not a lot. Ok, throw in AA to PHL and maybe UA (or AA, but doubtful) to ORD and that's about the only growth I'll see in short term.

One of the thing that would definitely help TXL getting more TATL is if there are some long-haul LCC based in US. Will that happen? Doubtful (No, as much as people dream about B6 crossing the pond, they're not going to fly to Berlin even if they do).

SCQ83 wrote:

Regarding PRG, I wouldn't say it is that underserved, particularly for Asia. PRG has 3 daily to Dubai (2x EK and 1x FZ), Shanghai, Xi'An, Chengdu, Seoul... for the US the only advantage is AA to PHL though.

To be fair, Prague is just a more popular tourism destination overall, compare to Berlin. Plus some of those Chinese routes are not exactly money-making anyway. Then there's KE, who only fly to PRG b/c of their (former) investment into OK.

P.S. Isn't the reason why EK doesn't fly to TXL b/c German gov't restrict how many destinations EK can fly to in Germany? Yep, the same German gov't that's sitting in Berlin that would rather not have EK flying 2-3x 388 into TXL even though it would actually mean tourism growth in Berlin (particularly from APAC region).

CARST wrote:

Coming to an end with this long monologue:
If this city could fill multiple nonstop Flying aircraft to the USA in the early 1990s, why can’t we will them now, 25-30 years later, with a far better economic situation and a much larger catchment area? The city is underserved...

Long monologues are fine if they're good! (and it was)

you raise a fair question about the past flights, and from a distance, I would think the the rise of the TATL JV's, parting out of AB's routes, and LH group focus at its other hubs makes todays long haul environment different from the 90's ?
Question is: will any current, viable carrier really grow long haul from TXL/BER, or has that ship sailed (for various reasons) , leaving long haul to less committed LCC's? Someone else brought up BCN as a possible similar example, and that seems to have some validity; a viable market, but dominated by a nearish hub.

FlyHappy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The debate misses the point, there is no suitable airport. TXL is not build for long haul, much less for a hub operations. Waiting areas, security controls, baggage transportation - everything is running at way over design capacity.

I don't think it does. Part of the debate revolves around the idea that even a new, functional airport (vs new non-functional! ) cannot overcome the economic/geo/historical disadvantages that Berlin seems saddled with now, and for the foreseeable future. Honestly, even the new airport debacle probably stems from these same root issues (ie, "wouldn't have happened elsewhere in Germany").

Wherever your opinion falls on that, it is a legitimate debate. Will new BER induce significantly more TATL? - I am dubious (but happy to be proven wrong!).

But even with BER running, the problems will only be reduced by a very small bit.

1. BER will be running at or over design capacity when it opens
2. currently planed extensions are aiming at low cost carriers
3. it will have a night curfew
4. with 2 runways it will be badly slot limited during peak times and most slots will be owned by airlines with no intention for long haul there

Imho it has potential for O&D routes mostly. So a few more destinations in North America (major Hubs of larger airlines) and maybe a few routes to China.

seahawk wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The debate misses the point, there is no suitable airport. TXL is not build for long haul, much less for a hub operations. Waiting areas, security controls, baggage transportation - everything is running at way over design capacity.

I don't think it does. Part of the debate revolves around the idea that even a new, functional airport (vs new non-functional! ) cannot overcome the economic/geo/historical disadvantages that Berlin seems saddled with now, and for the foreseeable future. Honestly, even the new airport debacle probably stems from these same root issues (ie, "wouldn't have happened elsewhere in Germany").

Wherever your opinion falls on that, it is a legitimate debate. Will new BER induce significantly more TATL? - I am dubious (but happy to be proven wrong!).

But even with BER running, the problems will only be reduced by a very small bit.

1. BER will be running at or over design capacity when it opens
2. currently planed extensions are aiming at low cost carriers
3. it will have a night curfew
4. with 2 runways it will be badly slot limited during peak times and most slots will be owned by airlines with no intention for long haul there

Imho it has potential for O&D routes mostly. So a few more destinations in North America (major Hubs of larger airlines) and maybe a few routes to China.

Fully agree. Some more LCC's might be able to open some more long haul routes.

seahawk wrote:

But even with BER running, the problems will only be reduced by a very small bit.

1. BER will be running at or over design capacity when it opens
2. currently planed extensions are aiming at low cost carriers
3. it will have a night curfew
4. with 2 runways it will be badly slot limited during peak times and most slots will be owned by airlines with no intention for long haul there

Imho it has potential for O&D routes mostly. So a few more destinations in North America (major Hubs of larger airlines) and maybe a few routes to China.

All true, but many major long haul gateways (LHR, notably) have 2 runways, are curfew restricted, and bulge at the seams!
These things suggest to me that short haul/LCC ops are more profitable out of the Berlin, rather than TATL/long haul, given that other mature hubs are "nearby".

AaronPGH wrote:

Berlin is the hottest shit in Europe. Eventually this is going to create more flights.

Are the kebabs spicier in Berlin than in the rest of Germany?