Ricopio da un thread su a.net....
In pratica vengono mostrate una serie di destinazioni lungo raggio del network TK, il LF medio, la % del p2p versus il traffico in connessione, e le principali città di transito per la destinazione in esame.
Il tutto sulla base di dati relativi a 12 mesi fino a giugno 2012.
L'Italia compare spesso e volentieri tra i migliori alimentatori del network.
Ci sono rotte, mi viene in mente DAC dove solo l'11% del traffico è diretto a Istanbul
Hello all,
Last month in another thread there was a brief discussion about how some airline network routes can have very high reliance on transfer traffic for their existence.
Following this thread, I was asked my a member if I could share information and provide a bigger network picture for TK to display how routes can be interdependent.
Accordingly here is a long haul route profile for TK that shows how virtually all its longhaul routes rely on huge numbers of hub feed connections. The posted data is looking back 12-months as of June 2012.
Destination / 12-month load factor % / Percent of IST vs Transfer / Top 5 Intl transfer cities
Bangkok / 78% / 41 vs 58% / ARN, CPH, GOT, TLV, HEL
Beijing / 73% / 29% vs 71% / ODS, TLV, OTP, ATH, CDG
Bombay / 82% / 24 vs 76% / TLV, ARN, LHR, IAD, ORD
Chicago / 82% / 47 vs 53% / TLV, BOM, ADD, NBO, IKA
Delhi / 75% / 23 vs 77% / TLV, BCN, IAD, TXL, CPH
Dhaka / 79% / 11 vs 88% / MXP, TIP, IAD, ARN, TLV, ODS, OTP, ALG, KBP
Guangzhou / 71% / 27% vs 73% / TLV, ODS, OTP, ALG, KBP
Hong Kong / 75% / 50 vs 50% / TLV, OTP, ATH, VCE, ODS
Johannesburg / 79% / 33 vs 67% / SOF, CPH, ARN, MXP, TXL
Lagos / 77% / 27 vs 73% / LHR, TLV, MXP, DUB, ATH
Los Angeles / 77% / 45 vs 53% / IKA, BEY, TLV, BOM, AMM
New York / 78% / 58 vs 41% / TLV, IKA, NBO, BEY, GYD
Osaka / 71% / 50 vs 50% / BCN, CDG, FCO, TLV, MUC
Sao Paulo / 71% / 36 vs 64% / BEY, ATH, TLV, DEL, PVG
Seoul / 78% / 34 vs 66% / ATH, FCO, BCN, CDG, TLV
Shanghai / 80% / 37 vs 62% / TLV, OTP, MXP, ODS, BCN
Singapore / 86% / 31 vs 68% / ODS, FCO, TLV, OTP, KBP
Tokyo / 74% / 68 vs 32% / CAI, TLV, BCN, ATH, MXP
Toronto/ 83% / 34 vs 66% / IKA, AMM, JED, MHD, CAI
Washington / 74% / 39 vs 61% / BOM, DEL, IKA, ADD, DAC
So as you can see virtually the entire TK longhaul widebody network is heavily reliant in transfer traffic.
The only markets that are primarily IST O&D are New York and Tokyo - not ironically two of TKs first longhaul markets ever with the arrival of the A310 back in 1988 and 1989.
If anyone is curious about other individual markets, I might be able to get the information for those as well.
In pratica vengono mostrate una serie di destinazioni lungo raggio del network TK, il LF medio, la % del p2p versus il traffico in connessione, e le principali città di transito per la destinazione in esame.
Il tutto sulla base di dati relativi a 12 mesi fino a giugno 2012.
L'Italia compare spesso e volentieri tra i migliori alimentatori del network.
Ci sono rotte, mi viene in mente DAC dove solo l'11% del traffico è diretto a Istanbul
Hello all,
Last month in another thread there was a brief discussion about how some airline network routes can have very high reliance on transfer traffic for their existence.
Following this thread, I was asked my a member if I could share information and provide a bigger network picture for TK to display how routes can be interdependent.
Accordingly here is a long haul route profile for TK that shows how virtually all its longhaul routes rely on huge numbers of hub feed connections. The posted data is looking back 12-months as of June 2012.
Destination / 12-month load factor % / Percent of IST vs Transfer / Top 5 Intl transfer cities
Bangkok / 78% / 41 vs 58% / ARN, CPH, GOT, TLV, HEL
Beijing / 73% / 29% vs 71% / ODS, TLV, OTP, ATH, CDG
Bombay / 82% / 24 vs 76% / TLV, ARN, LHR, IAD, ORD
Chicago / 82% / 47 vs 53% / TLV, BOM, ADD, NBO, IKA
Delhi / 75% / 23 vs 77% / TLV, BCN, IAD, TXL, CPH
Dhaka / 79% / 11 vs 88% / MXP, TIP, IAD, ARN, TLV, ODS, OTP, ALG, KBP
Guangzhou / 71% / 27% vs 73% / TLV, ODS, OTP, ALG, KBP
Hong Kong / 75% / 50 vs 50% / TLV, OTP, ATH, VCE, ODS
Johannesburg / 79% / 33 vs 67% / SOF, CPH, ARN, MXP, TXL
Lagos / 77% / 27 vs 73% / LHR, TLV, MXP, DUB, ATH
Los Angeles / 77% / 45 vs 53% / IKA, BEY, TLV, BOM, AMM
New York / 78% / 58 vs 41% / TLV, IKA, NBO, BEY, GYD
Osaka / 71% / 50 vs 50% / BCN, CDG, FCO, TLV, MUC
Sao Paulo / 71% / 36 vs 64% / BEY, ATH, TLV, DEL, PVG
Seoul / 78% / 34 vs 66% / ATH, FCO, BCN, CDG, TLV
Shanghai / 80% / 37 vs 62% / TLV, OTP, MXP, ODS, BCN
Singapore / 86% / 31 vs 68% / ODS, FCO, TLV, OTP, KBP
Tokyo / 74% / 68 vs 32% / CAI, TLV, BCN, ATH, MXP
Toronto/ 83% / 34 vs 66% / IKA, AMM, JED, MHD, CAI
Washington / 74% / 39 vs 61% / BOM, DEL, IKA, ADD, DAC
So as you can see virtually the entire TK longhaul widebody network is heavily reliant in transfer traffic.
The only markets that are primarily IST O&D are New York and Tokyo - not ironically two of TKs first longhaul markets ever with the arrival of the A310 back in 1988 and 1989.
If anyone is curious about other individual markets, I might be able to get the information for those as well.
