So let's start a new topic.
Arguments pro-Asia:
-African potential in pax + cargo
-can expand SN's Africa traffic significantly
-can make SN's shorthaul fleet less vulnerable to increasing LCC competition
-Market that will expand most and fast in the near-term
-Monopoly routes out of BRU, O&D demand
-TK and EK are hitting a capacity barrier as China is restricting their traffic rights to a minimum = unique opportunity for SN! See article below
Arguments Anti-Asia:
-U.S. is more important (for whatever reason?)
-Too long routes (by SN's standards maybe, it's still closer than the moon)
-No money to start the routes (but there is money to start 2 more unprofitable U.S. destinations...)
-Sabena didn't do so well (but at the time most traffic to Africa was from Europe anyway, now the trafic is shifting to Asia very quickly)
-IST and DXB hubs are located better (For East and Central Africa it's true, but for West Africa, where SN has the most coverage, BRU is located as good or better.)
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/g ... ble-136090For all their success elsewhere, the Gulf carriers and Turkish Airlines are looking rather thin in China. This is not by their choosing. Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and Turkish have reached the limit of air rights and slots made available to them.
All are ready to expand, and Turkish has even said it has service to five cities ready to launch if approved. That is probably of little comfort to China. While the country wants a flourishing aviation market, it also wants its airlines to have a fair share. But this is not classic protectionism. The argument is Chinese carriers are still young and need time to gain experience before being on equal footing with peers.
The routes that we have been talking about until now are HKG, PEK, SZX, PVG, CAN, NRT/HND.