Talk:Helsinki Airport

Public service obligation

@Ypsilon: I don't understand this:

"[Less busy airports are served] under public service obligation contracts, which means that they may not always be running."

Aren't the public service obligation contracts specifically designed to guarantee traffic even when it is not economically feasible without subsidies? Under what circumstances would such a service not be running?

–LPfi (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I tried to say that while one can plan to fly from Helsinki to for example Oulu or Turku in two or five years in the future (well, except for the corona surprise nobody knew of a little over a year ago) and be almost sure that there are flights, this isn't the case for the PSO flights going to for example Pori or Savonlinna. The contracts for the services are for a certain period in time and if the operator isn't interested in the renewing it, and nobody else is, then the service is gone. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is guaranteed for the term of the contract. For other flights, such as from Riga to Turku, it is up to whims of the airlines. Helsinki–Oulu, of course, is the busiest domestic line because of distance and the size of the cities, so there needs to be some radical change for that connection to disappear. A non-PSO flight, say from Turku to Tampere, could subsist for some time because of some weird logistics, but could as well disappear overnight. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wingo xprs... Also, the companies flying the PSO routes are sometimes not that stable (e.g. Nextjet went benkrupt in 2018 and there were no services to Pori for a couple of years). --Ypsilon (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A couple of years ... :-( Seems the government isn't really interested. But yes, I understand. Word it as you see fit. –LPfi (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

On the positive side of course, the decline in domestic flights is due to trains getting quicker and roads better over the years. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. One can question the need for domestic flights (except perhaps to Rovaniemi and Ivalo), but stability is certainly a virtue, especially for the businesses taking advantage of them (for business travel or tourists), and in the bigger picture the national economy. An airfield being without services for years just because of troubles in a single airline company cannot be in the best interest of the country. –LPfi (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Helsinki-Tokyo over the North Pole?

We say (in History): "Finnair started flying to Tokyo [...] Due to how far north the airport is, it had an advantage at the time since its planes could fly nonstop over the North Pole."

Did they really fly over the North Pole? The direct route goes a bit north of Tomsk (still over Soviet and thus off limits for most Western airlines – and the great circle route from England goes over Finland). The winds at the flight height may of course make some detours save time and fuel, but I think I would have heard about the North Pole thing had they flown that way – what an additional sales point!

–LPfi (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)