Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Widebody Futures For Low-cost Airlines?  
User currently offlineJumboBumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Do you think there is any chance that airlines that are moving toward flying only A320 family a/c like JetBlue and Frontier could ever (very long term) introduce A330/A340 family a/c as a way to initiate high capacity and/or international service? I know... Frontier already serves Mexico from DEN. In theory, this would necessitate only two pools of pilots due to what the folks at Airbus term commonality. This kind of already exists at Frontier during the transition from 732/3 to A318/319. Are there other airlines that have successfully made this move? After all, Virgin seems to have started off as an airline catering to "backpackers."


13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Widebodies take a longer turnaround time, and also have a higher break even load factor, so in a sense, unless some of these LCCs come down with a case of severe PEOPLExpressitis, not bloody likely.

User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4488 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

As Srbmod pointed out correctly, it has been tried before (PEOPLExpress comes to mind first and foremost, I am positive there were a few more..Laker maybe?) and just proved too much to be feasible. For WN to introduce widebodies is just too big of a jump; a similar thing happened to PEOPLExpress...overambition led to the demise of that airline


I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

Again agreeing with all said so far. Also if the plan is not broken why change it? The LCC's are doing fine serving the markets they are going after, and most markets can be served with narrow body aircraft after all. Just because it is International does not mean it has to be wide body. Remember before we had wide bodies it was 707's crossing the pond.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineJumboBumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2897 times:

Are there "secondary" airports or cities (i.e. international equivalents of DAL or BWI) that would be consistent with LCC business models that could be served by a/c that are ETOPS?

Being a native Coloradoan, I would just like to eventually see F9 with a broader reach Big grin


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25012 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

JumboBumbo:

Clearly, Frontier has it's eyes on south of the border. They've said they want to be the airline of choice for Mexican flights from Denver.

But what next? Will they add some inland cities - Monterrey or Mexico City? Or will they stick to resorts? Will they go further south, to Belize perhaps? I believe the A319/318 could go as far as Caracas, Venezuela from Denver.

Then there's the question of overwater aircraft. Presently, Frontier's flight to Cancun hugs the coast. Obviously, it would be a tad quicker and cheaper if they flew direct, but this would require some planes in the fleet to be fitted with life rafts, life vests, etc.

But only having a couple of planes in the fleet for overwater flights doesn't make a lot of sense for one destination, so IF that ever happens, then they could be looking at some Caribbean routes, such as Denver to Jamaica or Santo Domingo.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2789 times:

Skymark in Japan uses widebodies. That is the only low-co I can think of that currently uses them, or has used them with any degree of success. Well, ATA has some old Tristars and they were good for awhile. They have been mainly used for charter work.

User currently offlineCapt078 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

australian airlines is another. they just commenced operations using all coach 767-300s. in the u.s., i doubt we will see an expansion of lcc's to planes larger than 757s/a321s in many markets, except maybe routes like atl-fll (which delta operates with 767-400).

User currently offlineDoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Not only Australian Airlines, but now Gulf Traveller is using ex-GF 767s.

Although not necessarily low-fares, there are plenty of low-cost airlines using wide-bodied aircraft - just look at the UK charter airlines. The charter airline model has incredibly low costs - high utilisation rates are also a feature here.

A number of these same charter airlines are now offering low fares too. Take Britannia or Monarch for instance.

These airlines usually operate 757s/767s and A330s on a variety of routes within Europe, and further afield to places such as Florida and the Maldives.

rgds


User currently offlineWMUPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1473 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

The Tri-stars will be in service for a few more months. I've heard several strong rumors that there will be another widebody replacing the Tri-stars, however that may not be for a couple of more years.


JetBlue - Bringing humanity back to air travel
User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2606 times:



LH is using 737 BBJ on the DUS - JFK route, so LCC's would be able to fly 737/757 transatlantic if they wanted to. Personally I think they should since the transatlantic fares are still to high for me........ A 2 hour flight London - South of France costs 4.99 Euro, so a n 8 hour flight LON - NYC should cost 19.96 Euro...........



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

LH is using 737 BBJ on the DUS - JFK route

Those flights also only seat around 50 people (payload reduction) each paying $3000-7000 for the flight. Not exactly the WN model......  Insane


User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

ConcordeBoy,

I'm just pointing out that an 737/757 can fly the route... So why should a LCC not try something like that?

Bastiaan



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Icelandair and Continental do Transatlantic service with 757s, so yes it can be done, but does it really fit the LCC models? LCCs try to make do with as little frills as possible. A US-Europe flight would require meal service, which for most LCCs would be a luxury item. PeoplExpress sold meals onboard, so perhaps a similar type thing can be done. Perhaps the biggest hurdle would be getting the ETOPS certificate.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...