Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
That would be destinations to smaller/secondary airports like Frankfurt-Hahn, Stansted.
The service would be improved, like no frills, but slightly better - booking via the internet or telephone, but with food & drinks on request or at least a limited service. And still one type fleet.
How about that?
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3220 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
I like the term "Medium Cost Carrier". I think it describes carriers like Alaska and America West. More service than a true LCC, 2 class A/C, major airports used. Fares slightly higher than a true LCC, but still much less than the legacy airlines...
Capt078 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 421 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
"No airline will EVER want to be classified as "Medium Cost." It sounds ridiculous."
-no airline wants to be called "no frills", "limited service" or "low-cost" either; it sounds cheap and unsafe. that is why low-cost carriers adopted the "low-fare" moniker.
in reality, TOLtommy is correct. we have traditional (read "higher cost") carriers, united, aa, delta...who have transcontinental, international, and often global services. then there are the "medium cost" carriers who are either regional or domestic, but whose costs are relative lower than the traditional carriers. alaska and america west are good examples, but so are aloha, midwest, and hawaiian. and then there are the "low-cost" carriers, who are usually smaller (swa is an exception), and who do not usually offer anything more than one class service (with exceptions of airtran and spirit).
Capt078 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 421 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
InnocuousFox: i think you are missing my point. "low-cost" sounds good to us, but to the less-educated public, it sounds cheap. similarly, "limited service" and "no frills" sound perjorative too. that is why you never see any of the above phrases attached to an airline's advertising. instead, southwest and the like all boast about being "low-fare", a much more customer-friendly term.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
" booking via the internet or telephone, but with food & drinks on request or at least a limited service. And still one type fleet."
You have just described VirginBlue or EasyJet (unless you are saying the food and drinks on request should be free of charge).
The fact is, there already are airlines positioned at various strata in the market. Now you could divide the market into three areas if you wanted, or 4 or 5. At the end of the day though, what matters is not what you call the market segment, but what the market the airline is targeting is.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 11957 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
I would never put Alaska and America West in the same category. Alaska is more full service complete with meal service and America West is a LCC that has no meal service except for select first class flights Now Alaska does not offer any IFE, and America West has it, go figure. Now when you mention a medium class, I think of Midwest / YX they plane have no middle seats, all leather, no IFE tho, and they use to offer better than the majors meals. Well they barely avoided a bankruptcy filing and now offer less meal service, and has introduced a LCC with in an airline concept as well. So my guess would be no market for a medium fare carrier.
Capt078 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 421 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
Luv2fly: i think you are misunderstanding this thread. we are not labeling any of the above carriers as "middle-class", but rather "middle-cost". this is just to point out that there exists a gap between the true "low-cost" carriers, and the "traditional" (high-cost) network carriers. as we all know, "low-cost" and "high cost" are not necessarily a reflection of the level of service offered.
i definitely agree that america west and alaska are very different. nonetheless, their unit costs (casm) tend to be in the middle, as opposed to the low or high.
also, alaska does (sort of) offer inflight entertainment on the transcontinental routes. check out https://www.digeplayer.com/login.php for more information.
lastly, before the introduction of it's "supersaver" service, midwest was a high-cost carrier (casm). now i do not know what their costs-per-available-seat-mile are.
QANTAS747 From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Have a look At Australian Airlines. It is a medium-haul, Low-frills carrier. If has full service meals, and some good IFE, flies out of major airports, lower-cost structure. I think that is more of a middle-class sort of airline....
Mind you, it is used on medium-haul international, so you would want some sort of frills.