ACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 362 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
Since I am preparing my master's degree dissertation and few material is available on this topic, I would like to read your opinions about the feasibility of establishing a Low Cost Airline in Latin America.
Opinions welcome from all Latin American and non Latin American A.net members. Please be as objective and professional as you can in your statements.
I will quote any opinion provided that is relevant enough for my work. I will include names and data of members to be used as a bibliographic reference in this dissertation.
Some starter questions:
1) To what extent it would be feasible for a LCC to operate in LA?
2) Routes and market served? BOG-MIA, PTY-UIO, CCS-SJO, MEX-HAV
3) Potential hubs? BOG, GRU, EZE, SCL.
4) Best equipments (Embraer, A320, 737)
5) Any previous attempt for a LCA in Latin America (Gol? Inter?)
Let's support this topic with specific arguments. No arguing please.
Thanks in advance
Regards.
SoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
1)To what extent it would be feasible for a LCC to operate in LA?
2) Routes and market served? BOG-MIA, PTY-UIO, CCS-SJO, MEX-HAV
3) Potential hubs? BOG, GRU, EZE, SCL.
4) Best equipments (Embraer, A320, 737)
5) Any previous attempt for a LCA in Latin America (Gol? Inter?)
Air transportation is not accessible to a large sector of the population in Latin America; therefore, any low cost transportation would have a good appeal and a certain degree of success for a market that ironically, really needs this type of transportation due to the lack of a well developed level of highway infrastructure, and, in some instances, to security reasons.
Low Cost carriers require a high utilization of the aircraft to make revenue; it means quick turnarounds which is feasible in not congested airports. Now, international flights require extra time for immigration and customs. Visa requirements make it hard to travel from/to certain countries within Latin America. Just think about the hassle to travel to EU because of the security issues. I think that a LCC would be successful among countries with enough local market and agreements of free trade of goods and people. I see this only possible in South America excluding Venezuela. Why? Venezuela is the only one that hassles others to let people in.
Centro America nations already have Taca and Copa, they don’t have enough local market to support another airline; furthermore, these airlines survive because of its flight to North America and to some extend to South America.
Rather than hubs, a LCC focus on city to city links. If they meant to have some hubs, I think EZE and SCL are to far away, I guess Bolivia is more central, VVI perhaps?
Best equipment would be a mix of Embraer and 737. Embraers serve pretty well regional market which would be ideal for short hauls within a country. These planes are manufactured in Brazil; therefore, prices should be the best competitive on this arena. The 737 would be the best alternative flying international cities since these planes have proven successful already in L.A. market. Costs are cheaper than Airbus counterpart given that dollar is cheaper and will be for a good while. Free trade agreement undergoing right now between North America and Latin America guarantees even more the best price.
YULtoPEI From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1839 times:
I agree with SoAmSky, a low cost airline are regional and it's why turnaround is faster.
and the other point i think, its flying in south America for regional route is always cheap. With Allianza summa in Colombia i fly ADZ-BOG-PEI for less money the YUL-YYZ
ACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 362 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1805 times:
You are right, SoAmSky. LCA do not operate a hub system, however they do operate bases. Luton for easyjet, Ryanair's Stanted, Houston's Hobby Airport. So which city pairs could be served in Latin America? Mexico is a big city and Buenos Aires too, but they are long-haul destinations each other. What would be these optimal city pairs in L.Amer.?
The new Embraer's 70-120 seats range could be appealing to this market. Remember the market is not as big as the European one and Embraer offers a product designed for the harsh conditions of topography in the region.
What about secondary airports. There are not much of these in L.A.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1781 times:
If Mexico had a different aviation policy (not protective of CINTRA), and if we had (an effective) train service from Mexico City to TLC, then maybe TLC could be the base of a low cost carrier.
SoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1737 times:
Latin American carriers already service the market that has to travel internationally in within L.A, but there is a potential market that could travel if optimal condition were given. There is where LCAs would be important to stimulate this market.
Living in a country in Latin America, if I wanted to go to a neighbor country for a quick gateway, I automatically rule out countries with visa requirements. ie: nationals from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru, Paraguay, Panama among others need visa to enter Mexico, so Mexico wouldn't be appealing on that regard; citizens from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru, panama need visa to enter Venezuela, so Venezuela wouldn't be a choice either. Why going thru the hassle of a visa when you're visiting 3 days or so?. Now I have to worry about prices and currencies, let's see, If going to Peru, I need soles; If I go to Ecuador I need dollars; If I go to Colombia I need Colombian pesos; If I go to Brazil, I need reals...hummm, what would be the cheapest???. How much is my ticket? Ok... ohh. I almost forgot I need to pay international fees in each airport, it seeems I'm getting short, ... But wait!!! I haven't had the vaccine I need to have to be able to.... You know what?? I better save my money for later.
In short, with all that hassle, there is no incentive for people to travel, that is why, I think, it's important an integration in order to have free circulation of goods and people hassle free, so people don't think twice to grab a back pack and run to the airport.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1697 times:
As a matter of domestic security policy, Mexico is especially sensitive of visitors from certain South American countries. Mexico is, whether we like it or not, the last stop of South American drug shipments before going to the U.S. and even to Europe, so special emphasis has to be made in connection with visa requirements for example. In fact, passengers arriving from South America (Mexican or foreign) have to claim their baggage in carousel 8, which is not in the main baggage claim area in MEX and their bags are screened more thoroughly than the rest of the passengers. The same is true for migratory controls. North American, European and Japanese persons coming to work in Mexico do not have a problem in getting their work authorization quickly. For Asians, Africans and South Americans, it is usually a lengthy process because our immigration authorities want to make sure that they will be employed by an existing company and that their salary will be sufficient.
Sorry if this has absolutely nothing to do with this topic (feel free to ask for deletion guys) but I felt I should explain a little what our policy towards nationals from certain countries is.
SoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1639 times:
EddieDude,
"so special emphasis has to be made in connection with visa requirements for example."..."The same is true for migratory controls."
I guess Mexico is entitled to take any measures it deems necessary for migratory and traffic control; however for the very same reasons, I find ironic that the very same Mexico demands from USA an open border policy for their nationals
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
More than ironic. In connection with the airport security measures, the thing is that our government has to implement "special" security measures for Central and South American arrivals because it is pressured by the U.S. government to do so (the idea is to stop smugglers before they get to the U.S.). In other words, if the U.S. were not the world's largest consumer of illegal drugs, there would not be carousel 8 (and dogs and x-ray machines in carousel 8) in MEX. Just to give you an example, I am convinced that you can bring a pound of ecstasy pills from the Netherlands and, if properly concealed in your suitcase or something, you can easily get into Mexico without any problem, whereas you can NOT, NOT, NOT bring a few ounces of smoked provolone cheese from Brazil because the sanitary & customs authorities will seize it and lecture you like you were the carrier of a new, deadly virus. I've tried it (bringing the cheese, not the ecstasy), so I can tell you.
In connection with the visas, it is also a Mexico-U.S. issue to some extent. Our government needs to make sure that nationals from the poorest Central and South American countries will not enter our country freely to remain illegally in Mexico and, more important, seek to enter the United States from the Mexican border (like tens of thousands of Mexicans do every year).
The U.S.-Mexico immigration, visas, etc. issues are very complex. It sounds harsh and horrible, but there are two classes of Mexicans (for purposes of traveling to the U.S.). One category is thousands and thousands of middle-class and wealthy Mexicans who travel once, twice or more times a year to the U.S. to do business, visit friends & family, shop, vacation, etc. and who pour millions of dollars a month into the economy of cities like San Antonio and Houston. You will find them in the best seats of a Broadway play, in the shoe department of Neiman Marcus, in minivans driving from Miami to Orlando, and skiing in Aspen or Vail. The second category is also thousands and thousands of people, only that these live in misery and enter the U.S. illegally to find a job and make some money. The effort of the Mexican government to have an open border policy has some logic if you think about it. The illegal aliens do work in the U.S. that no American citizen wants to do and the U.S. will be better off if it allows a number of Mexicans to enter the U.S. and get these jobs rather than haunt them in the desert and deport them to Mexico. And as for us, the people who visit as tourists and businesspeople, we would get the same treatment that Europeans, Australians, Japanese, etc. do and would not be subject to the mood changes of the U.S. immigration officers who can be really nice but who can also be complete assholes.
Rojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2353 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
Ahhh, this makes me remember the good old times working in a Mexican Consulate...
Actually, the process described by EddieDude is more complex, and it depends on the purpose of the trip of each person and the nationality. Mexico distinguishes two Immigration status:
- Immigrant
- Non Immigrant
Each status has many different sub-status and depending on the one chosen are the documents needed to get the proper authorization.
For tourist purposes, the different nationalities are divided into three categories:
-Nationalities with Visa Waiver
-Nationalities requiring Visa
-Nationalities requiring Visa and Special Authorization from the INM
When traveling on tourist purposes, a landing card (different colors depending on the citizenship) must be filled and submitted in the port of entry to the immigration officer... Mexico also has what is called "Visto Bueno Consular" (FMT) for countries like Ecuador, El Salvador and Jaimaica.
Countries like Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, etc. require the Special Authorization from the INM (Mexican Institute of Migration) for any type of Visa (Tourist, Business, Student, Transmigrant, etc.) because they are considered countries with people migrating for purposes like terrorism, political asylum, drugs, etc. The INM is very special with these authorizations and most of the times are denied.
What I would like to point out is that not every South and Central American country is subject to very sensitive controls. Ecuador and El Salvador require a FMT "Visto Bueno Consular" because we were getting many nationals coming to the border to go into the US claiming they were here for tourism... but as far as I know, it applies to very few countries.
EddieDude said that it takes ages for citizens of an Asian country to get an FM3 Resident permit. This is not true, since citizens of Japan and South Korea (two Asian countries) never have problems with their FM3 applications. FM3 applications depend on countries and not on Continents or areas of the world!!!
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
Right, I should have clarified. But with the exception of Japanese and South Korean nationals, most Asians face hard times getting migratory documents that allow them to work in Mexico. Obviously the reasons for welcoming Japanese and South Korean nationals are the same as for Western Europeans and North Americans.
SoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1572 times:
ROJO,
"Countries like Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, etc. require the Special Authorization from the INM (Mexican Institute of Migration) for any type of Visa (Tourist, Business, Student, Transmigrant, etc.) because they are considered countries with people migrating for purposes like terrorism, political asylum, drugs, etc. The INM is very special with these authorizations and most of the times are denied."
What a joke! Every body knows that Colombian terrorist rebels called "farc" walk freely in Mexican territory. They even had an office of public relations. The absurdity of this situation led Colombian ambassador in Mexico to state that it's much easier for farc rebels to get visas to Mexico than it is for honest businessmen.
Bill O'Reilly, from FOX news channel, interviewed Mexican ambassador, Andres Rozenthal, to discuss Mr. Bush guest worker program in favor of the millions Mexican immigrant workers already in the US. I quote O'Reilly: "We don't want this continuing wave coming across the border. And President Fox does not seem to agree with that. He doesn't want this...
Look, you guys seal the border at Guatemala, you're not letting those people in, yet you won't do anything to help us on the border "el Norte.":
Tguman From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 394 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
I will talk primarily about the effectiveness of a LCC in Central America.
A low cost carrier would have difficulty joining a market that is really congested. AA serves every major airport with at least one flight daily to MIA. AA and TACA are "partners" in Central America so TACA also has at least one flight daily between Miami and every major airport. Not only that TACA has many routes within Central America that connect the major economic/political cities in each country. Copa has been expanding its market in Central America, with its partnership with Continental Airlines. CO and Copa serve all major airports an offer either direct flights to Houston, or through the hub in Panama to many cities in the US.
In June/July of 2002, Sol Air has started operations to Miami. This service comes primarily out of Honduras, but the flights consist of one stopover in another Central American city before going to Miami. Sol Air has frozen, at least at this point its prices for round-trip to Miami at $509 USD. This has brought the prices down for the Honduras - MIA routes. However Sol Air is not very low-cost in its Central American flights. $99 USD to go from TGU-MGA when one can travel for $25 USD on the Central American version of Greyhound, TICABUS. www.solair.net for more information on Sol Air.
Above a gentleman mentioned highway infrastructure as being underdeveloped. However within Central America, the Pan American highway is a well kept highway, at least between the El Salvador/Honduran border and Managua. In the past it took 6 hours to travel from Managua to the Honduran border now it takes 3.
A LCC would not be efficient enough, nor would it have the market in Central America. The only people who fly within Central America are businessmen, and even then an executive airline would do better than an LCC. Because the businessmen in Central America want people to know they have money.
Jj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Well, I'll try to give you some insight into the argentinian situation:
1) To what extent it would be feasible for a LCC to operate in LA?
2) Routes and market served? BOG-MIA, PTY-UIO, CCS-SJO, MEX-HAV
3) Potential hubs? BOG, GRU, EZE, SCL.
4) Best equipments (Embraer, A320, 737)
5) Any previous attempt for a LCA in Latin America (Gol? Inter?)
1) Despite the fact that the laods would be good, the yields wouldn't. The cost of running an airline here is very expensive (considering that aircraft are to be paid in dollars or euros, and the local currency is unstable, and the fuel isn't cheap these days). So, I'd say that operating a Low Cost airline in Argentina wouldn't be feasible at the moment. The public would certainly respond very good to a new low cost airline, but for them to choose it, it has to ber really cheap. And charging so little, an airline won't make any money.
Establishing an international low cost airline would be evern more difficult, because there isn't an open skies agreement, so getting the rights to all those routes would take a lot of time.
2) I think most of the current "important" international routes would be logical. Speaking of South America, flying between EZE, SCL, ASU, GRU, BOG, GIG, VVI, LIM, UIO and MVD would be ok.
3) I would suppose a low cost airline would want a big hub, so i suppose Sao Paulo would be the best choice. however, if they are looking for a mor "central" hub, ASU and VVI would make sense.
4)Certainly the 737, especially old ones. A mix of -300 and -400, or something like that. Leasing rates are cheap, and they would cost less to operate. I don't think the embraer whould be considered. It's too small or expensive for a Low Cost airline flying those routes.
5)The previous low cost airline that comes to my mind is LAPA. There were others of course.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
An issue nobody has mentioned and that I just thought about is the reaction of legacy carriers to an LCC. We must recall what AA did to its LCC competition in DFW from 1997 through 1999 (btw, isn't US doing that in PHL now that WN is threatening it?). Or what TAESA on one side and AM and MX on the other did to each other in Mexico.
One possible response from legacy carriers is to engage in a fare war, offering an identical or even lower fare to beat the newcomer LCC at its own game (predatory pricing). AA was successful because 1997-1999 were better times for AA. MX and AM is a different story. Although they were able to kill TAESA, they nearly killed themselves in the process, hence CINTRA and all the current problems in Mexican aviation.
SoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
Jj,
"Despite the fact that the laods would be good, the yields wouldn't. The cost of running an airline here is very expensive (considering that aircraft are to be paid in dollars or euros, and the local currency is unstable, and the fuel isn't cheap these days"
Fares to travel within South American cities are usually high. They are not any cheaper than fares between Europe cities. ie: as of today, an example of the lowest fares between some L.A. cities:
UIO - LIM $180
UIO - bOG $163
SCL - EZE $104
UIO - VVI $445
VVI - SCL $304
GRU - EZE $259
BOG - LIM $254
BOG - SCL $634
Example of the lowest fares between some European cities:
PAR - MAD $131
PAR - BCN $85
PAR - FRA $245
MAD - FRA $161
MAD - FCO $195
MAD - MIL $121
FRA - MIL $131
LON - FCO $132
So, as I can see fares in Latin America could be lowered and still produce enough yield to support a LCC. Granted: "local currency is unstable"; However, International fares in L.A. have always been tied to the dollar; so, don't see any problem there either.
"I think most of the current "important" international routes would be logical. Speaking of South America, flying between EZE, SCL, ASU, GRU, BOG, GIG, VVI, LIM, UIO and MVD would be ok."
Keep in mind that LCC strategy is also looking for underserved cities, and I believe that L.A. has plenty of secondary cities with lots of potential
Rojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2353 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1505 times:
Look, you guys seal the border at Guatemala, you're not letting those people in, yet you won't do anything to help us on the border "el Norte.":
Seal the border? I'm not quite sure of that...
If they mean tighten security at the border with Guatemala and Belize, then people have to go an see it with their own eyes. That border is just a rope dividing Mexico and Guatemala. Anyone can walk freely between the two countries if they want, but hope that the police does not catch anyone in their way to the northern border, because they will be robbed!!!
If they mean seal it with visas, I just stated in my previous post that Mexico does not apply sensitive controls to Central and South America. In fact, Belize and Costa Rica in Central America still benefit from a Visa Waiver with Mexico and Venezuela, Argentina, Brasil, Chile and Uruguay in South America also have Visa Waiver with Mexico. Some controls are in place, but they are not that bad. For other central american citizens which require a Visa to get into Mexico, it is very easy to get it, provided you have money and want to come on Vacations (no false statements). The only problem is Colombia, and we all know the big problem that started with the resignation of the Colombian ambassador to Mexico... One of my best friends here in London is a Colombian guy working for the Colombian Embassy and we have discussed this millions of times, if it is true, then it is a problem of corruption... but that is how the mexican government works.
Lets be real, if the US would like to stop illegal immigration, they would have more laws preventing illegal immigrants from working or getting employment. For example, there is no national ID Card in the US, so there is no way to differentiate an illegal immigrant from a US Citizen. You would say that your Drivers Licence is your ID, but it is not compulsory to have one. I won't talk about AB / Sinchonri (K-16) (SSN / RKSM), South Korea">SSN, I know people who claim they use a AB / Sinchonri (K-16) (SSN / RKSM), South Korea">SSN from a dead guy... Additionally, you have an "ius-solis" policy regarding citizenship, which means that people get citizenship just for being born there, so how would the US want to get rid of migration if even one of the maids in my house went to the US as an illegal immigrant and had her baby there just to give him a US passport!!! I don't think that the US and President Bush should give Mexico what Mr. Fox wants, but there are so many Mexicans in the US that will be able to vote, and Bush wants them to vote for him.
ACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 362 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Rojo and SoAmSky, very interesting analysis about illegal immigration to US, you make your point, but let's keep this thread in its original context: low cost airlines in L.A.
There are many unlinked facts now in this thread. Some favorable and unfavorable points as all of you have stated, so why no initiative to starting a LCA in Latin America so far? Virgin Express, Virgin Blue, Virgin US, there could be, for example, a Virgin L.A in the future? What would be the size of this market? Why is Latin American lagging behind in the main current trend of aviation? Should we think in national markets rather than intertwined markets for LCA in Latin America?
Rojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2353 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
ACES320:
Try to get some information on Azteca Airlines, they are "trying" to become one Low Cost Carrier in Mexico. Their prices are quite good for Mexican standards and they offer complimentary service on-board. The only problem is that Mexico is not really an open economy for aviation thanks to the protection AeroMexico and Mexicana receive... as someone said before, CINTRA is part of the government and it has to be protected! To make a LCC work in Mexico will take a very very very good business plan which will need to be adjusted during its implementation...
You have plenty of good material in this topic that can be used in your dissertation (you get to write 10,000 or 15,000 words??) and hope the people that correct it know a little bit about aviation, since I have had a few problems with some of my essays on aviation, I use a little bit of technical stuff that they don't understand!
Jj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
SoAmSky
You may have point in the fares things, but don't forget that distances in america aren't like in Europe, and so, operating the flights would be more expensive. however you are right on ceratin markets (if your quotes are correct), the fares are too high, especially out of Bolivia. On the other hand, $104 for a Buenos Aires-Santiago flight is cheap enough.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
I am very looking forward to trying a ZE flight at some point. Their fares are fantastic (one-way MEX-CUN starts from around U.S.$75 or so) and they have an all 737 fleet, I believe (many 733's and some 73G's, I think). My only doubt is whether they will be able to maintain these fares longer without going bankrupt. Sure, their flights are probably full, but the yield, the yield...!!!
SoAmSky From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Let's talk about icon LCCs in Europe. Why Europe? bacause it's the most relevant example to the scenario your proposing in L.A.
Take a look at some excerpt I've taken out of the internet:
"European Community, EU
economic and political alliance designed to foster trade and cooperation among its member countries."
"The Single Market: banning the barriers
It took some time for the Member States to remove all the barriers to trade between them and to turn their "common market" into a genuine single market in which goods, services, people and capital could move around freely. The Single Market was formally completed at the end of 1992, though there is still work to be done in some areas - for example, to create a genuinely single market in financial services. During the 1990s it became increasingly easy for people to move around in Europe, as passport and customs checks were abolished at most of the EU's internal borders. One consequence is greater mobility for EU citizens. Since 1987, for example, more than a million young Europeans have taken study courses abroad, with support from the EU."
"easyJet is Europe's leading low-cost airline. Since its first flight in November 1995, the airline has grown from a Luton base offering two routes from Luton to Glasgow and Edinburgh, served by two Boeing 737 aircraft, to one that offers 109 routes from 38 European airports, operating 67 aircraft (April 2003). The phenomenal growth of easyJet was boosted by its merger with Go-fly in August 2002, making the combined company Europe's Number 1 low cost airline. .."
"Ryanair began in 1985 in competition with Aer Lingus flying to the United Kingdom and Ireland with ATR-42 turboprops and BAC/Rombac One-Elevens." But it was till the 90's when Ryanair has positioned as a big Europe LCA.
I believe these LCC European models wouldn't have been successful as they are before the 90's integration. Notice the time frame with the sprung of LCCs? Is this a coincidence? I don't think so.
"Should we think in national markets rather than intertwined markets for LCA in Latin America?"
I hope I made my point. With all the barriers L.A. citizens face to move freely even from/to neighbor countries, I don't think there is room for a truly Latin American LCA rather than national ones like GOL in Brazil.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, RR: 50 Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
I think I agree with SoAmSky. But other than G9 in Brazil, can LCC's be generally successful in each different LatAm country? As I was mentioning in reply 15, predatory pricing is likely to be the reaction from the dominant, full-frills carriers, especially if their cashflow is stable. If not, they can surely try but that could amount to shooting themselves in the foot also. So maybe, though it may sound crazy, a time of economic downturn is the best time for an upstart LCC to launch and to try to become a valid alternative in its respective market since it will be less likely that it will be taken out of business by its larger competitors (not that quality issues, bad planning, market forces cannot drive it out of the market, though). Any thoughts?
Cx340 From Mexico, joined Sep 2000, 609 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1292 times:
Azteca certainly has better fares than AM or MX. I just paid $410 Dollars for two round tip tickets for MTY in two weeks. . .certainly better than the published $750 Dollar restricted fare for the same two tickets on MX and AM, dont you think? Plus, I've been wanting to try Azteca for a while, all I've heard are good comments.
25 EddieDude: Yeah, I've heard good comments about them too. It's too bad that they lost the CO codeshare/mileage accrual benefits (I just don't know if they ever h
26 Cx340: The CO mileage deal breakup is indeed bad news, but from what I understand, Azteca is intending to (or already has, I didn't ask) start their own FF p
27 Fly727: ZE lost the Onepass milage accrual benefits with CO right before AM and CO signed their code-share agreements. Who knows, but maybe it was one of some
28 Brasuca: As it has been discussed up till now, Latin America is not yet ready for a market of some LCCs operating widely especially due to countries' legislati
29 ACES320: EddiDude Certainly a scenario of economic downturn could hedge LCC from hostile actions from the traditional established carriers. However if you cann
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 362 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 308 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 214 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6734 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2353 posts, 
From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
