BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2201 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9335 times:
How come we havent seen a low cost carrier that just deals with long haul routes. What is so different that we cant see airlines lets say that only offer trans-atlantic flights to the USA from UK or continental Europe or vice versa?
Both of them ran into financial difficulties - Laker going into receivership and being liquidated, while PEOPLExpress was bought out by Texas International and merged into Continental.
The problem with applying the LCC model as demonstrated by DJ, FR, WN etc to a long haul operation is that one of the big ways in which these airlines keeps costs down is by having their aircraft in the air as much as possible, with quick turnarounds. This formula becomes more difficult to apply as you get longer sector lengths. Having to deal with immigration and customs can also increase time spent on the ground. That's not to say a long haul LCC couldn't work, but it would be somewhat more difficult than a short haul one...
[Edited 2004-06-18 09:36:05]
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9135 times:
The day of a 'RyanAtlantic' type of operation is probably fast approaching.
Give me a 777 with 9 abreast seating , a 32 inch seat pitch, good audio-video on demand, and a choice of decent food and drink to buy, and I'd fly that non-stop from Sydney to LAX any day rather than the punishment given to economy class travellers on Qantas and United at the moment.
Srbrenna From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9051 times:
You're all forgetting that while short haul is easy - there is cabotage within EU countries and the US domestic market is huge - long haul is still regulated by loads of treaties, the most restrictive being Bermuda II. Until this aspect is sorted out I can't see it happening in the short term.
Looking at it economically I can't see too many problems if they have the right aircraft (7E7 if the running costs are low and the cattle truck A380)
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12280 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8907 times:
The one thing to remember about the difference between LCC's and a long haul is this. The frequent flyers are willing to give up 1.000 miles to save a few bucks here and there, now 3.000 miles one way, well that is a whole different story. That is where the fight will be. Also keep in mind that if your a long haul LCC's and that is what your focus is going to be, where is the feed to fill your flights? And if you need to buy a flight to make your flight, where is the savings?
Aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8777 times:
Not sure why they failed, but I think they were perpetually undercapitalized.
That and the planes were held together by duct tape.
A low cost long haul? No in-flight entertainment, no meals, high density 3-4-3 seating. Sound like a model a low cost carrier would put forth and lure unsuspecting travelers with.
A long haul LCC would have to be different than the domestic LCCs. IFE? Maybe not PTVs, but drop down monitors. LH doesn't have PTVs. Plus, now the airline can make money on headphone sales. Meals? On a USA to Europe flight, for dinner how about something like this?