ImperialAero From Canada, joined May 2005, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5724 times:
I think the point with the business model is that there are very few people who would willingly chose to spend over 4 hours in the sardine-can conditions pushed by easyJet and Ryanair. Add to that lack of complementary, or inclusive meals and drinks, and it starts to fall apart...
I know for sure i'd pay the extra for comfort in long haul, but could just about stand the discomfort for a short hop to the continent, and i'd have thought this goes for most people...
IanatSTN From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5700 times:
Quoting ImperialAero (Reply 4): very few people who would willingly chose to spend over 4 hours
If I could pay less for a flight from London -> US, heck, I wouldn't mind putting up with a bit of tight legroom for a while. And I don't think I'm alone. Agreed, it is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. However, I am absolutely no expert in this field whatso ever. What other airlines, if any, have tried to adopt a new lowcost longhaul model?
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13766 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5698 times:
There would probably be issues as to duty time, staffing hours and EU regulations on same on longer flights. As it is, aren't some of Ryanair's and EasyJets' flights up to around 3 hours already? They already serve many places in southern Europe, such as Spain, Italy and into Eastern Europe as well. What do you want them to serve next? Israel? Greece? Egypt?
RTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5691 times:
Quoting ImperialAero (Reply 4): I think the point with the business model is that there are very few people who would willingly chose to spend over 4 hours in the sardine-can conditions pushed by easyJet and Ryanair. Add to that lack of complementary, or inclusive meals and drinks, and it starts to fall apart...
Plus the fact that their ability to maintain high utilisation rates would start to diminish if they flew longhaul. With many longhaul flights, even with a swift turnaround you can effectively only get one return trip in a day due to time changes, night restrictions, etc.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 10663 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5206 times:
Long haul does not fit their business model. Starting thatb they need a second A/C type in the fleet, overnight stay of crews at destination,no 25 mins turn-arounds possible up to the point that they have tom stock visa waiver and customs forms and always make sure the plane is catered with all the things you need for overseas / third country flights.
This may sound odd, but mnakes sense for a company that does not allow its employees to charge their private mobile/cellphones in the office. Scrooge O'Leary won't go for that, he does not even fly outisde the EU countries in Europe.
And, as mentioned in another thread, that market is served already by the leisure carriers
Olympicbis From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5187 times:
Ryanair long haul : why not also starting "cheap" orbital flights like Virgin Galactic intends to do ? You would even have to pay for the oxygen....
As several others said before, there might be people ready to suffer in those cattle cars for a couple of hours, but I doubt that so many would do it on a transatlantic flight, as I do not think that Mr O' Leary's so-called business model would enable him to compete or do the same damage in that kind of playground... Now if he would like to give it a try, I would even support him if this could help precipitating the demise of his joke of an airline... and force him to swallow his misplaced arrogance.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5033 times:
LLC have advantages in certain areas of the cost structure, which more and more work out with shorter flights. Extremely roughly sumarized and non-exhaustive enumeration of these
low share of fuel cost within overall cost (as opposed to long haul flights)
many cycles per day --> many passengers --> spread your fixed costs over many people
many passengers per day--> better performance of onboad sales
only short-haul/low-medium-haul --> one fleet type
rigid stationing of airplanes --> very effetive airplane/crew deployment --> almost no overnight stays, no deadheads, no aircraft positioning.
Other (unpopluar) cost saving measure which are known from the press, e.g. no unions, bad payment of staff, short turn-around times on the ground, are part of the business model, but won't work out to the same extent on long-haul.
As you can see, LLC's business strategy is through and through aligned to short haul service. But many cycles result in high airport costs, which is the reason Mr Leary is exerting so much pressure on airports and is generally avoiding big, expensive airports.
Especially at RyanAir air fares have barely any relation to the leg distance, which underlines that distance-dependent cost only have a low impact on costs, BECAUSE distances are short (and also AS LONG AS distances are short). With long-flights all these advantages simply don't work out anymore.
Gman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5016 times:
If a 767/777/787/747/A330/A340/A380 ever takes off in Ryanair colours on a long haul service, world air forces should be immediately scrambled to shoot down the offending airfcraft and Leahy be arrested for crimes against humanity.
Diesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1642 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 4982 times:
As usual, a thread regarding Ryanair turns into the usual O'Leary/Ryanair diatribe... In amongst the prejudice, ill informed opinion and smart@rse comments, a few salient points are introduced (but are often smothered by the naysayers... )
Let's look at the facts...
The Low Cost business model used by Ryanair/easyJet (and other LCCs) is suited to relatively short journeys on a point to point basis.
Low Cost trans Atlantic travel has been tried, and has failed - Laker AW and PeoplExpress come to mind, and no recent planned start-up has managed to launch as they can't make a business plan work.
Trans Atlantic flights have always been available at a far lower flight/mile cost for the passenger than intra European short haul flying (until the advent of the LCC). There are seasonal variations, but a scan of Expedia or a long distance seatbroker like Trailfinders will show this. As with the LCCs the earlier you book, the more likely you are to get a good deal
Trans Atlantic economy flying is not a huge profit generator for the airlines, it's the business and first class seating that's the profit cash cow
The 'sardine can' conditions offered by Ryanair and easyJet are no different to what is offered by many of the charter carriers, and this includes their trans Atlantic flights to the delights of the Caribbean or Florida. There's no doubt there is a demand for more comfort/service on these flights, and it will be interesting to see whether First Choice's upgraded service becomes the norm, or whether market demands for the cheapest holiday possible mean that they have to revert to the sardine can conditions for the majority of passengers
Deep Vein Thrombosis is an industry issue and not one that would be confined to Ryanair or indeed would be anymore prevalent to them - the best way to help avoid it is to follow the advice given, not to stick a couple of extra inches onto the seat pitch...
Many of the LCCs are hugely successful - they are no 'joke' and stand as independant profitable businesses that require no support from their governments to fly.
So... the facts are clear - O'Leary / Webster and many of the chief execs of other LCCs in Europe know what their market is and know what they need to do to be profitable. They don't need trans Atlantic flights - it adds no value to what they offer, instead only adding risk and cost to their existing business and thus compromising profit.
YOWguy From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4908 times:
Laker airlines was a relatively successful long haul lcc, until BA put the pressure on them. That was a number of years ago , and the world economy has changed since, with much higher gas prices, fickle passengers as well as other pressures.
Drinkstrolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4889 times:
Quoting Diesel1 (Reply 17): Low Cost trans Atlantic travel has been tried, and has failed - Laker AW and PeoplExpress come to mind, and no recent planned start-up has managed to launch as they can't make a business plan work.
Why did these two go skint? And didn't Laker have another go at it some years later?
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17494 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4870 times:
Quoting IanatSTN (Reply 5): If I could pay less for a flight from London -> US, heck, I wouldn't mind putting up with a bit of tight legroom for a while.
Most long haul carriers, especially across the pond, make most of their money oin premium travelers. LCCs have been tried, and mostly failed.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12): This may sound odd, but mnakes sense for a company that does not allow its employees to charge their private mobile/cellphones in the office.
Many things make sense out of principle, but the power consumption of those cellphones chargers is negligeble. Giving employees small perks which cost the company almost nothing (coffee, charging cellphones) is good for morale. I hate working for companies that feel the need to be stingy on the little things. I always focus on those instead of work...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4512 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4807 times:
Quoting IanatSTN (Reply 5): If I could pay less for a flight from London -> US,
Is 198GBP + tax (usually available on LON-NYC/BOS for up to 6 months out of the year) not cheap enough already? Practically every TATL airline serves as a low-fare carrier during the slower periods - hence, there's little unserved demand for low TATL fares that a LCC like Ryanair can tap into.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4756 times:
It is wrong to say that low cost trans Atlantic travel has been tried and has failed, citing Laker as an example.
If anything, low cost trans Atlantic travel was a huge success. When Laker's Skytrain started, people queued outside their ticket office at London Victoria for days to get a ticket, as initially tickets were only available on the day of travel. The queues became so long (people sometimes waited for over 7 days) that the UK Government lifted the restrictions and allowed tickets to be purchased for the next available flight eventually extending to any flight. The Skytrain network expanded to include LAX, SFO and Miami.
Although the legacy carriers did not initially see Laker as a threat, when the booking restrictions were lifted they started to feel the heat. The legacy carriers offered competitive fares to Laker's Skytrain (although the number of available seats was limited). When Laker started to eye up business passengers and offered his Regency Class, and then announced that Skytrain would be expanding with European routes, the legacy carriers conspired against Laker and this is when his first airline started to go downhill leading to the liquidation.
Laker did leave his mark as trans Atlantic travel was opened up to the masses. The Skytrain concept was different to LCC's concept. As to why LCCs might not work on long haul, see the thread Would A Transatlantic L.C.C. Work? (by OB1504 Aug 23 2004 in Civil Aviation)
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
: GBP199 return flights LON-NYC/BOS are only available to those who stay a Saturday night, they are not available to many business travellers who can't
: It is not, but it is part of Schengen and it has an air agreement with the EU, same as Switzerland (which is not part of Schengen) allowing any EU ai
: Knowing O' Leary, he might even be able to find a 737-100 for the occasion.
: Yes, but the point still stands - low fares are available on Transatlantic flights, in both Economy (winter months) and Business Class (summer months
: msn 3, 203 and 217 are said to be stored, condition unknown
: Just to go off topic slightly, the Easy group have the brand name "EasyAtlantic" protected!
: If it is for Ryanair, msn 3 sould be more than OK as it is probably the oldest, so cheapest one. Will be a flight to remember.......Thanks for the in
: LCC business models work best in markets that are significantly underserved and/or where aggressive discounting is not commonplace. Neither of these t
: BCAL, thanks for the reasoned, fuller explanation behind Laker's failure - at the end of the day, the fact is, the airline failed. In the more restric
: Diesel1, no hard feelings. This was just for fun with the other guy who posted " fancy LHR -LAX in a 737-200" Who doesn't know about the hundreds of
: Cramp an A380 with 500 seats on the lower deck and a big Casino on the upper-deck. Katsjing, there's your revenue! OK seriously now, there will probab