AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2775 posts, RR: 43 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
If by LCC, you mean domestic US LCC, I think the answer is no. The LCCs have lived (and perhaps died) by the rule of using the smallest plane in a mainline family (ie, 318, 319, 717 or 737) and adding capacity via frequency rather then by using larger jets. This is part of the reason you don't see wide bodies fly domestic much anymore (look at the thread currently on how many routes used to be flown via L-1011, or DC-10). Thoose routes arn't flown by big planes any more but by lots of little baby boeings and airbii.
As far as international LCC, Laker proved you could do it with DC-10's and a variety of smaller planes. I think that the 787 makes international LCCs carriers possible and maybe even inevitable.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1874 times:
I don't think it will have much utility for LCCs. It's a lot of capacity to juggle around, and the 783, as a variant of the long haul 787 family, may not be optimized enough for short haul operations. If future narrowbody aircraft optimized from the ground up for short hual operations are as or more efficient as the 783, 783 operators in a market with lots of narrowbody operators might just have some cost issues.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
It's probably too big for the LCCs.
Song operate the 752 which is the only current operation which uses a comparable size aircraft. However the whole ethos of lowcost is bums on seats and cheap.
That's why they work to a specific size aircraft they can fill up and turn a profit. That means a sub-200 seater in the mould of the 73G (at Southwest) and 738 at Ryanair. By using a set size generating a decent turnover per flight (with less empty seats or full) they can accurately forecast profit and loss on a route.
Using something larger just adds in more seats and more uncertainty. Lowcosts trade on certainty of occupancy levels and fixed costs. The thinking is the same as a shop selling a fixed menu of pies per day, but knowing they can turn a profit from that. Changing the type of pies or their size/filling could make them even more money, but they can't be sure of that and it would cost more to make them.
So they stick to a fixed formula which works rather than gamble with increasing their costs, and open up more shops with the same type of pies.
SirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
A single class 783 can seat 300pax. Far far more than a 73x, filling 150 or so seats. Outside of Asia, I cant see a LCC filling this plane. On the 788, you might actually might manage that - I think it is like 230 pax in 2-class, figure out some way to make it 1 class at 200 pax and then start an international LCC.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
Quoting SirOmega (Reply 6): A single class 783 can seat 300pax. Far far more than a 73x, filling 150 or so seats. Outside of Asia, I cant see a LCC filling this plane. On the 788, you might actually might manage that - I think it is like 230 pax in 2-class, figure out some way to make it 1 class at 200 pax and then start an international LCC.
A 2-class B787-8 would seat exactly the same number as a 2-class B787-3 except that a bit more space would probably be allocated for galleys and lavs. A 1-class B787-8 would seat well over 300, unless it were an all busines class config, but we're talking LCCs in this thread. An LCC might configure a B787-8 with 9 abreast seating and get nearly 400 seats into a single class config.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1618 times:
You can forget any Low-Cost Carrier getting the 787-3.
The reason is simple: it would take too long to turn around the plane in LCC configuration. People forget that in the USA and Europe LCC's usually try to turn around a plane in 30 minutes or less, since the airliner in flight carrying passengers makes more money for the airline.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1579 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 4): The new US Airways (US/HP) claims to be exactly that, and they fly to Europe.
The thread is about the 783, not the 787 in general, which implies a discussion of aircraft used on short haul routes. The A350 isn't going to be used on short haul routes unless it is used on such routes to increase aircraft utilization in between long haul flights. Moreover, has US even claimed to be a LCC on long haul flights? I presumed they were talking about domestic operations. It seems to me that long haul flights don't lend themselves to lowering operating costs through the means that LCCs use to lower operating costs, namely by keeping aircraft up in the air via quick turn arounds and by increasing utilization of ground assets at both ends of a route.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7442 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1539 times:
The only use I can see would be on high density long lights for domestic LCCs, but that would change the model. IF, and it's a big if, a LCC can work the number and find it profitable for limited routes then there is a chance. The other factor is the need to get more freight than pax luggage. Mail is one way, as is deals with package carriers, like DHL.
I would be surprised to see it - WN on a NY to LAX route might be some thing that would work, but it still would be a surprise.