Skyhigh From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 234 posts, RR: 6 Posted (6 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3655 times:
I am currently looking for a very cheap way of getting from Japan (Tokyo, Osaka or Nagoya preferably) to Shanghai, or vice versa. I might not have done my research well enough but I can't seem to think of any names when it comes to Low Cost Carriers in Japan.
Is it due to the cost of Labour in Japan, or something to do with the Unions? Is it because the JAL and ANA would easily bankrupt any new starters?
Air travel in the Japanese domestic market is HUGE, I would have thought that someone would have tried.
Detroitflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3608 times:
there are plenty of small name carriers in that area (that i am only GUESSING) are LCC's. Examples Starflyer, hong kong express, xiamen
maybe you can book on these unless you go directly to their site.
There is high labor costs in Europe and the USA, and that is where most of the LCC's started and are based. So i dont think labor has too much to do with it.
CinJA From Singapore, joined Jan 2007, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3543 times:
There are 4 LCC's in the domestic market (Skymark, Skynet Asia, Air Do, Starflyer). They don't offer ridiculously cheap fares that you might see in Europe, but there are substantial savings over JAL and ANA. For example, flying tomorrow (June 19) from HND-CTS around 1 pm would be 15,500 yen on Skymark, 16,000 yen on Air Do, 26,800 yen on JAL or ANA.
However, we do not have any LCC's flying internationally. I would guess that high landing fees at NRT might have something to do with this, but as travel in Asia increases I would expect at least one LCC to try to move on to the international market, particularly China. I don't believe unions have anything to do with this, it's possible the government is preventing it to help JAL and ANA, but I have no evidence to back this up.
Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3597 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
No International LCCs to China or Asia yet (only JetStar to OZ). But I have heard that NGO is in talks with a few for service (rumored as Tiger and Viva Macau).
NH has been rumored to be looking into developing a JetStar like operation in the next coming years. This would take care of the low yield tourists on flights up to 6 hours or something like that. The main target would be China and Korea. But the big problem is NRT. KIX, FUK, CTS, and NGO as well as a handful of other airports could take LCCs now but the major market of Tokyo is restricted. When HND opens up the new runway and allows for more international flights, the LCC market maybe increase.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
Geniusjacky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
Japan itself is small and doesn't really warrant LCC domestically. NH and JL is pretty low cost structured anyways when you are running a 747-400D with all economy.
Also, flights within Asia is not liberalized. It's not the same as in EU where carriers can fly wherever they want.
NRT is super slot-restricted as well, making it hard for new LCC to compete for new slots. And there is only a handful of airports in Japan that handles international, e.g. NRT, KIX, NGO, FUK, CTS. It's definitely a hub and spoke system working within Japan with hubs dominated by major carriers already.
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2779 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Travel to China is highly regulated and even air fares are regulated, so LCCs are currently given the shaft.
I travel many times to China/Japan and flights of only 1.5 hour duration can cost upwards of US$2,000 on full-fare with only modest or negligible discounts on routes where there is no competition.
Japan to Shanghai routes are less expensive because of the larger number of flights but they are still not exactly inexpensive either. This is one the big reason why the Japanese legacies are making money even with poor loads because the yield is so high.
Japan is so much more different than the US or Europe because of the lack of a secondary airports to the main cities such as Tokyo & Osaka. First problem is slots at these airport and then the development of the secondary airports is out of the question because there aren't any to speak thereof and not likely to change anytime in the next decade.
Lastly, the reason is user fees more than anything else that drives up the cost of doing business in Japan. Whether they be enroute, landing, parking, etc, the Japanese Ministry of Transport charges a lot and then there's all the bureaucracy attached as well.
As a personal opinion, I could care less about LCCs, as fares are not exactly dirt cheap but no longer that expensive in previous years on domestic routes. In the last decades, there are a variety of air fares based on advanced purchasing introduced. While there maybe some downgauging in aircraft size as HND opens up another runway, I would much prefer a 777/787 flight to any narrowbody flight regardless of the duration of the flight. Next, I'd like to keep the RJ phenomena (except where necessary) out of this neck of the woods.
Really? Japanese people aren't any richer than Americans or [pick a Western European nation]. Most people like to save money... just look at the 100 yen stores: so much better than the dollar stores in the US.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): Not to mention the Japanese public has alternatives to domestic air such as the Shinkansen trains
They're pretty expensive.
Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6): Japan is so much more different than the US or Europe because of the lack of a secondary airports to the main cities such as Tokyo & Osaka.
That's gotta be the real reason. Just wait till the US leaves OKO (Yokota, in eastern Tokyo) and gives Tokyo another airport. Of course this won't happen in the foreseeable future.