RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 10204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8421 times:
We talked about this in one of my masters courses. I think the general answer is no for if an airline with the Ryanair model as far as service goes. The US already has Southwest. Here are a few reasons.
The US does not have the population density to support enough point to point routes. The large cities already have hubs of legacy airlines and significant low cost carriers.
Public transportation is limited requiring people to drive to airports. Flying to an airport 50 miles from where a passenger wants to go would require the use of a car.
US does not have auxiliary airports where costs are significantly lower. Most US airports are not capacity controlled. There are a few airports in cities where low cost carriers cannot compete.
US legacy airlines already have a very discounted product.
Point to Point alone is more difficult again due to population concentration.
Ryanair is the European version of Southwest Airlines. Michael O'Leary spent weeks learning about Southwest. Ryanair works well because there is high capacity in Europe and a shortage of capacity at many airports. In the US, most cities do not have secondary airports for low cost airlines. Boston has Providence, New York has Islip, Washington has Baltimore, San Francisco has Oakland, but that can't compare to Europe where every city has some other city 30-70 miles away that has an airport.
The US low cost carriers still form hubs with the exception of Southwest. WN has a few hubs, but they aren't necessarily needed for connectivity. Other successful LCCs like Airtran, JetBlue and Frontier need a hub and some feed in addition to point to point routes.
[Edited 2008-05-03 09:32:02]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
LawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 987 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8364 times:
Allow me to offer a rebutal:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1): The US does not have the population density to support enough point to point routes.
Although Ryanair do offer point-to-point service, most of them originate in larger cities (or defacto airports for larger cities), such as STN (London) and HHN (Frankfurt). The case could be made that SWF (New York) and RFD or GYY (Chicago) would be good bases.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1): US does not have auxiliary airports where costs are significantly lower.
See examples above.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1): US legacy airlines already have a very discounted product.
Herein lies where I think the best market could be. If a low-cost carrier built a model of offering flights from nearby airports of large cities (RFD or SWF) to smaller cities not currently served by WN, for instance, on a once or twice-daily frequency, I think they could be profitable.
Service from these smaller cities by the legacy carriers often are supplied using RJs, which are more expensive on a CASM basis.
One good example of this model already is Allegiant, who fly to places like Knoxville from places like Sanford (Orlando), St. Petersburg (Tampa) and Williams Gateway (PHX). They do it with less-than-efficient MD80s, and they have the highest profit margin in the U.S.
I never tried SkyBus, but I think their CMH and GSO bases just didn't have the O&D needed, and from what I heard, their service was sub-par. Plus, fuel costs were a factor.
PLANEGUY From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8183 times:
Well if Skybus' fate is any indication, I'd say 'no'. Now that fuel prices are sky high and there's a credit crunch in the financial markets, I'd say the odds are not in favor for such a start up. The two closest operations we have at the moment are Spirit and Allegiant. For now they seem to be holding their own.
JetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8146 times:
I agree that Allegiant somewhat holds to this model but not really, I don't feel a RyanAir would really be super succesful in the US because like stated above it goes from big city with a big airport with open space to open country roads with like 5 people per square mile. Theres no continuous population enough to support a lot of flights from like SWF to PVD when people can go to like LGA to BOS and get 30 more flights a day for cheaper since theres really no price benefit to the small airports.
And yes Chicago to Rockford RFD is 87mi but Chicago to Gary is 30mi.
YXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 7985 times:
Allegiant is successful for different reasons, they seemed to be more aimed at Visiting Friends & Relatives (VFR) traffic. Having used Ryanair a number of times while living in Dublin they aren't just specific to one type of traveling market.
Allegiant is also holding it's own because it continues to develop markets which are close to the US/Canada border to help drive Canadian traffic to much cheaper fares south of the border. I would suspect that you will see Allegiant go into a quiet non growth mode this year and just continue to work through a tough market working on a business model which is obviously working even with aircraft that may not be the most "green".
If you are going to see Ryanair outside of Europe you will see them get closer to Russia and further into the North African markets where there is more tourism potential (ala Tunisia, Fez & Marrakesh). The UK & Irish markets maybe feeling a bit of a credit crunch at the moment but once life levels out for them once again you will see secondary holiday homes bought in North Africa because they are cheaper than buying in Spain & Portugal and a lot easier to purchase .
Ryanair in the US doing point to point, I would say is highly unlikely. Ryanair flying from DUB & STN to the US is probably more likely, I'm just not sure if their aircraft could go much further than NY or Boston?
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4484 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 7941 times:
One thing special on Ryanair:
Most, more than 90% of their traffic, is not just got from others, they do create completely new demand. I was in HHN this morning at 5.30, 11 FR 737-800 waiting for 2000 passengers - each of them full for sure. If Ryanair would not fly, 1950 of these passengers would not use another airline, but still lie in their beds on early saturday morning and not do the trip at all.
So, when Ryanair puts a couple of aircraft into an airport, they fly to destinations that sound crazy from there, for one Euro or 20 Euro, and people go there. And recognize it isn't crazy there, it is cool there. So they go again after a few weeks, and pay 40 € - and when after half a year there are enough people paying 189€, the route will remain -if not they< try the next one.
So, Ryanair is really innovative. It doesn't fly where the people want - if flies where it considers a chance and makes people want to fly there.
So, the question is, are the US still open to innovation, or are they stuck?
Mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 11056 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 7865 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 10): HHN from here is 100 km, so 60 something miles. Where is the problem to have busses going from all cities with more than 10000 people to the LCC airport - and a pickup service just costs a bit more.
Maybe it's the American mindset but you'll never get business people (or leisure travelers) to fly into one airport and have to go by bus 80+ miles to their destination. In the example we were discussing, ORD, it would work if the LCC airport was just outside Cook County but anywhere else just isn't convenient. That's probably why MDW has been so successful for WN because it is actually closer to downtown than ORD.
Another reason airports like RFD and GYY aren't convenient for Chicago is the fact of how much travel time they would have to allow when flying out. Tack on an hour or hour and a half and hope the bus doesn't get caught in rush hour traffic.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
BrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 7840 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8): So, the question is, are the US still open to innovation, or are they stuck?
Very relevant factor. The US market is very developed, and obviously no low-hanging fruits to pick. Prices are rock bottom already.
When FR started out in Europe, prices were sky-high and the current/former state-owned carriers hadn't started adjusting to the new de-regulated market possibilities. The timing was right, and FR was the carrier to set the level for EU LCC.
Another aspect: EU routes are generally a lot shorter than US ones. We don't have 5-6 hour transcons with high volumes of passengers, where service and leg-room tend to matter. We will endure crappy service for €20 fares.
Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
TristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 7821 times:
Odd timing of this thread for me. Just yesterday I was on the phone to a friend stateside who is currently working in Philadelphia and he had flown out of New Castle airport in Delaware a couple of times and he was talking about how the airport could be a great base for a Ryanair/easyjet type operation as it reminded him of LTN in the early days and there does not seem to be any commercial operations.
Having absolutely no knowledge of this airport, a very limited knowledge of the US domestic market and a cursory search shows large airports in Baltimore, Philadelphia and further out Washington, can the US a.netters enlighten me about this airport and comment on my friends thoughts (he is not actually involved in aviation).
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
Airportplan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 16): Per Mapquest about 26.5 miles from GYY to Chicago City Hall
GYY also has a free shuttle to the South Shore Rail station which is 1 mile from the terminal. From there Randolph Street Station which is under Millennium Park (Grant Park) in downtown Chicago is only 30-40 minutes away.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 7763 times:
Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 14): When FR started out in Europe, prices were sky-high and the current/former state-owned carriers hadn't started adjusting to the new de-regulated market possibilities. The timing was right, and FR was the carrier to set the level for EU LCC.
Eaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1065 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 7686 times:
It´s interesting though that a train ticket on Stansted Express from central London to Stansted costs upwards of 25 pounds which in many cases is more expensive then the flight itself. This scenario has happened to me.
I know it seems like FR has been around forever, but it was not until the events of 9/11 that allowed FR to aquire 738 for less than the cost of used -400 and -300s that they were able to grow very strongly. Really FR has only become a major player outside UK-Ireland in the past 6 years or so. Back then FR was high frills luxury by their current standards, the only thing you had to pay for was coffee and a biscuit!
I think the failure of SX suggests that the US market is already saturated there just is not the easy markets that the euro LCCs had to pick off. Also the FR and U2's had the benefit of very strong economic growth. SX and current upstarts did not have that benefit currently. Unless the major airports become terminally congested I don't think there will be much hope of an FR style operation in the US any time soon.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
: Check Expedia.com for a flight EVV to MCO (a "low yield" market destination) and the lowest 2 week advance purchase is $521.00 RT. The distance is ~
: The million dollar question is whether WN has set the bar too high. FR worked with basically a clean canvas in Europe. There were no expectations. Eve
: Ryan Air was only innovative for European standards. But for US standards to travel by plane cross-country was after the deregulation in 1970 nothing
: No no no, you all don't get it. 1. Ryanair generates high amounts of revenues through ancilliary products. That's what makes Ryanair afford to sell ti
: This, without a doubt, is the stoopidest statement I have ever read on airliners.net
: We have seen a number of low fare-low service airlines like Ryanair in the USA come and go in the deregulation era, including in the last several year
: Really? Then why are Brussels Airlines, SkyEurope and Clickair all struggling against the Easyjet competition? I'll let you find the answer on your o
: Firstly, that's quite a pretentious way to start your first post and end your last. Secondly, I'm sorry NCB, but what don't we get? I have to say, th
: The fundamental difference between Ryanair and Southwest is that Southwest has always catered to business travelers, with reliability and frequency. R
: The real question is: Could another Ryanair start up in Europe and succeed? What I mean by this is, now that the EU market is established and deregula
: what about Ryan airs plan of service across the Atlantic.... that is the question yes.... they think they can compete here to over there... and that w
: Easyjet was modelled on Southwest to the extent that new employees were expected to read Herb Kelleher's book, Nuts. So new US carriers should not mod
: I have to agree with you there. I personally cannot see another LCC ever reaching the size or strength of either FR,U2 or AB in Europe. They just hav
: It's easy. Most people who wrote over the past 30 replies have no clue where Ryanair and Easyjet are getting their earnings from. The reason why Ryan
: The one aspect I see *not* working about the ULCC model is the lack of hubbing. There are too few secondary airports within reasonable commute times o
: Well, the key to success is not just having the right product, nor is it only about timing. It's about having the right product at the right time, an
: You are right about FR handling over 5% of people for business and they even handle quite alot of VFR pax. The point I wanted to make is that they do
: the Ryanair site is full of ancilliary services - and travel insurance is part of the booking unless you click the box to remove it from the booking.
: Yes, right. But the people who buy all these services are tourists, not businessmen nor VFR pax. Travel insurance? Businessmen/self-employed don't ta
: Thanks for the clarification. U2 is more business traveler friendly. I wonder which will be larger in a decade. IMHO it will take that long to see wh
: Exactly. If you want to start an airline in existing market holes, you only come out as a millionaire if you start with a billion. What makes FR so d
: Hmm...$25 fee for checking a second bag, sitting in an aisle seat, cramped filthy planes that don't leave on time, lost baggage....Ryannair clones alr
: Certainly not; you wont hear FR talk of FF programmes, or any other frills. [ Nitpick: FR is well known for handling self employed business people wh
: So if a carrier would follow easyjets business plan, using larger (closer) airports and targeting VFR and business pax they might have a chance.
: Your original assertation that an Easyjet-style start-up airline would bankrupt Southwest, the largest, financially strongest air carrier in the dome
: True, and that applies to any business venture. The thing about Ryanair is that their product and company ethos to customer service is universially p
: In the US, that's frequently referred to as the "Southwest effect". I'd say, in this context, I prefer the US' version of innovation (i.e. Southwest,
: It makes very good sense, believe me or not. Imagine yourself being a retired man and living somewhere...let's say in Indianapolis, or even Pittsburg
: How would the hotels expect to make any money at $30 a night? Even if you could find them on the website, I can tell you that they wouldn't be anywher
: There is zero need for a Ryanair-style carrier in North America. Unlike much of Europe, North America has ample capacity at nearly all of its large ai
: Okay...an A321 has, in your example, 220 seats. You fly it from CVG, CMH, ORD, PIT, etc to DAB...and back. So 12 A321s (your number) times 220 seats
: You've got 3 hotels at 30 bucks a night in Daytona, not far from the airport, but I haven't been as far as studying their seasonal pricing, I have to
: Actually, I believe they have two NASCAR races a year......the Daytona 500 in February and the Firecracker 400 in July....in addition to the sports c
: Going off in a different direction, I think this points to one of the key differences between the US and my corner of the EU (the UK). Short journeys
: Gee all this sure sounds like Allegiant's model.
: I'll be the last one to defend WN but this statement is just laughable. Where do you think Ryanair and Easyjet got their models from? WN has at least
: Yes, it does: Ditto... NCB, I think you've got some good, basic ideas, (although 2-3 carriers per state may be a little excessive). Thank you for you
: And the closes thing to a Ryan air in the US is NK. They are heading that way real quick. And I don't think it will be lasting for much longer. I have
: Again, isn't the US already supporting Allegiant, which now gets 25% of revenue from ancillary sources. Allegiant was also one of the only airlines s
: Many millions of passengers seem to think so. FR provide frequent flights on all bar a few leisure destinations. Most routes are operated more than o
: As it is, our legacy carriers generally offer a greater percentage of their seats on intra-North America flying at a discount than the LCCs, with pax
: The growth in tourist air travel due to the growth of LCCs in europe is extremely apparent. As european people get wealthier, they travel more often.
: You are just not getting the argument; the fares Europe pays on FR bear no relation to the fares you are paying in the US I just tried Southwest for