Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Using The Dreamliner/A380 In A LCC  
User currently offlineBAfan From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6776 times:

For those a.netters that moan about another thread regarding Low Cost Long-Haul airlines, this thread is clearly not for you, so instead of moaning about it, just don't follow it and refrain from posting on it too!

This thread is in response to two threads currently running on the forum:

LHR-JFK Minimum Prices Reach £341Rtn : LHR-JFK Minimum Prices Reach £341 Rtn (by richardw Sep 8 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Ryanair Back In The Market For A 300-plane Order: Ryanair Back In The Market For A 300-plane Order (by joost Sep 8 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Airbus and Boeing are both marketing their respective flagship aircraft as ultra efficient with savings of approximately 20% against existing fleet types.

As mentioned in one of the threads posted above, the ticket prices on the LHR-JFK route have now reached a minimum of £341rtn and other East Coast routes this is even more.

In addition, Ryanair, or more accurately MOL, has been stated in saying it is looking to purchase around 300 new aircraft.

I understand the attributes to the LCC model, and the challenges that flying transatlantic would bring to such a model, but surely the likes of Ryanair could establish a low cost long haul airline flying to secondary airports in the states.

I say Ryanair, because love them or hate them, they are the only airline I can see that has deep enough pockets to launch an airline that would have the scale to operate this sort of business successfully. I believe all the previous attempts (Laker/Zoom there are probably more but I cannot think of them) just didn't have enough funding or economies of scale to make it work (plus in Laker's day the political situation was different too).

Key Basics of LCC:

- Short Turnarounds (allowing for greater utilisation, more bums on seats, generating more revenue)
- New Aircraft (lower maintenance and running costs, sell on after a few years for a profit)
- Direct selling through own website (although most carriers do this now)
- Flying to secondary airports (lower cost and desperate to attract new airlines)
- Low price tickets generate demand to airports no one has heard of (in Ryanair's case)
- Charging for anything and everything in addition to the seat itself (Ancillary Revenues, food/drink/bags/legroom etc)
- Making employees pay for their training and uniforms/making a profit on staff travel!

Now, l understand that some of these areas would be affected by a low cost long haul model such as:

- Turnarounds (longer and therefore less utilisation)
- Acquisition costs of new aircraft and availability of the 787/A380 delivery line
- Paying for employees to stay in hotels on overnights and there expenses

Benefits for a Low Cost Long Haul Airline:

- Could operate two class (Premium Economy and Economy for example)
- Considerable demand for flights between UK/Europe and the US (even without a low price demand is still there)
- Currently only operated by Full Service Airlines that have greater cost bases than a new LCC Start Up
- Secondary Airports in the US would welcome with open arms (and offer attractive rates to entice)
- Amazing Ancillary Revenue Potential (they make millions in Europe, what could they make on 7-9 hour flights)
- Employees - for example Cabin Crew, seem happy to pay approx £2,000 to train and a few hundred for uniforms to fly around Europe, I think they wouldn't mind paying that to have a night stop in NYC or BOS!
- Hotel Accommodation costs would be minimal as airlines get great deals with hotel brands.
- In addition to the demand that is already there, the low fares would create additional demand from travels that would never have dreamed flying to the states due to the ticket fares (I am aware that £341rtn is not a lot of money to many people, but we should also consider the number of people that cannot afford that price, or those that would like to get a cheaper deal i.e students)
- Could always combine the aircraft schedule so it does a transatlantic and then a Europe flight (though I think capacity wise this would only work on the 787 in relation to this threads title).

Even if Ryanair were to charge an average of £249 I am sure this would be welcomed, and knowing them, they could probably charge less than that and still make a healthy profit.

AirAsiaX seems to be doing pretty well on it's STN-KUL route.


Cannot wait to see the responses to what always seems to be an emotive subject on a.net!


-

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2866 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6754 times:

Whatever happened to the Ryanair transatlantic airline? SWF-HHN to serve New York-Frankfurt, GYY-DUB to serve Chicago-Dublin, MHT-STN to serve Boston-London, etc.


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6706 times:

Jetstar also seem to be doing quite well on the longhaul front also.

AS for low cost long haul in Europe - the charters seem to be filling that role currently.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6660 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 1):
GYY-DUB to serve

Service to Europe out of Gary, Indiana?
Wow!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3764 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6645 times:

You seem to throw the 787 and A380 in the same bag, but when it comes to utilization in an LCC type operator, these are two clearly different business cases.

The 787 I can't see why not, it's a direct competitor to the A330/340, which is already used by medium to long haul LCC operators in other parts of the world.

The A380 would provide amazingly low CASM in full coach configuration, but you forfeit quick turnaround times, frequencies, the use of most secondary airports, etc... There's probably a niche market for that too, but I'm not sure about LCC use, it's more for holidaymaker charter flights to popular destinations.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineBAfan From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 4):
The A380 would provide amazingly low CASM in full coach configuration, but you forfeit quick turnaround times, frequencies, the use of most secondary airports, etc... There's probably a niche market for that too, but I'm not sure about LCC use, it's more for holidaymaker charter flights to popular destinations.

That's fair comment, perhaps if the airline was willing to help the secondary airports with their infrastructure it could work. The turnarounds would be a lot slower, but with the longer flight lengths the boarding time probably wouldn't make too much difference I would imagine.

I am just putting this out there!
 


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7210 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6512 times:

Quoting BAfan (Reply 5):
That's fair comment, perhaps if the airline was willing to help the secondary airports with their infrastructure it could work. The turnarounds would be a lot slower, but with the longer flight lengths the boarding time probably wouldn't make too much difference I would imagine.

Then it would not be a secondary airport offering lower landing fees and other infrastructure cost which is a primary consideration for LCC operations.

A legacy airline can use an A380 to pack them in but it won't be in an LCC operation.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6656 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6308 times:

I live near Paris (near ORY) and I never used Ryanair because BVA is quite far (and XCR is so far it's not even funny), it would cost quite a bit to get there (and quite some time). Their model is interesting from a regional airport to another (an aunt regularly flies MRS-BES), but I have my doubts for major city to major city. Is it really interesting to pay 90£ less but have to catch a train or whatever because you're 100 miles from NYC, after an already long flight ?

OTOH U2 is also a LCC and they do fly to ORY and CDG.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineaffirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6205 times:

I have been thinking about how an LCC could do TATL traffic. Since one of the big problems is crew utilization having a flight that is less than 14 hours return trip with a turnaround over the atlantic. But if Ryanair or Easyjet starts flying like Southwest does where they fly the same a/c between two destinations but with stops in between this could work. One example would be flying from MRS in France with a 739ER or a 321 and make a stop somewhere in Ireland (f.ex SNN) where they fuel and change crew this crew will fly to BOS or NYC and turn the plane and come back. If I'm not mistaking the flight from Ireland to US east coast is around 5.5 to 6.5 hours normally and with Ryanair going full whack maybe they could make it with turnaround in less than 14 hours thus negating having the crew stay over. Of course there are other things to take care of like ETOPS certifications and so on but maybe it could work.

What do you think?

Cheers

Data: Great Circle mapper
Boeing 739ER spec: Boeing.com
Airbus A321 spec: Airbus.com



I love the smell of Jet-A1 in the morning...
User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1784 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

We have to be careful these days of not generalising too much. The LCC market is very different and no longer a niche. Consequently, the attributes cannot always be applied to each and every LCC. FR V's U2 is a good example of comparing the generalised attributes between two of Europes largest and well known low cost/low fare carriers.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
Direct selling through own website (although most carriers do this now)



Absolutely. No longer a LCC charcteristic which has spelt the end of many travel agents. Trying to find a "true" travel agent in many towns can be quite difficult these days.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Making employees pay for their training and uniforms/making a profit on staff travel!



AFIK, it's only FR who charge for their training. Whilst many others (including some full service carriers) seem to charge for initial first batch of uniform. Whilst i don't agree with FR's charging for training, charging for uniform is often an alternative for bonding.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Flying to secondary airports (lower cost and desperate to attract new airlines)



FR mainly fly into secondary airports. U2 fly into the main airports and actively promote this. LS and others also use many main "downtown" airports.

In terms of long haul.............

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Turnarounds (longer and therefore less utilisation)



Turnarounds on long haul wouldn't be "as" critical as you can't do much else after a round transatlantic trip. Plus lets not forget that TOM, TCX and other charter operators often turnaround their widebodies relatively quickly.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Acquisition costs of new aircraft and availability of the 787/A380 delivery line



Absolutely. However, a stop gap consisting of the A330 would things up. Indeed for U2 for example, the 330 would be ideal in terms of commonality.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Paying for employees to stay in hotels on overnights and there expenses



As you mention later on in your post.....nightstopping crews is not really as expensive as people think considering the contracts airlines have with hotels. Easyjet for example do have nightstops in certain parts of their network aswell as crew operating out of base......and they do drive a hard bargain. Also, the reason why LCC's don't nightstopp crew that much up to now is because often there is no need to. Any long haul flights, they would need to.
As for expenses, crew don't get expenses but instead receive either flight pay/allowances or a per night nightstop pay. The latter isn't often very much.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Employees - for example Cabin Crew, seem happy to pay approx £2,000 to train and a few hundred for uniforms to fly around Europe, I think they wouldn't mind paying that to have a night stop in NYC or BOS!



No, no, no. 99% of crew would not agree to this whatsoever. Whilst paying to train and paying for initial batch of uniform is paying to start the job, paying for hotels would be paying to work and would simply not happen. Whilst this would be a wet dream for MOL, it just wouldn't happen. When overnighting a hotel is a neccessity in the same way as fuel is for flying. The crew wouldn't be expected to pay for the fuel.

On the subject of nightstopping.....I know many believe that all crew want to nightstop but the sudden widespread nightstopping at an airline would result in increased attrition. A lot of crew want to be home every night. You only have to look at how jaded some nightstopping crew become.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
- Amazing Ancillary Revenue Potential (they make millions in Europe, what could they make on 7-9 hour flights)

Indeed there would be some great opportunities. For example, UK-SFB would make an absoulute fortune in terms of onboard sales. Crews would certainly like those for commission if not for anything else. That said at Easyjet, whilst certain bases and routes make a hell of a lot of onboard sales (usually ex UK), many of the European base routes make very little.


Overall. a good analysis BAfan.

Do I think an LCC will do long haul? Well I guess they already do. Air Asia, Jetstar etc. Some like GSM have tried and failed but in European terms both U2 and FR have stayed away. FR's plans of transatlantic seem to have gone quiet.
In terms of Easyjet. I think long haul will come but initially atleast I don't think it will be transatlantic. Much of Europe is still saturated and they have recently been expanding further afield. Certainly, the ex GT routes were treated will a fair amount of caution but there was soon a realisation that these can be very lucrative both in terms of fares and ancillary sales. Consequently, we are now seeing LGW-LXR, LTN-TLV and MAN-SSH which are all on the verge of long haul. Rumours are abound of expansion further into Africa and the Middle East. The current fleet on those routes i mentioned, however, are also on the limit of their capability.

It is funny how everyone assumes that LCC long haul expansion will go West over the Atlantic when in actual fact LCC's are much closer to long haul flying currently going East. Anywhere further than UK/Northern Europe-SSH, TLV etc is effectively long haul regardless of what aircraft used.



Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1784 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6036 times:

Quoting affirmative (Reply 8):
I have been thinking about how an LCC could do TATL traffic. Since one of the big problems is crew utilization having a flight that is less than 14 hours return trip with a turnaround over the atlantic. But if Ryanair or Easyjet starts flying like Southwest does where they fly the same a/c between two destinations but with stops in between this could work. One example would be flying from MRS in France with a 739ER or a 321 and make a stop somewhere in Ireland (f.ex SNN) where they fuel and change crew this crew will fly to BOS or NYC and turn the plane and come back. If I'm not mistaking the flight from Ireland to US east coast is around 5.5 to 6.5 hours normally and with Ryanair going full whack maybe they could make it with turnaround in less than 14 hours thus negating having the crew stay over. Of course there are other things to take care of like ETOPS certifications and so on but maybe it could work.

Again, you are thinking like the LCC's don't do long haul because they have to nightstop crew. As i have mentioned in my last post, LCC's already do some nightstopping albeit on a low level basis. If nightstopping is a requirement (like it would on TATL) then it wouldn't be a problem.

The scenario you mention would be an operational nightmare and totally inefficient. The crew from MRS-SNN would likely have to nighstop in SNN anyway in order to keep any kind of operational integrity. You are right in saying that Southwest do 1-2 stop flying between Cities but they also nightstop crew and everyone forgets this.



Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlineBAfan From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 9):
No, no, no. 99% of crew would not agree to this whatsoever. Whilst paying to train and paying for initial batch of uniform is paying to start the job, paying for hotels would be paying to work and would simply not happen. Whilst this would be a wet dream for MOL, it just wouldn't happen. When overnighting a hotel is a neccessity in the same way as fuel is for flying. The crew wouldn't be expected to pay for the fuel.

I was referring to paying for training and uniform, not the hotel itself!

Glad you liked my analysis though!  


User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5596 times:

Quoting affirmative (Reply 8):
I have been thinking about how an LCC could do TATL traffic. Since one of the big problems is crew utilization having a flight that is less than 14 hours return trip with a turnaround over the atlantic. But if Ryanair or Easyjet starts flying like Southwest does where they fly the same a/c between two destinations but with stops in between this could work. One example would be flying from MRS in France with a 739ER or a 321 and make a stop somewhere in Ireland (f.ex SNN) where they fuel and change crew this crew will fly to BOS or NYC and turn the plane and come back. If I'm not mistaking the flight from Ireland to US east coast is around 5.5 to 6.5 hours normally and with Ryanair going full whack maybe they could make it with turnaround in less than 14 hours thus negating having the crew stay over. Of course there are other things to take care of like ETOPS certifications and so on but maybe it could work.


I believe that Iceland Express has the intention of being a low cost carrier across the Atlantic in exactly this way, through Iceland though.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2091 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

A weakness of using 787s or A380s is the financing costs. WN got started with cheap used 737s. B6 and VX bought new A320s (and A319s for VX) but got good deals and offset some of those costs with low initial maintenance and in the case of B6, selling some aircraft when deliveries exceeded growth. Buying 787s would require a bigger chunk of change and an A380 would be a really big pile of cash for which an airline would have to sell a lot of junk bonds to finance just a few routes. The financing costs would undermine the other LCC aspects. Maintenance would probably be relatively expensive because there are limited numbers of qualified 787 and A380 mechanics available and they would get top rates.

The short haul, quick turn model for LCCs allows them to start small and grow, rather than take big risks and pay big financing costs. B6 and VX opened with transcons but they were necessary to avoid going against WN immediately and it is easier to do now under deregulation than it was when WN started.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 4):
There's probably a niche market for that too, but I'm not sure about LCC use, it's more for holidaymaker charter flights to popular destinations.

I could certainly see an A380 being used in an LCC concept, but not in any great numbers. However, I would correct you in that the LCC concept/model is most certainly not ".....more for holidaymaker charter flights to popular destinations"!!!
Indeed, an LCC and charter operation are two very different operations!


User currently offlinemattdell From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5421 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 12):
I believe that Iceland Express has the intention of being a low cost carrier across the Atlantic in exactly this way, through Iceland though.

They might be a LCC to Iceland, but continuing your journey across the atlantic costs 2x more than a flight to Reykjavik!


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 4):
The A380 would provide amazingly low CASM in full coach configuration

We'll find out in a couple of years time......  

Rgds


User currently offlineBeakerLTN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4898 times:

I can only see it where FR would get into bed with someone like Southwest, then they provide regular feeds into some low cost hub (in themiddle of nowhere) on the north-east coast, then you choose your destination into the US from there..

..and the same into the UK.. feed into Prestwick and then lay on conneting routes.. essentially so you just provide an airbridge with fantastic connections either side.

Still, I don't reckon there's the traffic for this US-wise..

..on the other hand, UK to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh on a LCC.. that would work.



300/319/320/321/330/732/733/734/73G/738/744/772/77W/146/EMB135/EMB145
User currently offlineYXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 13):
A weakness of using 787s or A380s is the financing costs. WN got started with cheap used 737s. B6 and VX bought new A320s (and A319s for VX) but got good deals and offset some of those costs with low initial maintenance and in the case of B6, selling some aircraft when deliveries exceeded growth. Buying 787s would require a bigger chunk of change and an A380 would be a really big pile of cash for which an airline would have to sell a lot of junk bonds to finance just a few routes. The financing costs would undermine the other LCC aspects. Maintenance would probably be relatively expensive because there are limited numbers of qualified 787 and A380 mechanics available and they would get top rates.

Yes, my thoughts exactly on this. However if somebody has the deep pockets for the 787 it would make a great LCC long haul machine.

What if MOL decided to go long haul, either east or west. Would I be correct in saying that he'd have his work cut out for him regarding legalities? As the passenger requirements for long haul's are different than they are for short haul flights. I'm sure this wouldn't sit well with him at all if he had to treat the general public with more respect....he wouldn't sleep for days if that happened.

I think the long haul market is doing fine, yes certain routes are still expensive but that is how supply and demand work. If you want to travel cheap there will always be ways. Last year I found a YVR - FRA rt for $415 including taxes with TS, I worked within their schedule and I saved $300+ by doing so. If you are a business traveler then you will likely pay more because of your schedule, it just happens this way because there is a better chance you aren't paying for it and your company is. Also, I'm happy with the job that the charter carriers are doing, its not that bad IMO; that and I wouldn't really want to be on a YXX - STN flight operated by MOL, just not that appealing.


User currently offlineCentre From Canada, joined Mar 2010, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
Quoting francoflier (Reply 4):
The A380 would provide amazingly low CASM in full coach configuration

We'll find out in a couple of years time......  

Rgds

Air Austral will be using the two copies it has on firm order specifically for that.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4107 times:

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 18):
What if MOL decided to go long haul, either east or west. Would I be correct in saying that he'd have his work cut out for him regarding legalities?

He will be competing with the largest LCC in the world, EK operator of the largest 10-abreast 777 fleet.


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3911 times:

Interesting thread and thoughts here!!
If there would be a low cost airline across to the states, I'm sure some people would use it. Me to be one of them. BUT--

I would like to add a thought or two about it. FR has gained a lot of PAX by offering possible trips the people would otherwise not have taken.
Longhaul travel is usually planned ahead by the pax and takes place e.g. in their vacation time.
The market might not be saturated yet, but having the extra seats available will surely take away seats on the regular airlines.
A weekend trip to the NYC area might be feasable, but anywhere else will to long. So, who will travel on other routes and what will the major airlines do against it- because I´m sure something would happen.


User currently offlineBAfan From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3672 times:

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 21):
I would like to add a thought or two about it. FR has gained a lot of PAX by offering possible trips the people would otherwise not have taken.
Longhaul travel is usually planned ahead by the pax and takes place e.g. in their vacation time.
The market might not be saturated yet, but having the extra seats available will surely take away seats on the regular airlines.
A weekend trip to the NYC area might be feasable, but anywhere else will to long. So, who will travel on other routes and what will the major airlines do against it- because I´m sure something would happen.

I honestly believe that the key to the LCC flights between the UK/US is the fact that even without low cost fares, there is already a lot of demand. So, if you add to this the effect of adding low fares 'trips the would otherwise not have taken' is in addition to the demand that is already there.

I honestly believe that if you could fly over to the states in a low fares format, there would be millions of people that would take the opportunity. More and more people don't really care about what food they are going to get or the free beverages.

If you could offer a low fare ticket for the transatlantic market, with a buy on board service, people would fly with you.

The demand that Michael O'Leary has created at Ryanair for places that no one ever thought of travelling to is amazing! Imagine the demand it would create to places that are highly desirable markets, such as New York/Boston/Washington/Miami/Orlando/Chicago etc...

I do agree it would take someone with very large pockets, but I think the demand would be overwhelming. Millions of people in Europe would jump at the chance of changing their annual holiday from Spain/Italy to America if they could do it for a similar price. I imagine there are many Americans that would love to visit Europe too.

If you coupled these flights with a few going East to the likes of Singapore/Hong Kong/Malaysia you really would see some traffic. Also, from Stansted, the pax would be able to get anywhere in Europe.

I don't think they would every offer connections, as this would bring too much complexity/cost to the business. However, I think people wouldn't really care if they were getting cheap flights.

I could imagine this sort of scenario (obviously booking early!)

Pax A travels from DUB to STN for £20.00 travelling only with hand baggage. They arrive in STN at 9:30am and go straight through Immigration (at Stansted it's normally pretty quick!) They then go to the Ryanair International/RyanAtlantic check in area and check in for their flight to New York. They booked this flight earlier in the year and paid £200 return.

It would be pretty simple. Yes, it becomes more of a hassle if you were travelling with hold luggage, which would obviously be more likely if you were travelling long haul.

I honestly believe the world has become more price conscious (for the majority anyway) and a long haul airline flying between Europe and the US would be a success.

There will always be different passenger types, that's why with have so many different types of airlines.

Full Service/Legacy - Offer a full service product but charge higher prices - Popular with large corporate accounts and more affluent travellers that like a more customer orientated travel experience

Low Cost Carriers: Low prices, generates demand, pay for everything you want, popular with the vast majority of the worlds travelling public.

Imagine, instead of taking only one long haul holiday a year, you could most probably take three or four.

The benefits to the economies of the respective countries would also be large, as the tourism sector brings in tons of money.

Can you imagine how much extra revenue it would generate for local economies - just look at those airports and areas that Ryanair started flying to that previously never had a low cost airline.

I think it would be a real problem for the legacy carriers, but I'm sorry, that's just business!


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

I do wonder if in 5-10 years time the first A380's of SQ & EK will start moving on, particularly EK with their huge order. While we know this

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
New Aircraft (lower maintenance and running costs, sell on after a few years for a profit)

is generally the case, maybe some second hand well looked after A380's could be the springboard to bringing in enough revenue for new builds. I dont think there is any question FR could fill an all Y A380 in the LON - NY market for example.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 4):
you forfeit quick turnaround times, frequencies, the use of most secondary airports, etc...

Re secondary airports specifically, while this is mostly true, there are plenty of airports that do have at least the runway and taxiways to handle the A380. YHM for Toronto for example has a 10,000' runway, which would be fine for a flight to Europe. While it would not be the most pleasant experience for the pax, they could park remote and be bussed. Then think of all the ancillary revenue for the airport too, 800+ pax all buying their sandwiches & water at the airport to avoid BOB, parking etc etc, which in turn will enable them to offer an even better deal to fly there. Im sure before not too long the airport could then fund to make some alterations to accomodate the A380. Im sure there were / are plenty of airports that when FR commenced flying there, 189 pax off a 737 800 was unheard of and would have the A380 elsewhere (Treviso in Italy in 2005 from personal experience was ram jammed with two 737's).

Saying that though, Im pretty sure the exact same thing could be achieved with an A330 300 today if FR wanted to. I say FR, because they have the brand recognition. I think that is one (of many) factors where the likes of GSM failed.

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 18):
a YXX - STN flight

Now that would be    for me, but the 8000' runway may not be favorable to get away even a fully loaded A330 in the summer.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Centre (Reply 19):
Air Austral will be using the two copies it has on firm order specifically for that.

Indeed. And I can't WAIT too see the configuration for their 840 seats...  
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 23):
Now that would be    for me, but the 8000' runway may not be favorable to get away even a fully loaded A330 in the summer.

Great Circle mapper quotes the longest runway at Abbotsford as being 9 600', for what its worth.

8 000ft would give a current A380 a max take-off weight of around 520 tonnes at sea level and 30 dec C.
In LCC configuration, I'd assume MZFW as a given - 840 people weigh a fair bit..   - so say 365 tonnes.
So our fully laden A380 would take off with around 165 tonnes of fuel tanked, which should be good enough for around 5 800 - 5 900Nm still air.....
More than enough to make Stanstead  

Rgds


25 BERFlyer : A few points that i feel are missing here: There would be absolutely no aircraft purchase advantage to other airlines when buying new 787/380, as none
26 par13del : Demand to airlines is relevant among others from the standpoint of how high they can maintian their fares. BA for example, configured it's product fo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Video Of The A380 In Buenos Aires posted Fri Jan 25 2008 02:02:43 by Il75
The Official A380 First Flight Thread: Check-in! posted Wed Oct 24 2007 00:40:55 by SQ452
$1billion USD To Accomodate The A380 In US? posted Fri Apr 27 2007 20:50:09 by DeltaDAWG
A380 On The River Visual In DC? posted Mon Mar 26 2007 17:28:41 by RJpieces
What's This In The EA A380? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 09:33:56 by AirbusA346
Flybe To Charge For Check In And Using The Toilet? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 13:02:58 by Trb10
Singapore Airlines Will Receive The A380 In Oct 07 posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:52:33 by Singapore_Air
Father Of The 747 Says It Puts A380 In The Shade posted Thu Jul 20 2006 09:49:12 by Leelaw
A380 In The States posted Wed May 17 2006 12:30:56 by BlazingCessna
A380 In The US posted Wed May 10 2006 01:13:20 by VarigB707