Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Don't EasyJet And Ryanair Buy The E-190?  
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3878 posts, RR: 12
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9823 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

EasyJet flies now only A319's and Ryanair has been flying only 738's for a while. So why aren't they considering adding a smaller aircraft should they open new markets? I mention the E-190 because it would be a lot more economical to operate than an A318 or a 737-600 or 700.
JetBlue has a large fleet of E-190s. Southwest was at one time considering adding those, but now they are getting the 717 from the merger with Air Tran.
Wouldn't the E-190 be the right plane for Easy and Ryan if they look for a smaller aircraft? I don't see Easy adding the A318 nor Ryan adding the 73G because they have higher CASM than the A319 and 738 respectively.

Ben Soriano


Ben Soriano
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3016 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wrong in the case of EasyJet

They operate A319 , A320 and still a few B73G aircraft
Until just a few months ago they also had several ex GB A321 as well.

EasyJet are currently consolidating their network expansion mainly on longer sectors with the A320.
The A320s have been deployed on some of the longer routes from Manchester/Gatwick and Geneva with a few also operating from France.

The B73G are being removed by the end of this coming summer season.

They are not looking at shorter thiner routes.
In fact they seem to stay clear of these types of routes where they are operated by FLYBE using Dash 8 and E-190s already.

Ryanair operations completely rely on FILLING their B738s and meticulous yield managementvariable pricing tactics.
They prefer to cut frequency rather than move smaller capacity aircraft types.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11672 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9290 times:

I can see the C Series or the SSJ-100 being a better fit for FR or EZ than the ERJ-190/195.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9227 times:

Quoting American 767 (Thread starter):
EasyJet flies now only A319's

Very incorrect indeed. On the contrary, neither the EasyJet or Ryanair model would readily support the E-190


User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9173 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 1):
The B73G are being removed by the end of this coming summer season.

2 will remain well into 2012.



Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

There are significant benefits to operate only one type of aircraft (this is even part of the definition of the low cost airlines).

And low cost airlines need aircraft more than 130-140 seats to operate the big routes making their bread&butter.
If there is a trend, clearly its toward operating larger aircraft for the LCCs, not smaller.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineHeathrow757 From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9023 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):

I agree 


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8982 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
I can see the C Series or the SSJ-100 being a better fit for FR or EZ than the ERJ-190/195.

CS 100, with its much larger wingspan, is heavier compared to SSJ-100 and EMB-190.

Comparing the 5-abreast SSJ-100LR to 4-abreast EMB 190LR:

................................SSJ-100.......................EMB-190
Seats..........................98@32" pitch............98@32" pitch
Fuselage Length..........98 feet......................119 feet
Wingspan....................91 feet........................94 feet
MTOW...................109,000 lbs..................112,000 lbs
Max. Payload...........27,000 lbs....................28,800 lbs
OEW.......................59,000 lbs(?)................61,900 lbs
Range........................2,470 nm.....................2,300 nm

Looks like both aircraft are well matched.


User currently offlineRamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8879 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 1):
Ryanair operations completely rely on FILLING their B738s and meticulous yield managementvariable pricing tactics.
They prefer to cut frequency rather than move smaller capacity aircraft types.

That, in my mind, is the real strength of LCCs. They don't feel any need to serve every podunk town on the face of the earth so they can claim "global" reach. They simply go after the money- either a route can fill a 738 or it can't.

Plus, the penny-pinching pax they're going after are more than willing to drive a couple hours to get to a Ryanairport.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11672 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8781 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 7):
CS 100, with its much larger wingspan, is heavier compared to SSJ-100 and EMB-190.

The key is, would Bombardier or Sukhoi cut any of the large LCC's a sweet enough deal...

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 7):
Looks like both aircraft are well matched.

I look forwards to hearing operational experience from Armavia and Aeroflot. The SSJ was initially aimed at undercutting the E-190/195's operating costs by 10%, according to Sukhoi they've 'only' managed 6-8%, but if that replicates during commercial operation then it's still going to be one sweet aircraft for carriers in the market for a large regional jet.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6969 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Very incorrect indeed. On the contrary, neither the EasyJet or Ryanair model would readily support the E-190

I would agree, their business model is based on bulk transport.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9536 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6932 times:

...or, one could say, for the very same reason Southwest only flies 737s.


E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6555 times:

Many of the original LCC characteristics (must haves.....if you like) have evolved and changed over the years. Consequently, it isn't absolutely necassary to operate just one aircraft type. Easyjet still operates the 73G of course and initially it was a true dual fleeted airline as there was no firm decision to get rid of the 737's. That kind of proves that an LCC can, once well established, operate two fleets.

If the deal was right and Easyjet or Ryanair are big enough to make it work. However, they aren't in the market for any such types at the moment so I don't see it happening.



Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6382 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Very incorrect indeed. On the contrary, neither the EasyJet or Ryanair model would readily support the E-190

If the model was tweaked a bit Im sure it could well support it. Jetblue offer a lot of routes using their 190's offering a very nice on board product (Less if used by EZY and FR of course) Its a nice aircraft allowing them to get money from some lower density routes that don't suit the 320, meaning the bigger aircraft can ply the more money making routes. It would allow them to expand even further, and maybe in time gain enough of a good reputation (hopefully) to see the need of getting a bigger aircraft.


User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1214 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

Quoting American 767 (Thread starter):
EasyJet flies now only A319's and Ryanair has been flying only 738's for a while. So why aren't they considering adding a smaller aircraft should they open new markets?

Because the smaller planes have higher seatmile costs so they (Ryanair etc) will not be able to keep fares enough low to be competitive in the market,



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2688 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4712 times:

Many FR point-to-point routes are too thin to fill a daily 738 (let alone multiple daily), so they sacrifice frequency, offering once or twice per week flights. An E190 would allow to increase frequency on these routes... but at a higher operating cost. The question is, would the FR pax be willing to pay a higher fare, while still having to go to a Ryanairport, paying for baggage, etc etc? Probably not. So FR would have to make some changes to its business model.

U2 flies to major airports and likes to offer multiple frequencies to attract business customers. The E190 could work in their network in a similar way than with JetBlue. But with the recent purchase of A320's, it looks like they are upsizing more than downsizing theri a/c.

The CSeries could potentially provide a solution in between: smaller than the A&B types, bigger than the E190, and with competitive operating costs. Time will tell.


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2896 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 7):
Seats..........................98@32" pitch............98@32" pitch

B6 has 100 seats at 32". Is the 98 seat layout one that has a 2-class cabin?

Quoting Navigator (Reply 14):
Because the smaller planes have higher seatmile costs so they (Ryanair etc) will not be able to keep fares enough low to be competitive in the market,

Indeed. In fact, the last stats I heard is that the CASM on the E190 is higher than that of the A320 meaning that we have to have a higher L/F for break-even.

On the topic of costs, I'm surprised nobody mentioned the amount of $$ it costs to add an extra fleet type. Think of the many, many millions of dollars that would have to be spent on purchasing LRU spares, training costs for the crews, diversification of pay scales, etc. It isn't as simple as "buy-and-fly".

There is also the entire philosophy of flying a "proven product". The B737 and A320 families have been around for decades, while the E190 has only been flying for 5 years, and the CS100 and SSJ are brand new. The E190 is constantly having upgrades to components that are routinely failing even after 5 years of flying, and the 2 new aircraft are sure to have their teething issues. Teething issues mean time, money, effort and increased OOS events.

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1214 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4664 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 15):
Many FR point-to-point routes are too thin to fill a daily 738 (let alone multiple daily), so they sacrifice frequency, offering once or twice per week flights. An E190 would allow to increase frequency on these routes... but at a higher operating cost.

Very correct indeed. But as you say you would have to increase prices and there is no way people would go to those airports Ryanair uses out in the forests if prices are increased. The E190 simply does not fit the Ryanair businessmodel and any use of that plane in Ryanairs system would be unprofitable.

I am personally very surprised that Jetblue uses the E190. Is that operation really making money? I doubt it...



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4593 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 17):
I am personally very surprised that Jetblue uses the E190. Is that operation really making money? I doubt it...

Seems to work very well for them. Its a nice aircraft, with a really good on-board product.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3107 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
On the contrary, neither the EasyJet or Ryanair model would readily support the E-190


Once Ryanair figures out how to charge the Captain and First Officer for turbine hours then the E 190 will become viable.
Just imagine being able to generate income from every seat on the aircraft front to back.

Okie


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11672 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 14):
Because the smaller planes have higher seatmile costs so they (Ryanair etc) will not be able to keep fares enough low to be competitive in the market,

I believe the C Series and SSJ actually aim to undercut the seat costs of both Airbus and Boeing's short haul offerings. Whether they achieve this is another thing.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1214 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 18):
Seems to work very well for them. Its a nice aircraft, with a really good on-board product.

I am certain about that but I´m thinking about if that plane makes a profit for them. I doubt it  



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2896 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 21):
I am certain about that but I´m thinking about if that plane makes a profit for them. I doubt it

You can't look at it in a broad perspective like that. Just like cities that didn't make the airline $$, B6 would drop the fleet type if it just didn't make money. Airlines are not in the business to bleed money, but make profits for the investors. BUT, you have to look at the routes it is put on. While it does have a slightly higher CASM than the A320, if there isn't demand to fill an A320, the E190 gets put on the route. Less seats being flown on that route means a slightly higher ticket price than if the route was flooded with a bunch of extra capacity. If the ROUTE doesn't make money, it goes away (like CMH, BNA, and even the RIC - JFK flights). Now, if there is a route that it is flying and it is continually not making big bucks on, it is probably because the airline is relying on the connecting traffic that it is bringing in. If the customers are travelling from A to B to C and A to B is operated by the E190 and is consistantly losing money, chances are a lot of the B to C are making big bucks using either the E190 or A320.

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinesimfanatic From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

However U2 once have shown their interest in the CS100 series AFAIK.


Don't be a fool, think about what you're writing!
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1214 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 20):
I believe the C Series and SSJ actually aim to undercut the seat costs of both Airbus and Boeing's short haul offerings. Whether they achieve this is another thing.

Maybe those types can be used on low cost routes...

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 22):
While it does have a slightly higher CASM than the A320, if there isn't demand to fill an A320, the E190 gets put on the route. Less seats being flown on that route means a slightly higher ticket price than if the route was flooded with a bunch of extra capacity. If the ROUTE doesn't make money, it goes away (like CMH, BNA, and even the RIC - JFK flights).

I understand that Jetblue has a more flexible businessmodel then for instance Ryanair and thus adjusting prices to correspond with route and equipment. If Jetblue is digging new markets with this E190 and lacks competition on the routes it looks like it works. Ryanairs businessmodel is different, they tend to fly point to point from distant rural airports serving major cities. The amazingly low prices at Ryanair attracts traffic that would not exist with just a few Euros price increases. Jetblue is more like a conventional airline but with relatively low prices going from larger airports (and maybe smaller with routes feeding for instance JFK). Jetblue and Southwest has a bit in common but Ryanair is a bit different... So what the E190 does for Jetblue it simply can´t do for Ryanair... Ryanair is far to dependent on achieving as low prices as possible



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
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...
Why Don't TP And IB Fly To Asia? posted Thu Jul 8 2010 16:15:09 by cadamosto
Why Don't More US Carriers Fly The Q400? posted Tue Sep 29 2009 13:53:48 by LHCVG
Would Ryanair Buy The 737-900? posted Tue Jan 15 2008 09:44:57 by LHStarAlliance
Why Don't CX And QF Codeshare On HK - OZ Flights posted Wed Jun 6 2007 17:24:00 by CXfirst
EasyJet And Ryanair Colours posted Mon Feb 5 2007 16:53:21 by EHRD
EasyJet And Ryanair To Malta posted Fri Aug 25 2006 19:59:07 by LMML 14/32
Easyjet And Ryanair- Confusion posted Sat Aug 19 2006 17:41:33 by Amhilde
Easyjet's And Ryanair's Summer Schedules posted Tue Nov 15 2005 14:54:46 by Ushermittwoch
BAA Upsets EasyJet And Ryanair posted Thu May 19 2005 08:06:55 by Bassie2010
Why Don't JetBlue And Frontier Merge? posted Wed May 18 2005 18:08:25 by Petazulu