Tristar4ever From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 84 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 827 times:
I was reading previous posts concerning the majors launching low fare airlines. People especialy seem to bash bmi for launching baby. I personaly think that this was the only solution, rather than letting go steal bmi`s original home market, they have fought back. KLM have made a success of buzz, it too was formed with high cost ex. klm aircraft staffed and maintained by klm. While go has become one of the biggest low fare airlines, it to began just like bmi baby. It must also be noted that unlike, co.lite, metrojet, dlx and united shuttle, in the uk, buzz,baby and go have all been created to serve new markets and routes rather than downgrading from the standard airline routes.
my questions to whoever wants to answer are,
-do you think bmi baby will be a success?
-What where bmi`s other options?
-and what does the future hold for bmi, ba and be`s normal domestic operations with increased low fare competition?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 790 times:
I think bmi is making the right move by trying this experiment - there is a growing demand for discount flights in Europe, especially to resort destinations, and bmi does not want to be left out of the party. They did not go and purchase or lease aircraft to start this venture, they had the 2 733s to start baby with, so its a low-risk experiment. At this point, bmi has many new A320s and A321s sitting on the ground, so they need to try something new to expand their airline and put all of their aircraft to work.
I have always liked flying bmi; I hope this works for them.
Tristar4ever From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 84 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 792 times:
Do you think that KLM should have not bother setting up buzz? Wouldnt that have allowed go or ryanair at stansted to gain an even bigger share of the market, maybe creating an even bigger threat?
Is buzz loosing much money, when is it set to break even?
Teahan From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5275 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 767 times:
While I quite like BMI Baby and I believe it is/will be a success from a booking perspective, I really question if it is/will be financially viable. The reality if that BMI Baby has exactly the same costs as BMI, same aircraft, same crew, same management, the list is long! No frills airlines do not save money by not offering meals etc., the cost saving starts at the very heart of the company. BMI Baby is simply a full-cost airlines with low-fares.
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
Tristar4ever From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 84 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 696 times:
If those load factors dont improve bmi will be in serious trouble, it does not have the deep pockets of ba to survive such low loads for long. and judging by fellow star members reluctance to help ansett before its collapse, bmi could be heading for a similar fate. although its large number of slots at heathrow could act in it favour and make it worth being saved?
perhaps baby will be changed in time to a lower cost structure, otherwise the whole operation could be described as a superficial effort to appear on top of the low fare competition.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 682 times:
Sorry, this is a bit off topic.........but does BD currently have 2 of its A332s on the ground, along with about 6 of its A320/A321 aircraft?
I guess the question is which is worse........let the aircraft sit on the ground, or get them into the air by trying this new low-fare venture. Those new Airbuses cost a lot of money every month; I suppose that BMI will use 737s for Baby and put more Airbuses on the mainline routes.
The load factors mentioned above really dont sound good.......sorry to hear that but using A321s to replace 735s will do that. It is likely that BD was a little too ambitious and should have been thinking A319 and not A321 when ordering its new planes. I hope that they can survive this.
I hope that BD did not all into the overexpansion trap - after a few years of doing well, rush out and buy lots of expensive wonderful new airplanes that are hard to fill up and even harder to pay for.
Tristar4ever From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 84 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 679 times:
I think 1 332 is parked at man, although i didnt see it last week. starting another long haul service from man probably wouldnt be a good idea due to the lack of premium passengers.
there are certainly lots of 321`s parked for the winter season. i think the 320/21`s where leased to replace the fairly new 734`s and older 733`s. the 319 and 320 would have been a better solution, providing only a small capacity increase. maybe the 319`s where not available soon enough.
the 735`s are all less than 10yrs old, so they will be staying. the remaining 733`s will prob go to baby. its also expected that the fokkers will go soon. it`d be great to see erj-170/190`s ordered, but i couldnt really see that happening due to lack of £££££.