Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Best Aircraft For Lowcost,  
User currently offlineYak42 From Ireland, joined Oct 2000, 801 posts, RR: 6
Posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

With the low cost airlines around the world favoring the B737/A320 families, I was wondering which type of aircraft would be best suited for a low cost longhaul operation. I think the A300-600R would be a good one, being efficient to run and maintain and not to expensive to aquire.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A low cost longhaul start-up would obviously need an aircraft in the 200-250 seater capacity. Anything revolving around the 767-300/A300 mould. Assuming you would operate an all economy or a 2 class system, the 763 or A300 could accomodate anything between 200 to over 300 seats, ideal for new low cost entrant in the long haul market.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineBDRules From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 1501 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Personally i would say the A330 i dont know why but it has got to be good on efficiency and performance.

Regards

BDRules


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

I also think that the 757 has performed well in this role also

Jeremy


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1745 times:

The A330 is a favorite of European IT operators, and they have to have quite low costs.

Monarch also flies some A300-600Rs, and they have almost 360 seats in them.

The wider arrangement of the A300 makes it perfect for this type of job, and, people tend to forget that the A300-600R is about the same "age" aircraft as the 767-300ER. Many good years left.

N


User currently offlineAApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

It depends on the length of the haul and the number of passengers you are looking to carry. It is hard to make a good choice without first knowing the particular market, but it must be said, the 757 is an excellent choice. Statistically, the 757-300 would be the best in seat mile cost.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © MIKE MOORES



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Del Laughery



User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

The 753 is a displeasing aircraft due to the single aisle configuration and number of passengers.

It takes _forever_ to deplane everyone compared to a widebody of near-similar seat count.

I would hate to be toward the back of one of them. I understand this as a reason LH/Condor rejected them out of hand.

N


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1708 times:

The 753 is a displeasing aircraft due to the single aisle configuration and number of passengers.

This would have no bearing on the cram 'em in and sell 'em cheap attitude of the low cost carrier. They want best per seat mile cost, and not much else. If you want comfort, then pay for it


User currently offlineAApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

You have a good point, but I really doubt that the deplaning is as big of an issue as you make it. Especially if you were to take a carrier like Ryanair that already deplanes both front and back. Furthermore, studies were made on this very issue and it was found not to be a problem. Personally, I'm not real fond of a narrow body for long haul myself, but we are talking low cost here.

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

Well - the round-up of low-cost longhaul carriers seems to mostly bear out what y'all have been saying. 757 , 320 and NG are all good but it depends on the market, commonality with shorthaul craft, etc. Some low-co long range routes are flown by....(not counting out of production craft)....

IcelandAir - 757.
America West - 757, A32X
ATA - 757, 737NG
Frontier - A32X
JetBlue - A32X
National (when alive) - 757
Southwest (where they do longhaul)- 737NG
Ryanair (where they do longhaul) - 737NG

Virgin Blue -737NG

Some patterns - Though Boeing does better in the low-co market as a whole, the contest gets more even at longer stage lengths. If you don't count the 757. The 757's efficiency and flexibility advantage must be very good or else you wouldn't see it so often in the company of widebodies of similar seating capacity, or slightly smaller narrowbodies (in the case of the -200). Its amazing how airlines will break commonality in order to have this airplane.

About widebodies - the only Lo-co's still using widebodies, that I can remember, are ATA and Japan's SkyMark. ATA's L1011's mostly do charter work. Japan's Skymark uses 767's on shorthaul, mainly.

Are there any lo-cost carriers, anywhere, that use widebodies for longhaul? I sure can't think of any except maybe Virgin. But they don't seem like they are really a low-co to me. They use traditional service classes, many different A/C types, etc. They seem like a smaller version of a traditional full-service carrier. Unless I am missing something.




User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

My point to the long deplane time is not limited to passenger comfort, although I'd avoid a 753 personally (after my first flight on one, for the experience.  Big grin )

The very real issue of turn time rears its ugly head on a 753. Taking forever to deplane and enplane is not high on the list of things to do for an LCC. Having two cleaning crews (one per aisle) is also a convenience, unless you're an LCC that only cleans during the down shift.

I stand by my recommendation of the A300-600 and A310-300.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy Cheap to acquire, modern avionics, fuel efficient, two aisles.

I've also heard the charter companies are very pleased with their A330s. You can get a _lot_ of uncomfortable seats on an A330.

The 752 is still up there tho, on my list. But you know, Flight International isn't calling me for my list.  Smile

N


User currently offlineFlyboy_se From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 830 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Since when is Icelandair a lowcost airline?


I prefer to be crazy and happy rather than normal and bitter
User currently offlineTriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4695 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1644 times:

Another important aspect is to find the right-sized aircraft for the market. Although the 767/A300 might be a good aircraft for a long-haul low cost airline in the long run after a good brand recognition has been build up and there are sufficient bookings, these aircraft types will be real money killers in the buildup phase. Imagine how hard it will be to fill 360 seats on an A300-600R or about 330 seats on a 767-300ER compared to maybe 230 on a B757-200 in long-haul configuration!

There is a great potential to break the airline in the very beginning if you have to fill the difference of 100 (767 compared to 757) or 130 (A300 compared to 757) seats with loss-making fares.




Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24961 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1634 times:

Probably the Boeing 767-200 or Airbus 310-300


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineAirblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1825 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1621 times:

Just a question:

if you want to start long-haul low cost flights for example from London to US East coast, do you think a B757/200 with 235 seats or an A300/600R with 360 seats could fly it no stop??



User currently offlineBDRules From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 1501 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1617 times:

Dont Continental do BHX - EWR non-stop? I know its not LON but not much of a difference.

Yeah so i guess it would work.

Regarding an A300-600 it can fly it non stop. It can do Maldives 1 stop which is 12hrs30 so i can do it.

Regards

BDRules


User currently offlineTriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4695 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1610 times:

And another point...

If you're flying low-cost, you might want to use secondary airports. These may not have the right equipment and apron positions to handle widebodies like an A300 or B767.



Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 1599 times:

European charter airlines seem to favour A300 and 757 aircraft for the longer distances and 737s for the shorter distances (and smaller airports). A320s are coming into swing now (probably due to the appearance of these on the used aircraft market).

310s and 767s are not often seen outside mainline carriers (or charter daughters belonging to mainline carriers operating the types).

Some charters and lowcosts try to pick up the occasional old DC-10 and start an intercontinental service, usually shortlived.



I wish I were flying
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...
Best Aircraft For First Class posted Wed Dec 31 2003 22:05:31 by Mckennasmall
Best Aircraft For Longhaul Economy Flights posted Fri May 12 2000 02:48:03 by Ben88
Best 50-70 Seat Aircraft For Midwest Operator? posted Thu Jul 25 2002 20:34:37 by ALSF 2
The Best Airline For Each Aircraft posted Sat Nov 13 1999 16:37:46 by A340-600
HKG, BKK, HKT: Best Days For Spotting? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 05:46:36 by Joge
Silverjet Buys Flyjet & Source Aircraft For Launch posted Mon Oct 2 2006 19:05:43 by Gilesdavies
Aircraft For Music Tours posted Thu Sep 14 2006 10:34:48 by Keego
New Aircraft For Thomsonfly posted Mon Aug 14 2006 19:48:17 by Aidoair
Aircraft For GLA-CFU (14/08) posted Thu Jul 13 2006 20:07:37 by Glasgow
Two BAC-1-11 Aircraft For Sale On Ebay posted Sat Jul 1 2006 20:10:25 by INNflight