Yak42 From Ireland, joined Oct 2000, 796 posts, RR: 7 Posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1165 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.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1116 times:
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.
AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1013 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.
AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 993 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.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 995 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.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 971 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. )
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. 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.
TriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4685 posts, RR: 47 Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 930 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!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 885 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.