Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:27 pm

The Operational Difference Of Low-budget Airlines?

Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:11 pm

Pardon me if this has been been detailed in another thread; I didn't find a recent one in the search.

What, really, is the operational difference between a "low-budget" airline and another carrier? Many low-budget lines are plenty large, and internationally many are tiny and regional.

Is the operation cost made up in frills, like blankets and meals, or is there a significant difference in crew pay, upkeep, etc.?

I know that every individual airline is different, especially as you look abroad, but there must be some general commonalities.
Posts: 2830
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: The Operational Difference Of Low-budget Airlines?

Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:18 am

The added amenities are a large part of it. Since you're profile shows you're from the US, let's use Southwest.

A large portion of their costs savings is in their route structure. They don't rely on the hub and spoke system that AA, UA, DL and others use. The aircraft fly into say, ORD, and then back out. Connections have to leave at similiar times to allow passengers to get from one flight to another. The result is banks of flights where everything is on the ground, then a lot of downtime while they fly to the outstations. Because of this the legacy carriers have to have a ton of gates, and enough personel to handle those flights. Southwest on the other hand does a lot of point to point and through flights.

This gives a lot of bennefits. Southwest can get away with fewer gates, and need fewer people while having just as many flights. Their employees are more productive throughout their shifts because they are working more flights rather than sitting in between banks. Southwest has some of the highest pay rates in the industry but they save a ton of money because of the productivity of their employees.

Another big point of savings is the fleet. Many airlines have realized the need to reduce the fleet types. Specialization has some benneifts but overall it's better to limit the number of types within a fleet. By doing so you need to stock fewer parts, you don't need as many ground service items like towbars, and you also save money in training because each type is a little different for ground crews (door operation, towbars, etc) and when you mistake the procedure for opening on the door of an airbus with that of a boeing things can break and that costs money too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: APettyJ, BartSimpson, eamondzhang and 12 guests

Popular Searches On

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos