I’ve been following today’s story about Air Asia’s plans to expand into the long haul market.
The latest is an announcement that they will buy 10 A330’s and that they will be expanding their routes to Australia, China, India, the Middle East and Europe/UK.
I’ve flown Air Asia 737’s locally and the airline is very good. Would you believe black leather seats?
I suppose that, with the current preoccupation with greenhouse gasses, global warming and climate change, one should reflect upon the additional pollution that might be created by cheaper long haul fares and an increase in passenger traffic.
Or will that be so? There must be a finite number of people who need to travel outside a given area. Perhaps a new and less expensive carrier will ‘poach’ passengers from the existing airlines rather than increase the overall total of those choosing to travel by air. In which case those other carriers may have to reduce their scheduled flights rather than operate with less than 100% loads thereby maintaining some sort of status quo.
Or am I fooling myself?
There is no reason why the low cost model cannot be applied to long haul operations. I wouldn’t mind buying my meals and beverages or paying a fee for my in flight entertainment provided that I am given the opportunity of providing these things for myself if I choose.
Trouble is, how can I convince some Neanderthal security man that my bottle of Bollinger and the contents of my picnic basket is not something that might be used to create an explosive substance?
There will be an inevitable increase in overhead. The low-cost short haul market benefits from the fact that many crews come ‘home’ at the end of their working day. Now you will have relief crews requiring hotel accommodation and subsistence all along the extended routes.
The only other consideration is passenger comfort. One can put up with a 27 inch seat pitch for a couple of hours but long haul? Forget it. If that happens then the whole thing is doomed from the start.
Good luck Tony Fernandes and Air Asia.