Originally Posted by
Harold77
I agree with your sentiments especially regarding prices. Everyone has come soo fixated on low price as possible no matter what line your in whether airline, railways, ferries, bus/ coach, shops etc.
What a lot of people have lost sight of is cost over time savings, in that time savings come with a slightly greater cost.
For Instance say a cheap single train ticket for a 7 hour journey £55, a 9 hour coach journey £30 and same route by air would take just over an hour be £130, but a slightly larger plane could mean cost of air be £10-15 cheaper than the £130. So £115 be more appealing to more than what £130 be.
Now take that approach for instance to same destination but from another airport in the area might be £30 cheaper at £100, so even for cost to get to other place still have savings after cost factors included. But if that fare was only £115 instead of £130 then the slightly extra cost than other airport then is worth it over the the extra travel hassle cost factored to get to other airport so is more appealing as cost after extra travel becomes break even. So having a slightly larger aircraft could mean more seats sold at £115 than £130, so more revenue overall with passengers not going from other airport because the right product is provided close by. Hence my saying the price has to be competitive in relation to offerings at other nearby airports doing the route. (For Instance)
Such like comments have been seen on various social media posts about flights by numerous people saying why pay £30 more when travel costs to other airport still gives a good saving hence why don't use this route. It is about making that difference more competitive on price where other airport savings don't become a factor anymore to make a decision where they fly from.
Would it be that 5-6 hours savings be worth the extra cost. For a number of people nowadays the extra two hour bus journey over rail would get them going by bus cause of the price.
Like in my line of work a company said there is no demand for using certain route for a service, if there was a demand we will run a connecting bus to that route.
A few years later a company set up on this route providing service and has proved that there is huge demand for this route. To such an extent they have had to add more services to the route since starting with numbers going through the roof.
As I say if the product is right then people will come.
It is like the fire triangle: Heat, Oxygen, Material. Together you can get a fire, but remove one of them then no fire can be had.
With an air route triangle: Price, Frequency, Capacity. Get each them all right then you have a good route. Don't get one of them right then the triangle falls apart.
I think your hypothesis is slightly misguided. By your reasoning, any route will work which is ludicrous. You could have cheap, regular flights on a big aircraft from Inverness to the Faroe Islands for example, but it would never make commercial sense and would cost hundreds of thousands to operate the route and is therefore clearly not commercially viable.
There needs to be an existing customer demand for a route pairing in the first place otherwise you can make it as cheap as you like but it will never be viable as it just won’t generate the bums on seats required. The problem here being that demand is diluted by LBA and NCL with LCC already in place there offering cheap flight. The route needs to generate a profit otherwise it just won’t last, unless of course you chuck blank cheques from the Mayor at it.