Originally Posted by
Leo Hairy-Camel
Imagine the Ryanair of 10 years ago and what it is now. Now imagine Aer Lingus today and what it could be 10 years from now.
Well, Ryanair got where it is today by applying a fundamentally different business model to the short haul airline business. Presumably, for Aer Lingus to similarly transform itself, it would also need to turn conventional industry wisdom on its head. And yet what you appear to be describing is a classic hub and spoke scenario with a short haul airline interlining with a long haul one, and that long haul airline flying to established airports and offering a variety of passenger accomodation depending on what the passengers are willing to pay. Pretty much like many other long haul carriers then. So what's the point?
Surely there's three ways this could go if MOL's bid is successful:
1. Run both companies separately, but make EI more profitable through shared admin costs, improved purchasing power etc (which I've no doubt MOL could do).
2. Re-invent EI as a long haul version of Ryanair. Competitive fares, but the normal caveats apply in the way that Consol so eloquently described.
3. Integrate EI and FR as a hub and spoke operation with interlining between the two - which would compromise FR's highly successful business model and make them look like either a cheaper, nastier version of the established legacy carriers, or indistinguishable from them.
I'm afraid your description of a high quality long haul airline run along Ryanair business principles isn't credible or convincing