It seems odd that the term "application of low-cost models to bizjets" is used for these new companies, does that hold any water?
The fundamentals of Low cost operators were based around a lower cost model than the "National" carriers. But more fundamental was the yield management of more bums on seats, that is pretty irrelovent to the bizjet market unless you think that per seat pricing works (IMHO it does not in the EU). Are we not already fairly lean on overhead and smart on taking the "right" work to maximise yield? Are these the main fundamentals of the LowCo?
1. Fuller Aircraft
2. Less staff
3. Non-major airports (this didn't even work for the LowCo's)
4. Faster turnarounds.
I don't think these really have any relevance to the bizjet market. It seems to me that the new lowco bizjet operators are simply working on volume and utilisation targets that IMHO are unachievable with the types chosen. I know the market quite well and can't get a better than 450 hr utilisation on the mustang model even with some quite complex yield management pricing policy. The phenom does better, but you still have a fairly hefty hit to the balance sheet because they buck the trend of buying used aircraft and have the new equipment buyer eat the depreciation.
IMHO the capital is being ploughed into equipment rather than market share and expertise. If I had €100,000,000 to spend on the aviation market I would use it to buy an operator of like types in a few countries, de-fracture the light jet market and use it as a vehicle to expand organically into midsize and heavy jets, but hey! What do I know?
Anyone want to lend me €100,000,000. Already have AOC, maintenence and TRTO.
Phil