Fokker 100s and low-cost airlines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: East Midlands Airport (EMA)
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fokker 100s and low-cost airlines
I have noticed that a few start up low cost airlines (bmibaby, gexx and helvetic) have been using Fokker 100 aircraft for start up operations.
I am therefore wondering whether it would be realistic for a new low cost airline to start flights with the type?
buzz did not do well because it used the 100 seat BAe 146? Is the Fokker 100 more economically viable and could operate say a London - Malaga or Faro?
What are your opinions of the type for a start up?
I am therefore wondering whether it would be realistic for a new low cost airline to start flights with the type?
buzz did not do well because it used the 100 seat BAe 146? Is the Fokker 100 more economically viable and could operate say a London - Malaga or Faro?
What are your opinions of the type for a start up?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find bmibaby didn't use F100's as start-up aircraft - they used 733's. They only introduced a few flights on the F100 as these were bmi regionals which flew EMAEDI etc at the time and did nothing during the day (they used to use them to fly to Malaga, Faro etc). baby using them would havcreated more money than leaving them on the ground, but the long term economics of it wouldn't have worked - the seat costs isn't as favourable as other types, which would result in them being less competitive thatn other airlines (eg easy, or Go as it was at the time).
They could work though for a new start-up from a completly new destination, but probably ony as the aircraft are very cheap to buy.......
They could work though for a new start-up from a completly new destination, but probably ony as the aircraft are very cheap to buy.......
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info, over the last few days, an F100 in bmi blue livery has replaced one of the standard 737-500s that work out of CWL.... as they frequently have!
Must be something loco about the F100 then.....
TA
Must be something loco about the F100 then.....
TA
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Now where di I lay that hat?
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about BMI's fleet but there is a glut of F100's on the market after US Air and American ditching their fleet, not to mention one of the Brazilian carriers with a few dozen grounded and on the market at the moment.
Cheap modern aircraft can be hard to come by but the F100 has become just that (mostly mid-90's aircraft), hence Germania, helvetic, EU Jet ops etc. are availing of the opportunity. Can't imagine leases on F100's would be much more than those of a 146 or an older EFIS 737, whereas operating costs would probably be better given the age and weight.
Is the F100 the 737-200 for a new generation of locos?
Cheap modern aircraft can be hard to come by but the F100 has become just that (mostly mid-90's aircraft), hence Germania, helvetic, EU Jet ops etc. are availing of the opportunity. Can't imagine leases on F100's would be much more than those of a 146 or an older EFIS 737, whereas operating costs would probably be better given the age and weight.
Is the F100 the 737-200 for a new generation of locos?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: East Midlands Airport (EMA)
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking that same thought about the Fokker 100 being similar to a new 146 or 737-200 aircraft for low cost airlines.
The aircraft seems to have much better operating costs and because it has a maximum seating capacity of 100 presumably it means that you only have to have 2 flight and 2 cabin crew again reducing operating costs.
The aircraft seems to have much better operating costs and because it has a maximum seating capacity of 100 presumably it means that you only have to have 2 flight and 2 cabin crew again reducing operating costs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting, then, that FR went from 1-11 to 732 to 738 (189 pax.)
Is 100 seats really enough to make money out of the LCA game? (Remember Debonair?)
What if you're fully booked and you get 10 last minute pax willing to pay well over the odds 'cos they need to get where they're going? Surely, that's pure, unadulterated, profit and whats the real differential cost between 100 and 189 seats?
Is 100 seats really enough to make money out of the LCA game? (Remember Debonair?)
What if you're fully booked and you get 10 last minute pax willing to pay well over the odds 'cos they need to get where they're going? Surely, that's pure, unadulterated, profit and whats the real differential cost between 100 and 189 seats?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G,
The same argument applies what ever the flight load, be it 100, 130, 189. If you are full you are full.
Surely that is what yeild management systems are for. To ensure that th eLoad factor is maintained but there is still a scope for profit from the "late booker".
In the case of GEXX, they operate a "one price" system, so no matter when you book you pay the same fare. Probably makes the economics and planning a little simpler.
The same argument applies what ever the flight load, be it 100, 130, 189. If you are full you are full.
Surely that is what yeild management systems are for. To ensure that th eLoad factor is maintained but there is still a scope for profit from the "late booker".
In the case of GEXX, they operate a "one price" system, so no matter when you book you pay the same fare. Probably makes the economics and planning a little simpler.
