Your Opinions on No-Frills Growth ...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: belfast
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments about the 717 - thought Flybe were looking at a/c in the circa 150 seat capacity - a moot question, do Flybe actually have any routes where 150 seat capacity might be needed? What are their busiest routes?
If the 717 was big enough, there are plenty available.
If the 717 was big enough, there are plenty available.
I don't think flying from Leeds is a usp. Having no slot constraints and plenty of room any other LCA could move in tomorrow and start a money bleeding competition...
Cheers
WWW
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several Flybe routes that could benefit from a 120+ seater, although some markets are seasonal:
BHD-BHX
BHD-LGW
BHX-TLS
BHX-CDG
BHX-JER/GCI
JER-LGW
GCI-LGW
SOU-ALC
SOU-AGP
SOU-MJV
SOU-GVA
EXT-ALC
EXT-AGP
EXT-FAO
Regards
Mike
BHD-BHX
BHD-LGW
BHX-TLS
BHX-CDG
BHX-JER/GCI
JER-LGW
GCI-LGW
SOU-ALC
SOU-AGP
SOU-MJV
SOU-GVA
EXT-ALC
EXT-AGP
EXT-FAO
Regards
Mike
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing about a 120 seat aircraft is that it needs as many crew as a 149 seat aircraft - but with fewer seats and thus (presumably) less revenue (as always, it's the yields that count - but the income potential ).
The next thing about the A320 family is scaleability - one crew can fly everything from (?) 110 seats A318 to 200 seats plus A321 - and if the airline is ever considering widebody stuff, a common type rating to bigger things as well.
Also there's the issue of maintenance - Airbus spares and engineering is all over the place; 717's are seen hardly anywhere.
IMHO, the 717 is a complete dead end - Boeing tried to adapt itself to the medium narrowbody market far too late to do anything about the fact that Airbus had already taken a stonking lead. Now had they produced the new Boeing 737 wing in 1985, it would have been a different story ......
The next thing about the A320 family is scaleability - one crew can fly everything from (?) 110 seats A318 to 200 seats plus A321 - and if the airline is ever considering widebody stuff, a common type rating to bigger things as well.
Also there's the issue of maintenance - Airbus spares and engineering is all over the place; 717's are seen hardly anywhere.
IMHO, the 717 is a complete dead end - Boeing tried to adapt itself to the medium narrowbody market far too late to do anything about the fact that Airbus had already taken a stonking lead. Now had they produced the new Boeing 737 wing in 1985, it would have been a different story ......
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEFLYBE
I am interested in your citing SOU-MJV as a route that would sustain a larger aircraft because the local Bristol press reported Flybe's decision not to proceed with the previously announced BRS-MJV link was because of poor loads on their route to MJV from SOU.
I didn't quite follow the relevance in the first place because poor loads from SOU would not necessarily mean poor loads from BRS.
It appears from your remarks implying that SOU-MJV is doing well that there was another reason for Flybe not following through with the BRS-MJV route.
I am interested in your citing SOU-MJV as a route that would sustain a larger aircraft because the local Bristol press reported Flybe's decision not to proceed with the previously announced BRS-MJV link was because of poor loads on their route to MJV from SOU.
I didn't quite follow the relevance in the first place because poor loads from SOU would not necessarily mean poor loads from BRS.
It appears from your remarks implying that SOU-MJV is doing well that there was another reason for Flybe not following through with the BRS-MJV route.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crawley
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Wee Wesaley Welshman's comments on Go. I fully accept that Go was vulnerable to its shareholders own pressures. That is why highly focused management and Shareholders are necessary. I just happen to think though that Ryanair would have been tempted to have a "Go" at some other of their routes from STN, just as they did with My Travel at BHX.
A problem that BA inevitably had with Go was that Go needed to operate services that competed directly with its parent. Bilbao. Bologna etc.
Actually there is a case in Europe of an airline that seems to be doing OK despite the fact that it is owned ny one of the big network carriers and that is Basiq. But there is no route duplication of any sort. Routes were transferred to Basiq from KL in some cases. But it hardly faces any direct competition, and it only serves resort destinations.
Re Redstripe's comments. Yes 99.9% is a bit dramatic but it got your attention. If you look at all the companies that have applied for licences since they were first allowed to do so back in the days of the Air Transport Advisory Council and then compare those with the number of companies now operating you will easily find that the ration of failures in excess of 90%.
Re Flightmapping's comments about LBA catchment area. I cannot remember the exact definition that was used but the CAA accepted in many route licence applications in the 1980's that LBA did have that status. It is all to do with populations living within a certain radius.
A problem that BA inevitably had with Go was that Go needed to operate services that competed directly with its parent. Bilbao. Bologna etc.
Actually there is a case in Europe of an airline that seems to be doing OK despite the fact that it is owned ny one of the big network carriers and that is Basiq. But there is no route duplication of any sort. Routes were transferred to Basiq from KL in some cases. But it hardly faces any direct competition, and it only serves resort destinations.
Re Redstripe's comments. Yes 99.9% is a bit dramatic but it got your attention. If you look at all the companies that have applied for licences since they were first allowed to do so back in the days of the Air Transport Advisory Council and then compare those with the number of companies now operating you will easily find that the ration of failures in excess of 90%.
Re Flightmapping's comments about LBA catchment area. I cannot remember the exact definition that was used but the CAA accepted in many route licence applications in the 1980's that LBA did have that status. It is all to do with populations living within a certain radius.
I doubt Ryan would ever have competed much with Go. We flew to Primary or Secondary airports whereas Ryan flies to Tertiary. Go was also rolling out a range of regional departure airports and was planning to implement a network that was somewhat more exotic than Ryanairs, e.g. Moscow, Budapest, Ankara
It would be wrong to think Go failed. Everyone that ever invested in it, used it or worked for it came away happy or richer.
If one assumes that Europe will over the next 5 years reach a low cost airline marketshare of 22% (half that of the USA) then there is still scope for both the Ryan and EZY fleets to more than double in size.
Not overoptimistic numbers in my opinion.
Cheers
WWW
It would be wrong to think Go failed. Everyone that ever invested in it, used it or worked for it came away happy or richer.
If one assumes that Europe will over the next 5 years reach a low cost airline marketshare of 22% (half that of the USA) then there is still scope for both the Ryan and EZY fleets to more than double in size.
Not overoptimistic numbers in my opinion.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crawley
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW, your last posting could really take us into interesting territory. I do not know where you get your US statistic from because it is not one that I recognise. It also depends on which statistic that you use. In Europe the usual comparator is revenue pasenger kilometres(RPK's).
In the USA using that statistic produces a market share for the specialist low fare airlines, dominated by Southwest of less than 20%. I readily agree that a contributor to this is because there are virtually no long haul(e.g. coast to coast) operations by low cost airlines. The market in America continues to be completely dominated by the network carriers. In 2003 Southwest carried approx 65 million pax. Delta, a network carrier, alone carried over 100 million. Then you have got American, United, US Airways, Continental, Northwest, America West, Hawaiian.
But in a market of around 500 million pax there is no way that the low fare airlines had a market share in passenger terms of more than 20%.
In Europe the dominant airline product has got nothing to do with the big network carriers, BA, Air France and the like. The dominant market share is held by the holiday airlines. In 2002 they operated around 650 aircraft, mostly A320 size or larger. Before the low cost airlines started in Europe those holiday airlines operated around 70% of all RPK's in Europe.
That is what makes Europe completely different from the USA. All those holiday airlines are low cost. Many of therm have been around for a long while and are very professional. They are fighting to protect their business in some very interesting and diverse ways. A good example is Monarch, which I use regularly. They have high service standards( better than BA), big aircraft (A321), good schedules, excellent check-in arrangements, a superb website, which is nearly as good as the original Go site, and they have prices that are very competitive. What they have done is convert their original seat only business conducted through their Avro sister company into scheduled services. The loads that I have seen on their flights have been excellent. They are a very good example of a carrier that knows its niche and is exploiting it well.
I think that the next couple of years are going to prove very interesting as the low cost airlines try to deploy the capacity they have ordered, rejuvenated network carriers seek to protect their market shares, the holiday airlines adapt their products to meet changing demands and as consolidation inevitably develops throughout Europe.
On top of all that we have the environmentalists who are trying to stop the development of the whole industry. It looks to me to be as turbulent as it ever was when I was in it.
I am enjoying this debate.
In the USA using that statistic produces a market share for the specialist low fare airlines, dominated by Southwest of less than 20%. I readily agree that a contributor to this is because there are virtually no long haul(e.g. coast to coast) operations by low cost airlines. The market in America continues to be completely dominated by the network carriers. In 2003 Southwest carried approx 65 million pax. Delta, a network carrier, alone carried over 100 million. Then you have got American, United, US Airways, Continental, Northwest, America West, Hawaiian.
But in a market of around 500 million pax there is no way that the low fare airlines had a market share in passenger terms of more than 20%.
In Europe the dominant airline product has got nothing to do with the big network carriers, BA, Air France and the like. The dominant market share is held by the holiday airlines. In 2002 they operated around 650 aircraft, mostly A320 size or larger. Before the low cost airlines started in Europe those holiday airlines operated around 70% of all RPK's in Europe.
That is what makes Europe completely different from the USA. All those holiday airlines are low cost. Many of therm have been around for a long while and are very professional. They are fighting to protect their business in some very interesting and diverse ways. A good example is Monarch, which I use regularly. They have high service standards( better than BA), big aircraft (A321), good schedules, excellent check-in arrangements, a superb website, which is nearly as good as the original Go site, and they have prices that are very competitive. What they have done is convert their original seat only business conducted through their Avro sister company into scheduled services. The loads that I have seen on their flights have been excellent. They are a very good example of a carrier that knows its niche and is exploiting it well.
I think that the next couple of years are going to prove very interesting as the low cost airlines try to deploy the capacity they have ordered, rejuvenated network carriers seek to protect their market shares, the holiday airlines adapt their products to meet changing demands and as consolidation inevitably develops throughout Europe.
On top of all that we have the environmentalists who are trying to stop the development of the whole industry. It looks to me to be as turbulent as it ever was when I was in it.
I am enjoying this debate.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
colegate - a refreshing change and very imformative.
I would like to add that I believe the low cost carriers will further their market share at the cost of traditional national carriers but with easyjet now proceeding with a court case against the french slot allocation agency and the ever present protectionism of certain countries how much further their share will rise remains to be seen.
The French seem to have omitted that the slots recently given out do not total the actual numbers that were used by Air Liberte and therefore Easyjet are trying through the courts to gain access to the said slots. I also believe that the French agency responsible for handing out the slots also tell you what routes you have to fly too, find this hard to believe but that is my understanding.
The european states have to become more transparant and I believe shares in national airlines have to be diluted to prevent protectionism and thus limiting not just the low cost carriers future prospects but aviation in europe in general.
Chillwinston
I would like to add that I believe the low cost carriers will further their market share at the cost of traditional national carriers but with easyjet now proceeding with a court case against the french slot allocation agency and the ever present protectionism of certain countries how much further their share will rise remains to be seen.
The French seem to have omitted that the slots recently given out do not total the actual numbers that were used by Air Liberte and therefore Easyjet are trying through the courts to gain access to the said slots. I also believe that the French agency responsible for handing out the slots also tell you what routes you have to fly too, find this hard to believe but that is my understanding.
The european states have to become more transparant and I believe shares in national airlines have to be diluted to prevent protectionism and thus limiting not just the low cost carriers future prospects but aviation in europe in general.
Chillwinston
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason Flybe did not start BRS-MJV was because they were not given the slots they requested. EXT-MJV was also pencilled in, but later changed to Faro because of the same reasons. When the new Murcia airport is up and running, I would ecpect to see a large increase in the number of flights to the UK, especially by Flybe.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colgate,
Basiq has expanded now to a little more than resorts: Dublin, Stockholm, Oslo, Berlin, London Stansted were added from Rotterdam just recently ( in addition to their resort destinations of course)
Although some Amsterdam bound pax will be lured by the low fares, in reality much of this traffic is coming from Rotterdam, Den Haag and Delft. The fares are such that much of these passengers just would not have flown, even from Schiphol, if the low prices were not available. In that sense, it probably wont do much damage to KLM mainline in the first place.
I still wonder if the same can be said for their Schiphol based routes though...
Basiq has expanded now to a little more than resorts: Dublin, Stockholm, Oslo, Berlin, London Stansted were added from Rotterdam just recently ( in addition to their resort destinations of course)
Although some Amsterdam bound pax will be lured by the low fares, in reality much of this traffic is coming from Rotterdam, Den Haag and Delft. The fares are such that much of these passengers just would not have flown, even from Schiphol, if the low prices were not available. In that sense, it probably wont do much damage to KLM mainline in the first place.
I still wonder if the same can be said for their Schiphol based routes though...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basiq Air are doing a little curtailing of their destinations too. They are ceasing to serve AMS-Bordeaux and AMS-Marseille from 1st June. Now, I wonder where could they serve next!? 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reall think that EZY have opted for airbus to give them more flexibility in future longhaul operations with either the 319 or the 332. The same could be said about JB in the US although they seem to be going down the road of smaller ac to open up marginal routes.
I know that this is not in the loco business model but you would think it was better to have the expense of changing equipment now whilst expansion and cash flow is still strong to allow you achieve growth in new markets when saturation occours.
I think it is very hard to compare euro loco ops with US loco ops because the cost structures in the expanding euroland are so different. Yes a 737 or 319 will be operated on comparable lease rates wherever they are operated but but labour costs ie flightcrew and maintenance are very different between say the UK, Germany and France to Poland, CR and Slovakia.
Once the financial institutions see good business coming out of the eastern euro countries I am sure they will be more than happy to throw money at them as they turn to a real growth area.
I think the next two or three years will be the most important in europe as the consolidations take place and the market really settles down
I know that this is not in the loco business model but you would think it was better to have the expense of changing equipment now whilst expansion and cash flow is still strong to allow you achieve growth in new markets when saturation occours.
I think it is very hard to compare euro loco ops with US loco ops because the cost structures in the expanding euroland are so different. Yes a 737 or 319 will be operated on comparable lease rates wherever they are operated but but labour costs ie flightcrew and maintenance are very different between say the UK, Germany and France to Poland, CR and Slovakia.
Once the financial institutions see good business coming out of the eastern euro countries I am sure they will be more than happy to throw money at them as they turn to a real growth area.
I think the next two or three years will be the most important in europe as the consolidations take place and the market really settles down
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
multi segment / tax on flights
One other major difference between the US & the UK is that the locos offer multi-stop (especially SWA) & connecting flights.
But there has to be one hell of a saving to want to cross the continent in 3 legs on a 737, compared to going direct on a 757 or larger.
M'O'L has always talked about wanting to make FR "like a bus", although there doesn't seem to be any move yet to offer multi-stop services.
The domestic market share in the UK (now something like 42%?) for no-frills airlines must be amongst the largest in the world?
This does pose legitimate environmental questions, possibly for another thread. IMHO, airlines can't have it both ways - "we are struggling right now, so don't tax us" and "passenger numbers are going to expand threefold in the next 30 years".
Personally, I think some of this growth can be constrained by an increased APD, or a more proportional tax on flights / fuel.
For example, I went to EDI for a meeting yesterday - in France this sort of journey could be done by TGV. Had I chosen to drive, I would have paid something like 80% duty on the fuel going up there.
Is it really right that there is no duty on air fuel? I think more tax would have been shelled out on the drive to EMA & airport parking than on the flight itself?
But there has to be one hell of a saving to want to cross the continent in 3 legs on a 737, compared to going direct on a 757 or larger.
M'O'L has always talked about wanting to make FR "like a bus", although there doesn't seem to be any move yet to offer multi-stop services.
The domestic market share in the UK (now something like 42%?) for no-frills airlines must be amongst the largest in the world?
This does pose legitimate environmental questions, possibly for another thread. IMHO, airlines can't have it both ways - "we are struggling right now, so don't tax us" and "passenger numbers are going to expand threefold in the next 30 years".
Personally, I think some of this growth can be constrained by an increased APD, or a more proportional tax on flights / fuel.
For example, I went to EDI for a meeting yesterday - in France this sort of journey could be done by TGV. Had I chosen to drive, I would have paid something like 80% duty on the fuel going up there.
Is it really right that there is no duty on air fuel? I think more tax would have been shelled out on the drive to EMA & airport parking than on the flight itself?
