Why dont LCC's operate long haul?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why dont LCC's operate long haul?
Not sure if this has been discussed before but here goes. I've always wondered why the likes of southwest, ryannair, etc. do not operate long haul routes. Maybe I'm wrong but all I seem to notice on long haul are the legacy boys. Is the LCC businees model not adaptable to this part of the business?
Is there simply not enough money or will this be the next step in aviation??
Is there simply not enough money or will this be the next step in aviation??
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Blue does transcons in the US. You won't see them at Podunksville, Indiana, however. They're only going to fly dense routes they can make money on, not provide a comprehensive transportation system.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The business model for low cost carriers is to get maximum aircraft utilisation (yes and crew!!). In one long haul day they only get the chance to get maybe one or two lots of bums on seats, each buying meals and or drinks etc, the short haul day with short turnarounds gets more bums on seats, more meals, drinks and taxes paid for so more opportunities to make money.
Its a very simplified explanation but I think it covers it
Its a very simplified explanation but I think it covers it
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 20000 leagues under the sea
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oasis Hong Kong will be operating later this year (hoopefully!!!) and their route structure is only longhaul to secondary major cities, London Gatwick, SFO Oakaland planned initial routes.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North American operators seem more willing to take on long haul "low-cost" style operations. In addition to several carriers in the US operating coast-to-coast non-stop, there's also Zoom operating across the Atlantic, and WestJet planning service to Hawaii and possibly Europe too. So, for some types of operation the formula can be made to work.
It is also down to the fact the a lot of the LCCs carry passengers who are on board to get away for a few days (regardless, to an extent, of destination) rather than having to go to a specific place.
Such passengers are generally expecting to pay roughly the same whether they fly 1 hour or 4.
I do think there is scope for a long-haul carrier to destinations within 8 hours (allowing 1 aircraft operation and a daily service) concentrating on a premium-economy and business product but on a low cost basis.
Such passengers are generally expecting to pay roughly the same whether they fly 1 hour or 4.
I do think there is scope for a long-haul carrier to destinations within 8 hours (allowing 1 aircraft operation and a daily service) concentrating on a premium-economy and business product but on a low cost basis.
I suppose some reasons might be:
1. Fuel is a much greater proportion of costs compared with landing fees, airport expenses, etc. on long haul sectors. The LCCs save money on the last two items but everybody pays the same for kerosine.
2. There are already many 'lower cost' long-haul operators: what we used to know as the 'charter' airlines. It might be difficult for a new entrant to significantly undercut them.
3. You wouldn't get much overall saving from short turnaround times.
4. You won't be able to get any greater productivity from your crews as for most 'serious' longhaul they have to get off the plane and go to rest after one sector.
5. It's easy to underestimate the logistics and management required to keep a 24/7 airline running around the world...
1. Fuel is a much greater proportion of costs compared with landing fees, airport expenses, etc. on long haul sectors. The LCCs save money on the last two items but everybody pays the same for kerosine.
2. There are already many 'lower cost' long-haul operators: what we used to know as the 'charter' airlines. It might be difficult for a new entrant to significantly undercut them.
3. You wouldn't get much overall saving from short turnaround times.
4. You won't be able to get any greater productivity from your crews as for most 'serious' longhaul they have to get off the plane and go to rest after one sector.
5. It's easy to underestimate the logistics and management required to keep a 24/7 airline running around the world...
Paxing All Over The World
ece3446
Actually - Yes (many, many times!) The answers given are all relevant, another is that, long haul is driven to no small degree by business traffic who will pay for the premium cabins. In short haul, a decreasing number of companyies will pay for premium seating.
One of the first LCCs to try long haul was Freddie Laker who had some (ahem) difficulties. There will always be folks trying new ways of doing things but the airports and pax are also more savvy than they were 20 years ago and probably most of the gains to be had out of the system have already been taken.
When you read about how LCCs and the majors are running the maximum amount of duty hours for flight crew and cutting back on everything that they possibly can, then we may start to realise that all the permutations have been tried. At the other end of the scale, there are the dedicated biz carriers such as Privat Air for LH and EOS/MAXjet. The next try will be a recycling of an older formula.
Not sure if this has been discussed before but here goes.
One of the first LCCs to try long haul was Freddie Laker who had some (ahem) difficulties. There will always be folks trying new ways of doing things but the airports and pax are also more savvy than they were 20 years ago and probably most of the gains to be had out of the system have already been taken.
When you read about how LCCs and the majors are running the maximum amount of duty hours for flight crew and cutting back on everything that they possibly can, then we may start to realise that all the permutations have been tried. At the other end of the scale, there are the dedicated biz carriers such as Privat Air for LH and EOS/MAXjet. The next try will be a recycling of an older formula.
I think Stelios (EasyJet) was quoted as saying: "If I try and start a long-haul operation, somebody shoot me!" Or something along those lines. I think the main difference with shorthaul is the abilty to lose money at a far greater rate. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is intl. different?
I should've been clearer orginally, what I meant was long haul international flights. For example there seems to be no low cost carrier on the EWR - LHR route. Not sure if MAXJet counts.
I've heard arguments before stating that intl flights will not go this route because a certain level kind of service is expected. Why not charge your captive market for all services provided (including drink and food multiple times, headsets, check in baggage)? Wouldnt you be more receptive to these services if you are in the plane for 6 or more hours? Atleast to me as a consumer at this point the ONLY thing that matters is the upfront cost of the ticket when I run my search through mobissimo. Hell , I'd go standing if I could get a cheaper ticket. j/k
By emulating the same reasons they have been a success in teh domestic market (one type of aricraft, working flight crew to death
, charge for everything) I am still not sure why this business model is not applicable to the intl long haul arena.
In terms of time Jet blue already flies trancon (6 hrs. +) so I am not quite sure if i buy the fuel argument? Is EWR-LHR such a stretch?
Thank you all for your replies.
I've heard arguments before stating that intl flights will not go this route because a certain level kind of service is expected. Why not charge your captive market for all services provided (including drink and food multiple times, headsets, check in baggage)? Wouldnt you be more receptive to these services if you are in the plane for 6 or more hours? Atleast to me as a consumer at this point the ONLY thing that matters is the upfront cost of the ticket when I run my search through mobissimo. Hell , I'd go standing if I could get a cheaper ticket. j/k
By emulating the same reasons they have been a success in teh domestic market (one type of aricraft, working flight crew to death
, charge for everything) I am still not sure why this business model is not applicable to the intl long haul arena.In terms of time Jet blue already flies trancon (6 hrs. +) so I am not quite sure if i buy the fuel argument? Is EWR-LHR such a stretch?
Thank you all for your replies.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bigger a/c = higher fixed costs (eg. landing and nav/airways charges, fuel just to lift the airframe, same crew even if only 50% load, crew hours and crew costs (ie. one crew couldn't do out & back in a day over the Pond), a/c further from base (so bigger probs & costs if it goes u/s), etc.)
So it'll be interesting to see how Jetstar Int'l goes, although I don't think even JI is planning as basic a service as the domestic version.
People will take no food, no recline, no window shade, etc. for a few hours, but perhaps not for much more than the range of a 738 before they start getting a bit bolshie. Even buses stop to let the punters stretch their legs and load up on KFC/Little Chef.
So it'll be interesting to see how Jetstar Int'l goes, although I don't think even JI is planning as basic a service as the domestic version.
People will take no food, no recline, no window shade, etc. for a few hours, but perhaps not for much more than the range of a 738 before they start getting a bit bolshie. Even buses stop to let the punters stretch their legs and load up on KFC/Little Chef.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Taildragger67
Bigger a/c = higher fixed costs (eg. landing and nav/airways charges, fuel just to lift the airframe, same crew even if only 50% load, crew hours and crew costs (ie. one crew couldn't do out & back in a day over the Pond), a/c further from base (so bigger probs & costs if it goes u/s), etc.)
So it'll be interesting to see how Jetstar Int'l goes, although I don't think even JI is planning as basic a service as the domestic version.
People will take no food, no recline, no window shade, etc. for a few hours, but perhaps not for much more than the range of a 738 before they start getting a bit bolshie. Even buses stop to let the punters stretch their legs and load up on KFC/Little Chef.
So it'll be interesting to see how Jetstar Int'l goes, although I don't think even JI is planning as basic a service as the domestic version.
People will take no food, no recline, no window shade, etc. for a few hours, but perhaps not for much more than the range of a 738 before they start getting a bit bolshie. Even buses stop to let the punters stretch their legs and load up on KFC/Little Chef.
Agreed about the bloshie too. But no one is going to force you to fly. If you cant take it fly the old fashioned way. As for me I'd be willing to take even 8 hrs of that bs for a substantially reduced fare.
Temet Nosce, get me to london for $50 and I'd go lying down. heh heh!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Karma-Air
guess that kinda counts as LCC.
Haven't heard from others such as BackpackersExpress who were due to launch on a kinda LON-DEL-BKK-SYD route using a 747.
K-A
Haven't heard from others such as BackpackersExpress who were due to launch on a kinda LON-DEL-BKK-SYD route using a 747.
K-A
One suspects the interior would've been a bit muc by the time it got that far up the track, but that's another story...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of these points have been covered above, so apologies for any repetition. However:
1. Difficult to extract significantly improved utilisation out of the aircraft as the block times will be identical to the 'traditional' carriers, and any time gain which can be made on the turnround will be relatively minimal as a proportion of the overall time for the complete rotation.
2. The longer the sector, the more messy the cabin, and the greater the need to do a full clean (akin to charter operators). EZY etc. get away without this on short sectors as only a small proportion of pax eat on board, and the 'mess' is manageable. This becomes less so on the longer sectors (e.g. LON-ATH). This further erodes any cost/efficiency difference between them and the others!
3. Flight timings / time differences - It is relatively straightforward to extract a high utilisation schedule out of a fleet of short-haul aircraft....the 'jigsaw' of long sectors (e.g. UK-Spain) and short sectors (e.g. Domestics, LON-AMS, etc.) can be shuffled to produce a high utilisation and efficient operation. With long haul, a combination of sector length, time difference, saleable departure times, etc. make it much more difficult to fit together the various pieces of the jigsaw in an efficient manner.
4. Although EZY and RYR are moving away from some of their original business model as they expand, they do extract huge cost savings / efficiencies due to their large operations at key airports. Operating long haul inevitably means a relatively low number of turnrounds and therefore minimal cost-saving or tough bargaining opportunities.
5. The majority of the EZY/RYR network is within the EU where they are unrestricted in terms of route licenses, etc. (and US Lo-Co's are much the same). Operating outside the EU (and particularly to long-haul destinations) increases cost and complexity.
There are a host of other factors, but that lot should do for now
1. Difficult to extract significantly improved utilisation out of the aircraft as the block times will be identical to the 'traditional' carriers, and any time gain which can be made on the turnround will be relatively minimal as a proportion of the overall time for the complete rotation.
2. The longer the sector, the more messy the cabin, and the greater the need to do a full clean (akin to charter operators). EZY etc. get away without this on short sectors as only a small proportion of pax eat on board, and the 'mess' is manageable. This becomes less so on the longer sectors (e.g. LON-ATH). This further erodes any cost/efficiency difference between them and the others!
3. Flight timings / time differences - It is relatively straightforward to extract a high utilisation schedule out of a fleet of short-haul aircraft....the 'jigsaw' of long sectors (e.g. UK-Spain) and short sectors (e.g. Domestics, LON-AMS, etc.) can be shuffled to produce a high utilisation and efficient operation. With long haul, a combination of sector length, time difference, saleable departure times, etc. make it much more difficult to fit together the various pieces of the jigsaw in an efficient manner.
4. Although EZY and RYR are moving away from some of their original business model as they expand, they do extract huge cost savings / efficiencies due to their large operations at key airports. Operating long haul inevitably means a relatively low number of turnrounds and therefore minimal cost-saving or tough bargaining opportunities.
5. The majority of the EZY/RYR network is within the EU where they are unrestricted in terms of route licenses, etc. (and US Lo-Co's are much the same). Operating outside the EU (and particularly to long-haul destinations) increases cost and complexity.
There are a host of other factors, but that lot should do for now
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trans Atlantic airlines make their money from premium passengers.
Its a question of RASM vs CASM. These days a CASM of $0.10 will require a $600 R/T for a 3000mi trip just to break even if the plane was full. Not quite a cheap ticket.
In reality a Y class only airline would be charging more like $900-$1000 R/T w/o an F or B class to subsidize the back end of the plane.
Its a question of RASM vs CASM. These days a CASM of $0.10 will require a $600 R/T for a 3000mi trip just to break even if the plane was full. Not quite a cheap ticket.
In reality a Y class only airline would be charging more like $900-$1000 R/T w/o an F or B class to subsidize the back end of the plane.