Seems like this will have modest non-domestic impact, namely just Manchester to Agadir, Marrakesh and Kyiv, as well as potential new routes to Morocco and Ukraine

.......... not forgetting Norway.

AirportPlanner1

The sensible plan would have been to appreciate the short term costs and hurdles of continuing to do business from the UK which they have manifestly ignored until now. easyJet had this sorted out literally years ago. UK based aircraft remained G- whereas a new EU based AOC was set up in Austria. Ryanair UK could have had the bulk of the UK based fleet allocated in the same way, it would have some impact on the ability to base aircraft all around Europe but the market has changed and the operator should have recognised this and adapted. If Aer Lingus can set up a whole new AOC for a handful of ex MAN flights, Ryanair could easily have managed this for the whole UK operation. But they screamed and moaned and whined and didn't. It's not as if they are one unified AOC anymore themselves, they have Irish, Polish and Maltese companies, all a ruse to keep costs down.
Another winning Ducksy strategy.

Skipness, the flaw in what you say is that the other subsidiaries are all within the EU hence could if needed be shuffled around the network to cover. Comparing EZY isn’t like with like as EZY was itself UK based hence needed to re-register a substantial portion of the fleet elsewhere to maintain operations. FR have scale of UK-non EU at STN hence its cost-effective to have a UK registered and crewed operation. Same applies to EI at MAN. That isn’t the case at LPL for example where you have a handful of flights per week.

Note that easyJet has moved the bulk of the fleet away from the UK AOC/G-reg. It would be silly for any airline operating in Europe to have even a single aircraft more than absolutely neccessary registered in the UK, as it limits the scope of operation quite a bit. For example, you can forget about flying W patterns with intra-EU legs with a G-reg/UK AOC.

The question for Ryanair is, whether the profit margin on those 13 (possibly more or less in the future) warrants moving some aircraft to G-reg and accepting the limitations related to that.

Indeed Ryanair could've re-registered their entire UK based fleet to G- aircraft, very much like how Wizz Air UK have done with everything based in the UK using the W9 code on G- aircraft. Then of course they wouldn't be restricted as to which routes they fly (ie a handful of LPL-RAK a week amongst an entirely UK-EU route network wouldn't cause any issue).

The thing is, Ryanair aircraft and crew in the UK are employed on the Irish (EI-) register along with Spain, Portgual, Greece and I think a few others. Those in Germany, France and Italy are on the Maltese (9H-) register and likewise Poland, Czech, Hungary etc. on the Polish (SP-) register. All comes down to labour union and tax cost savings to the Ryanair "group". Wizz are not represented by trade unions at the moment. When this inevitably happends at some point, they'll start to lose their cost advantage over Ryanair on labour terms and similarly may end up creating separate registers.

If, as Skipness suggests, you had everyone in the UK move to the G- register, you'd need to abide by UK employment terms as well as potentially reduce your fleet agility with these aircraft not being able to move as freely around the group network since they're registered to Ryanair UK, outside the EU. With only a handful of UK-Dom/Non-EU routes in the Ryanair network, it's perfectly understandable why they haven't gone down this road. It's totally unneccesary for the other 95%+ of the UK route network that serves the EU and can continue to operate on the current register.

davidjohnson6

Another low cost airline this time from Ukraine announced on Tuesday that they have been given rights to fly a four times weekly service between Manchester and Kyiv and are also looking at a service to Lviv, obviously nothing will happen until Covid is sorted in both countries.

AirportPlanner1

I understand Ryanair's pathological wish to have the lowest of possible cost bases. If it's scale you're after Ryanair could have chosen to operate all UK based aircraft as G- but there's a cost implication to the business they chose to avoid. Point being there was a huge shift in the rules and they intentionally left it to 5 mins to midnight to address the issue. Doesn't matter as they'll come out on top once again as ever as they've got enough cash to ride out the storm that will take out a few more airlines once reality hits home in 2021 as the post COVID market emerges. With a whole new fleet of MAXes arriving one of the issues I can see is that the original idea of selling on the B73Hs they'll be replacing will be way more difficult in such a tough marketplace.
By this summer though the Ryanair brand will be diminishing itself though as Buzz Air and Malta Air are finally rebranded properly......? I'd be lying if I said I properly got the logic behind this one as they could have maintained one unified branding albeit across all four geographies of EI / 9H / SP / G.

Appears borderline revelatory that there is an airline way of business out there that the poster above vainly perhaps continues in attempts to categorize.

G-RUKA was registered in December '18, so they've been thinking about it for a while. There was a spat with the CAA end of last year, as the CAA weren't happy about the ratio of UK registered a/c vs those leased in from other RYR AOC. Maybe this led to the change of plans.

southside bobby

Bobby maybe if you were a little more plain? I literally have no idea what you mean, not being cheeky, but that's an incomprehensible word salad. Apologies if English isn't your first language, I don't mean to be rude but you're incredibly hard to understand.

What's an "airline way of business"?? If you mean business model then I take my hat of to MOL who has been right way more often than most. My point was that the old model of one single lowest cost expanding business, Ryanair, has reached a tipping point of maturity where for reasons of cost it's been necessary to split that winning simple model into three different brands and four AOCs. I merely questioned what benefit the split branding would bring? No other loco has done this and with Brexit already adding complexity to a model that was wonderfully KISS, I wonder how it will pan out.

SOF...
The analytical tools of your trade that continue to be defied by the "luck of the Irish" majorly enhanced by "a kiss of the blarney stone" remain of interest.

Even the not so analytically minded of course may be amazed that you suddenly "see the light" & profess "Ryanair has reached a tipping point of maturity"...really...really...Ryanair first brought the low cost/fares "revolution" to Europe 34 years ago of course dear chap.

It does appear your posts contain more than the "merely questioning a split branding" would suggest.

As you struggle noted for instance is the fact you raise too the old chestnut of the fleet rollover...

By the way... what is KISS?...Forgive me but that is probably in essence the difference between a mind bent on the classroom lesson & a straight talking Irishman...albeit blarney enthused.

"I wonder how it will pan out"...The book is not yet considered but many written on the rise & rise of "Ryanair" thus far.

Absolutely...
It was a tongue in cheek question to highlight absolutely the man at Ryanair & the ethics that have been instilled thru the decades...I used the question to suggest humbly that that is why the culture at Ryanair is very difficult to categorize they live it & do not conduct messaging in the form of needless acronyms used & taught in business classes nowadays.

Skipness One Foxtrot

I completely agree with you here. I can't quite work out the benefits of having the separate brands and aircraft painted in the different colours etc.

The "tipping point of maturity" refers to the growth trajectory maturing and bold increases in revenue no longer being able to keep the cost base so low. Markets plateau, growth slows and routes mature. In many cases, loads of people go once at low prices and over time volumes fall back to sustainable levels, often in ways Ryanair didn't make enough money on and so they walked away. UK domestic is a good example, low fares drove STN-PIK/EDI/GLA to high volumes but lack of ancillary sales and stiff competition meant aircraft were redeployed to new routes with lower costs and better airport deals.

The new reality is that cannot go on as there's not enough new markets to move into. This maturity is also why MOL has intentionally moved away from telling customers to FO.

I see now the Southside may be the Dagobah system, all is clear now :)

SOF...

The thinking is clear & partly correct but perhaps is soooo last year...literally.

Does not Novel Virus produce more opportunities which an arch exploiter such as MoL& team are eager & impatient to take advantage of.

Perhaps with everything on their side there is now far more upside in playing the grand game differently to what you clearly & (wrongly) anticipate.

We disagree. Am not gonna hijack the thread trying to debate in the style of Nostradamus via google translate. You're habitually disagreeing with me, which is fine, but intentionally needling for a response and without any coherent arguement on your side.

cavokblues

Wasn't it Stelios that a couple of years ago in his fight with easyJet maangement over aircraft orders touted that 200 planes was the ideal size for an airline. Ryanair is certainly splitting into that sized airlines operationally if not sales/marketing wise. You also have Ryanair's unique problem that the IAA is insisting that all crew on irish registered ac should tax to Ireland and the trouble Ryanair had over this that was partial in the march to unions, and solved by adding AOC's in other juridictions. Add to that how Ryanair mgmt have utilized it to offer differnt t&c's over its airlines. And that another irishman Walsh leapfrogged O'Leary and became the head of an airline group probably also irked him. Pack that up with goodwill by the Maltese government and a want to display their name around, some resentment against Ryanair as such in some countries and inpass in the german market with Lauda, and Ryanair having pickled the Buzz name for years, you could see a continued growth through more new names. Didn't the board once tell O'Leary that if he wanted to go transatlantic he couldn't do it in a way that disturbed Ryanair core.

I understand why it makes sense legally and financially for Ryanair but from a brand and marketing perspective it seems a weird one. Will they design separate websites? Or will people book flights on the Ryanair site only to be flown on a Buzz coloured aircraft? I just don't understand why they don't keep the aircraft in Ryanair livery with a small 'operated by Buzz' at the front or something similar. The cynic in me - Buzz sounds an awful lot like Wizz. (I appreciate Ryanair have owned the Buzz name for 18 years or so) but perhaps Ryanair really are struggling against Wizz in the eastern markets and feel this brand will serve them better?

Brands
 

I think it is more to do with tax and employment rights.
Ryanair close a base and reopen it as buzz new contracts needed for staff in a few years that closes and goes to Malta air

cheaper labour and costs will be the bottom line for Ryanair

But you can do that without changing the brand - just a different AOC e.g. would the average SLF spot the difference between easyJet and easyJet Europe?

You don't even need to have a different website to allow the extra brands. It's not that difficult to create a new skin for the existing FR website, so that customers see a different logo in the required places, while the underlying code framework stays exactly the same

In Buzz livery the 8200 viewed in the metal leaves little question of an identity.

davidjohnson6

But why go to the bother? You already have a brand which is well known, why dilute it with two new one's? Are people more like to fly with Buzz than Ryanair, pay more? Are Buzz going to offer a differnt level of service, so you need to differentiate?

That's exactly it. easyJet have three AOCs EZY/EZS/EUJ but one pan European unified branding. It's not as if Ryanair couldn't have used "Ryanair Buzz" or similar, the three Ryanair brandings are wholly disconnected. The race to keep
costs low is a known and long standing one, Norwegian also went down this path, but again, the Norwegian, Irish, Swedish and British AOCs had one unified branding.

Surely decoupling Buzz and Malta Air will have a sales and marketing cost.

The projected livery for Malta Air says very much more about Malta than even the good ole harp livery perhaps to venture.If that is the case then more of a marketing success compared with a wee bit of software.

I'm no brand expert or marketing strategist, but a parallel may be seen in the automotive industry with the VW choice of branding - the eastern European offshoot (lower labour costs) as Skoda -essentially the same cars as mainstream VWs, the Spanish subdivision branded as SEAT, again the same cars, but lower labour costs and a sportier look, and the upmarket German brand, AUDI.

There must be some logic behind it because they're all VWs under the skin.

The Malta Air fleet is currently well over 100 a/c - so doubt whether many of them will be seen in Malta on any given day. Not sure what your point is?

speed13ird

The different VW brands are differentiated by price, reputation, specification, equipment level etc - I've not seen anything about differences in the RYR brands

southside bobby

What does this mean?

I suspect only a tiny fraction of Malta Air will see their own livery and similar with Buzz. They're Ryanair fronts, nothing more. Any attempt to google "book malta air" simply takes you to Air Malta pages. It is literally driving traffic to airmalta.com !

There's no attempt at SEO.

Now as a marketing analyst, in any business I have ever been involved in, that would be ringing alarm bells.

Buzz has signed big deals with IT operators in Poland to supply the aircraft for the inclusive holidays. Maybe a reason for the branding?

Exactly...Posters are looking at the proposals & original planning purely from a UK market perspective.

Not really - roughly 50 a/c on the polish AOC. Must be more to it than that.

Still yet to see an explanation for the different AOC's being given diferent brands.

southside bobby

Didn't mention the UK directly on the branding point.
Ryanair is a pan European brand based in Dublin. Do they need 53 aircraft in Poland for IT flights for third parties? Or 120 aircraft based in Malta serving Luqa? No.
Will they be flying Germany-Italy with Malta Air branding? If so, *WHY*?

No one's attacking Ryanair. We're just questioning the branding strategy as it makes little sense on several levels IMHO.

Ryanair have through the years irritated more than a few customers, and politicians, so they could probably do with attacking some markets with new brands. Sample wasn't Lauda bought as n lternativ branding for the german speaking market. Could also see that they would do better with alternative name and livery if they ever went more heavily into the Nordic market. They might enjoy a grudging respect as an airline but they are not near what easyJet stand for as a brand to sell to those of potential passengers that do not only look at who have the lowest price down to the cent. That segment becomes larger and larger as the market share of Ryanair Group as a whole grows.

As a business gets larger, it may see a need for market segmentation to increase market penetration. Previously, FR's segment was "cheap". But now it's "Mediterranean" (Malta Air), "Germanic " (Laudamotion), and "East Europeans on holiday" (Buzz), thereby widening its appeal.

Great point, well made.
That's interesting but there's a cost to fleet flexibility. Is the strategy not to drive all traffic via ryanair.com or are they going to actually skin a proper website for each brand? If your hypothesis is right, I wouldn't expect them to serve each market via a Ryanair sales portal. It would surely need a bespoke website and app for each company in the group. Perhaps MOL's "costs to a bare minimum" strategy has gone and this is a sea change? This isn't something you half do on the cheap IMHO.

What about possible listings on the stock exchanges raising further capital, while retaining stakes in said off shoots.

Not that they need more capital, but it's an idea..... possibly readying themselves for an assault on the transatlantic market?

Can't imagine in any sense that O'Leary would even glance at a transatlantic route. Enough fools on those routes. No while never say never may prove sometimes true, the time Ryan Air looks in that direction is well into the future, not the foreseeable one either for me.

Nah, this guy can carve up Europe in the next decade without gulping down a mouthful of pond.

LGS6753;

You are forgetting the obvious from a Ryanair internal POV. To generate the next senior management you need people to get experience. 4 subsidaries which are sizeable airlines in their own right provide 4 times the number of people who can be provided with experience in running the whole of Ryanair. Failing to do this leaves Ryanair seeking some external candidates when MOL has had enough. Some of your management will not cut the mustard but quite a few will and whether the gain the top job or other you will have trained a whole new group of senior management.