|
easyAtlantic ?
From todays Times
TRADEMARK registration records suggest that Britain’s biggest no-frills airline may be considering launching a transatlantic service. Times Travel has learnt that easyGroup, the company behind easyJet, which carried more than 11 million passengers to 36 destinations in Europe this year, has quietly registered the trademark easyAtlantic — raising the possibility that it may be planning the first cheap scheduled transatlantic flights since Sir Freddie Laker launched Laker Skytrain flights from London to New York in 1977. Laker’s operation went bust five years later after mainstream airlines, including British Airways, lowered fares to compete with his tickets, costing as little as £118. No low-cost carrier has since dared to take on the might of aviation’s big transatlantic carriers. EasyGroup says that it has protected the brand merely as a way of preventing copycat competitors using the name, but trademark experts say such “defensive” registrations are uncommon. Ken Storey, of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the association that promotes the registration of trademarks in the UK, added that the choice of easyAtlantic signals intent. “Companies register trademarks because it is their business at stake and a brand can be worth thousands or even millions. Once you have a trademark, it leads you into brand extension.” EasyGroup has also registered easyJet Deutsche and easyBizJet. The choice of easyJet Deutsche will be seen by many as an indication that it is taking its current option to purchase Deutsche BA seriously. EasyBizJet would seem to imply a move away from easyJet’s no-frills credentials. When asked by Times Travel about the registrations, easyGroup’s founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou said: “In the spirit of brand extension and brand protection we do several ‘defensive’ registrations of trademarks — not all of them will result in a business.” Aviation industry experts believe that an easyAtlantic operation is unlikely in the short term, but could be “feasible” if it involved tie-ins with no-frills carriers in the United States such as Southwest Airlines or JetBlue. Passengers could fly to a secondary East Coast airport — which have lower airport charges and would fit the low-cost business model — and connect onwards on a cheap internal flight. Gary Noakes, aviation correspondent for Travel Trade Gazette, a weekly travel industry newspaper, said: “It’s feasible, but the timing is not good. You can pick up cheap flights to New York for not a lot of money at the moment.” |
Stelios had always maintained that the low cost model would not work for long-haul due to the increased costs because of extended turn arounds and hotel accommodation etc.
Perhaps this is a result of his departure. Also, you can argue that with all the fare discounts across the pond at the moment, there are plenty of low cost trans-Atlantic operations in existance already. |
Well they could always buy the paper airline Skybus that plans to fly across the 'pond' from Luton next summer for the price of a family season ticket to my zoo!
How about easyZoo, or even "easyBuster", that is what my WARDen shouts at me when I try to snatch a sarnie from a snotty kid! |
Nice Idea.....
I'd like to see them have a go but I don't think it would be viable without some "schedule-izing" of the Low-cost model, such as seat reservations, meals and most importantly...... ........a crew uniform in a colour that doesn't give the passenger a headache for +8 hours! Will the Big E want to change its tune? And its Overheads? And would the US want to accept(at immigration) the type of pax that EasyJet are famous for flying....."Hen & Stag parties in New York"......I can see the queues forming already. Try telling 15 Highly charged 'Hens or stags' to "stay behind the Yellow Line!". |
What kind of planes would they fly......757's / 767's
i rekon that this would become an easier way for asylum seekerst to get into USA....more trouble than its worth (with big fines possible) for the airline!! |
......but then there was rumour of a possible tie up with new operator SKYBUS :confused:
|
They would more than likely fly Airbuses, seen as thats where their fleet is headed + all the cockpit commonality stuff.
How exactly would asylum seekers find it easier to get into the US? EZY is a point-to-point airline, which means that any incoming asylum seeker would have to be completely checked-out at a UK airport, before checking in for their UK-USA EZY flight. Therefore, they would end up at British immigration. Its likely that they will see if some other operator (such as skybus?) can make it work, and then take over them and call it easyAtlantic. easyBizJet is a interesting one though. |
I just can't see it working? Not with all those upfront subsidizing those at the back on the majors Unless EZy introduce a premium clas but that goes against their ethic of low cost.
|
Do you think they will opt for a fleet of ex-DL 1011s? I have heard a lot of good things about them on this website.
Hello? Hello? Anybody there?;) |
Well they've cornered the short and long haul market, with Easy's marketing clout they could make a convincing argument for the public to go Orange across the pond, even it wasn't that much cheaper than the full-fare boys. As long as the perception that Easy is cheaper was there, then they're onto a winner.
In terms of fleet, I always thought the 75 was a good ecomomical choice, but that doesn't fit in with their fleet plans. Could an A321 do it? |
No, an A321 couldn't do the North Atlantic, at least not with the kind of pax loads that easy would need to make it viable. I think its a bit generous to even say that they cornered the short haul market. There was indeed a perception that the low cost carriers were the only cheap way to fly in Europe, but that really only persisted as long as it did because it went unchallenged for so long. There was still a strong demand for the traditional full service short haul and the lo-cos were mainly tapping a hitherto unserved market. These days everywhere you look is an advert for BA or bmi offering low full service fares and the public have become acutely aware that not only are these fares competitive with many of the lo-cos, they often represent better value for money with the increased service and support of the traditional carriers.
On the subject of long haul, I firmly believe that low cost in the easy style is a non-starter. People tolerate it in Europe becuase the flight is short and they can eat at either end. It's little different from getting on a bus or train. Spending 8 hours on a flight is different. Even the most price sensitive holiday maker expects a meal or two on a transatlantic charter flight and I bet they don't want to fight for their seats as well. Once you start introducing these things at easy their philosophy of rapid turnarounds, minimal cabin service and high aircraft utilisation takes a hit. Plus, if easy wanted to start transatlantic ops they couldn't have picked a worse time with huge overcapacity in the market and vicious price war well under way. Easy make there money by selling a few seats very cheaply, most in the middle price bracket and some very expensively. They might attract some customers with the very low fares, but I'd be surprised if many of the higer fares sold when theres so much capacity going so cheaply on the existing carriers, but its those fares that allow the route to break even. |
On the subject of long haul, I firmly believe that low cost in the easy style is a non-starter. People tolerate it in Europe becuase the flight is short and they can eat at either end. It's little different from getting on a bus or train. Spending 8 hours on a flight is different. |
Jet11..some clarification
I live just outside of Newark now, so EWR, JFK and LGA are relatively easy options to travel. A non-stop fight to the West Coast takes 6 hours of flying. Southwest does it from Islip which is in the middle of Long Island and next to impossible to get to unless you own a car and want to spend 2 -3 hours traversing the NY highways.
As an added bonus, they will fly you to the West Coast via Baltimore, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas etc. Who has the time or patience to spend 12 hours on a plane as opposed to 6. Having said that, if I want to go from PHX to LAS, there is no better choice. They are a great airline. What really got me wondering though is you comment: "Passengers could fly to a secondary East Coast airport — which have lower airport charges and would fit the low-cost business model — and connect onwards on a cheap internal flight" Please be aware none of the secondary East Coast airports you mention have customs or imiigrations near anywhere in scope to handle 300+ passengers at a time. This would require the facilities be expanded and the cost past onto Easy which would make BA, UAL, CAL, AA etc look all the more attractive. Southwest actually developed a business plan to fly from the West Coast to Hawaii and decided that other airlines were far better suited to providing this service bacause of all the extra costs Southwest would incur, leading to an increase in costs for their passengers. If they had followed their plan to fruition, they wouldn't be a low-cost airline anymore. Andy |
This is similar to the decisions Virgin Blue will have to make with regard to longer distances. Where as Sydney - Perth is fine with no cabin service on a 737, would Sydney - Honkers/Tokyo be acceptable?
I guess this is why 'Virgin Pacific' (a 'service' airline) is registered and the talk is of 767/330 (or ex Atlantic 340/747-200s?;) ) |
I stand to be corrected, but I thought easy gave out free sarnies and drink on their Athens flights, they certainly were going to due the length of the sector. It certainly was being considered prior to its launch a few years back.
Sarnies, free, my favourite kind of words! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.