Why dont LCC's operate long haul?

[ece3446]

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??

[Roadtrip]

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.

[oliversarmy]

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 ;)

[sinkingship]

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.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

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.

[Doors to Automatic]

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.

[Oh that's super!]

Jetstar will be doing long haul from/to Australia.

[FullWings]

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...

[PAXboy]

ece3446Not sure if this has been discussed before but here goes.
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.

[FullWings]

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. :ooh:

[ece3446]

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:mad: , 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.

[JW411]

ece3446:

Sir Freddie Laker tried very hard and failed - much to my huge regret.

[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.

[silverhawk]

Range of a 73-8 is over 6 1/2 hours plus reserves!

[ece3446]

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.

The fixed costs are a definitely an issue.

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!!

[Karma-Air]

A few are raising their heads above the parapet....

post deleted for advertising

[Taildragger67]

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

I seem to recall that they didn't get awarded any capacity by the Australian International Air Services Commission so that pretty well killed the business model. I think they were talking about pulling up in MUC along the way.

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...

[ICING AOA]

Air Madrid is a kind of long haul LCC and it seems to work quite well ..:rolleyes:

[In trim]

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 :)

[Desert Diner]

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.

[LBIA]

Everyone seems to forgotten all about the Canadian Low cost Long Haul Airline Zoom with there B767's operating daily in and out of UK Airports

Operating Flights throughout the UK

Belfast to Toronto & Vancouver.
Cardiff to Toronto
Glasgow to Calgary, Toronto & Vancouver
London Gatwick to Halifax, Calgary, Montreal Trudeau, Toronto, Ottawa & Vancouver
London Stansted To Toronto
Manchester ToToronto,Vancouver & Calgary

Also now Fly Globespan are on the sence up at Glasgow this summer with ex Air Newzland Boeing 767's and Manchester from this winter.

Glasgow to Orlando Sanford

Manchester to Toronto & Cape Town

So in my eyes Long Haul Low cost dose work and has been proven by these two airlines so far while others are looking. E.g. Jet2

[PAXboy]

ece3446 Is EWR-LHR such a stretch?Just to be picky and specific ... No one gets from the USA in or out of LHR without a very considerable amount of government activity on both sides of the Pond!

LGW may be possible but the majors have, arguably, even greater power than when Freddie Laker (as then was) started up. In those days, the time delay between identifying a ticketing opportunity and getting the information out to the travel agents and then seeing how the bookings were going, was days and weeks. Now, their computer systems can do some of it automatically but even with manual price changes, the turn around could be from decision to seeing the tickets being bought, in well under four hours (if they so chose).

I point this out because the carrier's Yield Management systems know the history and can project the future so well - that they can change prices by the day and deal with almost any threat and circumstance. Secondly, the punter can use the internet to shop around in a way that required a diligent travel agent and one who was prepared to do the work in the hope that you would book through them.

For example. I need to get to Berlin for a wedding in August. LTN is closest but the EZY times do not fit, I could go Air Berlin from STN but that's more expensive and much further to drive. But BA @ LHR are closer and only three pounds more expensive than AB. I researched that market in ten minutes at 02:00 in the morning. That kind of shopping power will keep everyone on their toes and make it even harder for a long haul LCC. That does not mean that they do not exist or will not expand - but the 'bar' is very high.

[AUTOGLIDE]

As if flying in this day and age was not miserable enough already, people actually want to promote LCC longhaul? Masochism. Unless you're really skint and absolutely must have to get to destination, I would have to seriously question why anyone would want this other than any alternative destination closer to home. Aviation really has scraped the bottom.

[robo283]

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??

Long haul charters work OK so the economics can be made to work.

I believe that the sticking point is the relative lack of an Open Skies policies outside large single markets (e.g. within the EU or USA). I was involved in trying to move an IT airline into scheduled service UK-Spain 20 years ago and we faced no end of regulatory problems and opposition from BA and Iberia. Let the airlines choose their routes without restriction and there would be a lo-co gold rush for Florida, New York, SFO, SYD etc. The equipment is still around and the demand would be there. Open Skies to the States has been a thorny issue since Long John Silver had an egg on his shoulder and will continue to be for as long as we are in economic competition.

[smith]

Crew would have to lay-over at the destination incurring hotel costs, transfers to hotel and back and allowances.

A short turn around is no good as plane would be home early and would have to hang around until outbound flight was ready. Could of course be used on a short high density route in the meantime.

Flyglobespan have started with a daily glasgow-sanford, checked on the website last week, one ways from £39+taxes.