Laker Skytrain 2

[PA28 PPLer]

I know the Skytrain was far from flawless, but does anyone think a low-cost atlantic or long-haul carrier could make it and survive these days? I'm sure a few secondary airports would love a new trans-atlantic route or two, so I'm sure a few deals could be struck with airports. With regards to aircraft, a few 767s could be picked up fairly cheaply, as far as I am aware they're fairly fuel efficient and should provide a low cost-per-seat compared with other aircraft. I stand corrected for every point here too!

As a low-cost carrier, are there realistically any cost-savings that can be made on the flag-carrier's long-haul desitinations?

Back to Laker, it was before my time so I don't have any experience of the skytrain, I know that dirty tactics and some other things that are not really elaborated upon caused the demise, but if you were Sir Freddie, what would you have done differently? By the way, taking your money and running isn't an option!

Thanks for any comments.

PA28 PPLer.

[5milesbaby]

Laker was restarted in 1997 again with DC10's out of LGW and maybe some others.

It didn't last past the summer.

[ETOPS773]

I do remember the name EasyAtlantic was registered quite a few months back,connected to EJ.Financial / aviation guru`s made their speech..nothing more has been heard.

And remember..its not the flights..its getting access in the first place.

All animals are equal,but some are more equal than others in the case of Uncle Sam

[411A]

Our DirMarketing was the same in the original Laker (number two guy, reporting directly to Sir Freddie, no one else) and is busy on a 'newer' version of 'Skytrain, but not across the Atlantic.
Boeing equipment.

[Groundloop]

"I know that dirty tactics and some other things that are not really elaborated upon caused the demise".

What caused the demise of Laker was a certain gentleman called Laker!

He was a terrific optimistic and had a bad habit of buying expensive aircraft without having any work for them. He took delivery of his first DC-10s years before Skytrain received clearance and then had to scratch around to find work for them on European IT flights.

He then repeated the mistake by buying a fleet of A300s for a European Skytrain. In those days there was no way that European governments would allow such a beast to compete against there protected flag carriers. So, once again, an expensive fleet of aircraft and no work for them.

The so called "dirty tricks" occured when Laker's finances reached rock bottom and he began to get desparate. McDonnell Douglas considered Laker an important customer and offered to buy shares in Laker. This put other McDonnell Douglas customers in a difficult position. When discussing aircraft purchases with a manufacturer airlines often disclose sensitive information. If the manufacturer was a shareholder in a competitor this could become very awkward. Therefore other airlines told McDonnell Douglas that if they bought a share of Laker then the airlines felt they could no longer negotiate with Douglas and would buy there aircraft elsewhere. Therefore Douglas decided not to invest in Laker and Laker collapsed. If you consider this as "dirty tricks" by other airlines so be it.

[PA28 PPLer]

Thanks to everyone for their replies. Looks like I had a few things incredibly wrong ;)

Groundloop - was Laker ever subject to predatory pricing from then TWA, Pan Am and BOAC? Maybe my memory is wandering as I reach the end of teendom!

I see that most people are nigh-on-certain that a jetBlue or easyJet of the Atlantic simply wouldn't survive. However, as a few mistakes of Sir Freddie have been pointed out, if they were corrected, would there still be no chance, even with the necessary access to desired airports?

Thanks again to all those helping me out with my curiosity :D

[PAXboy]

I doubt it. The last 'big idea' was Biz Class only 767s from the UK to USA. One company, Blue Fox, was setting up in 2000 to run out of STN but 9/11 stopped it. Another company (cannot recall name) was touting to do this from LTN and to start this summer (i.e. now!) but no news.

With the amount of capacity in the main carriers, I cannot see that there is any room for a start up.

One of the big things that has happened to change this is the Internet. In the past, you were dependent upon a travel agent or a long knowledge of routes and schedules. Now - Expedia or any of the others can show you all the directs and in-directs between two points in less than a minute. You can then book by duration of flight, routing, cost or whatever you choose. On the main JFK, LHR, there might be only four direct carriers but I can think of four obvious in-directs and another four less obvious ones, without looking on-line.

As to whether Laker experienced predatory pricing from PanAm and BA, my understanding is Yes, they did!

Possible reading material (from all angles) is on Amazon.co.uk if you search by Freddie Laker. You will find his autobiog and the Rise and Fall of F.L. by Howard Banks.

Other start-ups in the following decades, Virgin Atlantic and easyJet, credit Sir Freddie as their inspiration and sought council from him. Possibly Ryan Air as well but not sure.

[Ace Rimmer]

There's one thing I've learnt in the years I've been following aviation and air transport in particular. There is never a shortage of people telling you why something can't be done or that it simply won't work...the famous 'they'... to give you some examples:

In the early 90s 'they' would tell you that there is no way a 50-seat jet could make money (in fact 'they' still will) but there are something like 16-1700 in service right now.

In the mid 90s 'they' said European low fare airlines could never work - costs too high etc etc - this was when easy had but the two routes and Ryan were just thinking of the LCA caper.

Then again 'they' will tell you that and all C configuration just can't work...hmmm PrivatAir/Lufthansa appear to disagree, so much so that they are expanding their operation.

Likewise 'they' will tell you a long haul LCA is not possible...and that's why there isn't one. Hmm I think it's just because someone hasn't yet come up with a way to make one work but rest assured at some time and probably sooner rather than later somebody will.

The Rimmer take on all this is that the a transat LCA will most likely spring from a charter outfit (that already has the rights, the aircraft and what's more the kind of cost structures) that wakes up one day and realises that they could do it. I'm not talking about a My Travel Lite here but a wholesale re-direction of a company.

[JW411]

Groundloop:

Fred Laker was conned into ordering 10 brand new A300s by no less a person than Maggie Thatcher. At the time the contracts for building the things were coming up for renewal. The wings were made at Chester. Every other national carrier from the Airbus consortium had bought Airbus products (Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia etc) but BA steadfastly refused to even entertain the idea.

The consortium was rather miffed that no one in UK had bought an Airbus and it was making noises about relocating the building of the wings out of the UK. This would have closed down Chester and around 4000 jobs would have been lost.

Maggie persuaded Fred that if he ordered A300s she would personally move heaven and earth to see that he got the European routes that he applied for. I seem to remember that he bid for something like 643 routes! Needless to say, he did not get a one.

Concurrent with this there was a change of government policy in Germany. Previously the German government had guaranteed loans that German banks had made in Poland. This they would no longer do and a lot of banks stood to lose their shirts for the Polish economy was not doing well.

I seem to remember that the Laker Airbus deal was being handled by Dresdner Bank and they were trying hard to realise assets quickly to save themselves.

Fred had taken delivery of three aircraft (G-BIMA-C) when Dresdner Bank pulled the plug on the deal. This coupled with the dirty tricks departments of the major Atlantic carriers was about the last straw.

One of the most famous dirty tricks pulled was Adam Thompson's threat to McDonnell Douglas that if they rescheduled Fred's debts then BCAL would never ever buy another DC-10 from them again. Unfortunately for Sir Adam, an MDC employee who was a Laker lover leaked the letter to the press.

[Desk Driver]

No Chance for 2 main reasons!

1. To work as a low cost you have to establish yourself in the public mind as just that "Low Cost". Therefore you are going to have to come up with fares as low as £59 as the pond to do that. Please bear in mind that at times the established airlines go as low as £159 including tax and they're not thought low cost.

2. To break even for every seat you sell at say £100 below operating cost you have to sell 1 at £100 above cost latter. The established airlines are able to do this with Club Class seats (1 Club seat can pay for a lot of economy). Therfore they have the advantage.

[Boss Raptor]

Look at the current still over capacity, cut-pricing low yields and airport costs on virtually any trans-atlantic Europe to NA run...in real terms equate/compare the current fares to those of both Laker 1 and Laker 2 and todays' fares/yields/revenues are far lower by long way!

Now is not the time and that is certainly not the route for another 'Skytrain'.

We have it all ready in the form of the Economy cabin on the majors and also the charter flights with tickets being sold direct from the charter airline and/or being operated on behalf of ticket brokers such as Travelocity...

[Dan Winterland]

What Laker did acheive was a reduction in Transatlantic fares.

Low cost depends on fast turnarounds for the aircraft. Long haul aircraft are on the ground far too long for low cost to work. Stelios Hadji-Iannou mentioned this in an interview once.

[HZ123]

72-73 there were 4 check-in desks at STN sporting the Laker Skytrain legends. As far as STN was concerned that was all it ever was.

[seacue]

Dan Winterland said:
===========
Low cost depends on fast turnarounds for the aircraft. Long haul aircraft are on the ground far too long for low cost to work.
==============

Oops!

The typical transatlantic aircraft is in the air at least 15-16 hours a day. I doubt that any domestic LCA has such high utilisation.

[Boss Raptor]

The increased utilisation factor is relative to the utilisation over and above the mean for either the Long Haul aircraft or a Short Haul aircraft in its' ordinary operating enviroment/economic model...you certainly cannot equate one with the other...

i.e. a B737-300 is expected to say fly approx. 8 hours a day with most operators and under a full cost airline economic model and amortised as such...whereas for the B747-400 it is 16 hours a day...and all the operating factors/costs/economics are based on those means.

For a Long Haul type to achieve the increase in utilisation that low cost carriers have achieved/require on their Short Haul types would mean that as an example that B747-400 being flown for say 20 hours a day as opposed to the 16 hours it is currently being planned for under a full cost airline economic model.

[Dan Winterland]

OK Seacue, maybe they can be airborne up to 15-16 hours a day. But that means they are on the ground for up to 9. If you are charging the going rate for the seats that doesn't matter. A 737 LCO turnaround is in the order of 20-25 mins. I defy anyone to turn a 747 with 450 pax off and then on again in less than 1 1/2 hours. From my experience 2 or more is the norm. And you are still only going to get one return flight every 24 hours. A LCO will only fly from 6 am to 11 pm, but look how many sectors they will get out of the aircraft.

It just doesn't add up. As Stelios said......

[PAXboy]

Another consideration is crew. As I understand it, LCOs aim for minimum layovers? Operate to/from base as many times in a day that you can but try not to pay for hotels and associated payments to staff. On long haul, you have no choice.

I sit to be corrected.