Eos, Maxjet & Privatair

[chornedsnorkack]

How well are those three selling?

Eos and Maxjet are both operating the London-New York ferry, with a single daily flight having no economy seats... Maxjet has 102 seats to fill (2 more than the 100 seats of Concorde), Eos has 48. Privatair operates other pond crossings with around 50 seats.

But unlike Concorde, Eos and Maxjet start from Stansted rather than Heathrow...

How come people prefer flying specialized all-premium planes to front ends of multiclass planes? Even if there is no supersonic flight involved?

[manintheback]

Why would people prefer?

Cost (Have you seen how cheap Maxjet tickets can be gotten hold of?). Avoiding Heathrow (and its security queue of the day not to mention baggage reclaim) - a big plus for anyone who doesnt live in that area. Consistency of service and from boarding to exit its somewhat quicker and easier

[chornedsnorkack]

Originally Posted by manintheback

Why would people prefer?
Cost (Have you seen how cheap Maxjet tickets can be gotten hold of?).

How come that Maxjet can afford such cheap fares?

Though I suppose technically an upgrade costs nothing, so cheap business tickets should cost exactly as much as cheap economy tickets...

Originally Posted by manintheback

Avoiding Heathrow (and its security queue of the day not to mention baggage reclaim) - a big plus for anyone who doesnt live in that area.

Then why arenīt the legacy airlines already spreading the load evenly between Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton?

[PAXboy]

chorned

Then why arenīt the legacy airlines already spreading the load evenly between Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton?

Because then they would have to operate from four bases instead of two. The second two bases (LTN + STN) would not be maintenance bases and the cost of basing a/c there, or ferrying to them every day would be astronomic. They can only hope to consolidate and make the most out of their existing costs at the two main centres. If this leaves the door open for others - then that is part of doing business. Not to mention that an attempt to operate from all four would not be welcomed by the regulators, and correctly so in my view.

[chornedsnorkack]

Originally Posted by PAXboy

chornedBecause then they would have to operate from four bases instead of two. The second two bases (LTN + STN) would not be maintenance bases and the cost of basing a/c there, or ferrying to them every day would be astronomic.

So all the legacies have 2 bases, being LHR and LGW?

I thought more about different legacies choosing different London airports as bases, not each of them using all 4.

[rusty_c]

And of course STN has better transport links than LTN so it would rule LTN out for anything in the way of legacy airlines

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack

Then why arenīt the legacy airlines already spreading the load evenly between Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton?

Another reason is that the established airlines are only selling London-New York tickets to a certain proportion of the passengers on their London-New York flights. Many of them are connecting to/from other flights from (say) Heathrow. Spreading the load might make some sense if all your passengers start from the UK, but it's an easy mistake for UK-based passengers to forget the high proportion of connecting passengers on board any flight.

[carbootking]

someone should work out how many of these pax at heathrow coming off long haul flights get on buses and go to luton and stansted, to connect to locost flighrs?

[PAXboy]

chorned, sorry, I misread your point.

carbootking I'm sure that has been done and is updated regularly but that information is highly valuable and not available for less than many of your British Pounds!