How long before we see an LCC bid on an International Route

[G4G5]

It will happen. I could see AT doing it (although not in the 737-700) as well as JB (larger Airbus) ATA and Virgin America, even if they massage the law to make it look like its only a "Code Share" with Virgin Atlantic.

There is big money in international. Don't expect the airlines who are oh so good at cherry picking to leave that on the table forever. Once their networks are more complete they will basicaly have two choices, compete directly with eachother for all future growth, or go after the major's gravy train.

Is it even a debate as to what they will do?

It will never happen. Since most LCC don't operate with a Hub and Spoke philosophy, how do you expect to consistantly fill an aircraft larger then an A320/737 with O&D traffic on a daily basis?

Othen then London or Paris out of JFK their are few LCC hub airports that could support such traffic (LUV or Airtran are not about to buy big aircraft to fly out of LAX or ATL just for seasonal intl ops). JFK-LHR/CDG also are two of the bussiest routes flown over the Atlantic. Competition is on a higher level then just NY to FL, just try to name all the carriers and ways to get from NY to Paris (go to the Iceland air website and check to see if you can beat their price)

You are now dealing with another nations laws competing against their flag carrier. Let's not forget treaties and the number of Flag carriers allowed to fly given routes. Not to mention the well established Legacy carriers, who have the capacity to drop their prices well beyond what an LCC could afford to fly the route for.

Employment laws in other countries are a completly different concern, you can't just hire someone to man the gate or work the bags in Europe then let them go if it doesn't work out. It's not the US.

What about those support folks how many daily flights to a new European destination do you think an LCC will fly? B6 could do one a day to Paris. How do you justify the support people for one flt a day? Sure you could lease them, in Europe supplied by the nations flag carrier, that should be cheap . What about London, how many airlines want to get into LHR? Flts to Gatwick or Manchester are not high yeild flts.

 

[Snakum]

I'm really I'm out of my league here (and I'm sure someone will remind me shortly ) but I've asked this before ...

Why couldn't a B757 startup run flights 2X daily from Southwest's ISP to Ryanair's London stop, sort of connecting the two LCCs across the Atlantic, using Southwest's and Ryanair's ground handling? Why wouldn't this work with sufficient capital and marketing? And why couldn't this hypothetical company eventually connect ISP and Ryanair's airports near Milan, Paris, etc.(I know ... they don't actually land anywhere near Paris or Milan, but that's what their marketing people call the flight )?

Just curious ...

Minh

 

[kaki]

One airline that is building a low fare hub and spoke system is Independence air. It would not surprise me if they looked at some transatlantic flights out of IAD in the future. They will have 87 CRJ's and 28 (plus 50 options) A319's based in IAD that should provide some strong feed for potential European markets.

 

[General Lee]

One thing the LCCs lack is INTL infrastructure. If they wanted gates in Europe for example, they would have to buy ticket counter space, train people, get appropriate slots at certain airports, and see if we have treaties with those countries--sometimes they only allow a certain number of US carriers into that airport (like LHR). Another way they could attain all of that is thru a code share with an INTL carrier---but all of the big ones have signed on with Skyteam, Star Alliance, One World etc. So, right now they would probably have to go it alone, and that could prove expensive. ATA was thinking about going to Cologne in Germany (None of the other US carriers serve that city) and immediately LTU (a German Charter) stated that they would also try to compete against ATA. There you go---two LCCs fighting each other....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Tristar]

ATA was thinking about going to Cologne in Germany (None of the other US carriers serve that city) and immediately LTU (a German Charter) stated that they would also try to compete against ATA. There you go---two LCCs fighting each other....

Which makes no sense - LTU has no scheduled network, they really don't have a dog in this fight. Appearantly they just don't want anyone else in "their" little world. Along those same lines, I'd dispute the use of the term LCC applied to LTU. They probably do have a low cost structure, but the LCC label is usually applied to carriers with scheduled service. If we want to broaden it, then we need to include World, Omni, and numerous European charter carriers. Not really within what I believe was the original intent of this thread - transatlantic or transpacific international scheduled service.

 

[Snakum]

If they wanted gates in Europe for example, they would have to buy ticket counter space, train people, get appropriate slots at certain airports,

But you wouldn't have to if you were provided ground handling, gates, ticketing, etc. by your 'domestic partners' though, would you?

For instance, Southwest sells their passenger a ticket to Luxemburg. The pax flies Southwest from DAL to ISP, then the Int'l LCC from ISP to where ever it is Ryanair lands when they say their going to Paris, then Ryanair takes them to Luxemburg. It seems to me the biggest issue would be scheduling to minimize wait time.

I'm sure I'm probably missing something, though ...

Minh

 

[P38JLightning]

>>It will never happen. Since most LCC don't operate with a Hub and Spoke philosophy, how do you expect to consistantly fill an aircraft larger then an A320/737 with O&D traffic on a daily basis?

G4G5,

Airtran does operate with a hub and spoke. Huge hub in ATL with several focus city hubs. So does Jet Blue. The fact that they also do point to point, or the percentage of pax that actually connect is irrelevant. They both fly (and feed, both keneticaly and potentialy) large hubs in huge markets with feed all over the country.

Like I said, their networks are relatively small now, but let them tripple or quadrouple and see what happens next.


>>Othen then London or Paris out of JFK their are few LCC hub airports that could support such traffic...

That's what I'm talking about...cherry picking.

>>>JFK-LHR/CDG also are two of the bussiest routes flown over the Atlantic. Competition is on a higher level then just NY to FL, just try to name all the carriers and ways to get from NY to Paris (go to the Iceland air website and check to see if you can beat their price)

Then how does anyone make money doing it?

>>>You are now dealing with another nations laws competing against their flag carrier. Let's not forget treaties and the number of Flag carriers allowed to fly given routes.

Okay so they sort through 40 billion laws on a daily basis to establish and run an airline, but a few million more laws is a deal breaker? Doubtful.

>>Not to mention the well established Legacy carriers, who have the capacity to drop their prices well beyond what an LCC could afford to fly the route for.

Sure, and this applies domesticaly too, yet AT and JB are growing despite massive fare cuts and wars. Why haven't they been snuffed out yet? Not only does that strategy not work, it bleeds the majors. I wonder how long they can continue to bleed? Gravy intl flying is one of the few bright spots they have left. You honestly don't see that going on unchallenged for too much longer, do you?

>>>Employment laws in other countries are a completly different concern, you can't just hire someone to man the gate or work the bags in Europe then let them go if it doesn't work out. It's not the US.

Objection; fixed cost. Same goes with the majors with stations there. AT recently added a few bucks built in as basicaly a fuel surcharge. Delta matched it within minutes, not because they wanted to, but because they had to. The insane European employment rules and regs may be expensive, but everyone who plays pays so that part of the equation is a static neutral.

>>>How do you justify the support people for one flt a day?

Many core EU cities could support 2 or 3, but even if only one, Delta for example flies to tons of intl cities once a day, many of which they have station personel there. So to answer your question on why anyone would spend the extra money, the answer would be...to make more money.

Again, I'm not saying this is around the corner next year. But it will happen.

 

[P38JLightning]

Oops, posted twice.

 

[buzzer]

What is an LCC and what is not will blur as we head into to future. Traditional carriers will have LCC routes to some destinations and LCC airlines will charge premium rates where they can on int. routes.

 

[BritishGuy]

I think the question was supposed to read like this:


"When do you think that a US LCC will start flying long haul international routes"?

Point taken that Ryanair and Easyjet in the UK are already doing it, but London to Milan or even Paris is closer in distance than say NY to LA....So yeah on the int'l routes it's already being done in Europe. SE Asia have Air Asia taking care of the whole Bourneo Region (Malaysia, Thailand etc)

As for the US, I don't think the question is actually trying to ask about flights to adjoining countries...eg..Mexico, Canada or The Bahamas.

Just how I interprete it anyway.

 

[General Lee]

Snakum,

Go ahead and enjoy your great routing. You stated flying Southwest to ISP--Long Island, then somebody to Paris, and then Ryanair to Luxembourg. Well, I am sure you know that Ryanair doesn't fly to normal airports---usually secondary or even tertiary airports---so a short 1 hour bus ride to the other outside Paris airport will be fun. Saving a buck to spend a few bucks. Not going to happen on LCCs. Getting the expensive slots to downtown airports and training bunches of people will prove difficult for any new LCCs. And, tell me again which airline a potential LCC would partner with? All of the large European airlines belong to alliances. Tell me one major one that does not. They would have the infrastructure a LCC would need to allow it to NOT have to spend a lot and in result keep fares lower.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Swede]

While NAT routes make a lot of cash, the margins are not that much better than domestic routes. In other words, lots of cash flow but the profit is not that great, mainly due to the serious competition. The NAT tracks are extremely dense with traffic.

I think the LCC's can make serious coin with NG 737's down in the Caribbean and Norther South-America, like Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela, all within easy range of Fl, Texas, etc.

I think American's presence South of the Texas border saved us from Bankruptcy - the planes are packed and the profits far superior to similar domestic routes, length-wise. Mainly due to cargo.

 

[Snakum]

No need to to get your panties in a wad, General. I was just asking, and I freely admitted my ignorance of the process from the beginning.

Minh

 

[General Lee]

Snakum,


My "panites" aren't in a wad (actually in a wedgie)----I was just pointing out that people serching for better deals often don't know what they are getting themselves into. Like Ryanair---flying to airports that are often 50 miles from where you might have to go. The convienence factor is thrown right out the window. And, many airports in Europe are slot controlled---and it would be very tough to get any new slots. With the low fares here in America---a lot of the INTL routes are the only things keeping some Majors afloat.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[TexaSWA]

Jetblue flys to the Puerto Rico and Southwest flys to Lubbock.

Being that Lubbock is the home of Texas Tech University, a school that has consistently been rated in the top five for best looking women by Playboy magazine, its not a bad place to spend four years (or five or six) in your late teens early twentys.

GET YOUR GUNS UP!!!