Dream or reality?

[Naim 6]

Been wondering myself what's the story with long-haul LCC. Here's some enlightenment.

 

.ny

 

+++

 

www.flightglobal.com

 

DATE:26/04/06

 

Dream or reality?

 

The concept of medium/long-haul low-cost travel may still be ahead of its time, but a number of Asian carriers are willing to give it a try

 

When AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes first looked at launching a low-cost carrier, his plan was to go long haul, offering no-frills services between Asia and Europe using widebody aircraft. But he says it took even an airline industry novice like him only a short time to determine that it would not work.

 

Instead, Fernandes and his partners focused on the short haul, and the Malaysia-headquartered airline group is now, without question, the largest and most successful low-cost carrier in Asia.

 

Yet there is always someone in the airline business willing to try something new in the hope of finding the "next big thing", and several new medium/long-haul point-to-point carriers, mainly in Asia-Pacific, are in the planning stages. Some, such as Emirates president Tim Clark, bet that someone will eventually find a way to emulate the low-cost, short-haul model on a medium- or long-haul basis. But others believe it may forever remain an unachievable goal.

 

Some have tried and failed, such as the late Freddie Laker with his Skytrain in the 1970s. There are also independents who are making a go of it now, such as Canada's Zoom. But none has really developed as a major operator in the same way as the successful short-haul budget carriers.

 

That may be the problem, say an increasing number of observers. They argue that the industry is looking for something that cannot exist, and should accept that instead of looking for direct similarities between short- and long-haul low-cost carriers it should be how the new carriers differ from the network players that is the crucial factor. In this way, success may well depend on one of the same things as in the short-haul market – differentiation.

 

Checklist for success

 

Going down the checklist of what the most successful short-haul low-cost carriers have in common, some of the existing and planned widebody low-cost carriers clearly fit the general mould. Starting with a clean sheet of paper? Check. In-flight frills only at an additional cost? Check. Point-to-point operations? Check. Single aircraft type? Check. Ensuring aircraft utilisation is high? Check. Operating to secondary airports where possible? Check. Cutting distribution costs by selling through websites or call centres? Check.

 

There are plenty of obstacles, however. These include the competitive response of the big network airlines, which can subsidise their low-yield, cheap fare offerings at the back of their aircraft with cargo revenue and high-yield revenue from front-end traffic. Major long-haul airlines also tend to have sizeable fleets, allowing them to spread costs over a wider base; natural feed through interline arrangements; and they already push the envelope in terms of high aircraft utilisation. In short, many full-service airlines are already fairly cost-competitive when it comes to the long haul, leaving less room for a new player to differentiate itself with radically lower fares.

 

...

 

continue reading at: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/...or+reality.html

 

[Tamizi Hj Tamby 1]

Medium/Long-haul low cost flights? Mediu-haul low cost flight could be considered as okay,But for long-haul flights,I don't think so.You can see Laker Airways and PEOPLExpress.Both of the airline operates long-haul low cost flights,but it didn't last long.PEOPLExpress operates flight to London Gatwick using B747,while Laker Airways operates flight to USA using DC-10 widebodies.If i'm not mistaken,Laker went bust before receiving their A300 aircraft,while PEOPLExpress was later taken over by Continental.

[Pieter C. 5]

'Full Service' airlines are already operating at 'LCC' fares on longhaul stretches nowadays, so, they won't last long, I guess...have read of so many start-ups (esp. between GB and AU), but they never materialized...

 

People still want some kinda service on longhaul flights: just imagine Ryanair service on a LON-KUL flight; it would be an awful trip (figuring the seat-pitch and catering) <_>

[Sneeze Lam 0]

Well, to me it is not really a NEWS, cause in HongKong we have an airline named as Oasis, they are really going to have the business of Long Haul LCC.

 

They will have routes like HKG/MAN ; to Italy, so on.

 

They were originally planned to first fly in late 2005.

However, they are still negotiating for the right to fly with HKSAR govt.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Sneeze Lam

[Isaac 0]

PEOPLExpress operates flight to London Gatwick using B747,while Laker Airways operates flight to USA using DC-10 widebodies.If i'm not mistaken,Laker went bust before receiving their A300 aircraft,while PEOPLExpress was later taken over by Continental.

People Express went burst because of over expension. It had 70 planes already just after 4 years of operation. It was a huge success when it first started their service.

 

JetStar International will start operating soon with 332. I'm pretty sure it can work.

 

And by the way, for NWA WorldPerks member, you may now redeem you free ticket on any JetStar Asia and Valujet flights !

 

 

Edited May 2, 2006 by Isaac

[S V Choong 4]

'Full Service' airlines are already operating at 'LCC' fares on longhaul stretches nowadays, so, they won't last long, I guess...have read of so many start-ups (esp. between GB and AU), but they never materialized...

 

People still want some kinda service on longhaul flights: just imagine Ryanair service on a LON-KUL flight; it would be an awful trip (figuring the seat-pitch and catering) <_>

 

I have read that Oasis HK Airlines will acquire a few (about 2-4) ex-SQ 744 for the purpose of long haul LCC. The deal has already been inked, so there shouldn't be much of a problem. Bet Cathay will be making big argument about this.

[Seth K 3]

Bet Cathay will be making big argument about this.

Sure, hope the HK gov. don't see AK/MH problems and CX will win the arguement easily. The gov. wants to protect their big carrier cuz CX are their tourism backbone. VS/BA also will have a hard time maintaining the HK-UK route. But, it's all competition, and the low cost always win if the service acceptable It really true, now everyone can fly

 

But whatever happen to Orient Thai, Thai Sky?

 

FYI, Oasis may start HK-USA and HK-UK this late summer with B744. They already get approval to fly to this city thou-London, Milan, Cologne, Berlin, Oakland and Chicago.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Seth K

[Keith T 2]

Sure, hope the HK gov. don't see AK/MH problems and CX will win the arguement easily. The gov. wants to protect their big carrier cuz CX are their tourism backbone. VS/BA also will have a hard time maintaining the HK-UK route. But, it's all competition, and the low cost always win if the service acceptable It really true, now everyone can fly

 

But whatever happen to Orient Thai, Thai Sky?

 

FYI, Oasis may start HK-USA and HK-UK this late summer with B744. They already get approval to fly to this city thou-London, Milan, Cologne, Berlin, Oakland and Chicago.

 

Seems to be a lot of competition on HKG-LHR these days, and its good cause those flights are always packed. There's currently BA (3x daily), QF (daily), VS (daily) and CX (3xdaily - or is it 4?) on the route. NZ will be commencing a daily service AKL-HKG-LHR in Oct, breaking the cozy oneworld (almost) monopoly. And with Oasis also opening up the same route - HKG-LHR will be like an ala carte menu.

 

In regard to long haul LCCs, it's already being done - JQ International. From memory, debut destinations include BKK, HNL, HKT, DPS and a few others.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Keith T

[S V Choong 4]

Seems to be a lot of competition on HKG-LHR these days, and its good cause those flights are always packed. There's currently BA (3x daily), QF (daily), VS (daily) and CX (3xdaily - or is it 4?) on the route. NZ will be commencing a daily service AKL-HKG-LHR in Oct, breaking the cozy oneworld (almost) monopoly. And with Oasis also opening up the same route - HKG-LHR will be like an ala carte menu.

 

It means more tourist into HKG, making it a true "world city in Asia"

I guess the Kiwis are tired of going the other way (via LAX, USA)

[Keith T 2]

It means more tourist into HKG, making it a true "world city in Asia"

I guess the Kiwis are tired of going the other way (via LAX, USA)

 

No one in their right minds would choose a LAX connection over a SIN or HKG connection. AKL-HKG-LHR NZ37/38 actually makes the journey longer in terms of flying time but I'd rather have that than be stuck in the LAX transit facility.

 

However I believe that they will still maintain the AKL-LAX-LHR NZ1/2 service as they also pick up lots of pax for both AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR. Remember, single sector pax actually generate more revenue than through pax.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Keith T

[Sneeze Lam 0]

There's currently BA (3x daily), QF (daily), VS (daily) and CX (3xdaily - or is it 4?) Oasis also opening up the same route - HKG-LHR will be like an ala carte menu.

Should be 4 pairs Daily for CX to LHR

 

Oasis will operate HKG/LGW,

 

Quote from HKSAR Govt. Info site:

 

Decision on Oasis Hong Kong Airlines Limited's application for licences to operate scheduled services

***********************************************************

 

The following press release is issued on behalf of the Air Transport Licensing Authority:

 

The Air Transport Licensing Authority (ATLA) today (November 30) decided to grant the licences in relation to three applications made by Oasis Hong Kong Airlines Limited to operate scheduled air services on the following routes: -

 

a) Hong Kong/ London Gatwick and vice versa ;

Hong Kong/ Cologne Bonn Airport/ Berlin Sch?nefeld Airport/ Milan Malpensa and vice versa; and

c) Hong Kong/ Oakland/ Chicago and vice versa.

 

A copy of ATLA's decision (in English only) is attached.

 

Ends/Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Issued at HKT 16:01

 

NNNN

 

 

I guess the Kiwis are tired of going the other way (via LAX, USA)

 

I don't think ANZ's action is such a kind of care to their passengers

 

 

However I believe that they will still maintain the AKL-LAX-LHR NZ1/2 service as they also pick up lots of pax for both AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR. Remember, single sector pax actually generate more revenue than through pax.

I don't sure will the service of NZ01/02, but I guess ANZ is targeting the wealth enough HKG/LHR market.

In order to obtain more passengers and also the fully use of their rights in HKG and London.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Sneeze Lam

[Isaac 0]

Seems to be a lot of competition on HKG-LHR these days, and its good cause those flights are always packed. There's currently BA (3x daily), QF (daily), VS (daily) and CX (3xdaily - or is it 4?) on the route.

And VS is trying to secure a second daily flight now ...... That would be 11 flights a day if VS get it.

 

[Seth K 3]

No one want to transit at LAX, it's like.....can't even tell. Since most airlines arrive there and connection there better, people has to fly thru there. A question, isn't NZ serve around the world flight, ANZ-LAX-LHR-LAX-ANZ????

VS getting more flights to HKG is good but their OZ route is suck. Perhaps the additional flights will be LHR-HKG-LHR?