Air France to “boost” performance with new low-cost carrier

Legacy airlines in Europe have long been feeling the pinch from low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and Easyjet. Now it looks like Norwegian Air Shuttle and WOW Air are pushing them to look farther before they lose more ground.
Lufthansa already offers a low-cost trans-Atlantic option from Europe to Las Vegas, Orlando, Miami and Seattle in the United States.

The International Airlines Group which owns British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingusm and Vueling has just added another low-cost carrier – Level – to its stable. Level, based in Barcelona, will fly to Los Angeles and Oakland in California USA, Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic, and Buenos Aires in Argentina. Fares start at the familiar €99 reminiscent of the Norwegian and WOW Air’s promotions.

Courtesy Air France

Following in their footsteps is Air France, which announces the formation of a new subsidiary low-cost airline – Boost as its working name – planned to commence operations in winter. The airline will fly from the main hubs of the Air France/KLM group to destinations in Italy, Spain and Turkey initially, and then farther to destinations in Asia. Norwegian is already flying to Bangkok and will in October connect London with Singapore.

But Boost will be taking on full-service airlines as well, such as the Middle East carriers of Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways which are already ruffling the feathers of the regional big birds of Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific.

The developments point to a gradual convergence of the low-cost and full-service product perceived value wise. It’s the antithetical success of low-cost carriers pushing to bridge the gulf and the failure of legacy airlines not being able to maintain if not increase the differentiation. It looks like the European tug-of-war is pulling the legacy airlines towards the centre line.

AirAsia to launch Honolulu services: Revisiting the sustainability of budget long haul

Courtesy AirAsia

Courtesy AirAsia

Malaysian carrier AirAsia will be introducing four weekly services from Kuala Lumpur to Honolulu in June, becoming the first budget airline approved for operations between the United States and Asia. Flight time is anything from 16 to 18 hours.

This is yet another attempt by founder Tony Fernandes to launch a budget long haul, despite the failure to sustain earlier operations under the AirAsia X banner to London in 2009 and Paris in 2011, which were suspended in 2012. However, Mr Fernandes said operations to London will resume in 2018 when the airline receives its new more economical long-range Airbus A330-900neo jets.

Although sceptics continue to doubt the viability of budget long hauls and there have been many who tried and failed, the entrepreneurial spirit to push the boundary is still very much alive. The current slate includes Norwegian Air Shuttle which commenced services from Oslo to New York and to Bangkok in 2013, and Lufthansa’s Eurowings which and operates nonstop from Cologne and Bonn to US destinations such as Seattle, Orlando, Miami and Las Vegas. Budget doyen Ryanair is also looking at crossing the Atlantic. Singapore Airlines’ budget offshoot Scoot has announced plans to connect Singapore and Athens in June.

A number of factors have contributed to the trend.Bu dget carriers are beginning to eye distant destinations dominated by legacy airlines as they expand, and this is now made possible by technologically advanced and more fuel efficient aircraft. The budget model is changing, and the line between budget and full-service carriers is increasingly blurring as the former upgrades customer service and facilities and the latter adopting some of the practices such as product unbundling and charging for add-ons. Legacy airlines no longer view budget carriers as operating in their own niche markets but a real threat. (See Ultra-long flights: The competition heats up, Feb 7, 2017)

Whether Mr Fernandes’ Honolulu venture is sustainable or not in the long run, he has earned his feather. As a stand-alone, it will be a challenge for AirAsia, which will have to tap feeds from its regional connections – as will Scoot when it commences services to Athens. It will be a test, considering the nature of the leisure traffic and the competition posed by several airlines in the region that are already plying the route direct form their home bases or in code-share arrangements.

No more free meals for BA short haul

BA4 courtesy BA.jpg

Courtesy British Airways

British Airways (BA) will stop catering complimentary meals on domestic and short-haul flights. Passengers may avail themselves of food and drink supplied by supermarket chain Marks & Spencer at a cost, and we all know that such meals don’t come cheap.

BA said the decision was made to cut costs, and this naturally was not well received by its customers. It is coming at a time when BA is making record profits compared to its regional competitors, picking up a trend set by North American carriers although ironically some of them such as Delta Air Lines are considering re-introducing meals as the competition intensifies.

The question is: Will BA lower its airfare as a consequence? Increasingly airlines are adopting the no-frill model to boost their coffers with ancillary revenue which has been rising significantly in recent years. But that is at the risk of losing the differentiation that makes full-service airlines a conscious choice of travellers who are prepared to foot more for it. It is good news otherwise for low-cost operators such as Ryanair, Norwegian Air Shuttle and Wow Air.

BA is testing the ground. Its success will depend on how strong it is as a trendsetter, and its understanding of the compliance of the travelling public, however prone they are to complaining. Right now, BA has muscled itself into an extensive network of airlines under the International Airlines Group (IAG) that also owns Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus. Time will tell.

Enter the ultra-budget airline

Courtesy NewLeaf

Courtesy NewLeaf

LESS than a month after Canada’s latest carrier Airlines revealed plans to offer ultra-low fares operating from its base in Winnipeg to six cities within the country, namely Abbotsford, Halifax, Hamilton, Kelowna, Regina, and Saskatoon, it announced it was “temporarily postponing service” and would refund all transactions already made. The first service was to be launched in February.

Newleaf’s fate now rests in the hands of the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) which is reviewing the carrier’s aviation licence. Apparently Newleaf was selling seats through a charter arrangement with Kelowna-based Flair Airlines Ltd which held the CTA operating licence. The question is whether the indirect Newleaf should itself be holding a licence directly.

Newleaf CEO Jim Young’s reaction was one of optimism. He said: “We welcome a regulatory system in which businesses like ours can thrive in Canada as they do in other countries.”

That aside, the ultra-budget airline that is sometimes referred to as a discount airline is not an entirely new phenomenon. In his somewhat premature announcement of the launch of the airline, Young said: “Lower landing fees mean we have savings we can pass on to you.” The key word is “affordability”. According to him, “Ultra low-cost carriers are some of the most financially successful airlines in the world today.”

Young may be referring to operators such as Iceland’s WOW Air and the longer haul Norwegian Air Shuttle. WOW Air, for example, is offering US$99 fares connecting Boston and San Francisco in the US with the Icelandic capital Reykjavik. It is next looking at connecting with Montreal and Toronto in Canada.

While you might remind Young of how as many airlines so-called budget too have come and gone, Newleaf is already expressing interest to expand its operations to other destinations within Canada and in the United States.

Young, who was at one time CEO of Frontier Airlines, explained: “By unbundling the entire service you get to choose what you want.” That basically is the budget model, and one that is further trimmed down on costs. As an example, he cited how NewLeaf would be able to save money in part because it does not offer its seats on any third-party travel websites, which charge airlines a fee to post and make sales there. Considering the nature of its operations, that makes economic sense. After all, Young did not see Canada’s two other major carriers – Air Canada and Westjet – as Newleaf’s competitors. He said: “If I had a competitor, it would be the airlines that Canadians are driving across the border for.” He was referring to Canada’s loss of market share to US airlines such as Allegiant Air operating out of airports south of the border, close enough for Canadians to drive across to take advantage of the lower fares.

Young added: “We’re looking to create a new market and stimulate people who aren’t flying today. What I’m going after are people that will make the three-and-a-half hour drive in the middle of winter to go to Grand Forks because they’ve got to get to some place warm or can’t afford to fly from here.”

That argument about developing new market has been the slogan of many a budget upstart, and which has contributed to the success of some of them to go where the full service airlines would not go. Newleaf is therefore targeting a limited but niche leisure market on the back of a strategy that focuses on second-tier airports. It can count on that as a strength to drive its growth, particularly at a time when it could take advantage of the current low fuel costs. Too many no-frill operators in the past had been hit badly by soaring oil prices. The challenge for Newleaf will come when other upstarts similarly motivated jump into the same arena, or when one of the legacy airlines decide that the market has grown big enough for them to join the competition most probably through a subsidiary offshoot such as Rouge, the budget arm of Air Canada.

Legacy airlines across the world have become increasingly wary of the growth of the budget carriers, particularly after the 2008 global economic crisis when air travel trended downwards to cheaper fares. Budget carriers are now competing in the same market, not only for seats in the traditional economy class but also for travellers who want some perks but at lower fares as they introduce their version of business class. North American domestic operations by the major airlines are already adopting the budget model to charge for meals and baggage among a slew of chargeable.

The temptation of growing bigger than intended is always present. This unbridled ambition has led to the downfall of many operators in aviation history, perhaps the reason why the doyen of the budget model Ryanair remains undecided whether it should launch long haul services across the Atlantic, and why some discount carriers such as Allegiant have stayed small. Will Newleaf, when granted the licence to operate, given its ambition to expand far and wide, go down this same road?

Perhaps not, as it would appear that the current budget model exemplified by carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet is not trim enough, and if lower cost will stimulate demand, there is room for Newleaf to grow. Yet one begins to wonder how much lower you can go.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Scoot to go where others failed

Courtesy AFP

Courtesy AFP

IT will happen, as it must. So it seems, but a matter of time. Scoot, the medium to long-haul low-cost subsidiary of Singapore Airlines (SIA) has made known its intention to extend its network to possibly include a destination as far away as London from Singapore. After all, London is a prime destination for SIA, and one that has helped it flourish in its early days, so it should be an encouraging start for Scoot to test the budget long-haul.

Scoot chief executive Campbell Wilson said: “The West is definitely on our cards.” Lest, you forget by definition it is a medium to long haul low-cost operator and think its fortune is confined to regional flights. It is eyeing the Middle East up to London.

Never mind the failure of others that tried, most memorably Hong Kong’s Oasis Airlines that inaugurated its route from Hong Kong to London in October 2006. The budget airline added Vancouver in June 2007, and won several awards that year including “World’s Leading New Airlines: and “Asia’s Leading Budget Airline” at the Annual world Travel Awards. But barely into its third year, it folded its wings in April 2008.

Another low-cost carrier that faced a similar fate was Canada’s Harmony Airways that ventured beyond North America from Vancouver to Manchester (UK) and planned to expand into Asia, eyeing in particular the China market. That was not to be, when the airline collapsed in 2007, three years after it repositioned itself for the long-haul.

More recent and closer to home is AirAsia’s subsidiary AirAsia X in yet another attempt to keep budget pioneer Freddie Laker’s dream alive. In fact, its first aircraft was named “Semangat Sir Freddie” (“Spirit of Sir Freddie”). The budget carrier operated from Kuala Lumpur to two European destinations – London and Paris, connecting traffic from other destinations such as Melbourne – which it has since suspended, together with others, but it continues to operate some shorter hauls. Parent airline AirAsia is unlikely to admit to its offshoot’s failure as being final as its chief Tony Fernandes had said it planned to return some day.

So is Scoot going where angels fear to tread or where the brave dare not go to prove it is not an impossible dream after all?

On a more optimistic note, it is certainly a welcome breath of the erstwhile spirit and vigor that characterised the success of SIA when as a new airline it quickly became the world’s most envied operator that could do things that others were reluctant or afraid to consider. Indeed, it is difficult to think of Scoot without parent SIA – a quiet overshadowing that sibling SilkAir has for years tried and still does to dispel, and into which increasingly 55-per-cent owned Tigerair is moving. While pedigree connections cannot guarantee success, experiential wisdom is not something to be scoffed at. The issue is also one of relevance. SIA is very much a premium carrier that has been pushed into venturing into the lower end by increased competition from low-cost carriers and by peer rivals that have sprouted budget subsidiaries, a good example being Qantas and its budget subsidiary Jetstar.

There are questions: Is the SIA stable getting a little crowded with intra competition even as Scoot and Tigerair now claim they are performing better with cooperation? Scoot and Tigerair will soon be combining their reservations systems. Can SIA define the market such that they do not overlap and that it merely shifts the business from one pocket to the other? The move seems to be towards more commonality. SIA’s Krisflyer perks are now open to customers of subsidiary carriers.

And the big question: Is it Scoot in its own right flying to London or is the operation under the SIA banner, the way it is so difficult to tell AirAsia X from parent AirAsia? But then, AirAsia is itself a budget carrier. Nevertheless, the bet is likely to favour the probability of SIA (driving Scoot) succeeding if anyone should finally succeed in the budget long-haul.

This is not forgetting that SIA itself has not had lemons in its basket – its failed stake in Air New Zealand, its lacklustre investment in Virgin Atlantic, and the premature termination of its all-business class flights. While its slow entry (or re-entry if you consider the short-lived non-stop Los Angeles and New York runs) into the premium economy (PEY) market may have been the result of an over-cautious retreat, its performance thus far may have also emboldened it to take a more adventurous approach. Additionally, the PEY is doing well on the Vistara joint-venture in India, even as Cathay Pacific, a forerunner of the new PEY, has decided to take it off Indian routes.

Besides, the climate for expansion is encouraging. Mr Wilson said: “We are on an upward slope towards profitability. We see yield maturity building over time and we are observing that across our routes.” The SIA Group has just announced Q1 (Apr-Jun) profit of S$111 million (US$81 million), an increase of S$72 million. Parent SIA made a profit of S$108 million compared to S$45 a year ago. Tigerair broke even. And Scoot recorded an operating loss of S$20 million, an improvement of S$5 million over last year. Passenger load factor for Scoot increased 2.9 percentage points to 81.4% on the back of increased passenger carriage by 11.0%, far exceeding the 6.9% capacity injection. And, of course, the industry is blessed with the continuing low costs of jet fuel.

What about the competition? Without any indication of AirAsia X’s resumption of the long haul services, Scoot has a pretty much open field although Norwegian Air Shuttle operates from Oslo and Stockholm to Bangkok. In fact, with airlines such as Garuda Indonesia offering low fares to London in the attempt to retain direct traffic between Indonesia and the UK, Scoot may become the alternative SIA in the competition. Mr Wilson said: “We might be a bit more niche when it comes to long-haul operations.” Generally, the budget market is driven by the dollar, and the niche factor, whatever Mr Wilson meant by it, may make the difference. But note how many a budget operator that came and went had always maintained that they were not like the others, and that too may be predicated on the expectations of long-haul travellers.

Nevertheless, it is invigorating news although Mr Wilson said the plan “is not immediate but it is not something we are closed to.” It has been almost 50 years since Sir Freddie founded Laker Airways in 1966, and it is still a field where few dare venture. We wish Scoot good luck when it finally happens, and hope it succeeds.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

US airlines vs Gulf carriers: Redefining Open Skies

THE new American mantra for aviation is fair skies, not open skies. With the rise of the Gulf carriers and their increased presence in the US, home carriers are banding to press the Department of Transportation (DOT) to review the long-standing Open Skies policy and the agreements executed thus far. Their grouse: Unfair competition because of large government subsidies received by Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways that place US carriers at a disadvantage.

This is not a new argument presented by opposing airlines; even in the days of restrictive bilateral negotiations, it was a hurdle many airlines from the less developed countries in Asia faced as they expanded into the more lucrative markets of the western hemisphere. Their successes from delivering a product reputed for excellent customer service and operated on high productivity had been clouded by accusations of payouts by their home governments that enabled them to compete on cost.

Courtesy Airbus

Courtesy Airbus

Emirates president and CEO Tim Clark warned: “If you go down this minefield, you must ask yourself to what extent all the foreign carriers serving the US are subsidised. Take China, take Thailand, take Malaysia, take Japan, take New Zealand. I could go on forever.”

Mr Clark may have unwittingly in his defence roped in other carriers into the contentious ring. But the US is unlikely to be interested in the reference, at least not for now. Broad brush strokes do not work; just because one person is not censured does not guarantee immunity for another person in a similar situation. Having said that, this does not necessarily mean the US has a case. The issue is much more complex than that. For one thing, the success of the Gulf carriers makes them more noticeable.

Note, however, Mr Clark is not saying Emirates is similarly subsidised by the UAE government. On the contrary, he insisted the airline did not receive any, rejecting the report produced by the American carriers that the three named Gulf carriers received US$42 billion in subsidies. Mr Clark said: “The requirement from the government of Dubai has been and remains the same. There will be no support for your operations, you will be required to make money.”

All the arguments for and against in the debate – depending on which side of the wall you stand – seem to centre on the issue of government subsidies, complicated by political affiliation and extending beyond support for the airlines to other related businesses including the funding of home airport development that is viewed as directly benefitting them. Where do you draw the line when ownership of several projects is traced to a common designator? In many countries, airport development is undertaken by the government as a national project and the facilities are viewed as common to all users.

Refuting the American accusation, Gulf carriers are pointing out how American carriers have also received government support. All the major airlines have sought refuge in the bankruptcy laws at some point. There were government bailouts after the 911 attacks. In some ways the US aviation policy is protectionist: The domestic market is not widely open to foreign carriers, and the government’s approval of consolidation to create mega entities only serve to limit competition. Etihad chief executive James Hogan countered that American carriers have been granted antitrust immunity (ATI) to protect lucrative transatlantic routes operated jointly with European carriers: American Airlines with British Airways, Delta Airlines with Air France, and United Airlines with Lufthansa. Mr Hogan said: “I think this is a protectionist move to protect the ATI routes across the Atlantic; that’s the irony.
Etihad courtesy etihad

The debate must bring us back to the genesis of Open Skies. For more than twenty years, the US has been championing open and greater competition that has resulted in lower airfares and more choices for travellers of airlines and destinations. US airlines themselves have supported the push, benefitting from new markets outside the US. Since 1992, the US has signed more than 100 open skies agreements. But the playing field is changing as global competition intensifies with the growth of more successful foreign carriers reaching into the heart of the US. It is fair to expect a customary review when circumstances change, but any compromise on the principle of competition may be a step back.

Mr Clark warned that the agenda of the American carriers is threatening “the bedrock of the modern day aviation system. By challenging open skies, you are not just challenging the aero-political situation, you are challenging the very essence of economic liberalization the US has championed for decades.” He expressed hope that the US administration “will not stand for this nonsense.” The American carriers on the other hand insisted that they “welcome robust competition provided the playing field is level. A reopening of those open-skies agreements is the first step and the right step to ensure competition is preserved and enhanced.”

The crux of the matter appears to be what constitutes a level playing field. Will a revised Open Skies policy be qualified by an attempt to box it in? The thrust of the policy has been competition, but makes true competition? Is the US being anti-competition in opposing the entry of Norwegian Air Shuttle, even with nary a hint of government subsidy? As Mr Clark warned, “Once you talk about fair skies, you enter into a quagmire of definition, and you have to be very careful how you go.” Indeed, is there such a thing as truly fair skies? Even as more countries have declared their support of liberalisation, many of them are still protective of their turf, rightly or wrongly. A case in point: Singapore Airlines (SIA) has tried and failed to gain access across the Pacific from London Heathrow to the US east coast, and across the Pacific from Sydney to the US west coast. Yet other airlines that came lately were granted those rights, which is anomalous to the often cited fear of overcapacity that would hurt the industry.

In 2011, Emirates tussled with Canada which rejected its application to operate more flights to Toronto. The Canadian government was concerned that UAE carriers (including Etihad which was also applying for access to Canada) would enjoy an unfair advantage over Air Canada in tapping into its international traffic, the outcome of which would be the loss of Canadian jobs; the unfair advantage was similarly pinned down to subsidies Emirates received from the UAE government. In apparent retaliation, the UAE evicted Canada from its military base near Dubai and imposed a hefty visa fee for visiting Canadians. It is so easy for what is a commercial matter to be politicised, adding to its complexity.

The industry is divided. An organization known as Americans for Fair Skies is campaigning in support of the US government. It says: “This is an important first step towards restoring fairness to our skies and stopping the largest trade violation in history.” Outside the US, not surprisingly, Lufthansa had openly stated its support of the US carriers. When Carsten Spohr assumed appointment to helm the German carrier, he expressed concerns about encroachment by Gulf carriers in Europe and set himself the task of tackling that issue. Interestingly even Etihad, an affected party to the dispute, actually “applauds” the US government “for setting up a transparent process to deal fairly and responsibly with the claims. Etihad Airways is committed to setting the record straight regarding these unsubstantiated allegations.” While Emirates argues in defence, Etihad is issuing DOT a challenge.

Conversely, not everyone in the US is supporting the US carriers’ pressure on its administration to review its Open Skies policy, if not specifically the agreements executed with the Gulf carriers. US airlines may feel the pinch of competition by foreign carriers, but US airports are welcoming of the increased traffic that those carriers bring. Then there are consumer groups who are benefitting from lower airfares, better service and wider consumer choice. Business Travel Coalition chairman Kevin Mitchell wrote in a letter to the government: “Now that US airlines have secured antitrust immunity, industry consolidation and concomitantly rising airfares and ancillary fees, and are achieving record unprecedented profits, some carriers shamelessly seek to close off US markets to competition from foreign carriers.” JetBlue chief executive Robin Hayes for one is not joining the protesters.

Mr Clark would remind the US government how Gulf carriers have contributed to not only the growth of traffic but also providing access to markets not previously served by any US carrier. An example was the connection between Seattle and Hyderabab in India via Dubai. He said: “Look at where these people are going and ask yourself where was Delta, where was Untied, where was American when the world was becoming more globalized?”

While DOT said it would address the concerns raised by the US carriers, its spokesman Brian Farber qualified that the administration “remains committed to the open skies policy which has greatly benefitted the travelling public, the US aviation industry, American cities and the broader US economy through increased travel and trade, and job growth.” There will be wide ramifications, no doubt. Open Skies is not just about a specific airline’s bottom line. In defending the case for Gulf carriers, Mr Hogan had said: “We make no apologies for offering new competitive choice for travellers. Open skies should be about customer choice.” But is it really, one wonders, in practice?

It is unlikely that the US government will turn the Open Skies policy topsy turvy and go for a clean slate, renegotiating the agreements with the Gulf carriers. One can anticipate new restrictions in the road ahead, and tweaks where ambiguity permits. Its impact will be global. Some European parties are already watching closely moves by Gulf carriers to gain a bigger slice of the European pie, not just the competition in offering seats but also in the bold acquisition of stakes in European carriers. In Australia, Etihad is a co-owner of Virgin Australia. Emirates operates a mega alliance with Qantas. It would be interesting if the Australian government grants Emirates, but not SIA, rights to fly transpacific from its ports.

Unbeknownst to many, there may be a price to pay for success. The Gulf carriers may have become victims of their own successes, in the same way that it is once said of SIA in its heyday.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Is budget long haul but a pipe dream?

Courtesy PA

Courtesy PA


Only days after announcing plans to launch transatlantic flights in five years, Ryanair retracted its position, abandoning the plans. In a statement, it said it “has not considered or approved any transatlantic project and does not intend to do so.” This ran contrary to the earlier announced approval by its board to mount budget flights between various European and US cities. Why the sudden turnaround?

The budget long haul challenge continues to entice entrepreneurs who dare go where others fear to tread. We hark back to the days when Sir Freddie Laker pioneered the low-cost model and Laker Airways took to the sky in 1977 flying between London Gatwick and New York’s JFK Airport. It went bankrupt in 1982.

Others have tried and failed. Most notable among them, Oasis Hong Kong Airlines that operated scheduled non-stop services from Hong Kong to both London Gatwick and Vancouver International Airport. Voted “World’s Leading New Airline” at the Annual Travel Awards 2007, Oasis folded its wings a year later, ending a three-year run. It went down the same path as Canada’s Harmony Airways which started services within North America in 2001, then mounted a service to Manchester in UK and announced plans to expand into Asia. It collapsed in 2007, a lesson that might have come too late for Oasis.

AirAsia X, which is an offshoot of Asia’s largest budget carrier AirAsia, commenced services in 2007, flying from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to the Gold Coast in Australia. It was a tactical move to build up Australian traffic feed into its subsequent services to London and Paris. Three years seem to be as long as such services could last. In 2012 AirAsia X withdrew its services to both European destinations, along with others including Delhi, Mumbai, Abu Dhabi, Tianjin (China) and Christchurch. It cited high fuel prices and taxes, and a weak market. But AirAsia X is keeping the dream alive with plans to reintroduce services to London and Paris, and adding other new destinations such as Sapporo in Japan. As recent as the end of last year, AirAsia chairman Tony Fernandes announced that “reopening of KL-London is definitely on the card.”

Courtesy Norwegian Air Shuttle

Courtesy Norwegian Air Shuttle

The latest foray into that arena is Oslo-based Norwegian Air Shuttle, which began services in 2013 to the US and Bangkok in Thailand. It has plans to also fly to Hong Kong and India. The airline, which has been profitable before flying long-haul, is reporting losses and blamed it on the costs of expansion and disputes with US regulators and competitors who aren’t too welcoming of its intrusion.

Yet the temptation to prove that the budget long haul formula can work is irresistible to many a visionary, to whom we must give credit for their derring-do. In a price sensitive market, it should work but it seems not for the long haul as the short haul. It is widely accepted that beyond four hours, at most five, passengers have different needs and their demands begin to change inversely to cost. For one thing they are likely to carry more bags and could do with some pampering to break the monotony of the journey. Harmony Airways boasted low-cost with full service, and Oasis Airlines too tweaked the Spartan low-cost model to include some element of that. But running an extremely lean outfit in an unpredictable environment of volatile fuel prices, uncertain travel demand, potential flight delays and cancellations, and unforeseen natural disruptions among other things, is a big challenge.

There are other factors such as aircraft utilization with quick turnrounds, fleet support in the event of delays and cancellations, and competition. Legacy airlines can no longer afford to ignore budget carriers as niche players outside their turf for the short haul, as they spawn offshoots to check the competition. Air France-KLM and Lufthansa introduced Transavia and Germanwings respectively to compete with the likes of Ryanair and easyJet. Australian flag Qantas carrier has its Jetstar brand. Even Singapore Airlines reputed for premium service is adding yet another budget carrier, Scoot, to its fold, the new carrier literally sharing the same arena with older sibling Tigerair although it is pitched as a medium-range operator. So if the competition heats up, you bet the big boys will flex their muscles.

It is so tempting for an airline such as Ryanair as it succeeds and grows to look for new opportunities. That it did not work for others in the past does not necessarily dictate the formula cannot work for Ryanair, which has succeeded in the short haul where many others too had failed. Others such as AirAsia and Norwegian Shuttle which have gone ahead are still testing the ground. Apparently Ryanair is treading carefully as it has been seven years since it first expressed the desire to cross the big pond in 2008. In the earlier announcement before it changed its mind, it said, quite rightly so, it would be “dependent on attaining viable long-haul aircraft”. Consider how when the oil price soars, budget carriers are the hardest hit. It will take another four to five years in Ryanair’s estimate for such an aircraft to emerge. The airline’s spokesman revealed that it was talking to plane manufacturers. So, again, the question: why the turnabout?

Is the answer close to what easyJet chief Carolyn McColl said about sticking to what it does best? Ms McColl reportedly told the BBC: “We have no intention to do long haul because we think it’s a different kind of business.” It would be too high a risk to change its short-haul strategy. But Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary is known for suggesting game-changing ideas, as revolutionary as “standing room only” flights and charging for the use of the aircraft loo, and for setting trends in the industry such as charging for printing a boarding pass at the airport, so we wait to be surprised.

Interestingly, a new “ultra low cost” concept is rearing its head. While an airline such as Qatar Airways is demonstrating that there is almost no limit to dressing up a premium product with its latest offering of a private cabin furnished like a hotel suite, a new airline in Canada, Jetlines, has big plans to offer rock-bottom airfares said to be below 40 per cent what rivals Air Canada and WestJet are charging. Jetlines chief David Solloway said the airline is ready to take to the sky. He cited Ryanair, easyJet and Allegiant Air as models. “The model of buying a seat and a seatbelt and only paying for goods and services each passenger may choose individually,” he said, “is known all over the world and is the fastest growing segment in the airline industry.”

Apparently some five million Canadians cross borders to board flights out of neighbouring US airports because of ultra low fares offered by US airlines such as Allegiant Air. Mr Solloway hopes to stem the outflow by offering not only very low fares but also the convenience of flying from the home base. The question is: How low can you go? So much for nomenclature. The only thing certain about Mr Solloway’s proposal is that Jetlines will be much cheaper than other Canadian carriers. He probably already knows that the leaner the model, the stricter is the demand on discipline and efficiency. And the best bet for survival is flying into secondary airports rather than the main hubs, though this is somewhat tricky considering customer preferences. You fly where customers want to go. Apparently Mr Solloway has done his homework. He said: “If you’re asking the question whether Canada could have a third airline, the answer is no. But if you ask whether Canada can support an ultra low-cost, low fare airline, the answer is overwhelmingly yes.”

While US carriers are trying to stop the thrust of Norwegian Air Shuttle, the same question may be asked of the budget long haul: Is there a market, if not ready but potential, for the business? There has to be something out there for the many enterprising founders since Freddie Laker to wager their millions. Yet as they came and went all too soon, something seemed to be missing in the formula. Or is the budget long haul but a pipe dream?

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.