In the UK the likes of Easyjet and RyanAir which have now become leading airlines in Europe sell their tickets very very cheap. Their aircraft are all relatively new, their overheads in terms of compensation claims for cancelled flights is high (due to strict EU compensation laws) and yet they turn a good profit and are constantly expanding.
So how do they make their money. They dont receive govt subsidies.
Do the airports subsidise these airlines by giving them incentives to fly from their ports. Airports in the Uk make most of their money from ancillary revenue streams like car parking and shopping sales. Is the theory that a British airport is a carpark with an airstrip attached to it, true. To keep the car park full do the airports just supply the airlines finances from their vast profits to keep everyone solvent?
They fly to and from secondary airports, which have cheaper landing fees. They may have non-union staff and, at least with the low-cost US carriers, the cabin crew does stuff like clean up the airplane after landing. From what I understand, companies like Ryanair charge for everything. And they don’t have the legacy pension costs of the older, established airlines.
With both Ryanair and easyJet, base fares can be shockingly, unbelievably cheap, but they charge you additional money for Every. Possible. Concievable. Extra.
If you are a cheap SOB like myself, who is fine with flying into smaller, out-of-the-way “Secondary Airports” (like Schonefeld instead of Tegel in Berlin or Modlin instead of Chopin in Warsaw, for example) and who doesn’t care where he sits on a two hour flight, and can manage with one small carry-on bag for a 3 or 4 day getaway, and who is able to print your own tickets in advance, and understands that a little bottle of water and some chips on board can end up costing as much as the actual flight itself, they can be an amazing way to see Europe for less than the cost of a meal at McDonalds (seriously, I flew R/T from Krakow to Berlin a couple of months ago for under $12 USD, total, all in. A few weeks ago my flights to Vienna was $12, each way, in March our flights to Venice were under $15) but for many people, they nickle and dime you to the point you can spend nearly as much as a traditional carrier.
No frills like TV or in-flight meals.
Buying new low-cost planes when they are cheap - like after 9/11
Sticking to one type of plane
Flying to cheaper airports
Fast turnarounds. In one day a Ryanair 737 flew:
Brussels, Copenhagen, Brussels, Prague, Brussels, Nimes, Brussels, Treviso and back to Brussels
Back when wowair was in business, I would run some ticket prices. I believed they’d charge you for everything under the sun and as a result your actual ticket price would be a bit higher.
The quoted price is usually theoretical. Most people have either checked luggage or carry-ons, both of which get charged for.
Also the schedule is structured to save money. Allegiant flies to small markets only every couple of days. They also structured their schedule so planes and crews ended home at the end of the day, which makes it unnecessary to rent rooms for the crew.
They cut everything to the bone (but not maintenance, there is no way they can cut corners on that) and they charge you extra for lots of things that others chuck in for free.
Doesn’t seem like big deal until you realise that Ryanair carried 140 million passengers last year. Collect an extra £5 per passenger and you are looking at a very healthy balance sheet.
As said upthread. If you are a cheap git (I am) this is great news as people are in effect subsidising my travel. The only bag that Ryanair now allows for free is one that is 40cm x 20cm x 25cm. Sounds tiny but I’ve tried it out and I can easily pack enough for a 5 day trip without the need of a washing machine. No food or drink but that’s fine. I can fill up my water bottle and take a sandwich on board.
They also don’t own anything. They don’t just lease their planes, they contract maintenance to other companies. Some of them don’t even lease their own gates at airports; they pay a per flight fee to another airline to rent its unused gates for CheapoAir’s flights, and simply change the sign on the gate when it’s their turn to use it.
It’s amazing that with all that cost-cutting, so many of the low-cost airlines end up going out of business.
The ULC’s serve outlying airports not only because of typically lower landing fees, but because they can go straight in and out (relatively) rather than pass over some beacon 100 miles out and get in line, with attendant time and fuel savings.
Southwest uses Boeing 737s almost exclusively, which simplifies maintainance (at least I would think). Maybe not a huge savingsl, but every cent counts in the airline biz.
I’ve heard the really cheap airlines like Ryanair in Europe and Spirit in the US actually make more of their revenue from these ancillary fees than actual airfares. Besides luggage, selling snacks and other extras onboard provides a lot of their revenue. And fees if you want preassigned seats (Which maybe you can skip if traveling alone and are willing to risk getting a middle seat, but if you’re traveling with kids and want to make sure you’re seated together you pretty much have to pay it).
I’ve heard Agilent called a “travel company with planes”. I’m told a lot of their revenue actually comes from selling things like hotel rooms and rental cars as part of all inclusive vacation packages that include a flight + hotel + car.
Many Europeans too, but now take into account that the only car rental place within 20 miles is closed down by the time the plane lands. And taxi, taxi… what’s that?
Supposedly that was more true decades ago when they were a smaller airline than it is today. I’ve heard that for a relatively large fleet there are enough economies of scale to make the extra cost of having a more diverse fleet pretty much negligible.
That is to say, for a relatively small airline with a fleet of 50 planes, yes, it’s cheaper for them to have a fleet of 50 Boeings than 25 Boeings and 25 Airbuses. But for a huge airline like Southwest with over 700 planes, having 350 Boeings and 350 Airbuses wouldn’t really cost that much more than having 700 Boeings, even though that’s the strategy Southwest has stuck with. But having both would theoretically allow them to take advantage of the relative strengths of both planes; A320s are a bit more efficient for longer flights while 737s are more efficient on shorter ones, I’ve heard.
Weeze’s airport webpage shows that there are car hire services at the airport and a few buses that go to Dusseldorf that serve it. Also, there’s a shuttle that goes into Weeze, and you can take a train from there to Dusseldorf.
I mean, yes, it’s a bit inconvenient, but if you’re planning a trip, don’t you look into how to get from the airport to your destination in advance, and check the scheduling to see if it works for your flight? Especially if you’re flying an airline that is known to fly into peripheral airports?
From what I’ve read, Southwest is still 737 only, and they have the largest fleet of them. I remember a few years ago when there was a mechanical issue with the model, Boeing actually consulted with Southwest mechanics for a fix, because they have so much experience with the planes. (I think Ryanair may have copied the one plane model approach.)
what’s that?