Question:

mangled uncounted electrons thus: <snip> >More passengers. If some low cost carrier were to somehow connect the domestic >Southwest and domestic Easyjet networks (however loosely the connection would >be), it would be great marketing and may openb new markets for transatlantic >traffic, just as Ryanair opened new markets by carrying football fans to games. >You know, it could be as simple as Southwest just linking to Easyjet’s web >site to show all the locations they can fly to from Stanstead, and vice versa. >You’d have 2 separate tickets. But by "hubbing" at a common airport to make >transfers palatable, the low cost carriers could feed each other.

That actually makes a lot of sense… And it would be nice to have a transatlantic option out of Stansted…  ^_- Martin D. Pay Yes, I live much close to Stansted than to the other airports that serve London …  ^_^

Response:

> serve the individual routes they can make money on. I see Westjet as > being like Virgin Blue in Australia. DJ has put itself in the position > of Ansett(rip) as a direct competitor to QF, I guess Westjet does the > same with AC.

Correct. And one has to consider that bus and trains are not cheap in canada, so Westjet doesn’t need to offer $25 fares. > much getting people out of trains, cars, and people who wouldn’t > otherwise have travelled at all.

Doesn’t Ryanair cater to football hooligans who can now travel to see games instead of watching them on the tele ? (and for the price of a case of beer). > By definition, any agreement that Ryanair makes with another carrier > will in some way restrict Ryanair’s operations.

Why should it ? > Again the business model of airlines like EZY and FR has check-in > starting 2 hours before departure. If they allow passengers to > check-in 12 hours in advance, then those passengers get delayed, > diveted, held up in immigration, arrested by customs, that will create > an issue at the boarding gate.

Simple: flight leaves without them, period. If you’re not there on time they don’t wait for you. As long as passengers are aware of this when they buy a $50 transtlantic ticket, then there is no issue. > Not to mention when Southwest forgets > to apply FR’s baggage allowances.

Ok, this is an issue.   > What is the benefit to them?

More passengers. If some low cost carrier were to somehow connect the domestic Southwest and domestic Easyjet networks (however loosely the connection would be), it would be great marketing and may openb new markets for transatlantic traffic, just as Ryanair opened new markets by carrying football fans to games. You know, it could be as simple as Southwest just linking to Easyjet’s web site to show all the locations they can fly to from Stanstead, and vice versa. You’d have 2 separate tickets. But by "hubbing" at a common airport to make transfers palatable, the low cost carriers could feed each other. Rioght now, if you fly Air Canada to London, connecting to Easyjet at Stanstead or Gatwick isn’t so great. > Ryanair will > want the same income from that seat as they would generate getting a > credit card number direct from a customer, so who is going to pay the > difference?

Is Southwest is going to sell a Dallas-Bari (italy) ticket, then the transatlantic portion could be priced to include all the overhead needed to pay easyjet their full fare to carry the pax from London to Bari. Or you simply don’t sell ticket to Bari, you sell tickets to London and let the pax buy a separate ticket to Bari.

Response:

"interlining" means that the airlienes move bags between themselves and you can do one check in. It doesn’t have to mean a through fare from origin to destination. I wonder how much it costs in a negotiated contract? $5.00 per pax? And it goes both ways. I agree that the low cost carriers would win by interlining bags.

Response:

>> Apparently Southwest even give you a free drink, and don’t they have > some sort of FF program as well, and allow on-line connections? >Yes. They are low cost but not bare bones low cost.  I don’t think that they >offer ridiculously low fares as do Ryannair. > Then Westjet is not a true ‘Next Generation’ low cost carrier. >Not a bare bones one. But consider Westjet, when it expand beyond its original >small playing field in the Alberta/BC, started to have much longer duration >flights. Montreal Vancouver is 5 hours. Does Ryannair have 5 hour flights ?

I don’t think Ryanair (one n!) have 5 hour flights, I seem to remember reading that 1-3 hour sectors fit their business model better. Because they are a purely point to point carrier they are not interested in serving the whole market, having blanket coverage, they only choose to serve the individual routes they can make money on. I see Westjet as being like Virgin Blue in Australia. DJ has put itself in the position of Ansett(rip) as a direct competitor to QF, I guess Westjet does the same with AC. The European lowcosts tend to provide their own products, yes, attracting customers from other airlines, but just as much getting people out of trains, cars, and people who wouldn’t otherwise have travelled at all. > Entering in to an interline agreement with another carrier immediately > brings restrictions to your operations that wouldn’t otherwise be > there. >You are thinking about conventional interlining. Some sort of interlining >agreement between low cost carriers would not necessarily bring in restrictions.

By definition, any agreement that Ryanair makes with another carrier will in some way restrict Ryanair’s operations. >Luggage transfers are Stanstead is not needed due to the need to go through >customers anyways. >So interlining might just mean Southwest acting as a sales agent to Easyjet >and possibly issuing Easyjet boading passes. This would actually reduce costs >at Easyjet who wouldn’t have to process those pax at the check-in counters.

Again the business model of airlines like EZY and FR has check-in starting 2 hours before departure. If they allow passengers to check-in 12 hours in advance, then those passengers get delayed, diveted, held up in immigration, arrested by customs, that will create an issue at the boarding gate. Not to mention when Southwest forgets to apply FR’s baggage allowances. That issue at the boarding gate will delay the flight, and the 7 subsequent flights that day. Why would FR want that hassle? What is the benefit to them? As for costs of processing at check-in, at East Midlands last year EZY had the first flight in the world that was checked in with 100% utilization of self-service check-in machines. It was a publicity stunt, but it won’t be long before that is the norm. >And interlining between 2 low cost carriers does not necessarily require any >responsability to pay hotels etc should a connection be missed. It woudl >essentially be justy a way for each carriers to publish fares that combine >multiple tickets, just as they currently do when they sell you connecting flights.

But these carriers don’t publish fares, other than an indication of ‘from’ prices, they make you an offer when you go to their website and type in your dates. You accept the offer, or go back the next day and see what they offer then. If Southwest were to start selling Ryanair tickets, who is going to pay the costs? Costs involved in accounting processes, the costs of dealing in foreign currencies. Ryanair will want the same income from that seat as they would generate getting a credit card number direct from a customer, so who is going to pay the difference? –==++AJC++==–

Response:

Southwest had some sort of cooperative agreement with Icelandair [transatlantic] at Baltimore some years ago.  One presumes it wasn’t thought to be a success.

Response:

> Apparently Southwest even give you a free drink, and don’t they have > some sort of FF program as well, and allow on-line connections?

Yes. They are low cost but not bare bones low cost.  I don’t think that they offer ridiculously low fares as do Ryannair. > Then Westjet is not a true ‘Next Generation’ low cost carrier.

Not a bare bones one. But consider Westjet, when it expand beyond its original small playing field in the Alberta/BC, started to have much longer duration flights. Montreal Vancouver is 5 hours. Does Ryannair have 5 hour flights ? > Entering in to an interline agreement with another carrier immediately > brings restrictions to your operations that wouldn’t otherwise be > there.

You are thinking about conventional interlining. Some sort of interlining agreement between low cost carriers would not necessarily bring in restrictions. Luggage transfers are Stanstead is not needed due to the need to go through customers anyways. So interlining might just mean Southwest acting as a sales agent to Easyjet and possibly issuing Easyjet boading passes. This would actually reduce costs at Easyjet who wouldn’t have to process those pax at the check-in counters. And interlining between 2 low cost carriers does not necessarily require any responsability to pay hotels etc should a connection be missed. It woudl essentially be justy a way for each carriers to publish fares that combine multiple tickets, just as they currently do when they sell you connecting flights.

Response:

> Apparently Southwest even give you a free

drink, and don’t they have > some sort of FF program as well, and allow

on-line connections? Some think that WN’s FF program is the most generous in the industry.  WN used to have a slogan "the company plane" which emphasized their goal of moderate walkup fares and good frequency to attract business fliers. > Yes. They are low cost but not bare bones low

cost.  I don’t think that they > offer ridiculously low fares as do Ryannair.

WN is not always the lowest lowest price carrier. But they seem to be eating the legacy carriers’ lunch with their moderate walkup fares and no-Saturday-night-stay rules.  Delta has just given in and is adopting WN’s "formula".    Will it work for DL or will they just be foregoing the few high-priced tickets which are slowing down the rate at which they are sinking? Re: Ryanair – do they have an extra charge for seatbacks that recline? Or are all their seats fixed-back these days?

Response:

Hi! > (Note > however that if a pax arrives at Stanstead from north america, he’ll have to > pickup luggage and clear customs/immigration, so interlining may not really be > possible to begin with.).

Not if continuing to a different country. brgds — Gunter Herrmann Naples, Florida, USA

Response:

>Southwest had some sort of cooperative agreement >with Icelandair [transatlantic] at Baltimore some >years ago.  One presumes it wasn’t thought to be a >success.

That must have recently been terminated. I know I saw a reference to it on the Southwest web site within the past year, but I don’t see anything there now.

Response:

>> Low-cost carriers – interline – Ryanair? > Real low-cost carriers don’t even offer on-line connections, and > wouldn’t dream of interlining. It would be in total contradiction with > Ryanair’s business model to even contemplate such a move. >When your fares are low enough, you don’t need to interline. Just buy two >separate tickets. If the two "cooperating" carriers operate out of the same >terminal, then switching from Southwest to Easyjet or Ryannair wouldn’t be >very different than switching between two Southwest flights at Chicago Midway.

Don’t Southwest make through bookings? Do they not let you to check-in for both flights together? Do they not then take some responsibility for missed connections? There is nothing to stop you booking  2 FR flights, but they do not, and never will make through bookings, or check you in for onward flights, and if the first one is late and you miss the second, they take no responsibility whatsoever. And this policy has led to their great success. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

>> to do so, their long-haul networks wiould die otherwise. Equally there > is no way true low-cost carriers like Ryanair are going to get > involved in any through-checking, interlining nonsense. >Actually, I woudln’t be so sure about that.

You haven’t flown with them, haven’t seen their oeprations first hand. Believe me, they won’t. >Consider Southwest that will CODE SHARE with ATA.  Just because the way legacy >carriers implemented interlining ended yp costing a lot of money doesn’t mean >that low cost carriers might not find a cheap way to implement it amongst themselves.

But Southwest is old school. They pioneered the idea, but things have moved on with the low-cost carriers you find in Europe and Asia. Apparently Southwest even give you a free drink, and don’t they have some sort of FF program as well, and allow on-line connections? That would not work as a low-cost carrier in the European market. ‘Next Generation’ low cost carriers cut out everything apart from transport from A to B in accordance with prevailing safety requirements. The tables have really turned, and these days there is more competition is Europe, and greater freedom to compete in Europe than in the US, which is why you find so much more variety in the products on offer. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Look at what happened when Canadian airlines went belly up in Canada. Air >Canada raised its Y fares to ridiculous levels and then has other fares such >as Y2 with the previous Y fares. The net result is that because interlining >rules used the pure Y fare to calculate how much Air Canada could charge >British Airways to carry a pax from Toronto to Winnipeg, It ended up costing >megabucks to british airways to interline with Air Canada and often ended up >being much cheaper for the pax to buy separate tickets. >Clearly, Air Canada was out to sabotage interlining as to not help competitors >in its then monopoly situation. >Consider that Westjet is in negotiations to interline with Cathay Pacific. I >am sure they must be a cost effective way to interline which won’t make all of >Westjet inefficient. >So, Westjet charges a few extra bucks to Catahy to pay for the extra manpower >required to transfer pax/luggage. But that would still be peanuts, and it >wouldn’t negatively impact th rest of westjet operations. >Where there is a will, there is a way.

Then Westjet is not a true ‘Next Generation’ low cost carrier. Entering in to an interline agreement with another carrier immediately brings restrictions to your operations that wouldn’t otherwise be there. Of course it may also bring extra passengers, added revenue, but the likes of Ryanair would not put themselves in that position, they are a phenomenal success because of the way they do business, because they avoid complications such as interlining, or even on-line transfers. >Ryannair is willing to put coin operated overhead lockers, or pay toilets or >make you pay for icecubes in your drink. They surely woudl be willing to >charge a few bucks to interline luggage etc as a convenience for pax. (Note >however that if a pax arrives at Stanstead from north america, he’ll have to >pickup luggage and clear customs/immigration, so interlining may not really be >possible to begin  with..

Charging for on board services doesn’t hinder a smooth operation, making some sort of commitment to other airlines and their passengers potentially does. Their whole operation is geared to doing things their way, they are not going to risk that for a few extra passengers that they just don’t need. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > very potent "club" of low cost carriers making it really cheap for > pax to move > > across the pond. > Very true.  I’m surprised the low-fare carriers haven’t attempted > Transatlantic.  I’m also surprised they don’t attempt to interline a > little.  For example, Canada’s Westjet could interline into Southwest’s > network and flights from North America could interline into Ryanair in > Dublin. >The lowcost carriers don’t interline at all – they won’t even check >you/your bags through on their own airline’s next flight.  Each sector is >treated separately, and that’s why they’re lowcost. >There are some semi-lowcost carriers who operate transatlantic.  Air >Transat and Zoom spring to mind.  Aer Lingus has also become lowcost in >almost all but name (however it’s still trying to keep the market it has, >and *is* checking passengers and bags through to other EI flights). >Hilary

I do think there is still a wolrd of difference between real low-cost carriers, and what the likes of Aer Lingus, Swiss, and to some extent KLM and others are doing to reduce costs by reducing service levels to compete with point to point low cost carriers. As you say they all maintain the other aspects of full service carriers, and will continue to do so, their long-haul networks wiould die otherwise. Equally there is no way true low-cost carriers like Ryanair are going to get involved in any through-checking, interlining nonsense. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

> to do so, their long-haul networks wiould die otherwise. Equally there > is no way true low-cost carriers like Ryanair are going to get > involved in any through-checking, interlining nonsense.

Actually, I woudln’t be so sure about that. Consider Southwest that will CODE SHARE with ATA.  Just because the way legacy carriers implemented interlining ended yp costing a lot of money doesn’t mean that low cost carriers might not find a cheap way to implement it amongst themselves. Look at what happened when Canadian airlines went belly up in Canada. Air Canada raised its Y fares to ridiculous levels and then has other fares such as Y2 with the previous Y fares. The net result is that because interlining rules used the pure Y fare to calculate how much Air Canada could charge British Airways to carry a pax from Toronto to Winnipeg, It ended up costing megabucks to british airways to interline with Air Canada and often ended up being much cheaper for the pax to buy separate tickets. Clearly, Air Canada was out to sabotage interlining as to not help competitors in its then monopoly situation. Consider that Westjet is in negotiations to interline with Cathay Pacific. I am sure they must be a cost effective way to interline which won’t make all of Westjet inefficient. So, Westjet charges a few extra bucks to Catahy to pay for the extra manpower required to transfer pax/luggage. But that would still be peanuts, and it wouldn’t negatively impact th rest of westjet operations. Where there is a will, there is a way. Ryannair is willing to put coin operated overhead lockers, or pay toilets or make you pay for icecubes in your drink. They surely woudl be willing to charge a few bucks to interline luggage etc as a convenience for pax. (Note however that if a pax arrives at Stanstead from north america, he’ll have to pickup luggage and clear customs/immigration, so interlining may not really be possible to begin with.).

Response:

> Low-cost carriers – interline – Ryanair? > Real low-cost carriers don’t even offer on-line connections, and > wouldn’t dream of interlining. It would be in total contradiction with > Ryanair’s business model to even contemplate such a move.

When your fares are low enough, you don’t need to interline. Just buy two separate tickets. If the two "cooperating" carriers operate out of the same terminal, then switching from Southwest to Easyjet or Ryannair wouldn’t be very different than switching between two Southwest flights at Chicago Midway.

Response:

> very potent "club" of low cost carriers making it really cheap for > pax to move > across the pond. > Very true.  I’m surprised the low-fare carriers haven’t attempted > Transatlantic.  I’m also surprised they don’t attempt to interline a > little.  For example, Canada’s Westjet could interline into Southwest’s > network and flights from North America could interline into Ryanair in > Dublin. > I’m too lazy to google it up, but could an ETOPS 737 cross the > Atlantic?  (I know Air Pacific operates three-sevens from Fiji to > Vancouver via Hawaii.)

Lufthansa have flown Germany – USA for some time on a wet-leased Boeing business jet (737 family) and, latterly, with an Airbus A319. Anyone wanting to set up a commercial relationship with Ryanair would, imo, be certifiable! JohnTu

Response:

>> very potent "club" of low cost carriers making it really cheap for >pax to move > across the pond. >Very true.  I’m surprised the low-fare carriers haven’t attempted >Transatlantic.  I’m also surprised they don’t attempt to interline a >little.  For example, Canada’s Westjet could interline into Southwest’s >network and flights from North America could interline into Ryanair in >Dublin.

Low-cost carriers – interline – Ryanair? Real low-cost carriers don’t even offer on-line connections, and wouldn’t dream of interlining. It would be in total contradiction with Ryanair’s business model to even contemplate such a move. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

The Hammering You Hear…. is probably Southwest driving the final nails in US Airways’ coffin. Today WN announced that they would be starting service to Pittsburgh in May 2005.

Response:

> Today WN announced that they would be starting > service to Pittsburgh in May 2005.

I think that the worse case scenario for US Air will be similar to ATA. US Air will continue to operate while the process of selling its assets proceeds. In the end, US Air may be a small airline, or its remains may simply be too endebted to survive, but the impact on travellers may not be so bad if WN or Jetblue step in. Now, watch out if Southwest or Jetblue get US Air to continue to exist with just its international flights which would be turned into low cost operations that are fed and feed into the domestic low cost networks. People would detour via PHL if it meant they saved $100 or more on a transtlantic fare. In fact, move the flight to Stanstead and hookup with easyjet there and you’re have a very potent "club" of low cost carriers making it really cheap for pax to move across the pond.

Response:

> very potent "club" of low cost carriers making it really cheap for pax to move > across the pond.

Very true.  I’m surprised the low-fare carriers haven’t attempted Transatlantic.  I’m also surprised they don’t attempt to interline a little.  For example, Canada’s Westjet could interline into Southwest’s network and flights from North America could interline into Ryanair in Dublin. I’m too lazy to google it up, but could an ETOPS 737 cross the Atlantic?  (I know Air Pacific operates three-sevens from Fiji to Vancouver via Hawaii.) Cheers, Geoff Glave Vancouver, Canada

Response: