Eos, Maxjet & Privatair

In fact, Dedicate mainly serves oil-related markets where yields for business travel are high but where there is little “cheap fare” demand – some companies have an economy-only travel policy but that doesn’t necessarily mean economy is cheap… (Example, not Dedicate, but I flew to JNB at short notice last week on AF… £2129 in Y-class or £2270 in J-class)

Makes sense. An upgrade costs effectively nothing… a body weighs as much in a 29 inch seat as it does in a fully flat bed.

Course there is, just like there’s demand for business class and economy class on flights to Europe, or where-ever. Ryanair manages OK on short haul economy only, why shouldn’t Transat on economy long haul? I wasn’t saying htat there was no market for economy, I was merely pointing out that in some situations an economic business case can be made for an airline to run an all business class operation – some airlines will chose to do this, whilst others may go the opposite way, and others more will continue to maintain both types of service. Whilst business-jets have skimmed some of the premium market, none the less I foresee more business-class-only services springing up in future in some markets, particularly if the rigours and hassles of travel become even more onerous in future.

Andy

Logically speaking:
if, on a route, there is a demand for business class
and on the same route, there is a demand for economy class

then segregating the business class passengers on a few planes (and airlines) means they have much fewer flight times to choose from. It would seem to be much preferrable to distribute business class between all flights, to ensure good choice of flights…

Air France approached similar problems with their Dedicate service. An A319 filled with 82 seats – 54 Economy and 28 Business seats. I presume that the Economy fares on Dedicate service are not exactly rock-bottom…

Dunno, but Dedicate doesn’t operate to destinations that are popular for cheap holidays. In fact, Dedicate mainly serves oil-related markets where yields for business travel are high but where there is little “cheap fare” demand – some companies have an economy-only travel policy but that doesn’t necessarily mean economy is cheap… (Example, not Dedicate, but I flew to JNB at short notice last week on AF… £2129 in Y-class or £2270 in J-class)

And on the transatlantic ferry, there is a demand for economy travel. Where do airlines such as Air Transat get their market from?

Course there is, just like there’s demand for business class and economy class on flights to Europe, or where-ever. Ryanair manages OK on short haul economy only, why shouldn’t Transat on economy long haul? I wasn’t saying htat there was no market for economy, I was merely pointing out that in some situations an economic business case can be made for an airline to run an all business class operation – some airlines will chose to do this, whilst others may go the opposite way, and others more will continue to maintain both types of service. Whilst business-jets have skimmed some of the premium market, none the less I foresee more business-class-only services springing up in future in some markets, particularly if the rigours and hassles of travel become even more onerous in future.

Andy

Because its nice and peaceful, and the proles don’t tend to come wandering up from the back to clog up the toilets like they do on the main deck! :diablo:

Ah, so the bulkheads do not block proles, but stair does…

Lufthansa’s position on the BBJ services to EWR and ORD was that the markets (from DUS and MUC) featured strong premium/business demand but the economy demand was mainly very low margin leisure travel, or there wasn’t much leisure demand. Likewise KLM on AMS-IAH which has strong demand for business class travel, but very little demand for leisure travel. Better margins can sometimes be had from filling a BBJ or A319CJ with business traffic, than having to offer rock bottom fares to provide incremental revenue that might not even cover the additional cost of operating an A340 or 747.

Andy

Air France approached similar problems with their Dedicate service. An A319 filled with 82 seats – 54 Economy and 28 Business seats.

I presume that the Economy fares on Dedicate service are not exactly rock-bottom…

And on the transatlantic ferry, there is a demand for economy travel. Where do airlines such as Air Transat get their market from?

Why is the upper deck so preferrable? Unlike A380, B747 does not have option for upper level jetbridges!

Because its nice and peaceful, and the proles don’t tend to come wandering up from the back to clog up the toilets like they do on the main deck! :diablo:

Do the business class fares really subsidize the cheap seats? If they do, why isn´t the economy class simply left empty?

Incremental revenue is better than no revenue. You might be able to fill a 737BBJ or a 757 with business/first seats, but not so easily a 747-400.

However, if there are any economy seats on a route at all, it would make sense to make sure economy and business are on the same planes. After all, this gives everyone a better choice of times. 1 plane daily with 48 First Class seats only would give much less choice of departure times than, say, 6 planes daily with 8 First Class seats in front of each, and the rest filled with paid Economy seats…

Lufthansa’s position on the BBJ services to EWR and ORD was that the markets (from DUS and MUC) featured strong premium/business demand but the economy demand was mainly very low margin leisure travel, or there wasn’t much leisure demand. Likewise KLM on AMS-IAH which has strong demand for business class travel, but very little demand for leisure travel. Better margins can sometimes be had from filling a BBJ or A319CJ with business traffic, than having to offer rock bottom fares to provide incremental revenue that might not even cover the additional cost of operating an A340 or 747.

Andy

As a regular long haul business traveller (although I’ve not tried EOS or Maxjet because I rarely go to New York), two things come to mind – one, anything that avoids the congestion and hassle that is Heathrow is largely good,

Then why is Heathrow congested in the first place? Why isn´t the traffic evenly distributed between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted in the first place?

and two, a service that avoids having to mix it with the chavs at various stages of travel is also usually good (hence why the upper deck on a 747 is so nice and is preferred by most business travellers). Anything that makes travel less stressful, more pleasant, quicker and more convenient is good. For example, the whole boarding experience is BOUND to be more pleasant if there’s only 102 or even only 48 people, as opposed to going through a gate filled with 200 proles,

Why is the upper deck so preferrable? Unlike A380, B747 does not have option for upper level jetbridges!

The biggest challenge these two airlines face is actually not Stansted nor offering just business/first class, its their lack of integrated frequent flyer programs (integrated with other airlines) which is to some extent mitigated by their lower fares, and their lack of on-line connections in both Stansted, New York and Washington.

Why are the connections missing in New York and Washington?

As for the business motivation, there is an argument that says that if you don’t have to fill up the back of the plane with the cheapest [often potentially loss-making] economy fares, which you quite often have to do to fill a 777 or 747, then you (a) can offer a better business class service and (b) do not need to charge quite so much as the business class fares do not need to subsidise the cheap seats.

Do the business class fares really subsidize the cheap seats? If they do, why isn´t the economy class simply left empty?

As another example of this (although not all premium) BA are going to put 777s with only 130-odd Y seats on some Australia operations this winter – why, because they make all their money from premium traffic and the extra Y-seats they could offer on a 747 in a deeply discounted market just aren’t worth offering.

Andy

Indeed. That makes sense.

However, if there are any economy seats on a route at all, it would make sense to make sure economy and business are on the same planes. After all, this gives everyone a better choice of times. 1 plane daily with 48 First Class seats only would give much less choice of departure times than, say, 6 planes daily with 8 First Class seats in front of each, and the rest filled with paid Economy seats…

All three cater to very different markets. Privatair operates all business class services on behalf of Lufthansa, KLM and Swissair and as such I suspect that they are not taking risk on the services they operate – the aircraft are effectively “leases” (ACMI) to the major airlines.

EOS operates to a near first-class standard, whilst Maxjet offers a low-end business class product. From what I can gather, both are doing fairly well – EOS now supposedly breaking even on a flight-by-flight basis, and Maxjet attracting good loads too. Maxjet do both New York JFK and Washington Dulles, whilst EOS is to go twice daily to JFK in September.

Eos and Maxjet actually fly slower than the ordinary traffic, because their twinjets have to make detours near diversions…

Huh? Both have ETOPS clearance, and in any case the vast majority of UK-US East Coast traffic is on twins these days. Planed block times on Maxjet seem to be 8:30 out and 7:30 back, on EOS 7:45 out and 7:30 back, whilst United ex LHR schedule 7:42 out and 7:12 back and BA typically 7:30 out and around 7:00 back on a somewhat faster 744 (one of the few quad operators, along with VS, on the north Atlantic east coast). Aside from the surprisingly long Maxjet westbound schedule, they all seem fairly even.

How come people prefer flying specialized all-premium planes to front ends of multiclass planes?

As a regular long haul business traveller (although I’ve not tried EOS or Maxjet because I rarely go to New York), two things come to mind – one, anything that avoids the congestion and hassle that is Heathrow is largely good, and two, a service that avoids having to mix it with the chavs at various stages of travel is also usually good (hence why the upper deck on a 747 is so nice and is preferred by most business travellers). Anything that makes travel less stressful, more pleasant, quicker and more convenient is good. For example, the whole boarding experience is BOUND to be more pleasant if there’s only 102 or even only 48 people, as opposed to going through a gate filled with 200 proles, or even if the front-end bags come off first waiting at baggage claim is again going to take less time when there’s less passengers. Sorry if that offends, but for people who travel a lot that’s just how it is. Stansted is also fairly convenient from the east side of London.

The biggest challenge these two airlines face is actually not Stansted nor offering just business/first class, its their lack of integrated frequent flyer programs (integrated with other airlines) which is to some extent mitigated by their lower fares, and their lack of on-line connections in both Stansted, New York and Washington.

As for the business motivation, there is an argument that says that if you don’t have to fill up the back of the plane with the cheapest [often potentially loss-making] economy fares, which you quite often have to do to fill a 777 or 747, then you (a) can offer a better business class service and (b) do not need to charge quite so much as the business class fares do not need to subsidise the cheap seats. As another example of this (although not all premium) BA are going to put 777s with only 130-odd Y seats on some Australia operations this winter – why, because they make all their money from premium traffic and the extra Y-seats they could offer on a 747 in a deeply discounted market just aren’t worth offering.

Andy