LCC of airline industry
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Air Transport Management 11 (2005) 259–272 www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman Passengers’ perceptions of low cost airlines and full service carriers:
A case study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus,
Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines
John F. O’ConnellÃ, George Williams
Air Transport Group, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL, UK
Abstract
Direct competition between full service airlines and no-frills carriers is intensifying across the world. US and European full service airlines have lost a significant proportion of their passengers to low cost carriers, the experience now being repeated in the domestic markets of Asia. This paper attempts to provide answers to a number of critical questions: What are the key drivers of each type of airline’s business model? Is there a difference in passengers’ perceptions between low cost carriers and full service incumbents in a mature European market and in a rapidly developing Asian economy? What are the principle reasons why a passenger chooses a particular airline model? How could a legacy carrier encourage passengers to return and so regain their domestic market share?
These questions are addressed using information obtained in passenger surveys that were recently conducted in Europe and Asia. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Full service airline; Low cost carrier; Passenger perceptions
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to compare passengers’ selection criteria between a full service airline and a low cost carrier in a mature European market and in a rapidly growing Asian economy. Surveys have been undertaken to ascertain why passengers are choosing one particular airline over another. This paper contributes to the literature by examining the differences in passengers’ perceptions between the two airline models in contrasting geographical markets.
The paper begins by examining the background of the
selected
Journal of Air Transport Management 11 (2005) 259–272 www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman Passengers’ perceptions of low cost airlines and full service carriers:
A case study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus,
Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines
John F. O’ConnellÃ, George Williams
Air Transport Group, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL, UK
Abstract
Direct competition between full service airlines and no-frills carriers is intensifying across the world. US and European full service airlines have lost a significant proportion of their passengers to low cost carriers, the experience now being repeated in the domestic markets of Asia. This paper attempts to provide answers to a number of critical questions: What are the key drivers of each type of airline’s business model? Is there a difference in passengers’ perceptions between low cost carriers and full service incumbents in a mature European market and in a rapidly developing Asian economy? What are the principle reasons why a passenger chooses a particular airline model? How could a legacy carrier encourage passengers to return and so regain their domestic market share?
These questions are addressed using information obtained in passenger surveys that were recently conducted in Europe and Asia. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Full service airline; Low cost carrier; Passenger perceptions
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to compare passengers’ selection criteria between a full service airline and a low cost carrier in a mature European market and in a rapidly growing Asian economy. Surveys have been undertaken to ascertain why passengers are choosing one particular airline over another. This paper contributes to the literature by examining the differences in passengers’ perceptions between the two airline models in contrasting geographical markets.
The paper begins by examining the background of the
selected
References: Air Transport Intelligence, 2003. Ryanair plans to lease ‘significant minority’ of fleet, Air Transport Intelligence news, 3rd November. Air Transport Intelligence, 2004. Air Asia to issue RPF for up to 80 new aircraft, Air Transport Intelligence news, 11th June. Aviation Strategy, 2003a. Asia’s emerging low cost carriers, Aviation Strategy, May, 2–5. Aviation Strategy, 2003b. Continental barriers to LCC expansion, Aviation Strategy, January, 2. Barrett, S., 1999. Peripheral market entry, product differentiation, supplier rents and sustainability in the deregulated European Doganis, R., 2001. The Airline Business in the 21st Century. Gilbert, D., Child, D., Bennett, M., 2001. A qualitative study of the current practices of ‘no-frills’ airlines operating in the UK Gillan, D., Lall, A., 2002. The economics of the Internet, the new economy and opportunities for airports Ionides, N., 2001. Asian evolution, Airline Business, March, 74–75. Ionides, N., 2004. Man of the Moment, Airline Business, April, 27–29. Lawton, T., 2002. Cleared for Take-Off—Structure and Strategy in the Low Fare Airline Business Mason, K., 2001. Marketing low-cost airline services to business travelers Mintel, 2000. Visiting friends and relatives—UK, December. Mintel, 2002. Short breaks abroad, June. O’Connell, J.F., Ionides, N., 2004. Room for all? Airline Business, April, 30–32. O’Toole, K., Pilling, M., 2003. Marketing Mix, Airline Business, December, 70–73. Paci, E., 1994. Market segments: the major international VFR markets Proussaloglou, K., Koppleman, F., 1995. Air carrier demand: analysis of market share determinants Ryanair, 2002. Annual Report and Financial Statement. Ryanair, Dublin. Sreenivasan, V., 2003. Low-fare dogfight looms, The Business Times, Singapore, December 11. Thomas, G., 2003. In tune with low fares in Malaysia, Air Transport World, May, 45–46. Turner, S., 2003. Comparison of passenger profiles and selection criteria: a study of London—Amsterdam passengers, ATRS Williams, G., 2001. Will Europe’s charter carriers be replaced by ‘‘nofrills’’ scheduled Airlines? Journal of Air Transport Management 7, 277–286.