The real question that should be asked is whether these so called low cost airlines are making any money. Alternatively are their market share gains from genuinely lower cost operations or their lower prices regardless of costs. I would be very surprised that an airline like Kingfisher has a lower cost structure than Jet. They both use aircraft of similar cost structures and fuel efficiencies. Both use similar business processes and offer the same level of service. So what is the source of their cost differences?
Air Deccan may have a genuinely lower cost structure, given the levels of its no frills service and the type of some of its aircrafts. However Air Deccan's IPO has not gone very well. On the other hand, I can imagine that Air India and Indian Airlines (Indian) have significantly higher cost thanks to their unionized workforce and infinite government funded budgets. I do not understand why these government supported white elephants even exist. Marlon --- Philip Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1035067 > > New airlines gain more ground > > Praveena Sharma > Monday, June 12, 2006 21:11 IST > > > BANGALORE: Challenger airlines like Air Deccan, > Kingfisher Air, SpiceJet and > Go Air continue to eat into the market share of > incumbent carriers like > Indian Airlines, Jet Airways and Air Sahara. > > ------------------- > What DGCA in its half cocked way of putting out > stastistics doesnt say is > that despite losing market share the legacy carriers > like Jet and Indian > have not lost passenger volumes. These have only > risen due to the expansion > of the market which in turn is due to the lower cost > fare regime. So, to > those who cant afford air fares the message is: you > may be able to do so > sooner than you imagined! > _____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list ([email protected])
