nrr

(1)I NEVER check luggage (dom. as well as intl.).
(2)I would bring my own food [intl. (even bc) food is not that super--Air France is the exception...years ago their intl. (in Y) food was better than what I get on AA in bc today).
(3)I am "projecting", < $500 for RyanAir across "the pond".

[Many years ago the (famous) NY Times food critic Craig Claiborne, described the best meal he ate on an airline: he was flying Rome to NYC, he went to a "famous" deli in Rome, and brought on board a "picnic" he constructed from gourmet items he purchased there.]

GUWonder

The LCC Norwegian has been providing awful service on TATL flights and yet I appreciate their expansion for now because it has a consumer-friendly impact on the prices charged by the legacy majors.

lhrsfo

The fact of the matter is that competition has nearly disappeared from TATL routes, with only three real competitors (each of the three alliances has been given anti-trust exemption to share revenue and costs across the Atlantic) versus probably a dozen only 5 years ago.

The market is now ripe for a competitive new carrier(s) to join. Both Norwegian and WOW have seen that, with Norwegian perhaps offering the more competitive product currently. The fact that the US monopoly airlines are trying to persuade the US Government to stop Norwegian suggests that they are worried.

Perhaps not, but you list AA as your airline. You are permitted massively more carry on luggage on AA than Ryanair. Even Easyjet, which is relatively liberal with carry on bag rules would be considered very restrictive by AA standards. So you may not get away without checking bags on a TATL LCC.

abmj-jr

I can't imagine ANY circumstances in which I would fly TATL or TPAC on any carrier that forces pax into 28", or even 30", seat pitch. Cut the fares in half and I'd still avoid such torture.

RustyC

As another data point, Air Asia X has been around for a few years now and seems to be hanging in there but not growing like a weed.

My guess is that things like fuel efficiency and cargo are much bigger factors on the long routes, and if you pull the same-fees-for-everything bit you're more likely to upset people because longer trips tend to be bigger deals and they'd hit on more of the fees.

I haven't flown Air Asia X so I dunno if they try to do any better on seat pitch.

I can say, first hand, that Spirit's longest route, the 5.5 to 6 hour FLL-LIM, has the same cramped planes they use for short routes and has the 28-inch seat pitch. Last time I was on there I paid the $30 each way for the exit row seat, and overheard even the younger guys behind me complaining about how their regular seats were uncomfortable. Being immobilized into 1 or 2 seating positions because of cramped seat pitch is bad enough for a short flight but gets much worse for longer flights.

Also, mileage programs factor in more for longer flights on paid tickets, at least under the traditional miles-based model. So if I have status on AA and fly to HKG and back the miles could be enough for a free trip. LCC programs might be much less generous or even non-existant.

OTOH, DL and UA have forfeited this advantage by basing miles on ticket price (another change enabled by dwindling competition, BTW). So AA could come in $200 higher than an LCC and still get the nod, whereas DL or UA might need a smaller gap.

nrr

I'm "guessing", that RyanAir (or some other airline LCC), won't be using small pitch seats. They might save money in other ways, like using ISLIP instead of JFK (or EWR); BYO food.
Many pax (as I did back in the 60's) just wanted to save (lots) of money, used CHARTER Airlines.
What is needed is an airline with big enough "clout" [RyanAir(?)] to stir-up the T-A market = getting prices reduced across the board, which benefits people who don't have fat wallets.

chris19992

But would it really reduce prices? all Ryanair and their counterparts have done is get legacy carriers to reduce services by not including baggage on SH flights and in some cases paying for a seat selection so it actually works out more expensive sometimes now.

dvs7310

That's a lot easier to say when you're only dealing with size limits for carry ons and not (strict) weight limits. I'd expect if you see more TATL LCCs then you'll also see more of the quite rigid Jetstar (Singapore) style, weigh all carry-on including ladies handbags and if it's a gram over 7kg you pay to check it. You don't get much into 7kg, especially if you're using a rollaboard like many American travelers do.

nrr

Efficient packing is a separate issue!
If the LCCs want to take a foothold in the T-A market, they might not use their European system [a page of fees, i.e.] but try to use other cost saving options, alternate airports (say).

[Several years ago when I learned about RyanAir, I (seem) to remember, there were times when they were seling large blocks of seats for 1 (Brit, Pound), I assume this was intended to get people to fly with THEM--like loss leader sales in supermarkets(???)]

ren0312

Cebu Pacific flies to Dubai from Manila (10 hours) with 29 inch seat pitch on 16.5 inch wide seats.

ren0312

Cant you theoretically just put passengers in individual cylinders and just let them lie there for the duration of the travel.

nrr

RyanAir's CEO once was considering strapping pax to a wall and selling tickets as stand-ups (instead of stand-by).

dvs7310

Cebu Pacific is going to be able to get away with that much easier than a NA or European carrier. I'm pretty sure the main customer base on that route is Filipino overseas workers going to/from the Middle East on home leave, etc. Of course there are tall and large bodied Filipino people just as in any country but it's certainly not the norm. They also have a huge population under 5 foot tall, for shorter people the difference between a 29" and 31" pitch is far less noticeable.

I have no doubt that there are a certain number of customers in NA and Europe who would tolerate it to save a couple hundred dollars but like abmj-jr I'm certainly not one of them, heck I'll only fly a non-alliance carrier if they're the only one on a route. I've certainly paid several hundred dollars "more" at times to fly from Asia to Africa than Emirates and Ethihad were offering just to stay on Star Alliance carriers. I know I'm not the only one like that, so while there may be some effect on legacy carriers with more LCCs in the long haul market, there will always be people also willing to pay the legacy carriers for full service and status benefits.

pinniped

Seatguru lists 'em at 31"-32". I'm not in position to actually fly them, so I'll just ask: what's so bad about their service?

The other thing no one has addressed is IROPS support. That's still a big advantage an alliance carrier has over anyone else. Over the years, I've had two TATL United and one American flight cancel, and all three times my total delay was in the 1-4 hour range because the airlines were able to reroute me fairly efficiently. (I had elite status in all cases - a critical factor, I'll admit.)

On an LCC, a cancel probably means a long delay...perhaps an entire day. How well would Norwegian react to a cancellation?

kop84

I don't think that ST *A OW are chasing after the people looking for $500 tickets from NA to Europe. Look at the arms race to get a better J product on board. The people the alliance carriers are all after are buying $5-10K tickets.

LLC's won't have much downward effect. Now you only need to look at JFK/MXP to see who can have downward pressure on airfares...If the ME3 expands their 5th freedom routes from Europe to the TATL market THAT will cause downward pressure on airfares.