Originally Posted by
chornedsnorkack
Offering transfer operations, at large hubs, is a part of full service. It costs, and gives the passengers value for money.
But if an LCC can offer a direct route, for less money, most people would consider this a better option. Why categorise?
More senior staff? What is it good for? If they cost, wouldn´t a new start-up full service carrier, like Virgin, enjoy a cost advantage over legacies?
Better service levels? Higher rated crew for adverse weather conditions leading to better reliability? More experienced crew increasing safety in aircraft and medical emergencies?
In other words, cross-subsidize economy?
Yup.
Then an airline might do better by flying intercontinental only, with no connecting flights to subsidize. Like Virgin, again.
Depends on the routes you want to do. LON-NYC, you can fill seats on. LON-HKG, pretty easy. And, oh look, where have the LCCs aimed for long-haul
On more marginal, you simply don't have the O&D traffic to warrant it. And therefore your connecting flights become key to the operation.
What about Spirit? It offers normal mainline two-class seating... what makes it a LCC?
I don't know Spirit, but what about short turnarounds, point-to-point operations, secondary airports...