SwissCircle

Here you go, Lufthansa`s next project (german only):
http://de.reuters.com/article/topNew...83Q01Z20120427

I guess this could be quite reasonable in accordance with their massive cost cutting program.

whiskey_sk

The idea has been tried by major carriers a few times. I'm afraid it will become "a major success" story along the lines of FlySong or TED.

oliver2002

Granted, Bild got some stuff seriously wrong this week, but the underlying fact behind this are strategic thoughts by LH to amalgamate their Cityline, Eurowings and Germanwings operation into something cheap that will be able to run the feeder and direct point to point network in europe on a lower cost basis. My feelings is that the journos are describing it in so many ways so they don't reveal their sources. That they are onto something is clear from the instant dementi issued by LH yesterday. I could kick myself that I don't have time to attend the press event next week. All the SZ/Bild/FTD/Reuters people will be there....

TRAVELSIG

This idea, as others have noted, will work about as well as TED, Song, and whatever it was called that BA attempted a few years ago.

Offer a better product and a better program and people will pay for it.

Offer worse than Ryanair seats, no customer service, and a frequent flyer program that only works for the very most expensive tickets and the response will be... welll....

oliver2002

Have you ever taken a 4U flight? They have a more JetBlue/Southwest kind of feel: NEK seats, but more space in designated front rows. Cityline flights are different, the staff is a mixed bag though. TED was a desaster because they deployed the concept to select markets (LAS, MIA, etc) which doesn't work: either you switch the entire shorthaul or nothing.

TRAVELSIG

I have taken 4U flights- they are fine especially with the more space rows. I prefer AirBerlin actually.

DownUnderFlyer

In Australia we call this Jetstar (JQ).

There is nothing wrong with 4U. The main issue I have with this move is that 4U is not part of *A. So if LH goes down the Qantas/Jestar route of moving a lot of their network to a LCC then huge part of the *A network in Europe stops to exist.

So if LH could have 4U within *A and would allow *G benefits with it then I am all for it. Oh, and the ability to earn reasonable miles as well. We can't have 1000 mile flights earning 125 miles just because they were only EUR 200.

TRAVELSIG

At least they earn something. I do like the changes in BA however where now the "Avios" points are full even with discounted economy fares.

oliver2002

My guess we will see 4U operating like CL: operating under LH flight number with full *A association, just the operating base is low(er) cost compared to mainline LH, which will focus on mid- and longhaul (ie A321s to AMM/BEY etc will continue to be LH mainline crew and flight deck)

TAP-A343

I think LH putting its code on a LCC (4U) flight will seriously damage its brand.

In my opinion, and I'm no expert at all, if LH is serious about domestic and intra-European flights they should create a pan-European subsidiary that would work as an outsourcing company for cabin and cockpit crews. Those crews would be sourced and based in the most favourable EU countries as far as labour costs are concerned. The way Ryanair and easyJet do. Bases would be created for point-to-point routes as well as for the point-to-hub ones with crews and aircraft stationed in the most efficient places. Those crews would have the standard LH training and German and English language intensive courses if necessary. This subsidiary could be called Lufthansa European and would offer at least the same service as LH mainline offers now in Europe. Aircraft would have the standard LH livery.

Labour and fuel are the biggest single items of expense for airlines these days. Price of fuel is beyond the control of airlines even with hedging contracts so they have to focus on labour costs.

Cutting services will only send away customers and LH because of its structure and operations will never have the FR cost base.

I would keep 4U on the routes where there is no premium traffic but would not keep it flying to airports like LHR. It doesn't make sense to me a LCC flying to LHR. If there's demand for LHR then LH should fly the route.

seat 1a

Quite confusing , they are already converting the main airline in this direction. They need two budget companies ?

oliver2002

Oh, please... they are already flying with CL to LCY and no one notices. Its not like the FAs will wear party hats and short skirts/pants just because its operated by 4U.

sentom

YAY! just what everyone needs, NEK for hours...

TAP-A343

The big difference is CL is full service whereas 4U is a LCC.

weero

I am confused too .... LH is LH's new LCC. With angled flat Eco plus and E- longhaul and unified E-- for domestic travel.