Figure 1 - uploaded by Maria Emilia Baltazar
Content may be subject to copyright.
Main drivers of cost differences between LCCs and LCs [3].  

Main drivers of cost differences between LCCs and LCs [3].  

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The air transport has suffered a remarkable transformation over the past decade. The way we travel today is quite different from how we did ten years ago. Due to the rise of low cost carriers, the market of air transportation has been constantly changing and presently witnessing the transformation of legacy carriers in order to manage to continue o...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... the aircraft utilization, the crew productivity, operating from secondary airports, using a young and homogeneous fleet and reducing airport charges allow LCCs to practice cheaper flights. Figure 1 shows the different costs between the low cost and the legacy carriers [3]. ...
Context 2
... the M-MACBETH platform allows to obtain a graph with the results of global efficiency similar to that of a thermometer (Figure 9) which shows the ranking position of the 6 carriers. Figure 10 is the sensitivity analysis on weight of the LF. The left vertical axis represents the overall score, and the right vertical axis represents the LF scores for each carrier. ...
Context 3
... it is important to underline that if the LF weight was slightly increased from 31.32% to 33.00% the relative position between RYR and EZY would change. Figure 11 is the decision tree of business performance area, an extract of the global decision tree as in Figure 3. Figure 12 shows data available for each KPI of the KPA of Business Performance. As stated in section 2, upon negotiation with specialists it was decided to assign equal weights (12.50) to all KPI of this KPA. ...
Context 4
... it is important to underline that if the LF weight was slightly increased from 31.32% to 33.00% the relative position between RYR and EZY would change. Figure 11 is the decision tree of business performance area, an extract of the global decision tree as in Figure 3. Figure 12 shows data available for each KPI of the KPA of Business Performance. As stated in section 2, upon negotiation with specialists it was decided to assign equal weights (12.50) to all KPI of this KPA. ...
Context 5
... stated in section 2, upon negotiation with specialists it was decided to assign equal weights (12.50) to all KPI of this KPA. Figure 13 is the Ponderation Table, and depicts precisely those weights as well as the relevance of the relationships among them. The most relevant is REV/PAX indicator and less one is CASK. ...
Context 6
... on the information of Figures 12 and 13 M-MACBETH software attributed the scores of efficiency relating to the business performance of each carrier as in Figure 14. It can be seen that the best overall result is obtained by THY (67.73 points) followed by EZY (60.91 points). ...
Context 7
... and THY -EBIDTA/PAX (100.08 points) -mean better values than the Good one. Figure 15 shows the ranking position of the 6 carriers based on this KPA of Business. There is a quite uniform distribution of scores among 5 carriers, with the exception of Air Berlin. ...
Context 8
... is a quite uniform distribution of scores among 5 carriers, with the exception of Air Berlin. Figure 16 is the sensitivity analysis on weight of the Revenue per Passenger. The red line represents the weight (12.50%) assigned to this indicator as explained in Fig- ure 12 above. ...
Context 9
... 16 is the sensitivity analysis on weight of the Revenue per Passenger. The red line represents the weight (12.50%) assigned to this indicator as explained in Fig- ure 12 above. Thus, Turkish Airlines (THY) has a better score than Aeroflot (AFL), (see left vertical axis). ...

Citations

... This type of airline has to meet certain requirements in the research. These are: 13. No more than one fare at any time; 14. ...
... Doganis (2009) [12] named point-to-point connections, uniform fleet, use of secondary airports, direct sales of tickets, one-way fares, and no-frills in services as typical characteristics. Klophaus, Conrady, and Fichert split fare categories in their requirements mentioned above, Besides the criteria mentioned above, the success of the airline can be assessed by some more, such as Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) margin of the airline and load factor [13]. Airlines tend to have their growth ratio over the year in their annual reports [14]. ...
... Given the rapid changes that the airline industry is going through, such as the earlier mentioned rapid growth, aircraft, and business development, the ideas of Klophaus, Conrady, and Fichert (2012) [13] are not completely relevant anymore for the situation in 2018. Some of the assessed airlines are not existing anymore or changed their business model. ...
Article
Full-text available
Low-cost carriers (LCCs) have been growing by 11.4% in revenue passenger kilometers over 2017 and changed the airline industry radically. It drove down prices in the industry. Southwest Airlines (USA) designed the LCC blueprint model, and Ryanair copied it within Europe, followed by other airlines. This research aims to fulfill the gap in contemporary research upon LCC successfulness in Europe by a description of the current situation within Europe (2018 and January 2019) and the development issues it faced, which are mapped by the Ishikawa fishbone diagram. Furthermore, to rank the airlines on strength and vulnerability, The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methodology was used for meeting LCC characteristics and airline success. By comparison of meeting the LCC characteristics and the rank of the successfulness, the results of the TOPSIS analysis showed that the airlines meeting the most LCCs characteristics are seemingly less vulnerable to the development issues that airlines are facing, as Wizz Air and Ryanair are meeting most characteristics and are the most successful. Concluded is that airlines meeting the most LCC characteristics are the least vulnerable to current issues. However, major disruptions can still form an issue and limit growth. This research can be useful for comparing and positioning airlines in the market, based on issues and operational choices.
... We are not excluding the existence of hybrid models but at the same time we observe that LCCs are not hiding their nature, and on the contrary they advertise it. We adopted the concept of business model as defined by Amit and Zott (2012) 3 and, drawing from a series of studies on the subject (Cento, 2008;Reichmuth, 2008;Diaconu, 2012bDiaconu, , 2012aEller and Moreira, 2014;Miranda et al., 2016), we created a synthesis, technologically updated, of LCC and FSNC characteristics 4 (Table no. 1). ...
... Experts agree that the LCCs' business model implies cost cutting in respect to traditional passengers' transport (Smyth and Pearce, 2006;Atiqur et al., 2012;Huschelrath and Muller, 2012;Bitzan and Peoples, 2016;Miranda et al., 2016), but are not unanimous in the identification of the most relevant economic advantages. Alderighi et al. (2005) and Eller and Moreira (2014) consider preponderant the choice of a network (point-to-point or hub-and-spoke) or the route structure. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research aims to answer the question if e-commerce favoured in a special way the growth of low-cost carriers within the civil aviation market. After defining low-cost and traditional carriers’ business models, data on transported passengers were collected for three countries (Italy, Germany and Spain) and confronted with the number of e-consumers. Despite a significant correlation in all the three markets, only in Italy our hypothesis has been supported by Granger causality, and the regression analysis allows to forecast a future characterized by a growing dominance of LCCs. Although the definition of an econometric model will require further studies, the distinctive features of the Italian market might represent a starting point for future research on the complex relationship between e-commerce and air transport.
... The MCDA methods from all the aforementioned groups have been successfully used to facilitate decision making in various kinds of transport management: land [49], [50], [55], maritime [47], [54] and air [27] transport. Some of the researched transport management decision problems also included the carriage of hazardous materials [55]. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter is devoted to the issue of entry and activity of European low-cost airlines in the Ukrainian market. Ukraine, with the largest territory and population in Eastern Europe, is an important partner of European countries. The rapid development of air transportation between Ukraine and European countries in the 21st century is based on two factors: 1) high tourist interest in the historical and cultural heritage of Europe and 2) communication of migrant workers, the number of which is steadily growing. The authors reveal the specifics of the entry and development by European airlines of market niches of low-cost transportation in Ukraine in 2008-2021. In particular, the activities of airlines are considered: Ryanair, Wizz Air, German Wings, Meridiana, Ernest Airlines, Vueling Airlines, AegeanAir, Air Baltic, Austrian Airlines, and others. The activity of European low-cost carriers in the number of flights and directions of passenger transportation in Ukraine is evaluated.