Air Asia X Axes Europe/India Routes

[Guest fountainhall]

I missed this piece of news a couple of weeks ago. Seems that Tony Fernandez dream of long haul budget flights to Europe is about to bite the dust. The only two European services - from Kuala Lumpur to Paris and London - are being axed at the end of March. Two Indian routes fall by the wayside somewhat earlier.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16526235

[Guest]

Maybe Air Asia long haul weren't really "budget".

 

Whenever I have been booking long haul, Air Asia to KL LCCT have been more expensive than Eva to BKK. So unless you really intend to stay in KL, Air Asia doesn't seem to make sense.

 

Also KL LCCT itself is a disincentive to use the airline. BKK should never copy the KL model of a pleasant main airport & an unpleasant corrugated shed acting as the LCCT around the back of the airfield.

[Guest fountainhall]

The only part of that London/KL flight that seemed appealing was the flat-bed business section, offered at a price far lower than legacy airlines. But then you'd end up in the pits at the KL LCCT probably waiting for a connecting flight that may or may not leave on time.

 

As for the LCCT itself, I don't agree with z909. Why should passengers who generally pay far less to travel on no frills airlines than regular passengers of full-service airlines expect to enjoy the same quality and comfort of terminal facilities? Apart from that, the low cost model requires very fast 30-minute turn arounds, and few Asian airports are equipped to operate at such speed. The acres of space at large airports, the 5-minute bus rides in both directions, and the possibility of passengers taking too long to get to the gate - all create further problems for the LCCs.

 

BKK should have an LCC Terminal like SIngapore and KL, with a reduction in the Passenger Handling charge to take account of the more basic facilities.

[Guest]

As for the LCCT itself, I don't agree with z909. Why should passengers who generally pay far less to travel on no frills airlines than regular passengers of full-service airlines expect to enjoy the same quality and comfort of terminal facilities? Apart from that, the low cost model requires very fast 30-minute turn arounds, and few Asian airports are equipped to operate at such speed.

I expect the same terminal comfort because:

1 In my experience, it is the norm.

KL it the only place where I've had to a crappy LCCT to get on my budget airline. Every other low cost flight I've taken has shared the terminal with other airlines. That includes 9 different low cost destinations in SE Asia and many more in Europe.

2 Utility & Value

Taking a short haul flight via a low cost airline is just as comfortable as the same trip on a flag carrier. So the low cost airline doesn't have to offer any significant discount to win my business.

Now if that low cost airline moves to KL LCCT, I want an additional discount to offset the hassle of getting to the terminal & suffering the experience of being in that terminal. In reality, if looking for a hub airport, I would much rather go via BKK than have anything to do with KL LCCT.

 

On another matter, the quick turnarounds must offer a reasonable flight cost advantage for short haul flights, but not for long haul flights. Essentially, the percentage improvement in aircraft utilisation must be much less for a 12 hour flight, considering flight duration & loading requirements. Perhaps that's why low cost airlines usually do short haul.

[Guest fountainhall]

1 In my experience, it is the norm.


KL it the only place where I've had to a crappy LCCT to get on my budget airline.

 

It will increasingly not be the norm, I suggest. In Asia, Singapore has joined KL in having a very basic LCCT. In Europe, I have not taken many LCC flights, but I believe it is true to say that many go into secondary airports, not the main airport. Ryannair has some flights that go in to Barcelona Reus (100 kms outside the city) and not the main Barcelona El Prat (14 kms), or into Milan Bergamo rather then either the main Linate or Malpensa airports which are closer to the city.

 

Equally, Luton and Stanstead, the primary home base airports of some of the UK LCCs, may offer much better basic services than the present Asian LCCTs, but they are not the same as London Heathrow.

 

2 Utility & Value


In reality, if looking for a hub airport, I would much rather go via BKK than have anything to do with KL LCCT.

 

As indeed would I. But the LCC business model is to cut out as much cost as possible. The very fact that most LCC flights are short-haul and require fast turnarounds that are 50% or more shorter than the full-service carriers, means inevitably that the KL model is going to be adopted where any airport has a decent percentage of LCC flights.

 

BKK will have an LCC terminal, of that I am convinced. There will just be too many LCC flights in and out of the airport to justify all those passengers clogging up an already clogged main terminal. The LCCs will themselves push for it, with resultant reduction in fees.

[Guest snapshot]

It could be that they weren't cheap enough...

 

I know people who fly between London/KL/Australia on a budget (i.e. they're the type of people who seek the lowest possible fares). I've always been surprised they'd never used AirAsia when I asked them. They said AirAsia were always more expensive or not cheap enough to justify added discomfort/inconvenience of flying AirAsia over a full service carrier.

 

Since the only reason to fly with AirAsia over a full service carrier is price... failing to get this aspect right was bound to be catastrophic.

 

I think the high taxes when flying to the UK might've been an challenge too. This would erode the percentage you save from the total fare by flying LCC. You might save 20% on the air fare but when combined with taxes and charges the overall saving might only be 10%.

 

--

It's fantastic... it means Sydney gets to have this route now! This/These aircraft will be switched to the Sydney-KL route.

 

Their business class lie flat seats for only $2,000-$3,000 might be a compelling value proposition. I just wonder how the rest of the product - comfort, service, food and at the airport - will compare with business on full-service airlines. Maybe I'll do a weekend in KL and find out...

 

--

 

Z909... Singapore also has a budget carrier terminal, though not all the LCCs use it (e.g. Jetstar and AirAsia fly from one of the full-service terminals). The budget terminal is basically an oversized shed... not kidding. Amenities used to be very basic but now they at least have basic duty free shops and some cafes/restaurants (not enough). Just tolerable.

 

I think LCC terminals should be reasonably well equipped. You need to have duty free shops. You need a decent few cafes, a bar and a couple of restaurants.

 

It makes sense as the airport makes money from these income generating amenities, renting them out to businesses etc.

 

But in terms of seating, toilets and such, these amenities don't make money so just go with the cheapest option. In fact, don't even provide seating. Make people go into one of the cafes and buy a drink if they want a seat! I would suggest the same for toilets but I think there's a legal requirement to provide toilets.

 

But they'll never have the level of amenities you see full service terminals because the customer base is simply cheaper and poorer overall. No point investing to the extent that you do in a full service terminal when you know the customers aren't going to spend as much and you won't get an ROI for it. Not many LCC flyers will fork out $11 for a hot chocolate at a Guylian cafe or pay $40 for a foot massage while they're waiting for their flight.

[Guest fountainhall]

Their business class lie flat seats for only $2,000-$3,000 might be a compelling value proposition. I just wonder how the rest of the product - comfort, service, food and at the airport - will compare with business on full-service airlines.

 

I checked this with Air Asia X about a year or so ago. The problems for me were partly lousy connecting times, and partly the fact that the business class product came with basically only the seat and a dedicated cabin. You still had to pay for the same meals, the same extra luggage and so on. Apart from it making little economic sense, I have just been screwed by Air Asia too many times, and had no confidence that I would be able to make a quick and convenient connection.

 

Now, had it been a point-to-point service in to BKK, then I would have looked at it more seriously.

 

Incidentally, the lower cost Hong Kong Airlines starts a new business class only daily flight between Hong Kong and London from March with all the trimmings. The A330 aircraft will have 34 suites with flat flat-bed seats, and 82 cheaper cradle type seats.

 

And interestingly, referring to World's Five-Star Airline thread in this Forum, the parent company of Hong Kong Airlines is Hainan Airlines!

[Guest snapshot]

I checked this with Air Asia X about a year or so ago. The problems for me were partly lousy connecting times, and partly the fact that the business class product came with basically only the seat and a dedicated cabin. You still had to pay for the same meals, the same extra luggage and so on. Apart from it making little economic sense, I have just been screwed by Air Asia too many times, and had no confidence that I would be able to make a quick and convenient connection.

Ah... yep. That's what I had thought.

 

I think it might be a product suitable for those who JUST want a big flatbed to sleep on and nothing else. It's a no frills flatbed.

 

I heard some of the same complaints regarding connection times etc. from others.

 

Also, AirAsia and most LCCs in Asia have a reputation for frequently canceling or delaying flights for frivolous reasons... e.g. not enough passengers to make a profit. This might not be too bad for the short-haul market but I'm not sure people will find this acceptable when it comes to long-haul flights.

 

Some people have utterly terrible experiences with AirAsia while others do great... maybe it's random, I don't know. I've flown them well over 20 times and always had a great experience. Worst thing that's happened is I was late by 3 hours. Was on holidays so no big deal (I wouldn't fly them in any situation where reliability/timing is important).

 

The same issues can happen on Jetstar, Tiger and any other LCC. In fact, jetstar rescheduled a short-haul 1-hr flight on me a couple of months ago. I simply re-booked on Tiger (other Jetstar flight timings not acceptable) and got my refund from Jetstar within a few days... excellent service.