Originally Posted by
LinaPeru
you didn’t ask for my opinion. So I’ll give it to you anyway.
people ask is the ULCC model dead. I don’t think it’s dead in its entirety. What I think is dead as a doorknob is this idea of one aircraft size. 240 seat aircraft chasing more 240 seat aircraft. While all these CEOs screams “OVER SATURATION!”
dont get me wrong, I want nothing to do with AIrwisconsin (are they still around?). But, I agree we need something smaller for the sake of frequency.
is it a 50 seat RJ, A220, E-190 I have no idea. Problem is, it throws the 8¢ CASM right out the window. But, it starts to correct the frequency problem.
you think I might be crazy. But, go to the SW forum. They are saying similar things.
I disagree. Perhaps the 319s might have made a little more sense but from what I understand, their casm is higher as well.
It would be smarter, if we were to offer some sort of regional like service, to outfit a certain few 320s w/ less than 150 seats (to save on cost of FAs) and use those planes specifically on routes compatible with essential air service. Otherwise, it really doesn't make sense to use a 180 seat plane to fly once a week to OMA or BIS or GRR when that plane could offer redundancy of LAX-SFO.