In Europe, budget airlines thrive. Why not the US?

Stefano Rellandini/AFP/Getty Images

At the top of one of Ryanair’s European website’s reads “fly “FROM 24.99€.”

The Irish-based airline is one of the most profitable low-cost carriers in the world with a network that crisscrosses Europe. The success lies in its commitment to its business model, which cuts airline costs to the bone while charging passengers for everything.

Travelers pay for baggage, seat reservations, in-person check-in or using a credit card. Ryanair even floated the idea of charging to use the bathroom or getting rid of seats and having passengers stand , though neither took flight.

The low-cost carrier business model dominates short-haul flying in Europe, which analysts say account for over 40% of available seats. Many passengers have come to accept no frills flying, paying for every extra beyond a seat.

Last year, Ryanair flew more than 200 million passengers. English low-cost carrier easyJet flew nearly 100 million passengers , Hungary’s Wizz Air nearly 70 million , and Spanish airline Vueling carried 38 million.

That same business model, however, has struggled to take hold in the United States. The largest US budget airline, Frontier, only flew 33 million passengers during the same time frame.

Part of that is cultural — Americans have a lower tolerance for bare-bones service and don’t love paying extra for flight add-ons. But there are geographic reasons, like shorter distances for flights, as well as economic ones, like inflationary pressures and rising airfares.

Ryanair has a strong balance sheet, reporting passenger growth each quarter over the last year.

But that success took “30 years of decision-making, where operational cost is the No. 1 driver,” according to Mike Arnot, an airline industry consultant.

The low-cost carrier model, he said, is built around removing as much expense as possible from an airline operation, like flying a single type of aircraft, minimizing maintenance costs or using stairs instead of jet bridges to save on airport fees.

Garth Lund, who worked in leadership at low-cost airline group Wizz Air for nearly eight years, said European budget carriers are “unwavering in their commitment to low costs.”

“They have really stuck to the original business model and not allowed themselves to get distracted, and as a result, they’ve maintained their cost structure better than the US airlines have,” Lund said.

One example, he said, is that the European airlines design schedules so that crews don’t spend nights in cities away from home, saving hotel costs.

He also points to the hours that airline crews can work. In Europe, there are fewer unions limiting shifts.

“That efficiency has a big knock-on effect on the cost structure,” Lund said.

Some airports in Europe have been designed to keep the budget carriers moving quickly and affordably.

“In Europe, airports nowadays are really designed for low-cost airlines,” Lund said.

Compare turn times, for example, or how long it takes to deplane passengers, service an aircraft and load it for the next departure. The longer it takes, the fewer flights an aircraft can fly in one day and less money the airline earns.

US airports can sometimes log 45 minutes to one hour. Many European airports are down to 25 to 30 minutes, he said.

That’s because boarding in Europe can happen in the front and back of the aircraft, depending on the airport, and don’t always use jet bridges like most American carriers do.

In Europe, there are also many secondary airports in large cities. This makes it easier, and cheaper, to open new routes.

For example, Munich International Airport is a major hub for Germany, but a low-cost alternative is a little over an hour away at Memmingen Airport. Wizz Air and Ryanair both fly there instead of directly to Munich.

London’s Heathrow Airport also has alternatives popular with low-cost carriers, London Stansted and London Luton Airport.

“In Europe, the secondary airports have become quite large airports in their own right,” Lund said.

Secondary airports also exist in the US, like Dallas Love Field near DFW International Airport, or Chicago-Midway Airport, the smaller airport to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. However, there aren’t always multiple options like in Europe, and many of these secondary airports are dominated by carriers like Southwest.

American low-cost carriers have not found the same success as those in Europe.

That’s partly because US consumers have trouble making the distinction between low costs and low fares, Arnot said. They assume “low-cost” refers to the price of a ticket, but it’s really about keeping operating costs low.

Sometimes budget airlines do have the lowest fares. But if those low fares don’t exceed the cost base over the medium term, the airlines will fail, he said.

“Not many low-fare airlines have survived, but there are good examples of low-cost airlines that have thrived,” Arnot said. “Especially at the low-cost, low-fare end of the market, the demand is highly elastic, which is a fancy marketing word for consumers can take the bus, or just not go, if the fare is not what they want to pay.”

And because US discount carriers cater to those price-sensitive leisure travelers, they have a harder time raising fares. That’s difficult when increased costs squeeze their already thin margins, like rising fuel prices related to the conflict in the Middle East.

Southwest and JetBlue were once the leading low-cost carriers in the US. But Southwest had a tumultuous few years following an activist investor campaign to increase profitability. JetBlue had a slow financial recovery following impacts from the pandemic.

The airlines both now operate a more hybrid model between a low-cost carrier and a traditional airline.

Spirit Airlines, one of the most prominent ultra-low-cost airlines in the US, collapsed earlier this year . It also had been unprofitable since the pandemic, declaring bankruptcy twice before the spike in jet fuel prices this year derailed its plan to emerge from its latest bankruptcy.

Today, five low-cost carriers remain in the US — Frontier, Allegiant Air, Breeze Airways, Sun Country Airlines and Avelo Air.

American legacy carriers experimented with the low-cost carrier business, with Delta Air Lines launching Song in 2003 and United creating Ted in 2004.

Both carriers failed to gain traction and were shut down within several years after fuel prices spiked. But the parent airlines adopted some lessons from the ventures, like faster turnaround times.

Europeans also don’t have a negative image associated with low-cost carriers, analysts say, while Americans often expect them to be poor quality or come with bad customer service.

“In the US, I feel like there’s almost a stigma attached to flying with a low-cost airline, so Spirit was famously the butt of many jokes,” Lund said.

That’s much less the case in Europe, he said, where passengers might be flying business class on British Airways one week and then not hesitate to take a coach seat on easyJet the next.

The collapse of Spirit also taught American legacy airlines like Delta and United how to fend off low-cost carriers, according to Shye Gilad, former airline captain and business professor at Georgetown University.

That includes matching airfare prices or offering deals, as well as introducing basic economy fares that directly compete with low-cost airlines.

“They were about lowest possible fares, and of course, low frills associated with that,” Gilad said. “But I think the contrast was more stark because they’re often going head-to-head with the large legacy carriers, which do provide a pretty big contrast.”

斯特凡诺·雷兰迪尼/法新社/盖蒂图片社

瑞安航空欧洲网站顶部写着“飞行价格从 24.99 欧元起”。

这家总部位于爱尔兰的航空公司是全球盈利能力最强的低成本航空公司之一，航线网络遍布欧洲。其成功秘诀在于坚持其商业模式：将航空公司的成本削减到极致，同时向乘客收取所有费用。

旅客需要为行李、座位预订、现场值机或使用信用卡支付费用。瑞安航空甚至曾提出过对使用洗手间收费或取消部分座位让乘客站立的想法，但这些方案最终都没有实施。

低成本航空公司的商业模式主导着欧洲短途航空市场，分析人士称，这些航线占据了超过40%的可用座位。许多乘客已经接受了“无附加服务”的飞行体验，除了座位本身，其他任何额外服务都需要付费。

去年，瑞安航空运送了超过2亿名乘客。英国廉价航空公司易捷航空运送了近1亿名乘客，匈牙利威兹航空运送了近7000万名乘客，西班牙伏林航空运送了3800万名乘客。

然而，同样的商业模式在美国却难以站稳脚跟。美国最大的廉价航空公司边疆航空在同一时期仅运送了3300万名乘客。

部分原因是文化因素——美国人对简陋的服务容忍度较低，也不喜欢为航班附加服务额外付费。但也有地理因素，例如航班距离较短，以及经济因素，例如通货膨胀压力和机票价格上涨。

瑞安航空的资产负债表稳健，过去一年每个季度都实现了客运量增长。

但航空业顾问迈克·阿诺特表示，这一成功是“30 年的决策过程，其中运营成本是首要驱动因素”。

他表示，低成本航空公司的模式是尽可能地减少航空公司运营中的开支，例如只运营单一类型的飞机、最大限度地降低维护成本或使用舷梯而不是廊桥来节省机场费用。

曾在廉价航空公司 Wizz Air 担任领导职务近八年的 Garth Lund 表示，欧洲廉价航空公司“坚定不移地致力于低成本运营”。

伦德说：“他们真正坚持了最初的商业模式，没有让自己分心，因此，他们的成本结构比美国航空公司控制得更好。”

他举例说，欧洲航空公司会精心安排航班时刻表，让机组人员不必在远离家乡的城市过夜，从而节省酒店费用。

他还指出航空公司机组人员的工作时长。在欧洲，限制轮班的工会较少。

“这种效率的提高对成本结构产生了很大的连锁反应，”伦德说。

欧洲的一些机场经过专门设计，旨在让廉价航空公司能够快速、经济地运营。

伦德说：“如今欧洲的机场实际上是为低成本航空公司设计的。”

例如，比较一下飞机周转时间，也就是让乘客下飞机、完成飞机维护和装载下一班乘客所需的时间。周转时间越长，飞机一天能飞的航班就越少，航空公司赚的钱也就越少。

他说，美国机场有时需要45分钟到1小时才能到达。而许多欧洲机场的等待时间已经缩短到25到30分钟。

这是因为在欧洲，登机可能发生在飞机的前部或后部，具体取决于机场，而且并不总是像大多数美国航空公司那样使用廊桥。

欧洲各大城市也有许多二线机场。这使得开辟新航线更加便捷、成本更低。

例如，慕尼黑国际机场是德国的主要航空枢纽，但距离慕尼黑仅一个多小时车程的梅明根机场则是一个经济实惠的选择。威兹航空和瑞安航空都提供飞往梅明根的航班，而不是直飞慕尼黑。

伦敦希思罗机场还有一些备选机场，例如伦敦斯坦斯特德机场和伦敦卢顿机场，这些机场也深受廉价航空公司的欢迎。

伦德说：“在欧洲，二线机场已经发展成为规模相当大的独立机场。”

美国也有一些二线机场，例如达拉斯-沃斯堡国际机场附近的达拉斯爱田机场，以及芝加哥奥黑尔国际机场附近的芝加哥中途机场。然而，与欧洲不同，美国的二线机场并不总是有多种选择，而且许多二线机场都被西南航空等航空公司所垄断。

美国低成本航空公司并没有像欧洲的低成本航空公司那样取得成功。

阿诺特表示，部分原因是美国消费者难以区分低成本和低票价。他们认为“低成本”指的是机票价格，但实际上是指降低运营成本。

他表示，廉价航空公司有时确实能提供最低票价。但如果这些低票价在中期内无法弥补成本，航空公司就会破产。

阿诺特说：“能存活下来的低成本航空公司不多，但也有一些低成本航空公司发展得很好。尤其是在低成本、低票价的市场领域，需求弹性很高，这其实就是个比较专业的营销术语，意思是如果票价不合消费者的意，他们可以选择坐公交车，或者干脆不去。”

由于美国廉价航空公司主要服务于对价格敏感的休闲旅客，因此它们更难提高票价。当成本上涨挤压它们本就微薄的利润空间时，例如与中东冲突相关的燃油价格上涨，这种情况就更加棘手了。

西南航空和捷蓝航空曾是美国领先的低成本航空公司。但西南航空在激进投资者发起的旨在提高盈利能力的运动后，经历了动荡的几年。捷蓝航空则在疫情冲击后，财务复苏缓慢。

这两家航空公司目前都采用介于低成本航空公司和传统航空公司之间的混合运营模式。

美国最著名的超低成本航空公司之一——精神航空（Spirit Airlines）于今年早些时候倒闭。自疫情爆发以来，该公司一直处于亏损状态，并在今年航空燃油价格飙升导致其最近一次破产重组计划搁浅之前，曾两次宣布破产。

如今，美国仅剩五家低成本航空公司——边疆航空、忠实航空、微风航空、太阳乡村航空和阿维洛航空。

美国传统航空公司尝试过低成本航空公司业务，达美航空于 2003 年推出了 Song，联合航空于 2004 年推出了 Ted。

这两家合资航空公司都未能获得市场认可，并在几年内因燃油价格飙升而倒闭。但它们的母公司从这些合资企业中吸取了一些经验教训，例如加快周转速度。

分析人士表示，欧洲人对低成本航空公司并没有负面印象，而美国人则往往认为它们的质量差或客户服务不好。

“在美国，我觉得乘坐廉价航空公司似乎带有某种污名，所以精神航空（Spirit Airlines）曾是很多人嘲笑的对象，”伦德说道。

他说，这种情况在欧洲要少得多，乘客可能这周乘坐英国航空公司的商务舱，下周就毫不犹豫地选择易捷航空公司的经济舱座位。

据乔治城大学前航空公司机长兼商业教授谢伊·吉拉德 (Shye Gilad) 称，精神航空的倒闭也让达美航空和联合航空等美国传统航空公司学会了如何抵御低成本航空公司的竞争。

这包括匹配机票价格或提供优惠，以及推出与低成本航空公司直接竞争的基本经济舱票价。

吉拉德说：“他们追求的是尽可能低的票价，当然，相应的服务也少得可怜。但我认为，这种对比更加鲜明，是因为他们经常与大型传统航空公司正面竞争，这本身就形成了相当大的反差。”