There is a assignment , i need
A. To proof read the essay , make it in a good english.
B. I want to ask airlines expert to add comments or idea.
C. I want to add the conclusion
D. I want to make the referencing list in Harvard Reference System
I want it on /before 07/22 morning.
1. Introduction
Being the new entrant carrier into the Rockville ? Kanetown market,
Jet4Less operated different strategies from Yr1 to Yr3; aiming to
penetrate into the market being the important player, at the same time
to maximum the revenue.
This paper is to analyze the results from the strategies taken by
Jet4Less in Yr1, Yr2 and Yr3, through the views of accessing its load
factor, yield and cost structure, aircraft appraisal, demand
forecasting, pricing, marketing strategies and competitors appraisal.
Furthermore, a recommendation will be proposed to Jet4Less how to
maximize the revenue in Yr4 so to recover the profitable financial
status for the coming years expansion.
2. Load factor
Load factor is passenger-kilometers that expressed as a percentage of
available seat kilometers. Jet4Less tries to maintain a high
percentage of load factor in order to maximize the profit.
By offering 19 trips a week, the airline obtained an overall 93.45%
load factor and made 7.6 million pounds in the first year.
Considering the growth of customers, Jet4Less purchased a new
aircraft in the second year aiming at capturing a large market share.
In order to maintain the position of the load factor, the company
implied continuous marketing strategies and decreased the price of
tickets to attract customers with offering intensive schedule and
routes. Such business strategies was succeed while the airline
obtained 83.01% load factor with 400,249 seats sold, that is 55% of
the total market share. With the high percentage of load factor,
Jet4Less gained 1.3 million pounds in the year, and the company had
pushing down the competitors? load factors together with forcing them
to suffer lose.
With the high percentages of load factor in the first two years,
Jet4Less airline increase the ticket price closely to the competitors
afterward. Although the company still remain a large number of market
share, the result is actual load factor decrease to 59.40% below the
break even load factor, the business in turn suffer a lose with 500
thousands pounds in the third year owing to waste of capacity of the
aircraft.
Considering the above situations, it shown that load factor is an
important issue for airlines to aware. It is because it could
influence the profit margin of the company and determine its direction
of strategies. In the coming year, Jet4Less is suggested to stimulate
the load factor in order to maximize the profit, avoid of suffering
lose again and fully utilize the aircraft.
3. Cost of service
Over this 3 years operation, Jet4Less experienced average 72% for
variable direct operating costs, 16% for fixed direct operating costs
and 12% for indirect operating costs. In general, airline has 50% of
all costs incurred from direct operating costs, so as for indirect
operating costs. However, different airlines types have different cost
structures.
As the new entrant to the market and low cost carrier, Jet4Less aimed
to win the market share by offering lower price and higher frequent
flights, so Jet4Less decided to purchase additional aircraft, Gamma,
in Yr2 to increase own capacity. Although Jet4Less got the discount
offering for airport charges as the new entrant, the high frequent
flights and additional aircraft operation still contributed the large
portion to the direct operating costs. Therefore, it resulted that the
variable and fixed direct operating costs were together higher than
50%.
In order to reach the customers extensively, Jet4Less invested heavily
in advertising and frequent flyer programmes. Furthermore, Jet4Less
enjoyed the benefit from deciding to deal directly with the customers,
e.g. through Internet, so it saved the costs for agency, sales offices
operation and sales staffs totally. Therefore, Jet4Less has achieved
only 12% of all cost in indirect operating costs in which these cost
contributed a lot to win the market share.
In addition, comparing the total cost for Yr 1 to Yr 2, it was
increased 108%, since additional aircraft were purchased in Yr 2. The
total cost for Yr3 has only 7% increased comparing to the Yr 2?s, it
can be projected that Jet4Less will have the similar cost level and
structure for Yr 4 onwards as Yr 3?s, since the discount benefit for
new entrant were expired for Jet4Less.
According to Appendix 1, the predicted year 4 balance sheet of
Jet4Less, there is 5063968 airport charges, if we run only 36
frequencies. The cost is increasing a little bit. The terrorism also
increases the cost of running airline business. There are many
security expenses. Increasing oil price is also a consideration.
First A/C Airport cost at origin 793
First A/C Airport cost at destination 1313
Second A/C Airport cost at origin 1297
Second A/C Airport cost at destination 2055
Airport cost for period 5063968
By reviewing the operating ratio (operating revenues expresses as a %
of operating cost) of Jet4Less in these 3 years, it did achieve 159%
for Yr 1, 105% for Yr 2, and 98% for Yr 3. It shows the trend of
decreasing in operating ratio over the 3 years, it implies that the
operating costs does not generate acceptable revenue amount for the
Jet4Less.
In order to increase the operating ratio in the coming years, Jet4Less
should reduce the operating costs, at the same time increase the
revenue. For the costs side, Jet4Less is recommended to reduce the
flight frequency and re-assign the appropriated aircraft to each daily
flight schedule, in order to focus the real demand during the week.
This is aimed to increase the load factor and eliminate the operating
costs spent in the specific flights schedule with low sales in Yr2 &
Yr3.
Moreover, Jet4Less should also put effort to negotiate the more
favorable airport charges with the two airports, RHN and KIA, for the
coming years, in order to lower the direct operating costs. On the
other hand, Jet4Less is recommended to increase the advertising cost,
together with new low pricing strategy so to increase the revenue.
Last Jet4Less seek to keep our business simple and low cost by not
providing meals, having more seats on aircraft, not having assigned
seats that require minimal administration.
4. Yield
In Yr 2, Jet4Less purchased the additional aircraft Gamma aiming to
increase the capacity, then the price Jet4Less offered to the market
in Yr 2 was much, 43% for leisure seats and 27% for business seats,
lower than Yr 1. Therefore, the Yr 2 load factor could still achieved
at the higher level 83% for both leisure and business seats, however,
because of the low price, the Yr 2 revenue could not be achieved at
the surprising higher level. Therefore, Jet4Less?s yield was dropped
dramatically from 95.89 for Yr 1 to 50.60 for Yr 2.
In Yr 3, the price Jet4Less offered the market for leisure seats was
too high, 41% higher than Yr 2?s, and they priced business seats 11%
higher. Therefore, the Yr 3 total load factor dropped from 83% of Yr
2?s to 59%. On the other hand, because of the higher price, the Yr 3
revenue was kept at similar level as Yr 2?s, so the yields for Yr 2 &
Yr 3 are similar, 50.67 and 50.60 respectively.
In the coming years, Jet4Less is recommended to firstly focus to
increase the revenue of each flight, since they already made a big
amount of loss in Yr 3. By reducing the price, Jet4Less could gain
back the market share for not only leisure seats, and business seats,
so the revenue can be improved together with the load factor.
After gaining back the market share, Jet4Less should look into how to
maximize the revenue managing the Yield. Jet4Less can maintain a
stable group of customer for business travel through offering the
frequent flyer programmes which provide flexibility of changing flight
schedule with comparative higher price.
Furthermore, Jet4Less can offer different price along the time before
flight, customer can get comparative lower price if they buy the
tickets earlier, and on the other hand, the fare of tickets will be
higher approaching to the flight date. Such of the pricing can
maximize the revenue by wining both the leisure travelers who are
price-conscious aiming budget traveling, and the business travelers
who are willing to pay more with later decision to get on the plane
for their unplanned business needs.
5. Aircraft appraisal
Operation charge:
? Single class ? Econ and Business class ? ?
Aircraft Type Single Config Annual S ? C Config Annual C Y
Config Annual Y OC/freq Annual OC
Alpha 260 513,760 ? 60 118,560 140 276,640 £9,000 £17,784,000
Delta 105 207,480 ? 14 27,664 80 158,080 £3,200 £6,323,200
Gamma 175 345,800 ? 30 59,280 120 237,120 £4,200 £8,299,200
Phi 148 292,448 ? 20 39,520 110 217,360 £3,700 £7,311,200
Theta 250 494,000 ? 55 108,680 150 296,400 £8,500 £16,796,000
Note :- Assume Max 19 return frequencies per week to calculate
Table Operation charge between different aircraft in Year 1.
Airport charge:
Aircraft Type Airport charge RHN (pounds) Annual Airport charge RHN
(pounds) ? Airport charge KIA (pounds) Annual Airport charge KIA
(pounds) En-route Annual En-route
Alpha £2,587 £2,555,561 ? £4,082 £4,033,411 £582 £1,150,032
Delta £793 £783,089 ? £1,313 £1,297,639 £281 £556,046
Gamma £1,297 £1,281,041 ? £2,055 £2,030,340 £363 £717,288
Phi £1,391 £1,374,110 ? £1,654 £1,633,757 £307 £605,842
Theta £2,469 £2,439,372 ? £3,583 £3,539,609 £558 £1,102,608
Table Airport Charges comparison between different aircraft in Year 1.
In year 1, Since Jet4less was a new Airline. In order to play safe, we
chose the aircraft, which had the lowest operation cost and airport
charge. As the profit margin on Business class is high, we were not
planning to lose this market. Therefore, we did not go for single
class. Among all aircrafts, Delta is the one with the lowest cost.
Aircraft Type Annual OC Annual En-route ? OC per seat En-route cost
per seat Sub-total cost
Alpha £17,784,000 £1,150,032 ? £45.00 £2.91 £47.91
Delta £6,323,200 £556,046 ? £34.04 £2.99 £37.04
Gamma £8,299,200 £717,288 ? £28.00 £2.42 £30.42
Phi £7,311,200 £605,842 ? £28.46 £2.36 £30.82
Theta £16,796,000 £1,102,608 ? £41.46 £2.72 £44.19
Table Cost comparison in Year 2.
After 1st year, our load factor was over 90%. Jet4less's target was
trying to obtain more market share. Jet4less needed to increase the
capacity by adding the second aircraft. Gamma was picked for the
second aircraft because Gamma is the most cost effective aircraft
type. It got the lowest cost on the total of OC and En-route per seat.
Indeed, it was a risky move to buy the second aircraft. If the
competitors lower the price, Jet4less would not be able to capture
large enough section of market to cover the cost increase.
Jet4less did not change aircraft on the third year even though, the
load factor decreased dramatically. The reason is that the fees of
changing aircraft cost 500,000 pounds. It will be better off to keep
the aircraft to save this cost.
A big airline such as ConAir and FaribAir, they have a bigger network
linkage (the bigger network capacity) make airline can switch aircraft
between routes at negligible costs. In year 4, we still not switch the
aircraft also to prevent the cost. Moreover, we will try to improve
our load factor by pricing strategy.
6. Demand Management
The management team believes that the simple regression forecast
method cannot predict the demand accurate. The several forecast
methods has been calculated. The details can be found in Appendix 2.
In terms of Year 4 demand forecast, traditional forecasting methods
such as Simple Moving average, Weighted Moving average and Exponential
smoothing will not helped in the Airline Industry, as there was a big
variances between the actual demand and forecasted demand in Year 2.
Hence, forecast the demand by percentage growth of the actual demand
of the previous year will be more practical and realistic in the
Airline Industry. But on the other side, those traditional forecasting
methods could favorable in Airline Industry?s strategic planning, for
instance, 5 years or 10 years business planning plans.
In our case, by considered the actual percentage growth of Year 1 and
Year 2 are 14.57% and 26.98% respectively, as we made a mistake in the
Year 3 pricing strategies, the demand slightly dropped 1.15%, by
refocusing in our pricing strategic for Year 4, 10-12% growth could be
expected.
According to the current market outlook by Boeing (2005), the
long-term outlook for air travel is robust. The world economic growth
drives air transportation. The globalization make the European
standard between two cites become consistent. The trade is increasing.
Table World Air Travel forecast
(Source: Boeing, 2005)
The cites are located some 1000 nautical miles apart. There still has
not any substitutes neither rail nor road transport. Originally, we
believe that the demand is quite inelastic. However, the price war
between our competitors within year 1 to year 3 makes the customers to
be price sensitive now. In a conclusion, the demand in year 4 is high
and price sensitive.
7. Pricing methodology
7.1Summary of year 1 to year 3 strategy
For the initial year, we worked back from our assumption of a 50% load
factor and aimed at least a break even which was in line with our
first year objective - to survive first. We realized the price might
not be competitive enough. We bet on the frequencies of flights
offered by us, which was about 30% more than anyone of our competitor
was.
With our intensive marketing program including advertising and couple
of frequent flyer programs, the result for first year was surprisingly
good. The load factor was more than 90% and an operating profit of
more than 7 million sterling pounds that were miles ahead of our
competitors.
Having such a huge profit for the first year and a technically full
loading, we set out an ambitious plan for second year operation plan
aiming at a higher market share. An additional aircraft with higher
capacity than the original one was purchased. The overall capacity
and frequency have increased substantially. Based on similar
calculation of year one by using a 50% load factor, we were able to
significantly reduce the fare price. In fact, the customers enjoyed a
reduction in price for almost 50%.
The second year result was satisfactory without any surprise. With
increasing marketing effort and frequent flyer program, we were able
to capture the biggest market share for the business sector. The load
factor dropped a few points to 86% but the total number of seats sold
increased due to the additional capacity. Market research showed that
our competitors did not cut their price and subsequently gave us a
competitive advantage.
A different objective was set for the third year. We tried to
maximize our profit as much as possible. We changed our tactics. We
no longer based on a 50% load factor for calculation. We wrongly
believed that we had already captured a high market share and our
customers were loyal to us. Instead of maintaining the low fare in
year two, we set the fare close to our competitor. Consequently, the
fare was up by approximately 40%, both business and leisure. This
objective has made us deviated from our original business objective, a
low cost carrier. The third year result showed everything. We
overestimated the loyalty of our customers. We were too ambitious and
in certain extent too greedy.
7.2. Pricing objective in year 4
In year 3, Jet4Less suffered the Loss in the balance sheet .There is a
deficit of 500630 pound. Although the accumulated cash is the most in
the market, the financial risk needs to be considered in order.
However, our company vision is also to be a professional low cost
carrier. Low cost carriers seek to price their fares well below those
of traditional airlines to increase demand and encourage consumers to
switch to the low cost carrier. It is not unusual for a deep fare cut
to double the demand for airline service on a city pair. By taking
advantage of their lower average seat mile costs and using the
increased demand to fill a larger percentage of their flights, the low
cost carriers seek to maintain profitability despite offering lower
fares.
Therefore, our pricing objectives in year 4 are:
1. The minimum target of year 4 is to prevent the loss in the total
balance at end of operating period.
2. The utmost objective is revenue maximization by reducing price.
7.3. Business and Economy fares in year 4
After the following key factors consideration, Jet4Less decides to
decrease the fares in both classes by the following summarize reasons:
1) Excess capacity :
A. Jet4less has 482144 available seats in year 3.There are low load
factor, which show the excess capacity problem.
2) Increasing but reasonable cost :
A. The cost of service is increasing by airport and fuel cost.
Someone will argue that we have no space to reduce the price. However,
Jet4Less actually has the lowest cost per seat (59.8).
B. Moreover, we will reduce the frequencies of the flight in year 4
.The cost will be lower make us have the area to low down the price.
C. The main problem is we have not sold enough seats. We should
decrease the price at acceptable level to attract more sales.
3) Keen Direct competition :
A. Price war made the customers to be more prices sensitive.
4) Positive demand forecast :
A. Economic development and globalization drive air transportation
demand. There a huge potential market.
B. The demand of year 4 is big but price sensitive. How to capture the
demand is key of success.
7.4. Methodology ? Revenue management
As we know that, decreasing the price will increase the load factor.
However, the highest load factor does not mean the most revenue
Jet4Less can get.
For example, we assume we low the price to 58 for economy price and
140 for business price. Even the load factor can reach 80%. Jet4Less
will also suffer the loss. When Jet4Less set the price, the most
concern is profit not load factor.
The conservative approach will be adopted in order to prevent a loss.
Firstly, the poor load factor will be assumed. We assume the worst
situation we face. We set 60% to be a Break even load factor. 60% load
factor is Jet4Less lowest performance with year 1 to 4. In addition,
the cost structure in year 4 will be quite similar with year 3. The
break-even load factor should be around 60% like year 3.
We will adjust the price to make our balance sheet to be breakeven.
Then, if Jet4Less?s performance can be above the expectation, Jet4Less
will enjoy the great profit.
Then, we can the price should be:
Economy: 78
Business: 188
Jet4 Less Balance Sheet on Year 4
Balance B/D in Year3 9555502
Basic Info Aircraft Type #1 Delta
Config 2
No. of economy seats 80
No. of business seats 14
total 94
Max frequency 19
No. of (round trip) frequencies chosen on 1st A/C 16
annual km flown 1664000
Aircraft Type #2 Gamma
Config 2
No. of economy seats 120
No. of business seats 30
total 150
Max frequency 19
No. of (round trip) frequencies chosen on 2nd A/C 19
annual km flown 1976000
Total No. of weekly frequencies 35
No. of leisure seats available pa 395200
No. of business seats available pa 86944
Total No. of seats available pa 482144
Proportion sold trough agent 0%
Revenue Info Economy Price 78
Business Price 188
No. economy seats sold 237120
No. of Business seats sold 52166
Revenue 28302643
Cost Info
Variable DOC Operation cost (FCE) per one way frequency for 1 st A/C 3264
Operation cost for period 5431296
Operation cost (FCE) per one way frequency for 2nd A/C 4284
Operation cost for period 8465184
Airport Cost First A/C Airport cost at origin 793
First A/C Airport cost at destination 1313
Second A/C Airport cost at origin 1297
Second A/C Airport cost at destination 2055
Airport cost for period 5063968
En-route En-route charges #1 281
En-route charges #2 363
En-route charges for period 1184872
Fixed DOC aircraft depreciation cost 2500000
Additional Account purchase cost pa 500000
Fixed cost associated with route 1500000
Indirect OC Disposal charges 0
Advertising & PR 17 2100000
Sales Office ?
Interest charges on previous period O/D 0 0
Market research Basic 50000
Additional Market research questions
FFP investment 3 1500000
Agent costs 9% 0
Total costs 28295320
Financial Indicators Total Load factors 60
Leisure seat load factor 60.00%
Business seat load factor 60.00%
Profit /loss for period 7323.20
Balance at end of operating period 9562825.20
However, we have learned a lesson in year 3. Even our price is lowest
in the market, but it is not much different with the other airlines,
many customers will go to Conair and FaribAir. We want to have a
bigger effect. We set the price further 15% lower than the break-even
price.
Economy: 66
Business: 160
We believe the dramatic low price will push up our load factor can
reach to 75% or above. Conventionally, the estimated profit in year 4
will be 1700360.
Jet4 Less Balance Sheet on Year 4
Balance B/D in Year3 9555502
Basic Info Aircraft Type #1 Delta
Config 2
No. of economy seats 80
No. of business seats 14
total 94
Max frequency 19
No. of (round trip) frequencies chosen on 1st A/C 16
annual km flown 1664000
Aircraft Type #2 Gamma
Config 2
No. of economy seats 120
No. of business seats 30
total 150
Max frequency 19
No. of (round trip) frequencies chosen on 2nd A/C 19
annual km flown 1976000
Total No. of weekly frequencies 35
No. of leisure seats available pa 395200
No. of business seats available pa 86944
Total No. of seats available pa 482144
Proportion sold trough agent 0%
Revenue Info Economy Price 66
Business Price 160
No. economy seats sold 296400
No. of Business seats sold 65208
Revenue 29995680
Cost Info
Variable DOC Operation cost (FCE) per one way frequency for 1 st A/C 3264
Operation cost for period 5431296
Operation cost (FCE) per one way frequency for 2nd A/C 4284
Operation cost for period 8465184
Airport Cost First A/C Airport cost at origin 793
First A/C Airport cost at destination 1313
Second A/C Airport cost at origin 1297
Second A/C Airport cost at destination 2055
Airport cost for period 5063968
En-route En-route charges #1 281
En-route charges #2 363
En-route charges for period 1184872
Fixed DOC aircraft depreciation cost 2500000
Additional Account purchase cost pa 500000
Fixed cost associated with route 1500000
Indirect OC Disposal charges 0
Advertising & PR 17 2100000
Sales Office ?
Interest charges on previous period O/D 0 0
Market research Basic 50000
Additional Market research questions
FFP investment 3 1500000
Agent costs 9% 0
Total costs 28295320
Financial Indicators Total Load factors 75
Leisure seat load factor 75.00%
Business seat load factor 75.00%
Profit /loss for period 1700360.00
Balance at end of operating period 11255862.00
7.5. Promotional Fares
Normally , airlines costs one price if you buy it over the phone and
another if you buy it in person , one price if you buy it this morning
and another three hours from now.
Jet4Less seek to make our service more attractive to customers, and
easier to manage, by eliminating complicated pricing strategies that
result in numerous fares for the same route and removing many
restrictions on travel, such as the typically required Saturday night
stay to receive a discounted fare.
Rather than the complex discount fare, creating more different income
sources is our key of success. Many special service fees can be
charged according to different customers? need:
1) Charges for bring a heavy luggage
2) On-board Massage service
3) Shuttle bus service
8. Marketing Strategy
One of the early challenges to the existing major airlines was the
emergence of low-fare carriers. However, new entrants like us
(Jet4Less) found that competing based on low fares alone was difficult
The main original players, ConAir and FaribAir, did survive because of
shunning direct competition and finding ways to operate with lower
fixed costs. After the Jet4Less join in, the situation was changed.
In order to gain reputation in the airline market, Jet4Less invest
?900,000 in advertising during the first year, which is the highest
among three airlines. We also invest ?500,000 in Frequent Flier
Programme (FFP). FFP is a travel reward programme that offers our
customers a range of exciting rewards that match their lifestyle. In
addition to flying, it is easy to earn points simply by doing what
they normally do every day ? staying at hotels, dining, shopping and
spending on their credit cards. This programme attracts our customer
of redeeming their miles free flights, upgrades, companion tickets,
holidays or other exciting lifestyle.
Due to the successful of the 1st year, Jet4Less increase the
investment in the advertising to ?1,300,000, which is 44.4% higher
than the previous year. Two new FFP was introduced in the 3rd year in
order to attract different types of customers e.g. business and
leisure travelers.
For the planning in 4th year, Jet4Less marketing strategy will be
focus on our target customers:
1) The corporate travel managers , who control the business travelers? booking
2) The short haul leisure travelers, the low to middle income level people.
3) The existing customers, Jet4Less try to build up their loyalty.
For the business traveler, we will try to have a promotion meeting
with different corporate travel mangers. In addition, our sale will
try to sign a year contract with them by offering a discounted price.
The information searching is important for the travel managers; we
will hold some training for them about using our internet website.
For the leisure market , we will keep FFP same as before but again
increase the investment on advertising coz the load factor had been
decreased and the profit had deducted. Therefore, increasing of the
advertisement perhaps can help Jet4Less get the customer back in order
to increase our load factors. On the other hands, Jet4Less decided to
partnership with the hotel and the local transport, ?Weekend Package?
will be introduced in order to attracted more leisure user, shuttle
bus will be provided free of charge return from airport to city.
Corporate PR can mainly concentrate on promotion to the corporate and
attract business people to buy ticket from Jet4Less when they travel.
In year 3, Jet4Less sales dropped rapidly, when Jet4Less?s price level
was is near the competitor. The customer has not the loyalty to
Jet4less. Building a famous brand name is important. To learn form
Virgin Atlantic Airline, Jet4Less will also do something new. In year
4, our CEO is willing to perform several dangerous adventures to
attract the media. We believe we can make every body know Jet4Less at
a minimal cost.
9. Competitors appraisal
?If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles?, said Sun Zi thousands of years ago. With this
in mind, we gathered as much market intelligence of our competitors as
possible and set out a guideline for the price based on both load
factor and cost analysis.
Since Jet4less was a new airline in the industry, they realized that
the main business strategy should not be only focusing on how to grab
market share from its competitors, it was also critical to put it into
competitors? situation. In other words, how it competitors respond to
the existence of Jet4less.
At the beginning, the main strategy for Jet4less was to eliminate one
of its competitors in order to increase the market share and
stabilized its financial status. Every decision that makes from
Jet4less, from pricing to advertising strategies, had to be considered
not only based on it financial status, but also the financial status
of its competitors. In the first two year, on the one hand, Jet4less
calculated its lowest possible ticket price based on the various
operating cost. On the other hand, they try to calculate the lowest
possible ticket price of its competitors based on the past operating
cost data. By a further comparison, Jet4less set its price that
competitors cannot reach. By doing so, Jet4less grabbed a significant
market share in the first two years. Due to the big victory, Jet4less
overlooked its pricing strategy in the third year; they thought that
it was time to maximize its profit by increasing its price. However,
they did not consider how its competitors would respond to the result
in the second year.
In the coming year, Jet4less will mainly focus on collecting
information from its competitors. The plan is to send its employee to
competitor?s check-in counter at the airport and act as an undercover
who collects the number of passenger on each of their flight.
Information will be collected on daily basis and Jet4less will use
such information for its future planning of flight frequency, flight
scheduling and type of aircraft usage. The following data need to be
collect:
1) Fares
2) Competitors? capacity and Load factor
3) Configuration
4) Their frequency of flights
9. Conclusion
Crase, L. and Jackson, J. 2000. Assessing the effect of information
asymmetry in tourism
destinations. Tourism Economics, 6(4):321? 334
"Impact of Low Cost Airlines" Mercer Management Consulting (2002)
http://www.mercermc.com/Perspectives/Specialty/MOT_pdfs/Lowcostairlines.pdf
"Predation In the Airline Industry" by Roger W. Fones, Department of
Justice (June 12, 1997)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/1188.htm
"Low-Cost Carriers and Low Fares: Competition and Concentration in the
U.S. Airline Industry" by Charles Najda, Stanford University (May 12,
2003) http://www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/Honors_Theses/Theses_2003/Najda.pdf
"Is Delta Singing The End Of Song?" by Lisa DiCarlo, Forbes (January
4, 2005) http://www.pricingsociety.com/ppsinthenews.asp?nid=175
"Turbulent Skies" The Economist (July 8, 2004)
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2897525
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pdf/cmo_parisbook.pdf |
