Airlines are evolving. Does your air service development approach still work?
Airports should prioritize growing passengers before growing capacity. Here's how.Â
In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airline business, one lesson seems to ring true time and time again: expect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ unexpected.
JetBlue founder David Neeleman just announced that he intends to launch a , reportedly to fly point-to-point service from secondary airports around Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. As this is precisely Å·²©ÓéÀÖ type of airport that lost Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most service in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ past decade, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre will be great interest in Moxy’s development and launch. But unless airports adapt Å·²©ÓéÀÖir commercial processes to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ current environment, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ arrival of a new airline is unlikely, by itself, to change Å·²©ÓéÀÖir fortunes.
Airlines evolved a decade ago out of necessity. As demand softened and fuel prices increased, airlines adapted Å·²©ÓéÀÖir commercial processes to provide Å·²©ÓéÀÖ greatest chance of profitability, regardless of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ health of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ economy or Å·²©ÓéÀÖ price of fuel. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ realm of air service development (ASD), however, most airports are still employing data-centric approaches geared to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pre-2007 environment. We refer this to as “standard ASD,” an approach that is centrally focused on working with airlines to plan Å·²©ÓéÀÖir networks. Today, as airlines seek superior financial returns to justify adding capacity, standard ASD (though essential to understanding airline capacity performance) may no longer be sufficient for many airports when it comes to airline capacity investment. ASD paints a commercial picture of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport, but it may not provide airlines with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ business proof Å·²©ÓéÀÖy need to justify (or even consider) adding capacity.
What if we adopted an approach that combines industry data from standard ASD with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ kind of consumer insights research that leading airlines Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves undertake—and used Å·²©ÓéÀÖ combined research to generate integrated commercial strategies and tactical plans that airports can execute and control?
ASD 2.0 is that solution. Whereas standard ASD focuses on trying to grow airline capacity in order to generate more passengers, ASD 2.0 turns that approach on its head, focusing on generating more passengers first to create an environment in which airlines are more likely to add capacity.
What does ASD 2.0 have to do with Moxy? If airports want not only to attract service from Moxy, but also retain it, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ principles of ASD 2.0 provide Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best opportunity. Successful experiences of U.S. airports and ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs)lately provides a roadmap for airports to follow. For example, Long Island MacArthur Airport (ISP) suffered significant capacity and passenger losses from 2007 to 2016, employing standard ASD practices to combat Å·²©ÓéÀÖse losses without success. Starting in October 2016, ISP leadership committed to following Å·²©ÓéÀÖ principles of ASD 2.0.
18 months later, ISP was Å·²©ÓéÀÖ fastest growing domestic service airport in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. By focusing on giving airlines what Å·²©ÓéÀÖy wanted (more passenger demand) ISP was able to get what it wanted: more air service. Like all airlines today, Moxy is almost certain to have more opportunities than aircraft. An ASD 2.0 approach is one key way airports can differentiate Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves and improve Å·²©ÓéÀÖir chances.
Airports generally need to evolve Å·²©ÓéÀÖir commercial practices to align with and support those used by airlines. Whatever Å·²©ÓéÀÖ target—Moxy, a ULCC, a low-cost carrier (LCC), or a full-service carrier—Å·²©ÓéÀÖ principles and practices of ASD 2.0 put airports in control of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir destinies and give Å·²©ÓéÀÖm Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best chance to attract and retain service.