Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Why cheap flights are NOT going away, despite what you may read

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

Is social distancing on aircraft going to mean the end of cheap air travel?  If you believe certain travel and media figures in recent days, the answer is undoubtedly yes.

We shouldn’t necessary expect travel or indeed newspaper professionals to have a strong grounding in economics.  However, some recent thinking has shown that even concepts such as supply and demand seem to have passed them by.

This applies even at the top.  Welcome Alexandre de Juniac, CEO of airline body the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

British Airways BA A380 flying

If social distancing is imposed, cheap travel is over. Voila” he announced in a well publicised media briefing on Monday.

He bases this on two factors:

  • the need to ‘neutralise’ a third of seats on short and medium haul aircraft
  • a break-even level of 70-72% seats sold

Let’s ignore the most obvious point here.  If break-even at current fare levels is 70-72% and for a couple of years you can only sell 66% of seats, you’re nearly there already.

Break-even isn’t the same as making huge profits, of course, but I think most airlines will settle for a couple of years of break-even.

Let’s also ignore the fact that keeping the middle seat empty isn’t going to make much difference, based on the SARS case I wrote about yesterday that led to five deaths from a single flight.  Michael O’Leary of Ryanair agrees on this point.

There is a fundamental failure to understand airline economics

The following example is how most people are thinking about the airline industry.  These numbers are roughly accurate – the average easyJet one way fare is £50 plus ancilliary revenue:

‘easyJet sells 171 seats per flight (92% load factor) at an average of £75 each including baggage and seat fees, for a total of £12,825.  If it cannot sell the middle seat, revenue will fall to £9,300 (124 seats x £75) and this is not profitable.  Fares will therefore rise to (£12,825 / 124) £103 to compensate.’

This is how the world of selling a ‘one price’ product works, and even then it only applies when selling something which people must buy and cannot substitute for a cheaper alternative.

In the real world, there are very few products like this.  It certainly isn’t how airline seats work.

In reality, easyJet would sell its flights like this, assuming 180 seats sold:

  • 30 seats sold at £35
  • 30 seats sold at £45
  • 30 seats sold at £60
  • 30 seats sold at £75
  • 30 seats sold at £105
  • 30 seats sold at £130

…. for an average fare of £75.

Cheap flights are not going away despite coronavirus

With 60 seats removed from sale, it is the cheapest 60 seats which disappear.  easyJet will start selling the flight at £60 including ancilliaries and not at £35.  The 60 people who are not prepared to pay £60 will no longer be flying.

Let’s look at the revenue again.

With all 180 seats sold using the distribution above, revenue is £13,500.

If you don’t sell the 30 seats @ £35 and the 30 seats @ £45, to keep occupancy to 120 seats, your revenue is still £11,100.

You have emptied 33% of your seats but only sacrificed 18% of your revenue.

Supply and demand works both ways

As you can see above, you can empty 1/3rd of your seats without losing 1/3rd of your revenue.  You also are not putting up prices for anyone except the 60 people who previously expected to pay £35 or £45 all-in and will now choose not to fly.

For 2/3rd of passengers, fares have not gone up.

Let’s look at another reason why fares won’t go up.

Aircraft are a fixed cost.  You are paying the lease, or the loan, irrespective of whether it flies or not.

Irrespective of your fixed costs, you operate the asset as long as your marginal costs are covered.  Let’s assume the apportioned lease cost for an aircraft for a flight is 100 units and the marginal costs of crew, fuel, airport charges etc are 35 units.

You might think at first that is isn’t worth flying unless you get 135 units in fare revenue.  Not true.  Because you are paying 100 units for the aircraft regardless of whether it flies or not, airlines will operate aircraft as long as the fare revenue is higher than 35 units.

As long as enough tickets are sold to pay for the VARIABLE costs of fuel (Brent Crude is now $20 vs $65 for most of last year), crew etc, then it makes sense to put more aircraft in the air.

The flight is at least making a small contribution to the 100 units fixed costs of the aircraft, and so reducing losses.  This means that airlines will put as many aircraft back in the skies as quickly as they can, and the more aircraft that are in the air, the lower fares will be.

We will, of course, see some airlines scrapping older aircraft such as Virgin’s A340s and BA’s Boeing 747s.  This is only a small percentage of their fleets, however, and these aircraft are already depreciated.  The aircraft that remain are newer, far more likely to have leases or debt attached to them, and so need to be in the air.

In the medium term, planes will come to the end of their leases and more capacity could be taken out of the market.  By this point, however, we should be back to 2019 levels of travel and it won’t be necessary.

Is ‘cheap’ travel over?

Not when you look at the numbers like this.

Of course, if by ‘cheap’ you mean the £5 Ryanair flight I took to Porto in February then, yes, that’s over.  Ryanair won’t be selling £5 seats now to guarantee that it fills every seat because – despite the Michael O’Leary quote above – it won’t want to.  It is more likely that Ryanair adds an option to guarantee an empty seat next to you, for an additional fee of course.

Similarly, those £35 and £45 easyJet seats in our example above are gone.

This isn’t ‘cheap’ travel though.  This is just seat-filling promotional activity.

If it turns out that easyJet won’t be selling any seats for less than £60 one-way in the future, I don’t call that the end of ‘cheap’ travel.  £125 return to fly to Europe – on a $42 million aircraft, which is what easyJet is paying for its next batch of deliveries – is not, by any stretch of the imagination, expensive.

When I was growing up, even flying to Paris was outside the dreams of my parents.  For a family of four, very much on the average British wage, it simply wasn’t even a consideration in the late 1970s and early 1980s, pre easyJet.

It’s worth remember that it has always cost £2,000 for four economy seats to a European ski resort over February half term, and anyone who has flown to European beach resorts in August will know that you were paying similar silly prices.  This wasn’t ‘cheap’ travel in the first place and I don’t see those prices getting much higher.

If we end up back at a point where a family of four has to pay £2,000 to fly to Berlin for a weekend break in rainy November then I will happily admit that we are at the end of ‘cheap’ air travel.  I don’t see that happening, however, and I think the economists would agree with me.


best credit card to use when buying flights

How to maximise your miles when paying for flights (April 2025)

Some UK credit cards offer special bonuses when used for buying flights. If you spend a lot on airline tickets, using one of these cards could sharply increase the credit card points you earn.

Booking flights on any airline?

American Express Preferred Rewards Gold earns double points (2 Membership Rewards points per £1) when used to buy flights directly from an airline website.

The card comes with a sign-up bonus of 20,000 Membership Rewards points. These would convert to 20,000 Avios or various other airline or hotel programmes. The standard earning rate is 1 point per £1.

You can apply here.

American Express Preferred Rewards Gold

Your best beginner’s card – 30,000 points, FREE for a year & four airport lounge passes Read our full review

Buying flights on British Airways?

The British Airways Premium Plus American Express card earns double Avios (3 Avios per £1) when used at ba.com.

The card comes with a sign-up bonus of 30,000 Avios. The standard earning rate is 1.5 Avios per £1.

You do not earn bonus Avios if you pay for BA flights on the free British Airways American Express card or either of the Barclaycard Avios Mastercards.

You can apply here.

British Airways American Express Premium Plus

30,000 Avios and the famous annual 2-4-1 voucher Read our full review

Buying flights on Virgin Atlantic?

Both the free Virgin Atlantic Reward Mastercard and the annual fee Virgin Atlantic Reward+ Mastercard earn double Virgin Points when used at fly.virgin.com.

This means 1.5 Virgin Points per £1 on the free card and 3 Virgin Points per £1 on the paid card.

There is a sign-up bonus of 3,000 Virgin Points on the free card and 18,000 Virgin Points on the paid card.

You can apply for either of the cards here.

Virgin Atlantic Reward Mastercard

3,000 bonus points, no fee and 1 point for every £1 you spend Read our full review

Virgin Atlantic Reward+ Mastercard

18,000 bonus points and 1.5 points for every £1 you spend Read our full review

Comments (197)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • Kev 85 says:

    Everything will be back to normal again once Hydroxychloroquine is widely available and used to cure coronavirus…..

    • Simon says:

      Except for the fact that the initial trial on it in a US veteran hospital showed it had no impact.

      • Rob says:

        Big Guardian article today on this, looking at the 4-5 trials so far. Mixed results (except for the one where everyone dies of a heart attack if you give a large dose) and none peer-reviewed.

        • Don says:

          Ferguson’s (Mr 200m bird flu deaths) present model isn’t “peer reviewed” yet it’s HMG policy.

      • Kev 85 says:

        Yeah, I was taking the p*** to be fair. The way it was hailed as a miracle cure without evidence is insane

    • Erico1875 says:

      We used to take chloroquine for going to Goa. It’s a 6 week course. Made us fee quite sickly

    • jamie says:

      They were reporting on this on CNN this week, admittedly not pukka trials but in some studies more people died that took it that didn’t, Trump promoted it as a miracle cure so that’s good enough for me to avoid it.

  • tony says:

    But this only works on the basis that demand remains unaffected. We saw a lot more business travel deemed non essential after 9/11 as tech solutions existed. Except now you don’t need a £500/hr teleconference suite, just a laptop.

    The enforced WFH will do way more for dragging business into a digital world than even the most optimistic CFO could have ever hoped for.

  • William Avery says:

    Love how there’s absolutely no consideration of the environmental impact of air travel in any of these articles. Perhaps govt’s might seriously rethink airport capacity? The benefits of people not piling into Venice already felt in its eco-system? No, as long as the economics works out let’s continue at the same levels and no harm done.

    Is it a possibility govt’s might start taxing frequent flyers more heavily e.g.?

    FWIW I don’t for one second assume there won’t be demand. If that empty seat policy becomes a reality then that is also less efficient environmentally and so on.

    Obviously aware this is a frequent flyer blog but just funny how this isn’t even on the mind.

    • William Avery says:

      Fully expecting a predictable “go and hand out with Greta” snipe.

      • The Original David says:

        If anything, this global travel ban has demonstrated how Greta (et al)’s ideas are completely unworkable. Yes, we *can* all stop travelling to save the environment, but look at the economic consequences. Would you rather live in a 2C warmer, prosperous world, or a slightly cooler one where GDP drops by 35% and millions are unemployed?

        • tony says:

          I think that’s disingenuous. The drop in productivity isn’t primarily because we can’t fly long haul. It’s because we can’t take the train and bus to the office then buy a coffee and go to the pub before buying a kebab (as I’m sure is the situation for most HFP readers) on the way home.

          However, without tourism, how long before Venice collapses into the sea?

          • William Avery says:

            Don’t disagree with your point about Venice or tourism in general. Nothing in my points suggest a complete shutdown but it’s just a question about whether a return to normal is what should be desired or the pursuit of growth in air travel? Only a callous person wouldn’t see an upside in seeing clean water in Venice if it is not a realistic goal because the tourist board has to go back to filling hotels as soon as possible. Yes, I also note impact of rising middle class population on tourism etc.

            My point is it’s interesting it’s not even a thought.

          • tony says:

            William – the disingenuous point wasn’t levelled at you, but David who I quoted underneath.

            I guess the ideal scenario would be that people pay Venice not to visit, but I agree with your sentiment. This might accelerate the idea that all costs in our life need to reflect the environmental impact, not just when it comes to travel, but making sure that the pint of milk you buy includes the cost of recycling the packaging.

            It’s my belief that we will see a fundamental shift in travel – it was always coming, this is just going to be the catalyst for change. I’m not happy about it, but we’re not showing the planet the respect it deserves.

        • Doug M says:

          Do you think a planet 2C warmer just means nicer summers.

          • The Original David says:

            Well no, but if the alternative is to sit at home watching Netflix and waiting to die, then I think most people would rather take their chances with the famines, hurricanes, and sea level rise. Perhaps not the Pacific islanders, New Orleans residents or fans of the Conrad Maldives, but they don’t hold a lot of political power.

          • Doug M says:

            I think you know the consequences are far greater than those you mention.

        • William Avery says:

          This is utterly crass. What part of my comment relates to stopping travel entirely? And how do you get to 35% of drop in GDP from air travel alone?

    • J says:

      Of course you’ve got a point but there’s economic value in tourism and business travel which isn’t going to be ignored. I read Oktoberfest now cancelled brought in over €1 billion. For Greece tourism is 20% of GDP etc. Aviation is a relatively small percentage of emissions yet it supports millions of jobs, admitedly with an environmental impact. It needs to invest in better more innovative and greener tech – unfortunately that’s less likely to happen in a downturn.

    • William Avery says:

      Interesting article and I’ll give it a proper read later.

  • V says:

    Your estimation of demand/supply neglects an important point – the ability of passengers to pay. If you were an employee somewhere and had a salary cut or no salary at all it’s much less likely that you took that ‘discretionary’ and ‘expensive’ holiday to a ski resort in the winter or the beach in the summer. If you owned a small business which had debtors knocking down your door or simply trying to keep the business alive the same would be true.
    The same goes for a weekend break in Salzburg or Berlin which previously seemed eminently affordable to the vast majority of employees and business owners alike. Besides down the road are tax increases to the more wealthy to pay for this which make people think before taking an expensive weekend eating pizza in Rome when Giuseppe who has an Italian pizza takeaway down the road will give you two for £12 in a few months time.
    The coming economic shock will affect the bottom 35% on the economic scale disproportionately because they disproportionately worked in feel good sectors of the economy – pubs, restaurants, delicatessens, flower shops, travel, entertainment, clubs, massage and beauty, artisanal foods, clothing, retail etc.
    Rather like rising damp the economic effects start to then go upwards affecting business owners, landlords who provide homes, parents who need to take in 25 and 30 year old children, apartments that get rented by four rather than two sharers.
    So travel is way down in the list of people’s priorities which is why demand will not return. Probably 100,000 or more jobs from the travel industry including all the ancillary services – security, food, cleaning, airport retail, transport, baggage handlers, engineering, maintenance etc. And the un virtuous cycle feeds into less demand for discretionary air travel.

    Finally, as businesses and employees have learned how to WFH ( work from home) it bears thinking about what managers/owners have been trying to do for years which is to reduce travel spend to see clients and ‘meet the team’. Not only will businesses be trying to pare costs but they will have noted that people found ways to do business without non essential travel.

    Then of course the virus could still be lurking for several years yet!

    In time, confidence will return and like always we will go back to doing things human beings have always done but not in 2021. My guess is 2025 we get back to travel like 2019.
    Until then light up the barbecue in your or a friends garden, make a rum punch or buy a few beers, get some Bob Marley on and imagine you were in Jamaica. Respect maan!

    • Harry T says:

      Good points. I was reading an article the other day where they predicted that the first passengers to start travelling again would be the wealthy ones… I think that rings true.

      • meta says:

        Or those who are now sitting on loads of points and need to burn them! 😀

      • Rob says:

        It will be. Because I can head off to a 100-room Four Seasons or Mandarin Oriental where I wouldn’t, even in usual times, expect to see many other guests during the day except perhaps at breakfast, which I can now do as room service. It’s low risk stuff.

        The other side of that, of course, is that most of the money in the UK is with the over 60’s who are less likely to want to venture out.

        • Blindman says:

          Speak for your self!

          Though the unknown factor is insurance costs, I may have to change my provider on that front.

    • Kay says:

      Yes completly agree.
      The article forget the “recession” part of the equation.

  • Jon says:

    BA will be OK. They’ll be no adjustment of their surcharges despite oil prices plummeting.

    • Anna says:

      They’ve already adjusted their surcharges – upwards.

      • Harry T says:

        Anna is right. The taxes and charges on a BA 241 now make the voucher look questionable on most routes, especially for passengers with flexibility on dates.

        • Michael C says:

          Yes, the “new” surcharges from Brazil mean the economy GRU-LHR-GRU I looked at was Points + GBP 450.
          For the same dates (N Year), a cash ticket was GBP 580.

          • meta says:

            Why do you book economy on points? Unless cash tickets are high you shouldn’t be booking economy on points.

            Also you need to take into consideration that Avios ticket is refundable whereas cheap cash ticket is not.

          • Michael C says:

            No tickets except economy available.

            Cheap cash tickets refundable for vouchers until Dec. 31.

          • meta says:

            Again you’re not comparing like for like. Voucher is for certain amount and cash ticket can go up, so you might need to top up for more cash. Ticket price can go down too, but voucher is also time limited. Avios ticket is not time limited, you can use it for flight beyond 31 Dec if you choose to cancel. Surcharges can fluctuate, but probably not as much as cash ticket. There is a risk of devaluation, but we would probably get some advance notice.

  • Philip says:

    The only snag with this analysis is that leaving the middle seat free won’t provide the current de facto social distancing norm of 2m. If that norm is followed, then the actual number of seats available on any flight will be determined by the number of 2m touching circles that can packed into the are of the aircraft and where those circles map to physical seats. It’s not very many. Someone like to do the math?

    And even if a slightly more relaxed social distance of 1m was adopted, that would still reduce the number of seats. Don’t forget that the distance has to be applied longitudinally as well as laterally. So there could only be 5 seats for every 3 rows – think of 5 on a die – and those would have to staggered left to right. Or another way to think of it is that in odd number rows, seat A, C & E are usable. And in even number rows, seats B, D & F are usable.

    A * C * E *
    * B * D * F

    In other words, only half the seats would actually be available for sale.

    Having said all that, my contribution to economic demand won’t be choked off by price 🙂

    • J says:

      Blocking the middle seat out seems to be about making people feel better and not much else. Perhaps because Europeans don’t want to have compulsory masks/temperature checks instead which is what many Asian airlines are now doing.

      • Harry T says:

        Temperature checks are worthless though, considering how much covid transmission occurs from asymptomatic carriers. Masks are controversial as well.

        • J says:

          South Korean health authorities disagree, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. While it’s possible to not have symptoms somebody with a fever and cough is still more likely to have it.

          • Harry T says:

            The South Korean success story is due largely to intelligent and widespread testing, tracing and containment. Not everything they implement is rigorously evidence based but their overall approach is excellent and systematic.

          • J says:

            Blocking out the middle seat as a method of social distancing is very clearly ineffective and not evidence based. There is however evidence that temperature checks/masks are of some use.

        • Will says:

          I’ve never really understood the approach that because temperature checks don’t get every case we won’t implement them.

          Every single case you can identify reduces transmission.

          It’s not just South Korea, pretty much all reasonably developed Asian countries have routine temp checks and face masks and their rates are much lower than the western world that doesn’t routinely implement either.

          It’s pretty obvious, people who have a temp are a potential risk so remove them and your helping. People coughing and sneezing are a risk so cover all mouths and your helping.

          • J says:

            Exactly well put.

          • Darren says:

            I found the initial and ongoing response of screening in the UK at odds to a recent trip to Asia and no flight restrictions at all.

            Are there any restrictions on flights from anywhere to the UK in place? Obviously this is mute now as we’ve gone way past the point.

    • Planeconcorde says:

      You are overlooking that people travelling together from the same household could sit in adjacent seats. So the algorithm will depend on the number of family groups and the number of people in each group.

    • Rob says:

      I agree – I do link to the SARS article. However, the ‘middle seat free’ idea wasn’t mine, it was IATAs.

  • Roger Everitt says:

    Well after weeks of doom and gloom and screaming knee jerk headlines, an article that sees the light and inspires!
    It may be a sunny day outside, but I’ve now got a grin on my face and a skip in my step…and a sunnier inner disposition

    Thanks guys

  • Nick says:

    Best article on HFP for a long time, got it spot on when so many fail miserably. Genuinely well done Rob. Now how do we get mainstream journalists to understand airline revenue management…

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.