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.

Comments (200)

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

  • Novice says:

    As an economist by academia I agree with the analysis of airlines.

    But I’m not so sure that demand will be there for travel for a few years (5 years).

    I know you didn’t talk about consumer behaviour but lockdown will have a lasting traumatic effect on ppl in my opinion.

    For a few years it will be risk takers and maybe even solo travellers more than families who would be happy to venture out into the unknown.

    Before this, despite OCD I toured about 5 countries a year solo travelling. And after this even a risk taker and pretty reckless person like me would think twice before carelessly globe trotting.

    I think ppl will be more cautious in booking travel, some people won’t have the disposable income, some people may have partners or family not willing to take a risk, some ppl will have become OCD by the time lockdowns end worldwide.

    The future is robotic and less human contact so I think travel experiences will change.

  • Paul says:

    There will be pent up demand like you won’t believe.
    Speak to some working class families, the people who typically fly LCC, and you will understand why.

    • Darren says:

      You speak to the working class? 😉

    • mr_jetlag says:

      There will be pent up demand, sure… and we’ll all be encouraged to Spend for Britain. Not sure ppl on furlough or jobless will have the cash to spend.

    • Kev 85 says:

      The working classes, who’ll be disproportionately affected by a recession, will travel as soon as they can rather than wanting to pay their bills and rent etc?

      • Genghis says:

        People don’t necessarily make rational decisions though. Anecdotally, I grew up in a working class town in the north east and saw people living in dilapidated housing and eating cheap processed foods buying the latest kit – “designer” clothes, tech, cars etc, most likely on credit. So it wouldn’t surprise me that even if people can’t really afford it, they’d still go on holiday.

        • J says:

          It isn’t just the working classes, plenty of wealthy people on higher incomes who live beyond their means and will stick a holiday on a credit card. It’s a cultural thing to some extent, British people are pretty relaxed about consumer debt.

        • Kev 85 says:

          Passenger numbers took 5 years to recover after the 2008 recession.

          There’ll definitely be a drop regardless of any pent up demand (which there obviously will be, no one is suggesting that everyone will stop flying)

          • Genghis says:

            You’re equating “working class” travellers to all travellers. Like Ken said, for those that go away to southern Spain say once a year, would they give that up?
            (Forgive the general anecdotal comments here. Personally I’ll be travelling as much for leisure at least as I would be normally but I’ve not been affected financially and live way below my means so even if I no longer work we can still go on holiday).

          • Kev 85 says:

            “ Like Ken said, for those that go away to southern Spain say once a year, would they give that up?”

            Depends on whether they’re able to borrow money to pay for it or whether they’d rather pay their rent etc.

            I do see your point though. My parents couldn’t afford to pay for holidays when I was growing up in the 90s, so we just didn’t go but not everyone thinks in that way clearly.

        • Anna says:

          Across the entire income and class spectrum it was alarming to see how few people have money put aside for emergencies like the one we’re currently in. I appreciate there are some people who really can’t afford to save but I read about a millionaire restaurant owner complaining he was going to go out of business because he couldn’t afford the rent on his temporarily closed premises.

          • J says:

            Having to close indefinitely and losing 100% of your income is not something many small businesses planned for, “millionaire” or not. You don’t know their situation – multiple businesses affected, money tied up in property, recent business expansion, etc. I’d be shocked if millionaires were not also exposed by a situation completely unprecedented in our lifetimes.

        • Rui N. says:

          “People don’t necessarily make rational decisions though.”

          Yep. Just the other day was reading a piece about a couple who was waiting on a refund of a £6000 vacation to Jamaica to be able to pay their rent. If you are so short of cash that after a few weeks of no income you can’t already pay your bills, why on Earth are you spending £6k on a vacation?

          • J says:

            Again you don’t know their circumstances, easy to play the populist card and portray these people as careless but no business planned for losing 100% of their income indefinitely. In normal times a dry cleaners or a bakery would be seen as a pretty steady reliable income… Yes it’s wise to have some savings and the benefit of hindsight is valuable but I don’t think it’s fair to sneer at people who did not see this coming.

          • Rui N. says:

            If you have zero emergency cash and have a lifestyle where you can take £6k vacations, yes it is fair to criticise them. These are not people going to the food bank that have no way to save £50 per month. Crazy idea: skip the £6k vacation one year, save the money, and boom you already have a big emergency cash buffer.

          • Lady London says:

            @Rui N we don’t know how much their circumstances have changed so we can’t judge. But a lot of people in the UK don’t earn enough to save – including some in slightly better jobs but paying London rents. Not everyone qualifies for government help right now even if they have been working.

        • Harry T says:

          @Genghis I’ve seen plenty of people in the North East living far outside their means.

          I won’t be affected financially by COVID-19, except positively due to refunds, which puts me in a better position than most people around here, which I’m grateful for. I worry about the small local business and the gig economy workers.

      • ken says:

        All recessions and economic disruptions affect people very unevenly. For some its catastrophic and can end up with loss of home and divorce.
        Others it barely affects.

        Someone as a HGV delivery driver for Tescos ?
        Probably getting odd extra shift and can’t spend money on leisure at the moment.

        Someone just made redundant from a retailer ?

        Where are they going to find a similar job at the moment ?

        Teacher ? Probably fine.

        University lecturer on a course full of EU or Chinese students ? Probably not.

        Someone with a buy to let flat ? Probably fine.
        Someone with a vacant retail premise in their pension fund ? Less so

        What I struggle to see is all the people who went on a fortnights holiday in Spain every year suddenly being content with Margate, Scarborough or Blackpool

        • Kev 85 says:

          “ What I struggle to see is all the people who went on a fortnights holiday in Spain every year suddenly being content with Margate, Scarborough or Blackpool”

          It might be a boost to those traditional holiday destinations and they certainly need it. If people I usually go on holiday with can no longer afford to go abroad, I’ll just adapt and take domestic holidays without considering it too much of a hardship.

          • J says:

            A package holidays to Spain is “cheap” for what you get, a beach holiday in Cornwall in a hotel half board probably won’t be.

          • Kev 85 says:

            “ A package holidays to Spain is “cheap” for what you get”

            Doesn’t the availability of cheap package holidays depend on those holiday providers still existing?

          • J says:

            “Doesn’t the availability of cheap package holidays depend on those holiday providers still existing?”

            Big part of the economy for Spain, Greece, Turkey etc, can’t see holidays to these places disappearing anytime soon. I think TUI are the biggest for package holiday, they will survive.

          • Bagoly says:

            Especially given the owner (or operator) of The Grand in Scarborough! 🙂

          • Rob says:

            The Premier Inn is very nice.

      • Rob says:

        You need to get over the whole ‘class’ thing. You can earn £100,000 as a plumber in London without breaking sweat. Hundred of thousands as an estate agent (your cut of 1.75% + VAT commission on an average selling price of £3m in my neck of the woods soon adds up.) There are plenty of middle class graduates earning £20,000 in menial white collar admin jobs. The distinction doesn’t really exist.

        • J says:

          But the £100k plumber and the £20k grad have similar spending power if the latter had their parents buy them a £500,000 flat.

          • Rhys says:

            As a middle class graduate I can count on zero hands the number of friends whose parents bought them a 500k flat 🙂

          • J says:

            I’ll need to borrow your hands to count the same!

          • J says:

            You’d have to be pretty rich to afford a £500k flat for your kids, not the average bank of mum and dad purchase.

          • Really says:

            What does middle class mean in UK?
            (also the middle classes) UK. a social group that consists of well-educated people, such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers, who have good jobs and are not poor, but are not very rich: The upper middle class tend to go into business or the professions, becoming, for example, lawyers, doctors, or accountants

          • Rob says:

            Which means nothing. A 21-year old receptionist or PA in the City earns more than a 10-year qualified teacher. What about the (many) kids making £1m per year posting videos on YouTube? Where do they sit? It is tricky to convince kids that the law may be a good career when realistically they can make more money on YouTube, or indeed a miles and points blog.

    • Sandra says:

      Whilst there are people who will sadly be badly affected through loss of income, business failure etc, there are also many people who, apart from food and the normal monthly outgoings for bills, are spending nothing else at the moment and saving money. No travel costs, petrol, new clothes (as nowhere to go), meals out, day trips with children. We are lucky in that we continue to receive full salaries but even many of our friends on furlough are saying they are better off as they are spending so little at the moment by staying home. Many of them, like us, will be travelling as soon as they safely are able to once this is over.

      • Henry Nicholson says:

        I agree – the money isn’t really going anywhere. Some people potentially lose out massively but others, like me, are still doing the same job and earning the same salary but my spending has gone down massively and I am not a huge non holiday leisure spender.

        At the end of this, some people will have quite a lot of disposable income and the will to get out and spend it.

  • mr_jetlag says:

    Fantastic article, and the historical perspective is useful. However I think there will be a painful transitional period of airline failures and depressed long haul travel globally (which we discussed in one of the Virgin article comments).

    I’m not an expert so I don’t know what that means for ticket prices. I suspect that over the long run, say 5-10 years, most leisure travel will revert to being a rich(er) household’s pursuit. Climate campaigns, covid, and general economics are all working against the mass travel industry.

  • Henry Nicholson says:

    As an accountant – I think that is one of your best articles.

    You would think the fixed costs vs variable is obvious but it isn’t that often understood. I like the breakdown of what revenue gets stripped out.

    • The Savage Squirrel says:

      I have to agree.
      It may be obvious to an accountant but it is certainly not intuitive to most that operating a service at an overall loss is the most rational thing to do (given that it covers variable costs, fixed costs cannot be mitigated and future improvement in trading can rationally be expected). I thought this point was explained very well.

  • Qfx says:

    Question is will business travel recover to keep subsidising leisure travel? New social distancing will discourage travelling for meetings and there is now a much better/greater understanding of remote working/meetings. Those top end priced tickets wont be getting sold in the same numbers as before, and i have seen plenty of easyjet flights priced way above £130 used in the example.

    transatlantic flights for business travel will be seriously discouraged, companies will be updating their travel policies accordingly to ensure they are seen to be protecting their staff. Fancy going abroad on holiday at Christmas/new year during flu season and the risk of a 14 day quarantine period (excluding UK arrivals) or cancellation? The travel industry is in for painful couple of years.

    • Peter K says:

      On the flip side, though not for business, I’ve had at least 2 zoom meetings a week for most of the lockdown and can say it is not the same at all as meeting in person. It is harder work, I concentrate less well (others have said the same), it is more mentally tiring, and those who are quieter don’t get their points heard as successfully.
      Will zoom et al replace face to face? No, I don’t think so. In fact, I feel this lockdown has shown to me how much worse video conferencing is than face to face meetings.

      • Richard says:

        The interesting question to me is not, “will businesses stop sending people on planes for work?”, because the answer to that is trivially no – but “will this lead to a significant cut in the number of businesses willing to pay the top end, last minute fares?”.

        If corporates starts revising downwards the max they are willing to pay for a London based employee to meet with the folks in NYC – because push comes to shove a Zoom “will do for now” and you will meet with them in person next month instead – that will really damage what flights the airlines will offer.

        • Lady London says:

          You will find mysteriously that senior people still must travel.

          • memesweeper says:

            I worked for a multinational that massively slashed its travel bill by banning travel booked less than two weeks ahead of time. Saved a *fortune*.

  • Anon says:

    Would be interesting to actually look at data at the end of August (or at any appropriate point in the future) and see if what’s predicted is true for premium fares (main revenue drivers for airlines).

    For example, are you still able to go to Amsterdam for under £80pp in Club World?

    Will the Qatar ex-Scandinavia flights to Asia for below £1,100 in J still be there?

    Will Swiss / Lufthansa still do 2 for 1 deals in J / F?

    • Rob says:

      Qatar doesn’t operate under normal economics so don’t take that as a marker! Assuming Business can be filled to 100% I would expect Lufty etc to continue to discount as they have been doing.

    • Lady London says:

      Could fares for 2/3/4/6 travelling together get much cheaper? Good profit could be had over marginal cost if people that live together all travel together as no need for social distancing between their seats.

      easyJet currently charges around £6-£7 to check hand luggage for one person. For a whole family all to check their hand luggage,they only charge a figure that can be less than 2x the rate for a single person. Or not much more, for a whole family.

      I can see them applying this kind of pricing if seats for groups if social distancing is required or preferred on aircraft. They could get in a lot of marginal revenue by treating groups this way.

  • Sunguy says:

    Call me cynical, but ” Michael O’Leary of Ryanair agrees on this point.” — is it just me or would he just agree with any point that gets people to pay him more and spend less money ?

    Forgive me, but his comments over the years have never really surprised me – even the ridiculous “feeler” that was put out about Ryanair charging for the toilets – we all know that one was probably just in some meeting minutes by some “brainstorming” exercise – but it was enough for someone to leak it (pun intended) to see what the thoughts would really be.

    • J says:

      I think that was a joke/PR stunt. O’Leary gets a lot right, and he’s correct about blocking the middle seat out being nonsense.

    • TGLoyalty says:

      Blocking the middle seat is non sense. There is no viable way to social distance on planes

      Everyone seems to be focusing on travel as if its the significant reason it spreads to more than 1 person. Travel helped it spread around the globe and for USA and Europe that cat is firmly out of the bag right now its about slowing the spread in care homes, hospitals and the wider community.

      It’s extremely unlikely this will go away it will be managed and become like any other human virus. Protecting the vulnerable as much as possible and having adequate healthcare provisions for it while treatments and vaccines are developed.

      USA has already found their first infection and death was actually 3 weeks before they thought it was and people someone who hadn’t travelled and/or showed the tell tale symptoms. Who knows what will be uncovered as things and understanding evolves.

  • Tony says:

    A sensible article which needs to go viral to silence the negative brigade.
    One thing I don’t think you mentioned was the aircraft will be lighter so saving fuel, less baggage handling charges and less delay as will be faster loading of passengers!

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.