“Analysis of success of no-frill airlines in Poland”
Air travel has revolutionized global transportation by dramatically reducing the time needed to travel great distances. Journeys across nations or oceans that might have taken weeks or months can now be made in a matter of hours. With large numbers of people traveling in airplanes, air transportation has become a major part of the world’s transportation system. (Meyer, Michael D; 2006)
The Polish airlines industry experienced relatively strong growth throughout the 2000-2004 period, expanding 37.7% by 2004 relative to its value in 2000. The rate of expansion varied throughout the period. Growth is forecast to become progressively stronger over the next five years. The industry’s share of European regional revenues is also expected to increase further.
The Polish airlines industry generated total revenues of $964.1 million in 2004, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.3% for the five-year period spanning 2000-2004. This growth was substantially stronger than that of the European industry itself. In comparison, over the 2000-2004 period the industry in the
Czech Republic and Hungary grew with CAGRs of 7.8% and 10.2%, respectively. The airline passenger volumes increased significantly with a CAGR of 12.3% between 2000 and 2004, to reach a total of 9.2 million. Poland experienced an exceptional surge in 2002, and throughout the rest of the period the industry benefited from strong growth. Increases in the numbers of passengers are expected to become progressively stronger, and 15.7 million passengers are forecast to be carried in 2009, equivalent to a CAGR of 11.2% over the 2004-2009 period.
Looking forward, the industry is forecast to maintain its current performance, with an anticipated CAGR of 8.3% for the five-year period 2004-2009 expected to drive the industry to a value of $1.4 billion by the end of 2009. The emergence of Poland as a place to do business, and increased tourism, should cultivate growth in the industry.
Comparatively, the Czech Republic is expected to slow slightly whilst Hungary is predicted to strengthen its growth marginally, with respective CAGRs of 7.1% and 10.5% over the 2004-2009 periods.
In 2004, the airline industry in Poland produced total profits of approximately $964.1 million. This amount was indicative of a composite yearly rise of almost 8.3% from 2000-2004. The development increase is to a large extent greater as compared to EU. Since Poland has become a part of the European Union-EU, a surge has been seen in its airlines business that has gone through an incredible rise in its passenger fleet. The extraordinary increase in air voyages has to a certain extent been a comeback to an improved figure of vacationers holidaying in Poland, and somewhat owing to a boost in business patrons who seem to take advantage of strong relations to Europe and Poland’s speedily rising financial system.
Objective of the Research
1. To evaluate the relationship between mass migrations to Western Europe that Poland has been experiencing since entering to the European Union and rapid growth in air traffic between these destinations.
2. To identify key elements in the process of choosing by Poles their preferable means of transport
3. To illustrate and monitor changes which have occurred in Polish air industry over the last few years
4. To contribute to existing research on European low-cost airlines, air transport and travel motivation.
LEADING AIRLINES IN POLAND
British Airways Plc
British Airways (BA) provides international and domestic scheduled air services for the carriage of passengers and cargo. It also provides other services to outside parties, such as aircraft maintenance. BA is headquartered in Harmondsworth, the UK.
For the fiscal year ended March 2005, BA generated revenues of $9.6 billion compared with the previous year’s revenues of $9.4 billion. The company reported a pre-tax profit of $515.5 million for 2005.
Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT
Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT (Polish Airlines LOT) is Poland’s national carrier. The airline flies to about 50 destinations in over 30 countries. The company has a low-cost carrier subsidiary called CentralWings, which it operates in cooperation with Lufthansa subsidiary GermanWings. LOT is a member of the Star Alliance and is headquartered in Warsaw, Poland. In fiscal 2004, the company generated revenues of $797.9 million, an increase of 2% over the previous year. The company’s net income was $4.9 million in 2004, compared to a net loss of $29.9 million in 2003.
SkyEurope Airlines, a.s.
SkyEurope Airlines (SkyEurope) is a Central European low-cost airline. Established in 2001, the airline is based in Slovakia, but also has a Hungarian subsidiary and covers most of Central and Eastern Europe. It flies to about 30 destinations throughout Europe and has 700 Employees. SkyEurope is headquartered in Bratislava, Slovakia.
The company was listed on the Stock Market in September 2005, but has not released any financial data as yet.
Poland – Airlines
© Datamonitor (Published October 2005) Page 14
Wizz Air is the largest low fair operator in Central and Eastern Europe and the second largest airline in Poland. Launched in 2004 the airline attracts over a million passengers annually. From its four main bases in Poland and Hungary Wizz Air fly’s to 17 European destinations. The airline is headquartered in Katowice, Poland.
No Financial information is available for the company.
This development has showed the way to an ever-increasing amount of economical transporters functioning inside the country. Innumerable instances are proof enough for in February 2005, Centralwings an inexpensive airline was initiated that provided Warsaw and Krakow airports with fourteen flights a week to London Gatwick. In 2005, SkyEurope started daily flights linking Warsaw and London, Paris, and Amsterdam. WIZZ Air sprung routes connecting Katowice and London Luton Airport.
The increase of inexpensive, low-priced airlines has amplified the contest for established most important airliners, as well as the local airlines like LOT and British Airways, even though the bulk of airlines have profited as of the advancement in air travel in Poland. On the other hand, the lofty oil cost, which has magnified lately, has directed the swift addition in value for plane fuel. In the past dozen or more months airlines fuel expenditures have relatively exceeded and in view of the fact that oil for the most part is important for the functioning expenses for the businesses, this has sited relentless stress on revenue limitations. This has directed some airlines to work even at a loss notwithstanding the rise in traveller statistics and air voyages.
Leading Airlines in Europe With Some Statistics
British Airways (BA) offers intercontinental and inter-country planned air flights for the transmitting of travellers and freight. It in addition offers other services to external parties, for instance airliner preservation. It is based in Harmondsworth, in UK. It produced $9.6 billion in profits in March 2005 0.2% more than 2004’s $9.4 billion. The pre-tax revenue was almost $515.5 million for the former year.
Polskle Linie Lotnicze LOT (Polish Airlines LOT) caters to 50 locations in almost 30 nations of the world. It produced $797.9 million in 2004, whereas in 2003 it had produced $795.9 million. Remaining Income of 2004 was $4.9 million while in 2003 the net loss was $29.9 million.
SkyEurope Airlines, started its operations in the year 2001 with its roots in Slovakia. It’s an inexpensive airliner that caters to 30 locations all over European continent and employs 700 people.
Wizz Air is the second biggest airline in Poland that was initiated in 2004. It is a low-priced functioning airline catering to the passengers counting in Millions every year. Its basis is in Poland and it fly’s to almost 17 EU nations.
Regardless of these substantial outcomes, only extremely little have been printed on the growth of LCC in Poland. Some accessible qualified information associated to this theme is not in structure of scholarly information save for primarily statistical information (Davy report) It moderately may be put in plain words by the statement that the notion of “inexpensive flying” is fairly novel in Poland and was initiated some time ago when the country coupled with the EU.
The Polish airlines industry grew by 8.2% in 2004 to reach a value of $964.1 million.
The compound annual growth rate of the industry in the period 2000-2004 was 8.3%.
The Polish airlines industry grew by 8.8% in 2004 to reach a volume of 9.2 million passengers.
The compound annual growth rate of the industry volume in the period 2000-2004 was 12.3%.
Volume: Passengers million, 2000-
Source: Data monitor
History of LCC
A low-cost carrier is an airline that offers usually low fares in swap for abolishing a lot of usual traveller services. The idea created in the United States before distributing to Europe in the early 1990s and next to much of the rest of the world. The term created within the airline industry demoting to airlines with a low or lower operating cost schedule than their challenger. From side to side admired media the term has since come to define any carrier with low ticket prices and partial services in spite of their functioning costs.
Air travel is a huge and still emerging industry (IATA data), on the other hand it is among the difficult businesses to manage. Historical profits in this business have been little and equivalent to those in service trade (Gillen, 2004 p 41). Airline trade is recurring by character (Doganis 2002 p 5) it means that a few years of poor or bad performance are generally followed by an upturn and a few years of improving results.
Airline industry is the key element in the “world’s largest industry”, travel and tourism, which accounts for approximately 10 per cent of world GDP (Hanlon, 1999 p 1). It is divided on domestic, within the borders of one country, and international. The latter accounts worldwide for about two-thirds of the airline industry’s output (Doganis 2002, p 2).
In the past most airlines in the world were owned by national governments and as Furlong (2006) writes: “The Western European air transport market has historically been subject to significant governmental regulation, encompassing both domestic regulations imposed by individual countries and rules enacted by the EU that apply throughout its territory”. This situation has changed in the last 15 years and the style of ownership has gone from government owned or supported to independent, for-profit public companies (Lawton). This subsequently caused that alongside the large traditional airlines and their strategic partners emerged well-established, low price alternatives. Air carriers operating in the intra-EU market nowadays generally fall into one of four principal categories: flag carriers, independent airlines, franchises of major airlines and charter operators. (Furlong)
The outlook for the air travel industry is one of strong growth. Forecasts suggest that the number of passengers will double by 2010 (IATA).
History of low cost flying
American Southwest Airline have been always considered as the pioneer of low cost flying (Doganis 2001, Creaton 2004, Lawton 2002, Franke, 2004 ), however some authors suggest that this privilege belongs to Freddie Laker’s Skytrain service that transformed travel across the North Atlantic in the early 70’s (Calder 2003, Freiberg 1998)). There is no doubt however that the two biggest European low cost airline i.e. easyJet and Ryanair have always tried to copy and follow the Southwest model (O’Leary 1994, Jones 2005, Creaton 2004), although as Guild (1995) indicates, there were some difficulties associated with trying to implement it in Europe because of less flexible labour markets and high air traffic control, landing and ground handling fees. Southwest was set up in 1967 in Texas and took to the skies on 18 June 1971 with just 3 planes (Freiberg 1998). In August 2006 the airline had a fleet of 468 Boeing 737 and more than 32000 employees (source Southwest.com). At the end of 20th millennium it was the only one among US airlines which had been consistently profitable for the last thirty years (Hanlon 1999). Through all these years they have developed unique standards, which allowed them to achieve this success and at the same time became a pattern for other no frills operations. As Hanlon writes, 1970s and 80s were very difficult times for new airlines to start so the Southwest success is more astonishing: “In times when low cost airlines just started their existence (1970s) the airline industry was dominated by state owned airlines, called “flag carriers”, and the governments which owned them often subsidized and used them as instruments to further their mercantilist interests or to promote their countries’ status, power and prestige”.
During this period scheduled airlines enjoyed considerable protection from both internal and external competition (Doganis 2002) which in reality meant that privately owned new entrants like Southwest had to face many legal battles before receiving permission to fly (Freiberg 1998). Sochor (1991) explains that this phenomenon was due to the fact that national flag carriers were central to most countries’ perceptions of the national interest.
The first low-cost, no-frills European airline to have any impact was the independent Irish airline Ryanair. Launched in 1985 it targeted the Irish ethnic market between Ireland and the United Kingdom and stimulated a rapid growth (doubled in the next three years) of passenger traffic across the Irish Sea, much of it diverted from the sea ferries (Doganis p 135). It took a long time however since the airline expended out of its UK-Ireland niche and launched four routes to continental Europe from Dublin and Stansted. It added seven new European routes in 1998 and another eight in 1999 (Creaton 2004). In 2006 the airline had 2717 employees and served 115 locations throughout Europe, including 24 in the UK and Ireland (source Ryanair.com). Nearly from the beginning Ryanair did set itself out to replicate Southwest Airlines in Europe (O’Leary, 1994).
EasyJet, Britain’s biggest low-cost airline was another major player on the European aviation market. Based at London Luton, it took to the skies on 10 November 1995, just five months after its conception, flying to Glasgow with a plane normally used by British Airways (Jones 2005). Ten years later the airline was much bigger and flew to more than 200 destinations with a fleet of 119 planes and with many more to come (source easyJet.com)
There are numerous differences between no-frills carriers and traditional airlines (Doganis 2002, Lawton 2002, Creaton 2004, Jones 2005) and these are visible in many aspects of airline operations (i.e. company structure, expansion plans, view on costs and savings etc). These features show how exceptional low fare airlines are. It could have been noticed in 2001. The terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September turned crisis into disaster for many of the world’s airlines (Doganis 2001,Tarry, 2003 ), however American Southwest or European low fare potentates like Ryanair or easyJet had no real decline in business as a consequence of these atrocities (Calder 2003, Lawton 2002 p 196) This proved the thesis that low fare airlines (LFA) are more resilient than traditional airlines to market downturns (Zorn, 2001)
The biggest difference between traditional and cheap airlines is the ticket price. Simon Calder (2003) writes that what mainly made low cost airlines exceptional over traditional carriers was the fact that they allowed ordinary customers to buy tickets for an affordable price. He points out:
“In 1980, the cheapest return fare on what was then the world’s busiest international air route, between London and Paris, was around 70 pounds. This represented a week’s work for the average British worker. Today, the same fare applies – but wages have risen to the point where it is less than a day’s salary”
He goes even further in his conclusions by saying that beginning of 21st millennium showed that traditional airline model keeps people out, but low-cost flying brings them in. This “model”, in Europe mainly associated with Ryanair, is based on the objective to fill as many seats as possible on every flight, rather than to achieve the maximum revenue per passenger on every flight (Lawton, 2002 p 105)
Another distinctive thing is that the low cost carriers are largely generating new traffic rather than robbing existing carriers of their passengers (Doganis 139, Lawton 2002, p 35, Franke 2004, Mason, 2005). The study conducted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1998 just confirmed that:
“The entry of these airlines (LFA) has generally led to substantial stimulation of new air traffic without serious detriment to incumbents’ operations (CAA 1998, p. ix).”
Different study showed that 40% of all low cost passengers report that they would not be travelling if the LCC did not have their offers (Brandt, 2003). Gillen and Morrison (2003) claim similarly that LCC by using low prices became attractive to passengers who would never have considered flying before.
On the other hand, FSC (full service carriers) have been systematically losing revenue since LCC have entered the market, however, at the same time their passenger volume has increased (Mason, 2004). The reason for that, as Swan (2002) noticed was that in the last 10 years the proportion of economy passengers (over business class) in general has risen, while the average fare these passengers pay has fallen by a third. FSC have always relied on business passengers and drop in their numbers meant significant revenue losses (Hanlon, p 21)
“In the case of British Airways for example, passengers travelling in business class accounts for just 5 per cent of BA’s total passengers but generate as much as 25 per cent of the airline’s total revenue”
From operational point of view LFA differ a lot as well. They generally operate from regional airports, offer point-to-point, more frequent service to wider range of destinations, total “trip time”, both on the air and ground, is kept to a minimum, mainly due to very quick turnovers (Doganis, 2001; Lawton, 2002, Hansson, 2003). Low cost airline avoid hub-and-spoke system which serve the interest of large airlines that offer a variety of international flight connections, including long-haul (Franke, 2004) Despite having large fleets they tend to fly only one or at most 2 aircraft types (Doganis 2002 p 137). Carolin Green, a head of customer service in Ryanair, challenges any hyphothesis that traditional airlines are exceptional over no-frills competitors because of the different level of customer service they offer (Davy, 2006). In her opinion there is not much difference in the cabin experience between airlines operating short-haul flights; what matters is low fares and punctuality. IATA Corporate Travel Survey that was conducted in 1999 proves her right (Redmile 2000). According to it the factors influencing choice of airline for short-haul flights for economy class passengers are schedules – 48 per cent and low fares – 33 per cent.
Reasons for success of no frills model
Success in business is by many associated with profitability and an airline industry is not exceptional. Since 70s in the US and 90s in Europe when low fare model was becoming more and more popular, many authors have been trying to find reasons for that. According to Lawton the recipe for success in the airline industry however simple; the plane needs to be filled up and cutting prices is one tried and trusted way of filling seats and maximising capacity (Lawton 2002 p 92); is not so easy to achieve.
Furlong (Davy raport 2006) lists 4 keys for a successful airline company. These are: understanding its customer and providing a product by whatever criteria those consumers value, acquiring the right aircraft at the right price and allocating these aircraft to the right airports, then managing the growth. Doganis (2002 p7) writes that for the individual airline financial success depends on matching supply and demand in a way, which is both efficient and profitable. He expends this topic and adds that what determines profitability is as well the airline’s ability to generate unit revenues which are higher than its unit costs (Doganis 2002 p7) In very low unit costs he sees a key which enable the low-cost airlines to offer such very low fares (Southwest unit costs for instance are 25-40 per cent below those of its major competitors) (Doganis)). Low cost operators achieve most of their cost savings in the area of indirect cost and key factors affecting them are fleet structure, route network and company policies on remuneration and work rules (Seristo and Vepsalainen 1997).
Hanlon lists some of the factors, which enable LFA to be more efficient and cheaper than traditional carriers. These are higher density seating configurations in its single class aircraft, lower commissions paid to travel agents, a boarding system that does not require reservations and the fact that its services are not listed in any of the computer reservations systems. They tend to operate from less expensive downtown airports in major cities which are popular with business travellers but which had been abandoned by the major carriers (Hanlon p178)
Kevin & Jackie Frieberg (1998) think that the main reason for success of Southwest airline was the fact that “from day one, they challenged the assumption that permanently reduced fares would cut revenue”. Lawton puts similar thought in other words saying that this US company placed constant cost reduction and cash accumulation at their core. This view was far different to commonly used by traditional airlines that times (70s, 80s, 90s). According to Pat Hanlon (1999) they believed that only “high price and its discrimination was a necessary condition for the airline to maximize its profit”.
Lawton notes that European Union “open sky” legislation laid the foundation of no-frills flying and its success. Since 1 January 1993 within the European Union, airline from member states can operate with full traffic rights on any route within the Union and without capacity restrictions even on routes outside their own country (CEC, 1992b). This has facilitated the proliferation of low-cost carriers, ensuring greater competition within the industry and cheaper flights for the consumer (Morrison, 2001; Lin et al, 2001). Wright (1995) argues however that despite of these EU legislations, several European governments were still willing to confront the European Commission on behalf of their airlines. So called ‘state aid’ could involve tax concessions, state guarantees and state participation in industry, as well as straightforward financial assistance (Cini and McGowan 1998, p 136)
Lawton suggests that in case of Ryanair, the large number of first and second-generation Irish citizens living and working in the UK contributes a lot to its success:
“The size and generally increased affluence of the Irish expatriate community in the UK are key factors in the growth of Ryanair”
Segmentation of low cost airlines customers
International market segmentation has become an important issue in developing, positioning, and selling products across national borders (Steenkamp et. al., 2002). It helps companies to target potential customers at the international-segment level. Boone, L.E. et al; (1992, p261) define market segmentation as a “process of dividing the total market into several relatively homogeneous groups with much the same product interests”.
Traditional airlines have segmented their markets on each route by trip purpose or motivation simply by dividing their passengers into business and non-business or leisure passengers (Doganis 2002). The reason for only two segments is that only 2.3 per cent of trips is made for a miscellany of other reasons (ONS, 2000) The leisure market contains two distinct categories, holiday travel and travel whose primary purpose is visiting friends and relatives (often referred to as VFR) (Doganis 2002 p 183) In case of no-frill airlines no attempt has been made to distinguish between different passenger groups. As Lawton writes: “business people, students seeking summer work, emigrants visiting their families – all have constituted Ryanair’s target market and all shared the same non-assigned seating arrangement”. This policy has been working well. As Doganis points out, despite their relatively poor in flight services and the use of less accessible secondary airports, the low cost carriers are attracting business as well as leisure passengers. Some research clearly showed that more and more business passengers each year chose to fly with low fare airlines (Go 1999; McWhirter 2000).
Lawton or Gillen (2004) state that low price carriers traditionally have been attracting the VFR travellers, however Davy research (2005) shows that in case of Ryanair there is a pretty even split between, business, leisure and VFR traffic. On question what is the main purpose of your journey 23.15% said business, 37.57% leisure and 39.29 visiting friends or relatives. Other findings were that the Ryanair product is attractive to all segments of the market and there is a fairly even distribution between age groups. McWhirter (2000) estimates that, depending on the route; between 40% and 80% of LCC passengers are traveling on business.
Freiberg (1998, p.29) presents different airline segmentation model, which used to be more dominant in the past than it is now ; the airlines operate as though there are only two market segment: those who can afford to fly and those who can not. According to him, this has changed over the years, mainly because of LCC influence on the airline industry.
Demand for air travel
Early surveys of air passengers, such as those done at the University of Michigan (Lansing and Blood, 1984) established that higher incomes result in greater expenditure on longer-distance holiday and VFR travel, and at the same time a higher proportion of that expenditure goes on travel by air rather than surface. Doganis (2002) expends this topic in his research as well. He concludes that of the general factors affecting demand, the price of air transport and the level and distribution of personal income in the markets served are perhaps the most important.
“As a general rule, the higher the personal disposable income of the population in a country the greater is the proportion of holiday trips in the total international air travel generated by that country”.
Hanlon (1999) however claims that budget airlines contradict to this theory. According to him LCC proved to be successful mainly by focusing on very low, affordable for the masses price where personal income in the market and service level are not that important.
Various supply conditions other than price affect demand as well (Doganis, 2002). These are: short term, frequency, seat availability, departure and arrival times, number of en-route stops and so on. The air journey is a part of a variety of other products or services too so to forecast the demand for air services; demand for all these other types of expenditure needs to be predicted (Doganis, 2002 p 24). For instance, demand for holiday trips is related to the tourist attractiveness of particular destinations. VFR demand is clearly affected by earlier population movements and migrations, which are very specific to particular routes (Lawton, Doganis). Leisure travel demand is affected by determinants such as travel costs, relative price of other goods, income and socioeconomic characteristic. Business travel demand is determined by factors such as travel costs, relative price of complementary production input factors and a firm’s output level (Brons, et al. 2002).
Lawton says that demand for air travel in general is highly elastic; “reduce the price and sales rise sharply”, however he claims that reducing prices to gain market share is not usually a sound business strategy (p. 4). According to Hanlon demand for leisure travel is price elastic, but that for business travel is price inelastic (Hanlon p21). In other words, demand for business travel in general tends to be less sensitive to changes in airfare than demand for leisure travel (Brons, et al. 2002).
Motivation to travel is defined as a set of needs that cause a person to participate in a tourist activity (Pizam et. al, 1979). Different authors have tried to distinguish and separate motives and desires of tourists, as well as their planning procedures. Lundberg (1971) divided motives on educational, relaxation and pleasure, ethnic and a group of sundry motives, Crompton’s (1979) extended this list with five other motivations such as escape from mundane, prestige, regression, enhancment of kinship relationships and facilitation of social interaction. Shoemaker (1994) segmented tourists on Get Away/Family Travelers, the Adventurous Travelers, or the Gamblers/Fun Travelers. Goeldner et.al., (2000) concluded that tourists travel for reasons of spirituality, social status, escape and cultural enrichment.
Chul Oh et al. (1995) claim that most studies of tourist motivations have been based on the concepts of push and pull factors. Most of the push factors are intangible or intrinsic desires of the individual travelers such as the desire for escape, rest and relaxation and so on, whilst pull factors are those that emerge as a result of the attractivness of a destination as it is perceived by the traveler (Uysal and Hagan, 1993)
Background of Polish travel Industry
While the majority of strategy producers will admit, one may have in sight a lot of approaches of getting several strategy resolutions wide of the mark. In this case of required estimate, there are a few obvious samples. It is perhaps constructive to momentarily analyse them given that a superior perceptive of these chronic errors possibly is a first-rate position to set off recovering required estimate. An approach of getting to the setback and to follow the causes for the significance of required estimate is to consider the costs from the perspective of the key features of a transport scheme and specifically the modifications in this scheme to meet up the likely requirement.
Assets for important planning are rather measured and expensive and by some point it is obligatory to strive to take stakes on development estimates in demand. If these stakes are baseless, it can be pretty expensive. Estimate can moreover be in addition positive or too conventional.
Figure 1: Market Potential By Airline
Source: Davy European Transport and Leisure
The improvement of air transportation in Poland was beyond compare in European terms in 2005. It does, on the other hand, relate to global journeys, with increase in quantity equivalent only in the company of the Chinese market. It may be expressed as the beginning of the travel prospective, which was until that time weighed down by high-priced journey fares. Severe contest amid the inexpensive transporters has effected in exceedingly high increase in air transport equally in incoming and outgoing sightseeing. The explosion in the number of travellers at Poland’s provincial airports has increased their rapid expansion subsequent to strong savings.
Nonetheless, land is up till today the leading mode of transport, even though with a deteriorating share. Rail, as a conventional way of transportation, is in rejection for the most part owing to the rigidity of Poland’s rail system in provision of its competitiveness in comparison with other way of transportation
This graph explains the passengers and growth of the airlines industry in Poland. In the year 2000 the passenger were 6 million, and the growth was 0. in 2001 the passenger increased to 6.5 millions and the growth was approx 5% , in 2002 the passenger increase from 6.5 millions to 8 millions as well as the growth increases from 5% to 25%, the year 2003 shows declining in both i.e. passenger and growth.
FIGURE 3: Poland Size of Population (million), 2000-2004
FIGURE 4: Poland GDP (1995=100), 2000-2004
FIGURE 5: Poland Inflation, 2000-2004
Keeping into consideration the current allotment, connections by means of the Internet constantly nurtured in significance, chiefly for transactions of air travel documents and hotel bookings. In order with the active growth of Internet travel corporations, conventional workers have as well started to initiate Internet services. This constructive development is likely to carry on above the estimated time.
The act of Internet transactions is strongly linked to the increasing figure of Internet consumers, declining cost of Internet connections and superior feature systems which all effect in the growth of a quantity of probable customers for the travel and sightseeing market.
Migration patterns in Europe.
Improvements in communications have contributed to increased mobility worldwide and have led to a shrinking of space time distanciation (Beck et al. 1995)
The patterns of migration between Central-East Europe (CEE) and Western Europe are to a great extent short-term and circulatory in character (Wallace and Stola, 2001),
In the future, as wage levels in CEE and EU countries approach one another, migration will likely decline (Wallac p 606).
Impact of No-Frills Airlines on Traffic Growth
Dr Harry Bush said: “No-frills airlines have enormously increased the range of fare, route, destination and departure choices available to the travelling public. The emergence of no-frills airlines and the response of other airlines to this have benefited passengers generally, and have demonstrated the advantages of opening aviation markets to competition. However, no-frills airlines do not appear to have significantly altered overall traffic growth. Nor have they substantially changed the profile of those flying: passengers on no-frills airlines resemble those on full-service airlines. Their main effect has been to provide further opportunities to those in middle and higher income groups to fly more often.”
The effect of no frills airlines on traffic growth is directly proportional. This means if the no frills airlines increases the growth of transfer will also increase and vice versa. The impact is positive and led to more development; it is very beneficial for every class of people. Like the lower class and the student can enjoy a low cost carriage even if there are less services.
Substitution between Airlines
An important issue in the growth of no-frills airlines has been their success in taking market share from present airlines, it is impossible to measure with accuracy the degree to which no-frills growth is owing to transfer generation or to transfer substitution. Previously, this transfer has come from charter airlines, maybe to a much superior level than has been established, particularly. In contrast, the no frills airlines is increasing and growing day by day. It is taking over the market and help the travelers to explore new destinations. The airlines are switching towards the no frills in order to be more profitable. Now a days people want to save money, in no frills airlines the cost is very low and the people can save more money. Even at the cost of service people still consider no frills airlines.
Incomes of UK passengers
Particularly, No-frills airlines have not had a particularly important consequence on the whole socio-economic structure of UK spare time passengers. There has been small change in the comparative incomes of spare time passengers; the number of passengers from all income groups has greater than before eventually. However, there has been an alteration in those flying for business purposes, with an increase in the proportion of lower and middle income business passengers. The travelers of all classes, start from higher to lower the income of the people is saved due to these no frills airlines. The income structure is moderate and therefore the people want to travel through these airlines.
Changing patterns of travel
“The growth of the EU has led to important flows of people from the new EU Member States to and from the UK. This is reflected in the growth of the listed system in the UK-Poland market. In July 2000, there were only five scheduled services between the UK and Poland: four from London to three Polish cities (Warsaw, Gdansk and Krakow) and one from Manchester to Warsaw. In July 2006 there were 37 scheduled services linking 10 Polish cities and 13 UK airports, covering virtually the whole of the UK. From the past few decades, the pattern of traveling was same after the no frills airlines it started changing”
The methodology employed for this research is quantitative method and hypothetico-deductive method. Deduction is a process of reasoning in which reasons are given in support of a claim. The reasons, or justifications, are called the premises of the claim, and the claim they purport to justify is called the conclusion. In a correct, or valid, deduction the premises support the conclusion in such a way that it would be impossible for the premises to be true and for the conclusion to be false. In this, deduction differs sharply from induction, a process of drawing a conclusion in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
The actual truth or falsity of the premises and the conclusion is not at issue in determining whether an argument is a valid deduction. In the following argument, for instance, two premises are offered in support of a conclusion: All the planets in our solar system are equipped with an atmosphere.
Pluto is a planet in our solar system. Therefore, Pluto is equipped with an atmosphere. One of the premises in this argument is in fact false, and so is the conclusion. But the argument is still deductively valid: If the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true as well.
The form of an argument determines whether it is a valid deduction. In general, arguments that display the form “All P’s are Q’s; t is P (or a P). Therefore, t is Q (or a Q)” are valid, as are arguments that display the form “If A then B; it is not the case that B. Therefore, it is not the case that A.” The following example displays the latter form: If there is life on Pluto, then Pluto has an atmosphere. It is not the case that Pluto has an atmosphere. Therefore, it is not the case that there is life on Pluto.
The study of different forms of valid argument is the fundamental subject of deductive logic. These forms of argument are used in any discipline to establish conclusions on the basis of claims. In mathematics, propositions are established by a process of deductive reasoning, while in the empirical sciences, such as physics or chemistry, propositions are established by deduction as well as induction.
Air Transport Industry
Air Transport Industry is an area of commerce that uses aircraft to transport people, cargo, and mail. The air transport industry encompasses flights of common carriers (government-certified companies that offer cargo and passenger services to the public) and general aviation (private aircraft used for recreation or business). See also Airplane; Air Traffic Control; Aerospace Industry; Aviation. (Neale, Tim; 2006)
The air transport industry supports a wide range of businesses. These include independent maintenance and repair shops, food caterers, aircraft cleaning services, fueling services, and airport security firms. The industry supports schools for pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics, as well as travel agencies, hotels, car rental companies, and other businesses in the travel and tourism industry. (Neale, Tim; 2006)
Origin and Development
Flying for pleasure and adventure began during the 19th century, when European inventors experimented with hot air balloons and gliders. In 1910 the air transport industry was established in Germany when regular air service with gas-filled airships called dirigibles began to provide service between cities.
The first powered flights in a heavier-than-air machine occurred on December 17, 1903, when Orville Wright and his brother Wilbur Wright made their historic flights at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. On January 1, 1914, a group of Florida businesspeople launched the first scheduled air service using an airplane. For a period of four months, the Saint Petersburg-Tampa Air Boat Line transported a total of 1,200 passengers across Tampa Bay in a two-seat Benoit seaplane. The trip took about 20 minutes, and the one-way fare was $5. The service folded at the conclusion of Florida’s winter tourist season, but it was the first such venture that indicated scheduled air service could be commercially viable. Similar passenger services in the United States and Europe soon followed.
Passenger air service developed faster in Europe than it did in the United States. World War I (1914-1918) devastated many of Europe’s roads and railroads. The war also proved the military value of airplanes and sparked a dramatic acceleration in aircraft production. At the end of the war, fledgling commercial air carriers took advantage of the ruined ground transportation system and the large surplus of aircraft and pilots. Air service within Europe flourished, and by the 1930s government-sponsored airlines were operating well beyond Europe to numerous European colonies in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. (Neale, Tim; 2006)
Numerous technological advances made between World War I and World War II (1939-1945) were key to the development of the air transport industry. Navigation was greatly improved in the 1920s when rotating beacons began to mark air routes for nighttime flight.
Radio, which developed around the same time as aviation, made it possible for pilots to communicate with each other and with people on the ground. By the 1930s radio signals from fixed locations were guiding pilots to their destinations in darkness and poor visibility.
Engineers also made numerous advances in aircraft design during the 1930s. Air-cooled engines helped reduce weight and made larger and faster aircraft possible. Cockpit instruments also improved, with better indicators for airspeed and rate of climb and better altimeters and compasses.
American aviator James Doolittle helped design the artificial horizon in the late 1920s. This instrument shows pilots the angle the aircraft’s wings make with the ground and is important for flying in reduced visibility.
In the 1920s engineers developed aircraft that resembled today’s modern planes. These airplanes were all metal with one wing on each side of the plane, an engine on each wing’s leading edge, retractable landing gears, wing flaps to control speed, propellers with variable angles to increase climbing and cruising speeds, and enclosed cabins for the crew and passengers. One important aircraft developed at this time was the Boeing Company’s 247, which was widely used as a passenger aircraft into the 1940s.
Another important aircraft was the Douglas Aircraft Company’s DC-1, designed so the exterior surface of the plane bore most of the stress during flight, eliminating the need for an interior skeleton of metal spars, which took up space. A similar aircraft, the DC-3, proved even more popular with travelers and was the first plane that enabled airlines to make money carrying passengers rather than mail. It seated 21 passengers, more than any previous aircraft, and its 1,000-horsepower engines made it possible to travel coast to coast in the United States in 16 hours, considered a fast trip in the mid-1930s.
The Boeing Stratoliner, introduced in 1940, was the first aircraft to have a pressurized cabin, an innovation that enabled airlines to fly in the thin atmosphere above storms and air turbulence that frequently gave passengers upset stomachs and deterred many people from flying.
Future of the Air Transport Industry
The air transport industry has grown enormously in the second half of the 20th century. The number of passengers worldwide grew from 177 million in 1965 to an estimated 3.3 billion in 2000. The number of U.S. airline passengers for the same period increased from 103 million in 1965 to an estimated 666 million in 2000. The U.S. airlines transported their 10-billionth passenger in scheduled service in June 1995, 81 years after the start of scheduled service. (Neale, Tim; 2006)
Background of Airlines Industry in UK
The background of no frills airlines in the UK is explained as:
inbound transfer is now a extra significant factor of UK no-frills airlines no-frills airlines now take almost half of all UK short-haul travelers;
’ business and more travelers are traveling to and from a much broad variety of destinations, particularly Eastern European;
“UK airports have changed the way they operate, and there is much more competition for airline business than hitherto; and there has been a marked increase in the availability of flights from the UK regions.”
The report shows that the rate of growth of short-haul transfer annually is very similar to the ones, which were before the arrival of no-frills airlines the growth of most of the no frills airlines are at the count of their own carriages. The report also finds that the no frills airlines also effects the income of profile of a traveler. In the last few decades, the profile of leisure travelers in no frills or in full service is similar. Although the number of leisure travelers has been increased, major increase comes from the middle or higher level of income or socio groups. The airlines in UK works on two different strategies first luxury class and second no frill flight.
No frills airlines revolution or evolution?
In short, the no frills airlines revolutionized the airlines market by changing the fares, the choices or airport airlines and destination is quiet difficult. However, the small evolution is that there is an increase in the overall rates of the traffic growth, and the marked change in income and socio economic profile of the travelers.
The no frills airline brings many deviations in the industry. From top to bottom, the industry started changing. The no frills airline is revolutionary in a way that it provides cheap cost, with a moderate service. The people who can’t afford or the students are given the benefit so that they can travel easily. It’s evolutionary in a way that it brings more travelers which means that there have to be more flights it would result in air traffic and pollution. These are the reasons due to which no frills airlines is not in common use. If we don’t consider the environmental factor then there is no problem with the no frills airline. Because everyone will be benefited, they will enjoy the low cost carriage.
The following is the analysis of the Questionnaires:
Q: Number of times you have flown between UK and Poland in 2006
Q: Do you often fly with no frill airlines rather than traditional carriers?
Q: Why do you choose to fly with Low cost carriers?
COMPARING WITH SIMILAR STATISTICS
In order to argue over environmental concerns, we should not put the benefits of low cost flying aside: It’s astonishing how much distinction the competence of the low-cost operators have made to the cost of flying. Before few decades, the cheapest return air fare was £150 to Venice. Today it is nearly £300, allowing for inflation. In December the return fare was £17 including tax. We have to pay for the services we use while traveling, but it is very obvious that most of us are happy with the inconveniences for much lower fares.
The growth of air travel is causing a major environmental issue nowadays, but if we compare the no frills airlines with the airlines they are replaced is much more eco-friendly. In order to earn profit, the no frills airlines have to suffer a lot, like having new planes with better fuel efficiency and more space.
The British airways sold there last routes from regional airports to European destinations to Flybe, last week. The use of no frills airlines as environmental friendly, Embraer 195 aircraft will reduce the consumption of fuel up to 50%.
The airlines have also been extremely creative in growing their systems. It is an enormous enjoyment to be capable to fly into small airports such as Carcassonne or La Coruña, Bologna or Chambery and discover cities and regions in a way we never done before.
There are some disadvantages. However, the violent profitable strength that flames the force to keep fares low by wounding every probable cost is a power until it sieve through to customer service.
When flying with Ryanair, for example, it feels that it is more treated as luggage than travelers. Placing all the importance on price may work in the short term, but it would not go in long term basis because people don’t take time to decide to pay a little more money to get better service.
If we consider paying more, low-cost airlines may have ambitious downward fares, but the additional are rising. We have to pay a lot of things like meal in the flight, checking in luggage, transportation, taxes, or charges from credit card.
It must be probable to offer voyage deliberate to bring travelers unswervingly and promptly to the heart of the European conurbation and still be inexpensive. Germanwings is a product of this concept. Germanwings is your low fares airline with an appealing site precisely at Cologne/Bonn airport. From here they fly to attractive places trough out Europe. A contemporary flotilla, remarkably well-qualified employees, and guarantee the uppermost principles of security.
Characteristics of Low Cost Carrier
Typical low-cost carrier business model practices include:
· Consider on single passenger
· A single type of airplane, commonly the Airbus A320 or Boeing 737 (reducing training and servicing costs). Exceptions include Oasis Hong Kong Boeing 747 and Kingfisher Airlines order of the A380.
· A simple fare scheme (typically fares increase as the plane fills up, which rewards early reservations)
· Unreserved seating (encouraging passengers to board early and quickly
· Flying to cheaper, less congested secondary airports and flying early in the morning or late in the evening to avoid air traffic delays and take advantage of lower landing free
· Short flights and fast turnaround times (allowing maximum utilization of planes)
· Simplified routes, emphasizing point-to-point transit instead of transfers at hubs (again enhancing aircraft utilization and eliminating disruption due to delayed passengers or luggage missing connecting flights
· Emphasis on direct sales of tickets, especially over the Internet (avoiding fees and commissions paid to travel agents and Computer Reservations Systems
· Employees working in multiple roles, for instance flight attendants also cleaning the aircraft or working as gate agents (limiting personnel costs.
· “Free” in-flight catering and other “complimentary” services are eliminated, and replaced by optional paid-for in-flight food and drink (which represent an additional profit source for the airline).
· Aggressive fuel hedging programs
· “Unbundling” of ancillary charges (showing airport fees, taxes as separate charges rather than as part of the advertised fare) to make the “headline fare” appear lower.”
The aforementioned points are not followed by every no frills airlines, some of them tries to differentiate themselves with seating, while others control more than one type of aircraft, still others having relatively high functioning costs but low fares.
Nonetheless these are general characteristics, most of which apply to any given low-cost carrier. They have changed with all the luxury icons that the travelers are not rely on: for example, don’t have First and Business Class categories. All travelers fly at the same economical rates and in the same comfort. There are many airlines which can be used and recommended are below:
· central wings
· direct fly
There has been an additional important influence on business travelers. They have an inferior earnings outline on the whole now than a decade ago. The accessibility of inferior fares to and from additional destinations (and in exacting the elimination of fare limitations) has made journey on a variety of airlines more feasible for inferior earning business travelers, particularly from the UK regions. This shows that it is linked directly to the impact no-frills airlines have had on the market. The report does not attempt to tackle the much wider issue of aviation’s effect on the environment, but the information provided on the impact of no-frills airlines should contribute to a more informed debate on this and other policy questions. The CAA is committed to a sustainable aviation sector, and supports efforts to set the right framework for the industry, so that it meets its full costs, including those related to the environment”.
“No-frills carriers have undoubtedly revolutionised the way the short-haul airline market operates. The most marked effect has perhaps been in relation to the availability of low and unrestricted fares and the considerable increase in the choice of destinations and airports available to passengers.”
No-frills carriers have brought about a very diverse attitude and commerce replica into the European airline division that has forced obtainable airlines to alter their own business and contribution in reaction.
However, in relation to their effect on collective transfer enlargement, and the outline of the flying public, the impact appears to be more advance, with growth rates continuing at largely similar stages to those attained before the arrival of no-frills carriers, and the traveler combine remaining widely steady over time.
The results provide all necessary information needed from top to bottom. Every single thing is considered and explained. The CAA also did a research on no frills airlines the results were quiet similar i.e. the no frills airlines are an easy way to travel and it is environmental friendly, it gives short term benefits, it provide guidelines for all the other airlines, they are taking over the airline industry, it is both evolutionary and revolutionary, buying new planes, needs more investment then an ordinary airlines.
The increase of cheap, low-priced airlines has augmented the challenge for recognized most significant airliners, as well as the local airlines like LOT and British Airways, even though the size of airlines have earnings as of the progression in air travel in Poland. On the other hand, the high oil cost, which has exaggerated lately, has directed the speedy extra for plane fuel. In the past dozen or more months airlines fuel spending have comparatively surpass and in view of the fact that oil for the most part is important for the operation payment for the businesses, this has sited persistent pressure on profits boundaries. This has directed some airlines to work even at a loss notwithstanding the rise in traveller statistics and air flight. The airline industry should consider all the consequences in order to be profitable. In this report we fully consider the relationship between mass migration to Europe and to Europe union, the elements or means of transports, the history of polish airlines and contribution of LCC in the development.
Airlines in Poland, Industry Profile, Reference Code: 0151-0756, Publication date: October 2005, airline_in_Poland.pdf, 26th Dec, 2006
Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S., (1995), “ Reflexive Modernisation”, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brandt, O., 2003. Der Hannover Airport im regionalen Wettbewerb. Master Thesis (unpuplished), Abteilung Wirtschaftsgeographie, Universitat Hannover.
Brons, M., Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 2002. Price elasticities of demand for passenger air travel:Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 165-175
CAA Report Investigates the Impact of No-Frills Airlines | CAA News | CAA
CAPA – Aviation News
CEC (1992b) Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, Official Journal, 24 August, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Cini, M. and McGowan, L. (1998), Competition Policy in the European Union, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Civil Aviation Authority (1998), The single European aviation market: the first five years, CAP 685, London: CAA
Competitive advantage of low-cost carriers: some implications for airports • ARTICLE
Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 41-50
David Gillen and Ashish Lall
Davy European Transport and Leisure, davy_2006-03-29.pdf, 26th Dec, 2006
Francis, G., Humphreys., I., 2002. Policy issues and planning of UK regional airports. Journal of Transport Geography 10, 249-258.
Franke, M., 2004. Competition between network carriers and low-cost carriers-retreat battle or breakthrough to a new level of efficiency? Journal of Air Transport Management 10 15-21.
Gillen, D., Morrison, W. 2003. Bundling, integration and the delivered price of air travel: are low cost carriers full service competitors? Journal of Air Transport Management 9, 15-23.
Go (1999), “Room for all: a report on the low cost airline sector from Go”, company press release
Guild, S., 1995. Not so easy. Airline Business 11 (6), 68-73
Hannson Mason, K., J., 2004. The value and usage of ticket flexibility for short haul business travellers, eighth Air Transport Research Society Conference, Istanbul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_carrier 26th Dec, 2006
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=14&pagetype=65&applicationid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1372 26th Dec, 2006
http://www.centreforaviation.com/aviation/blogcategory/Aviation_News/16/32/ 26th Dec, 2006
http://www.ryanair.com/site/about/invest/docs/2005/20Fstatement05.pdf str 13 to jest to co podaje ryanair.com
Lansing, John B. and Blood, Dwight M. (1984) The Changing Travel Market, Ann Arbor MI: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan
Low-cost carrier – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mason, K., J.,2005. Observations of fundamental changes in the demand for aviation services. Journal of Air Transport Management 11, 19-25.
McWhirter, A. (2000), “Plan saving: no frills but no big bills either”, Business Traveller, June, pp. 24-7.
McWhirter, A., 2000. Plain saving : no frills but no big bills either. Business Traveller 15, 24-27.
Morgan Stanley (1997), “European Transport: Airlines (Ryanair: Flying Celtic Tiger)”, Investment Research UK and Europe, 2 May.
Neale, Tim. “Air Transport Industry.” Microsoft® Encarta® 2006
O’Leary, M. (1994) “The challenge of replicating Southwest Airlines in Europe”, Insitute of Economic Affairs Second International Aviation Conference, London: 14-15 November.
ONS (2000) Travel Trends: a Report on the 1999 International Passenger Survey, London: HMSO for the Office of National Statistics.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., Reichel, A., (1979). Tourist satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 195-197.
Redmile, Annie (2000), “Passenger priorities”, Airline Business, March, pp. 70-2.
Seristo, H. and Vepsalainen, A.P.J. (1997), ‘ Airline cost drivers: cost implications of fleet, routes, and personnel policies’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol.3, no.1, pp. 11-22.
Sochor, E. (1991), ‘The Politics of International Aviation’, London: Macmillan
Swan W., 2002. Prices, Fares, and Yields. Working paper, Boeing, Seattle.
Tarry C., Industry wisdom revisted, Airline Business, January, 56-57.
Travel and tourism in Poland, http://www.euromonitor.com/Travel_and_Tourism_in_Poland, 26th Dec, 2006
Wallace, C., 2002, “Opening and closing borders: migration and mobility in East-Central Europe”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 28, Number 4 , 603-625.
wazny link o ryanairze
Wright, V. (1995), ‘Conclusion’, in J. Hayward (ed.), Industrial enterprise and European integration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zorn, B. (2001), “Comparing low cost markets in the USA, UK and Europe”, aviation presentation, Amsterdam 27 February.
This is the questionnaire which I would like you to incorporate to the research.
What is your nationality?
Where do you permanently live?
If you are Polish and live in the UK, how long have you been living there?
less then 1 year
More than 4 years
What is the reason for taking this flight?
Visiting Friends and Relatives
How many times have you flown between UK – Poland in 2006 (counting as one way)?
More than 7
Have you used any other means of transport (i.e. coach or a private car) in commuting between UK – Poland in 2006?
Approximately, how many times per year did you fly between UK – Poland before 2004?
More that 7
Did you use any other means of transport (i.e. coach or a private car) in commuting between UK – Poland before 2004?
Do you always choose no-frill airlines rather than traditional carriers?
Why do you choose to fly with Low cost carriers (scale 1-10, 1 very low, 10 very high score)?
cheep and attractive ticket price
airport location in the UK
airport location in Poland
reliability, no delays
did not have choice, available ticket
How would you describe customer service offered by this airline?
Questionnaires were distributed at the Stansted Airport in London and Luton Airport among passengers waiting at check in gates for Ryanair flights: London Stansted – Rzeszow (Poland), London Stansted – Gdansk, and easyJet flight: London Luton- Warsaw on 14th of December 2006. Participants were chosen at random, without any particular pattern. I was approaching them by asking if they don’t mind me conducting a research. Only 14 people out of total number didn’t want to participate. Questionnaire was constructed to be as easy for participants as possible to fill in because of circumstances. I needed response quickly back, without few minutes of handing it in. Each participant had been explained from the beginning what traditional and low cost carriers are. In most cases it did take more than 2-3 minutes for them to answer the questions. I had to language versions of this questionnaire: polish, handed in to Poles, and English, for other passengers.
I didn’t ask for age, it was irrelevant for this research.
I managed to receive 104 questionnaires (39 Stansted-Rzeszow route, 36 Stansted-Gdansk route, 29 Luton-Warsaw)
81 people were polish, 14 british and 9 other nationalities. There were only 4 foreigners on route to Rzeszow what might be explained by the fact that this destination is not popular tourist and business wise. 11 foreigners flu to Warsaw and 8 to Gdansk.
Majority of polish passengers were flying to visit their families, and this might be associated with the fact of coming Christmas, however there were a group of people flying for business as well (especially easyJet’s passengers). Out of 81 poles 67 declared that they flu to visit friend and relatives, however 19 circled two answers: VFR and Leisure . 8 stated that they flu only for leisure and 6 for business
53 Poles said they live permanently in the UK, 23 in Poland and 5 in other place.
Out of 53 Poles who live permanently in the UK, 14 have been living there for less then 1 year, 21 1-2,5 years, 11 2,5-4 years and 7 more than 4 years. So since joining EU by Poland 66% polish respondents have moved to the UK
Out of 104 respondents 12 have flown between UK and Poland in 2006 just once, 39 , 2-4 times, 35 5-7 times and 18 more than 7 times
Only 27 respondents said they have used other means of transport to go to Poland in 2006.
Before 2004 68 passengers said they hadn’t flown between UK and Poland, 11 flu once, 12 2-4 times, 9 5-7 and only 4 more than 7 times
49 said that they had used other means of transport to move between UK and Poland before 2004. The research doesn’t show the number of people who hadn’t been traveling between UK and Poland at all, before 2004.
On question: do you often fly with no frill airlines rather than traditional carriers 14 responded always, 37 very often, 16 half, half, 21 occasionally, 16 very rarely
Question 10: Why do you choose to fly with Low cost carriers (scale 1-10, 1 very low, 10 very high score)?
42% answer a) cheap ticket
8% answer b) airport location in the UK
23% answer c) airport location in Poland
11% answer d) convenient schedule
5% answer e) no choice
2% answer g) other
Last question, polish customers replied 8 very good, 41 good, 21 satisfactory and 8 nothing special and 3 bad. Foreigners 1 very good, 11 good, 6 satisfactory, 3 nothing special, and 2 bad.
2003 2004 200
Airline freight traffic S43 – mn tonne-km
Airline passenger traffic S42 – mn passenger-km
Distance flown on scheduled flights S41 – mn km
Km travelled by air S56 – km per capita
Scheduled airlines: aircraft departures S44 – ‘000
Scheduled airlines: passenger load factor S45 – %
Scheduled airlines: passengers carried S46 – ‘000
2003 2004 2005
Tourist arrivals from Europe S236 – ‘000
Source: 236 Tourist arrivals from Europe: Euromonitor International from World Tourism Organisation
Tourist arrivals by air S107 – ‘000
Tourist arrivals by air: Euromonitor International from World Tourism Organisation