- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Posts
- 29,164
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Star Alliance
- Gold
Most if not all of the large airlines have a number of wholly-owned and/or controlled sub-brands, some of which are easily recognisable (Qantas / Qantas Link; United / United Express) or the sub-brand may not be obviously related by name to the main brand (Lufthansa / Eurowings). The sub-brands like Qantas Link tend to operate smaller, regional routes, but this isn't always the case.
I'd put newly created LCC brands - eg Jet Star, Rouge (Air Canada) NOT in the sub-brand category. I'd call them parallel brands as they are alternatives to the main brand on many of the routes they fly and it anables the perent to get away from legacy employment costs.
There are a number of obvious reasons why there are sub-brands, such as being acquired by current parent and parent keeps the branding for marketing to traditional market.
But I still wonder why airlines do tend to have multiple brands for regional markets. I used to think that it might be because smaller planes are more likely to be involved in an accident (yeah, I know, probably not true), so if there was an 'incident' the main brand wouldn't get 'contaminated'. Probably not.
I guess another reason might be that the small routes have smaller planes which would be a continuing and difficult exception to what the main brands tout as their virtues (seat size, FF perks etc). Yet the regional airlines are in most FF schemes, and are excepted for many of the FF perks.
I recall that when Qantas makes changes to its Burnie-MEL; Devonport-MEL routes (seems to frequently), they say "Oh this used to be a Qantas route, now its Qantas Link". SUre, its a prop plane not a jet, but its still QF flying from QF terminal to QF terminal right? Why change the name?
So does anyone have the 'real reason' why regional routes tend to be branded differently in many countries? Operating / plane leasing costs change with corporate structure? Govt Regulations different (cheaper) for 'small airlines"? Enables different working conditions to be allowed to cater for the short routes?
I'd put newly created LCC brands - eg Jet Star, Rouge (Air Canada) NOT in the sub-brand category. I'd call them parallel brands as they are alternatives to the main brand on many of the routes they fly and it anables the perent to get away from legacy employment costs.
There are a number of obvious reasons why there are sub-brands, such as being acquired by current parent and parent keeps the branding for marketing to traditional market.
But I still wonder why airlines do tend to have multiple brands for regional markets. I used to think that it might be because smaller planes are more likely to be involved in an accident (yeah, I know, probably not true), so if there was an 'incident' the main brand wouldn't get 'contaminated'. Probably not.
I guess another reason might be that the small routes have smaller planes which would be a continuing and difficult exception to what the main brands tout as their virtues (seat size, FF perks etc). Yet the regional airlines are in most FF schemes, and are excepted for many of the FF perks.
I recall that when Qantas makes changes to its Burnie-MEL; Devonport-MEL routes (seems to frequently), they say "Oh this used to be a Qantas route, now its Qantas Link". SUre, its a prop plane not a jet, but its still QF flying from QF terminal to QF terminal right? Why change the name?
So does anyone have the 'real reason' why regional routes tend to be branded differently in many countries? Operating / plane leasing costs change with corporate structure? Govt Regulations different (cheaper) for 'small airlines"? Enables different working conditions to be allowed to cater for the short routes?
