Introduction: The Decline of the Low-Cost Carrier (LCC) Model
For decades, the low-cost carrier (LCC) business model has been a game-changer in the aviation industry, enabling millions of travelers to fly on a budget and reshaping the way airlines approach cost structure and pricing.

Airlines such as Southwest, Ryanair, and EasyJet built empires by offering no-frills flights at lower fares, often with ancillary services and fees adding to their bottom lines. However, in recent years, many budget airlines have found themselves struggling as the model faces mounting pressure from rising costs, competition, and changing passenger expectations.

As the aviation industry begins to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, one question arises: Can budget airlines continue to thrive in a post-pandemic world, or should they shift their focus to a more premium customer base? The idea of upgrading service offerings and pursuing more affluent passengers has gained traction among some players in the LCC space. But is this the right move? Will chasing premium customers solve the problems facing the low-cost model?

The Rise and Evolution of Budget Airlines
The origins of the budget airline model date back to the 1970s, with Southwest Airlines often credited as the first low-cost carrier. Founded in 1967 and taking off in the early 1970s, Southwest revolutionized the industry by offering simple point-to-point routes, standardized aircraft, and minimal frills. This made air travel more affordable for a broader segment of the population and set the stage for the global rise of low-cost carriers in the decades to follow.

Ryanair, founded in 1984, is another key player in the LCC space. Under the leadership of Michael O’Leary, Ryanair aggressively slashed costs by charging for extras, eliminating complimentary services, and focusing on the most profitable routes. These strategies enabled Ryanair to offer low base fares while generating significant revenues from additional fees, such as for checked bags, seat reservations, and food.

By the 1990s and 2000s, the LCC model had spread across Europe and North America, with EasyJet and other carriers joining the ranks. By 2000, LCCs represented around 30% of all European flights, and by 2010, low-cost carriers had captured about 40% of the market share in the United States as time progressed, the model started to face challenges, and a growing number of budget airlines began to struggle. What had been an industry-defining strategy was no longer as effective in a landscape marked by high fuel costs, fluctuating consumer demands, and competition from established full-service airlines that had adopted similar low-cost features.

The Struggles of the LCC Model: Rising Costs and Changing Passenger Expectations

Several factors have contributed to the struggles of budget airlines in recent years.

The first and most significant challenge has been rising operational costs. The aviation industry is heavily dependent on fuel prices, and the volatility of global oil prices has made cost forecasting a challenge for budget carriers. While LCCs historically thrived by keeping their operating costs low, recent increases in fuel prices have affected their profitability, especially as they typically do not hedge against these increases as aggressively as larger full-service airlines.

Another challenge for budget airlines is the increasing complexity of the ancillary revenue model. While extra fees for baggage, seat selection, and food have been critical to budget carriers’ profitability, passengers are growing increasingly frustrated with the “a la carte” pricing. As more passengers find themselves nickel-and-dimed for basic services, their loyalty to LCCs is weakening. Many now perceive budget airlines as offering a subpar experience, particularly when it comes to customer service, flight delays, and lack of amenities.

The post-pandemic has also revealed that travelers are willing to pay more for a better experience, particularly in the business and premium travel segments. With business travel rebounding and higher levels of disposable income in some markets, more affluent passengers are seeking out quality services and comfort. In contrast, the budget airline model—which offers limited amenities and often no flexibility—no longer seems as appealing to those looking for convenience and quality in their travel experience.

Will Pursuing Premium Passengers Solve Budget Airlines’ Problems?

As the LCC model struggles, some budget airlines have begun exploring the idea of catering to premium passengers. This shift involves offering a more robust service package, including additional legroom, better in-flight amenities, and flexibility in ticketing—something traditionally associated with full-service airlines. But is this strategy a viable path forward, or will it merely dilute the distinctiveness of the LCC model?

Case Study: JetBlue Airways

One of the most high-profile examples of a budget airline attempting to capture premium passengers is JetBlue Airways. While JetBlue has long been a low-cost carrier, it has gradually transitioned towards offering more premium services. In 2021, JetBlue introduced its “Mint” premium service on select routes, which includes lie-flat seats, gourmet meals, and access to airport lounges.

The introduction of premium service allowed JetBlue to compete with full-service airlines on select routes, particularly transcontinental and international flights. However, despite the success of the Mint service, JetBlue has been careful not to abandon its core low-cost business model. It continues to offer more affordable fare options while gradually adding premium services as an additional revenue stream.

Case Study: Ryanair’s Transformation

Ryanair, traditionally known for its extreme cost-cutting measures and no-frills service, has also made moves towards appealing to a more premium customer base. In 2021, Ryanair launched a premium offering, Ryanair Plus, which includes benefits such as extra legroom, priority boarding, and flexible ticket options. However, Ryanair has been careful to maintain its low-cost core by keeping its basic fares highly competitive.

This dual approach—where LCC’s maintain their low-cost offerings while introducing premium services for a select group of customers—has been viewed as a potential solution to the struggles facing budget airlines. The question remains whether this hybrid approach will be sustainable, especially if passengers expect the same level of service across all routes and price points.

A Comparison with Full-Service Airlines
The traditional model of full-service airlines is based on offering a wide array of services, from lounge access and in-flight entertainment to flexible ticketing and loyalty programs. These airlines have a higher cost structure but also benefit from customer loyalty and premium pricing. Airlines such as American Airlines, British Airways, and Singapore Airlines continue to cater to the premium passenger, with higher ticket prices offset by high levels of service.

For passengers, the experience of flying on a full-service airline is markedly different from that of a budget carrier. Full-service airlines generally provide better customer service, more comfortable seating, higher quality in-flight entertainment, and perks such as airport lounge access for business-class passengers. However, these services come at a premium price. In contrast, budget carriers offer a more utilitarian flying experience but are considerably cheaper for those willing to forgo the luxuries of air travel.

The key question for the future of the LCC model is whether budget airlines can maintain their identity as low-cost carriers while introducing premium offerings that will satisfy a more discerning customer base without alienating their core market of budget-conscious travelers. As airlines seek to strike a balance between these two approaches, the outcome will ultimately depend on the ability to deliver a more flexible, high-quality experience without significantly raising prices.

The Future of the Budget Airline Model
As budget airlines continue to face rising operational costs and shifting passenger expectations, many are considering shifting their focus to attract more premium passengers. Whether this strategy will succeed or dilute the appeal of the traditional low-cost model remains to be seen. However, the growing demand for enhanced services and the increasing willingness of travelers to pay for comfort presents an opportunity for budget carriers to evolve.

The future of the LCC model may lie in finding the right balance between low-cost operations and premium offerings, catering to both price-sensitive and service-oriented travelers. For the time being, the success of this hybrid model will depend on how effectively airlines can leverage technology, streamline operations, and introduce high-quality experiences while maintaining their competitive edge in pricing.

“If you did a bad job with the delivery, all the other benefits are not that attractive,” he said. “The core value proposition is: Did you have a great experience across selection, quality and affordability using the underlying product? Are you using us for restaurants and other categories? That is what is going to differentiate us.”

DoorDash Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tony Xu has spent the past 11 years building the company that now owns more than two-thirds of the food delivery market in the US, far exceeding Uber Eats (26%) and Grubhub (6%). The app also has a loyal user base, with more than half of DoorDash users owning a DashPass subscription, according to YipitData. More importantly, for investors, the company finally became profitable from its operations in the third quarter this year.

But Xu says building out the product is only 80% of the work to keep the company successful. The rest will come from external partnerships, a strategy that his gig economy peers, including Uber Technologies Inc., the biggest company in the industry, have also increasingly leaned on as they seek new avenues of growth.

The latest effort to boost paid subscriptions is DoorDash’s partnership with Lyft Inc. announced last month. The tie-up is an example of two brands tapping into each other’s customer base to boost engagement without having to merge or make an acquisition. Uber has a restaurant-delivery partnership with Instacart, while Amazon.com Inc’s Prime membership offers a Grubhub subscription perk.

After spending about a decade offering habit-forming services —whether it’s hopping into a stranger’s car instead of hailing a taxi, or opening a door to someone who picked up a restaurant meal and a bottle of wine from the deli down the block — these companies now have a clearer understanding of the competitive landscape. Even as diners returned to restaurants in the post-pandemic era, take-out has become such an ingrained habit that companies know getting customers into a subscription will mean more dollars and time spent on their apps.

So now it’s about finding partners strategically to build a larger system and lock in a more diverse pool of customers. Lyft CEO David Risher had earlier this year rejected the idea of his company offering food delivery on its own because that would keep people at home and exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. But he sees value in joining with the largest food delivery app because it gives millions of DoorDash members “a reason to prefer Lyft” for their rides and provides Lyft a way to compete better with Uber, which offers rideshare and delivery.

For DoorDash, which launched its membership in 2018, three years earlier than Uber, the deal offers customers Lyft discounts in addition to the existing benefit of free access to the ad-tier version of the Max streaming service. DoorDash is also getting new customers through an expanded partnership that offers certain Chase card holders a free subscription and discounted orders. These external perks have helped it maintain a lead on user penetration over the Uber One subscription. (As of September, 42% of Uber Eats users were subscribers, per YipitData. That percentage is lower if all users including rideshare customers are counted.)

Keeping subscribers isn’t easy, however. According to Bloomberg Second Measure data, only 35% of annual DashPass subscribers who made their first membership purchase in September 2023 were retained after a year. Annual subscriptions to Instacart+ show similar numbers with a 32% retention rate. (These figures do not include free trials and free subscriptions through credit card or other partnerships.) The real challenge will be finding creative ways to retain paying users, or at least keep them in the ecosystem so it’s not as costly to acquire them again.

DoorDash Chief Financial Officer Ravi Inukonda said the data doesn’t reflect how membership really works. The company has increased the flexibility it gives to accommodate consumers’ lifestyles with monthly, annual and student plans. “If you’re traveling with young kids, or you’re traveling in the summer and you want to put the program on hold, that’s completely OK with us,” he said.

These people who churn off the membership program are not leaving DoorDash, Inukonda said. And the company is confident in earning their membership back through offering more benefits in the future, as well as through the core product delivery service, which includes not just restaurant takeout, but also alcohol, grocery, makeup and even mattress deliveries.

“If you did a bad job with the delivery, all the other benefits are not that attractive,” he said. “The core value proposition is: Did you have a great experience across selection, quality and affordability using the underlying product? Are you using us for restaurants and other categories? That is what is going to differentiate us.”

After all, partners won’t matter if the main product isn’t drawing members. Case in point: Grubhub hasn’t been able to reverse a streak of losses in orders and users, ceding market share to DoorDash and Uber even as it has been offering free food delivery to hundreds of millions of Amazon Prime members since 2022. That is one of the reasons parent company Just Eat Takeaway.com NV announced this week it will be selling Grubhub to startup Wonder Group for $650 million, a steep discount to the $7.3 billion price tag at its peak during the pandemic.—Natalie Lung

The Global Business Leader Charity Golf Tournament is set to elevate the intersection of business and sport like never before. Golf has rapidly become a favorite pastime among executives, and this event marks the first of its kind in this unique format, debuting in Jamaica in November 2025, with plans to expand globally.

Bringing together top executives from around the world (with special focus on Africa, Asia, Europe and Caribbean), this prestigious tournament will see them compete across three world-class courses over five thrilling days, all vying for the coveted title of “Best Global Business Leader Golfer.” With global bragging rights on the line, this is more than just a game—it’s a chance for companies, employees, and fans to rally behind their business leaders in a high-stakes competition.

Get ready to witness business leadership meet competitive golf on a global stage in November 2025!

For More Information please email info@asterixtourism.com or contact

Roy Page for Player Registration, Accommodation,  charter flights and logistics – 876-781-7588

Peter Lindo for Competition execution and management – 876-8159700

Aldo Antonio Muir for Marketing, Promotions and Sponsorship -876-542-3719

Unilever has initiated talks with buyout firms to potentially sell its ice cream business, a move estimated to be worth up to $19.4 billion. This strategic decision aims to streamline Unilever’s operations and focus on its core business areas.

Unilever’s ice cream division, which includes renowned brands like Ben & Jerry’s, Magnum, and Wall’s, generated a turnover of €7.9 billion in 2023, representing about 13% of the company’s total sales. The separation will create a standalone ice cream business with significant global presence in both in-home and out-of-home segments.

The sale is driven by the distinct operational needs of the ice cream business, which differ from Unilever’s other segments. Ice cream has unique supply chain requirements, seasonal demand fluctuations, and higher capital intensity. By separating, Unilever can focus on its remaining core segments—Beauty & Wellbeing, Personal Care, Home Care, and Nutrition—aiming for mid-single-digit sales growth and improved margins post-separation​.

The potential buyers include private equity firms like Advent International, Blackstone, Cinven, and CVC Capital Partners, which have shown preliminary interest. The separation process will involve significant operational changes, including a major productivity program aimed at reducing costs by €800 million over the next three years, offsetting any dis-synergies from the separation. This plan also involves a restructuring that will impact approximately 7,500 predominantly office-based roles globally​​.

Overall, this move is expected to create a world-leading ice cream business with the flexibility to grow and innovate independently while enabling Unilever to become a more focused and higher-performing company.

In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, consolidating marketing efforts into a social-first framework has become essential for brands seeking to maximize the effectiveness of their marketing channels, content strategies, and influencer collaborations. This comprehensive approach leverages the power of social media to create a cohesive and data-driven marketing strategy that enhances engagement, reach, and ROI.

Understanding the Social-First Framework
A social-first framework prioritizes social media as the primary channel for marketing activities. This approach ensures that all marketing efforts are integrated and optimized for social media platforms, where consumers increasingly spend their time. By consolidating efforts into a social-first strategy, brands can streamline their marketing processes and make more informed decisions based on real-time data and consumer insights.

Benefits of a Social-First Framework

Unified Marketing Channels:
Consolidating marketing efforts into a social-first framework allows brands to create a unified strategy across multiple channels. This ensures consistency in messaging and branding, leading to a stronger and more cohesive brand presence.

Example: Coca-Cola effectively uses a social-first approach by maintaining consistent branding and messaging across all social media platforms, which reinforces their brand identity and enhances consumer recognition​​.

Enhanced Content Strategies:
A social-first framework enables brands to develop content strategies that are tailored to the preferences and behaviors of their social media audiences. By analyzing social media data, brands can create content that resonates more deeply with their target audience.

Example: Starbucks uses social media analytics to understand what types of content their audience engages with the most. This data-driven approach allows them to create highly relevant and engaging content, from seasonal promotions to user-generated content campaigns​.

Optimized Influencer Collaborations:
Integrating influencer marketing into a social-first framework ensures that influencer collaborations are aligned with overall marketing goals and strategies. Social media data can help identify the most effective influencers and measure the impact of their campaigns.

Example: Daniel Wellington’s influencer marketing strategy is deeply integrated into their social-first framework. By leveraging data to identify influencers who resonate with their target audience, they have successfully driven brand awareness and sales​​.

Implementing a Social-First Framework

Centralized Data Collection and Analysis:
To implement a social-first framework, brands need to centralize their data collection and analysis. This involves using tools that aggregate data from various social media platforms, providing a comprehensive view of consumer behavior and campaign performance.

Example: Sprout Social offers robust analytics tools that help brands gather and analyze social media data, enabling them to make informed decisions and optimize their marketing strategies​​.

Content Creation and Distribution:
Content should be created with a social-first mindset, ensuring that it is optimized for the platforms where it will be shared. This includes creating visually appealing graphics, engaging videos, and interactive posts that are tailored to each platform’s unique features.

Example: GoPro’s social-first content strategy involves creating stunning visual content that showcases their products’ capabilities. By focusing on user-generated content and sharing it on platforms like Instagram and YouTube, GoPro effectively engages their audience and promotes their brand​ (Latest Insights)​.

Leveraging Real-Time Engagement:
Social media allows for real-time interaction with consumers, providing an opportunity to build stronger relationships and address customer needs promptly. Brands should use this capability to engage with their audience, respond to feedback, and foster a sense of community.

Example: Nike’s real-time engagement strategy involves actively responding to customer inquiries and comments on social media. This proactive approach not only improves customer satisfaction but also enhances the brand’s reputation as responsive and customer-focused​.

Conclusion
Consolidating marketing efforts into a social-first framework provides a comprehensive and data-driven approach that maximizes the potential of marketing channels, content strategies, and influencer collaborations. By prioritizing social media, brands can create more cohesive and effective marketing campaigns, engage with their audience in meaningful ways, and drive better business outcomes. Adopting a social-first strategy is essential for brands looking to thrive in the digital age and stay ahead of the competition.