Arthur,
As others have already indicated, debating the existence of LCCs is not going to go far.
What we do need to consider is the cause of the situation, and I'm not satisfied with the reports we have at present.
I have not yet seen Australian Aviation's article, but I wrote a feature article about Viva Macau in 2009. What stood out to me (and continues to as I talk to people at the carrier) is the regulatory constraints. Air Macau has given Viva non-retractable permission to fly to a handful of B-list destinations. Other destinations--Sydney, Tokyo--are at Air Macau's discretion.
Viva wanted to fly to SIN and Air Macau rejected them, even though Air Macau did not and still does not fly to SIN. Subsequently Macau carriers lost the SIN market to Tiger etc.
Air Macau is a story within itself, but I would not be surprised to hear there was politicking to force this action on Viva.
We've never gotten insight into why the original CEO left and why his replacement Con Korfiatis left last year.
The Airways article is severely mis-informed.
Viva is not out to provide an alternative to expensive HKG and CX. Viva aims to promote Macau, not "snaring peanut-paying passengers from its neighboring city Hong Kong".
As for Viva competing with CX, I don't see validity in that. If you want to go to Macau and fly CX, you'll have to go HKG, go into the city, and then take the ferry.
Moreover, until Air Macau started (or is supposed to start) flying to NRT, Viva is the only carrier flying the routes it does. It has no other direct competition.
Macau's future is on tourism, and Viva aims to support that. Air Macau, however, has shown itself interested in funneling passengers from Taiwan to mainland China, and not being Macau's airline. The business community in Macau understands they need an airline committed to Macau as a destination and not Macau as a transit point.
I would be very, very surprised to see this be Viva's end.
|