Talk:Low-cost carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Origin of Business Model

What is the source of the information that the business model was first exploited by Pacific Southwest not Southwest?

  • How about "The Chronicle of Aviation," JPL Publishing 1990? I don't have an exact cite, but I own the book (it's in storage). Or Wiki's own article on them? Elwood64151 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's do a switch to "Low cost airline"

The term "carrier" for "airline" is industry speak, and should thus be avoided in Wikipedia. "Carrier" can in itself mean almost anything, as it just means someone who carries something, while "airline" is unambiguous. In Wikipedia we have the article "Airline", as well as the article "Cargo airline", so why should this article suddenly use the much less well known term "carrier"? When ordinary people (i.e. not those working in the aviation industry) come to Wikipedia to find out more about this subject, which search words are they most likely to use: Low-cost/low cost/low fare/low-fare/low-frills/ "airline" or "carrier"? There is currently a redirect from "Low cost airline" to "Low-cost carrier". I propose that we simply switch them with a simple move, and then add a few more redirects for all the different "low" variants. Anyone opposed? Thomas Blomberg 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Me, for one. Low-cost carrier and its abbreviation "LCC" are the industry standard term and widely used outside it (try eg. punching it into Google News), and it also beats low-cost airline in the Google test by 1,680,000 [1] to 1,100,000 [2]. Jpatokal 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
At the moment "Low-cost airline" and "Low cost airline" redirects here so that is good enough for me and we do use both terms in the start of the article. I'm neutral though. Strawberry Island 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, perfectly legit title with redirects in place already. Deizio talk 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yield management

I removed the reference to "typically fares increase as the plane fills up, which rewards early reservations (yield management)" as the LCCs' the-earlier-the-cheaper pricing policy is just one example of a yield management approach - the term yield management refers to a broader revenue maximisation activity. I updated a few of the references elsewhere in the article too. Ecozeppelin 12:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated fleet

The part about outdated fleets contains a lot of spelling errors.

Agreed, and it's also not relevant to low-cost carriers in particular. I have created a new page, Future aircraft developments, which is perhaps more appropriate, and have included some of the references from this section there. I am therefore removing this section from this article. Ecozeppelin 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

(Further to the above: There were some odd and factually incorrect statements in the added section ("turbofans can't use alternative fuels since they are based on combustion, so propellors would be better...") which also led me to remove it. I wanted to contact the user who added this to encourage her/him to expand on the subject but perhaps with some fact-checking and in a more relevant article, but it was an anon user...) Ecozeppelin 13:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the same anon user (81.244...) has now inserted a comment about boundary-layer suction again. I have deleted it again: it is a technical development not any more relevant to low-cost carriers than to other types of airline. I created the Future aircraft developments page for this and other such technical issues. A polite request to this user: feel free to expand on topics such as boundary-layer suction there or to create a dedicated page for the topic - but it doesn't belong here. Ecozeppelin 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business structure

Some of the things on the business structure simply do not make sense having them there.

For example, reserved seating, and one aircraft type. This really only applies to Southwest...

I'd respectfully disagree - I think the list is a reasonable one. Ryanair and easyjet don't provide reserved seating. Ryanair have one aircraft type; easyjet when they decided on two felt the need to explain their decision because of the conventional wisdom that LCCs should only have one type. Not every low-cost carrier is going to tick all those boxes, but most of the points will be true. However I've added a sentence to try to make this clear. Ecozeppelin 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add external link

Recently I added an external link to my own (non-commercial) site I’m currently working on. It’s a site which is part of my graduation research and all about European low-cost carriers. By posting a link I was hoping to share the knowledge, any suggestions or ideas why link is removed? Jvdz 07:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably removed it, along with a number of other links that were getting added. I certainly remember looking at your site and seeing quite a lot of "under construction" sections. The Wikipedia:External links guideline suggests avoiding adding A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. Thanks/wangi 08:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I plan to have another update at the end of June, and will post a request at this place. Sorry I didn't follow the guidelines correctly. Jvdz 08:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My research has finished and would like to suggest my related site for inclusion into the external link section. The site is non-commercial and by posting the link I hope to share the results of the research. If someone agrees I hope he/she could add the link according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. The link: European low-cost carriers. Jvdz

There's a site out there (unfortunately Cheap Flight Finder !!) which provides a continually updated catalogue of active and planned European budget carriers, destinations, routes, etc. including background information on active and defunct carriers and summarising all route-based press releases from all European LCCs. Useful to see the scale and geographical spread of both the industry and of individual operators. Appropriate as a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.30.42 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I've updated the pictures: they were both of Ryanair aircraft which seems a bit skewed. It seemed reasonable to remove the 737-200 as it's no longer in service with Ryanair, so I have used the new 737-800 picture that user Marc Almond added, and also the earlier Easyjet 737-700 picture. Ecozeppelin 09:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents and Incidents

Not sure that the "accidents and incidents" section contributes much to the article. What does a PSA in-flight collision in 1978 have to do with modern LCC operation? And wasn't the Helios flight that went down in 2005 a charter flight? A JetBlue emergency landing with no injuries is listed - should we be listing all emergency landings? I don't think so. I'd respectfully suggest that perhaps this section could be deleted, but I'm interested to hear other opinions. Ecozeppelin 09:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section is irrelevant. Since there has been no activity on the topic for some time, I will remove the section now. --KPWM_Spotter 23:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
People are concerned that low-cost carriers spend less maintaining there planes than full service airlines. Some refuse to travel on them for safety reasons. I was trying to collect all of the accidents and incidents in one place. The JetBlue landing is clearly an incident. Edward 07:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

True, the jetBlue landing is an incident. But; each airline's page should have a section like what you have put together, the information is redundant It doesn't make any clear conclusions about safety, nor does it show all of the accidents and incidents that have taken place. This list of occurances could easily be replaced by a few lines of text explaining the airlines' safety procedures relative to the legacies, and how they are no more or less safe. As this article is now, it is more focusing on the buisness aspect of the airlines. The crashes are simply out of place. --KPWM_Spotter 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental impact

It should be noted too that flying at night is better vor the environment than flying during the day. It has something to do with the oxidization-process of the fuels.

Lastly, it should also be noted that non-polluting engines exist too (such as hydrogen-engines/compressed air engines in cars), and that these can be used on plains too (when they switch to normal propellors instead of turbofan's, such as those found in Hercules C-130 plains).

KVDP 10:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure this section should even be included. It seems utterly irrelevant to include a statement about the environment when we're talking about airlines and airplanes. Perhaps a separate article, or an article on the environment, but not this one. I especially object since no one can honestly claim to know one way or the other if man is the cause of global warming. Elwood64151 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be included and I've deleted it. It might belong in a "criticism" section of air travel, but it has little to do with low cost airlines.--Rotten 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wordpress.com

Regarding the links to wordpress.com, please read the warnings placed on the most recent IP: here or the discussion at Editor Requests: here ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business models

I think a lot of these aren't really true anymore, or are not unique to LCCs:

  1. a single passenger class
  2. a single type of aeroplane (commonly the Airbus A320 or Boeing 737), reducing training and servicing costs
  3. a minimum set of optional equipment on the aeroplane, often excluding modern conveniences such as ACARS, further reducing costs of acquisition and maintenance
  4. a simple fare scheme, such as charging one-way tickets half that of round-trips (typically fares increase as the plane fills up, which rewards early reservations)
  5. unreserved seating (encouraging passengers to board early and quickly)
  6. 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 fees
  7. fast turnaround times (allowing maximum utilization of aircraft)
  8. 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)
  9. generation of ancillary revenue from a variety of activities, such as a la carte features and commission-based products
  10. emphasis on direct sales of tickets, especially over the Internet (avoiding fees and commissions paid to travel agents and computer reservations systems)
  11. employees working in multiple roles, for instance flight attendants also cleaning the aircraft or working as gate agents (limiting personnel costs)
  12. a disinclination to handle Special Service passengers, for instance by placing a higher age limit on unaccompanied minors than full service carriers
  13. Aggressive fuel hedging programs

For example, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are pretty widespread among major carriers too, and 1 and 2 are common among regional airlines. I have my doubts that 6 and 12 are true, especially since none of it this sourced. Torc2 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole difference between full-service and low-cast carriers is a line drawn in water these days, but I think the list does fairly well present how LCCs generally try to keep costs down. Jpatokal (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 ? Certainly 6 & 12 true? For 6, check ratios of LCC flights to London-Gatwick vs. Heathrow. For 12 check conditions of carriage by, eg., Ryanair. Can't see any on list which are not primarily LCC tactics.212.137.30.42 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That's only one city though, and plenty of non-LCCs fly into Gatwick. Many secondary airports are served by major carriers as well as LCCs, and the time-of-day argument is totally unsupported. As for 12, one airline doesn't make this a standard business model for LCCs. In any case, this needs to be sourced beyond "just look" for it to stay. Torc2 (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Secondary airports - that plenty non-LCCs fly to Gatwick is indisputable, but not relevant regarding LCC's preferences! Stansted and Luton are better examples, but same applies to Brussels, Paris and numerous other cities so common practice in Europe. Can't see the time-of-day thing - perhaps in other markets. Text needs changed to include "and regional" at least as importantly as "secondary airports": in the UK Prestwick and East Midlands are obvious examples, which otherwise would have virtually no traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.30.42 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. If the practice isn't unique to LCCs, it's really no more useful to list as a business practice to list than, say, "fly planes", and if many LCCs still fly to major airports as well, it's really just not true. Certainly in the North America it's not all that accurate. Either way, it's still going to need to be sourced. Torc2 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Structure

The "History" section seems to have descended into country-by-country notes by interested users, skewing the articles (eg. why a "Finland" entry but not a "UK" entry ?; why an "Asia" section as well as "India" and "Japan"). Does this need restructured into (for example) "North America", "Europe", "Asia", "Rest of World" divisions. And/or renamed from "History" to "Local History" or "Local Conditions"? 212.137.30.42 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental concerns

I think the point about LCCs creating extra travel and thus causing extra CO2 emissions is a valid one — it just needs a better cite, which shouldn't be too hard to find, as I've seen this in the press several times. Jpatokal (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)