Talk:Ted (airline)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Airlines WikiProject

[edit] Name origin

do you think the origin of the name came from the last three letters of United? That's my theory. Kingturtle 19:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I heard that on NPR. Christopher Mahan 22:16, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By the way, what with the copyright notice near the photo? Christopher Mahan 22:16, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's the guy who took the picture. - User:James Anatidae 23 Nov 2003

[edit] Low-cost carrier

There's nothing in the Low cost carrier article which would exclude Ted from Category:Low-cost carriers, nor any industry or regulatory designation I'm aware of which defines what does and does not constitute an LCC and by which Ted is to be excluded. It's not easyJet, but it's quite LCC-like for an airline like United. Certainly UAL considers it their LCC: United and UAL repeatedly refer to Ted as the company's "low-fare offering" and as "United's low-fare service" in press releases, Tilton's speeches refer to "United’s low-fare leisure brand" and "our new low-fare carrier," and United's annual report calls it "Ted, a low-fare service" and states definitively "The introduction of Ted by United in early 2004 was designed to provide United with a lower-cost operation..." -choster 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Other than fancy language from the airline, can you point out any distinctions which makes Ted low-cost? An airline purporting to be low-cost does not make a low-cost carrier. I think it is fair to say that one should expect to see some characteristic traits of a LCC in an airline before they can be considered low-cost. Are they doing anything to lower their cost base, which is ultimately where the distinction lies? T0m 09:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has only one class of service, flies one type of aircraft, never had meal service (when mainline United did), and sells only six fare classes (compared to more than twice as many on mainline and p.s.). (In)famously you can't even get a full can of soda. In terms of CASM it's impossible to say authoritatively because it does not report separate financials (as with Song). In the absence of a stricter LCC definition from IATA, ICAO, FAA, etc., it can't be excluded. News articles, even in the business press, refer to Ted as a discount or low-cost service, so it's reasonable to presume the average user expects to find it there (unlike, for instance US Airways). choster 16:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Ted...

Okay the information here is somewhat premature. Ted isn't technically dead yet only the advertising is going down for the brand name. Also alot of the terms previously edited by Inetpup is a bit harsh, Ted isn't being killed, it's being "discontinued", or "removed". Also, you can't say it "will have been", because who knows, what if all of a sudden fuel prices go down so drastically, and the economy improves and United decides to bring back Ted, and keep the 100 planes? Who knows? Anything can happen, so you can't predict this stuff.SFOetthekid (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth just continuing the discussion at Talk:United Airlines#"Premature death" of TED for sake of consolidating the conversation. --Matt (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)