Talk:List of low-cost airlines

message: Wouldn't List of low-cost airlines be better than this? Carriers might mean anything - couriers, long-distance phone carriers - I was even tempted to add HMS Invincible. DJ Clayworth 19:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Low-cost carrier", often abbreviated LCC, is an airline industry term. Those outside it usually talk about "budget airlines" or "no-frills airlines". Jpatokal 01:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I moved the page, this will avoid confusion as most people who visit wikipedia isn't working in the airline industry. Fuelbottle | Talk 07:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I dont quite agree that "Low-cost carrier" is a term confined to the airline industry. In fact, it is more widely used in academia, and interchangeably in the media too. By its very term, it is highly understood to refer to airlines, and I would think it is in wikipedia's interrests to follow academic and industry conventions over laymen speak, which can change over time? And by the way, our main page is still named as Low-cost carrier. --Huaiwei 01:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion about naming this page

message: It is not clear at the moment, why some airlines are listed as pan-European and others under their respective country.  Clearly, most of them will be offering pan-European flights.  However, I would suggest to use those airports where an airline has a base as a distinctive feature.  Hence, my suggestion is to list those airlines that have bases in several countries as pan-European (and maybe indicate the bases used), and all others under the country where their base(s) are located. --SmilingBoy 13:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old entry, but it's worth discussing.  I removed (awhile ago) the duplicate entries and limited the airlines to their respective base countries.  Adding them for every country served is, I think, a very bad idea.  It introduces a level of detail we just don't need in this article.  My only other suggestion would be to list airlines that serve a region under that region, so a section would have to be introduced for worldwide, multiple continents, single continents, and smaller regions if necessary (and keeping country designations for domestic-only airlines).  That's a viable option, but I really do prefer the current layout. Torc2 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: One more thing, the current model matches the one used on List of airlines (much to my surprise). Torc2 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming back to this article after a long time, the way it is now is totally inconsistent.  Ryanair is listed under Ireland, UK and Poland.  Why?  Why not Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Italy etc?  Easyjet in Bulgaria and UK?? What was the reason to remove the pan-European carriers? I think it makes a lot of sense to list those airlines with bases in several countries first (maybe spell out each country in which the airline has a base for each of these carriers).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmilingBoy (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between listing an airline as pan-european or under the respective country 

message: One remark - I don't think Eurowings can be counted as a low-cost carrier.  Unless anybody can give some reasons to include it on this list, I will delete it. --SmilingBoy 13:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should remove Swoop, which is defunct now 71.167.203.154 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about which airlines count as "low-cost" 

message: A low cost carrier is not just an airline that has inexpensive seats.  There are many airlines which have inexpensive seats available on their jets if you are flying out of the right location.  For example, flights out of New York City on Continental (at EWR) are very, very inexpensive, but that doesn't make Continental a LCC.
A low cost carrier is one in which the airline goes above and beyond to operate with minimum costs.  This includes flying as many point to point flights as possible (i.e. Southwest) and trying to minimize the use of the hub-spoke system (also, i.e. Southwest, Airtran moving the load to BWI, etc.).  LCC carriers also typically have un-unionized pilots, flight attendants, and ramp workers.  LCC's in America also typically do not engage in flights to other continents, and most LCCs offer only coach seating.
When US Airways and America West merged, they did not state they were going to become a low fair airline.  They stated that they would become a "full service airline with the pricing structure of a low cost carrier."  They key words there are "pricing structure".  US still flies a wide variety of jets, maintains hub and spoke systems all around the country, flies all around the world, is part of the Star Alliance, has a fully unionized work force, and maintains an extensive network of regional carriers which it passes flights on to.  US also has multiple class seating, including first class, and maintains all of the benefits that Star Alliance members accord their frequent fliers.  For all of these reasons, US Airways is not a low cost carrier, nor is it trying to be one and nor does it want to be one.  Whether it evolves into one (the possibility is there) is something that we'll have to wait and see, but now, in a lengthy merger  process, certainly not.
On a separate note, we could add airlines Ted and Song, because those airlines, though owned by parent companies who are major carriers, operate as separate firms.  This is a source of tension between the unions of a major carrier and its low-cost counterpart, because the LCC's airline is not unionized, and many of the major carriers are trying to shift the flight load onto their less expensive operations to combat profit losses and raising operating costs.
:No, Ted and Song do not actually operate as separate firms. There is no union tension. Ted's pilots, flight attendants and ground workers are United employees on the United seniority list. Ted's planes are operated under the United Airlines certificate. Ted's cost structure is exactly the same as United's cost structure. Ted's work rules are exactly the same as United's work rules. There are zero substantive differences between Ted and a United mainline flight other than the paint job and the missing F-cabin. Ted and Song are brand names, not airlines, much as US Airways Express is not an airline, but a brand name used by airlines.
:US Airways *is* a "low-cost carrier" based on its per-seat-mile costs, at least in the US West/America West Airlines division. Whether or not there is First Class seating or assigned seats or airline clubs, etc. is irrelevant. It's per-seat-mile costs that are at issue. Furthermore, whether they want to admit it or not, Southwest Airlines *does* have a hub-and-spoke system, albeit far more diffused than any operated by a legacy carrier. Chicago-Midway, Oakland, Phoenix, Baltimore/Washington, etc. are all essentially major connecting and transfer points on the SWA system, even though they don't specifically schedule connecting banks.
:Your statement that LCCs have non-unionized employees is categorically false - Southwest Airlines is the most heavily unionized airline in America, and AirTran is also a union shop. AirTran offers a premium "Business Class" cabin and has a massive hub in Atlanta. AirTran even had a traditional fee-for-departure express contract with Air Wisconsin at one time... "AirTran JetConnect." I guess we need to take AirTran off the list. Pull Spirit off too, given that they fly dozens of flights to the Caribbean from their hub at Fort Lauderdale. Frontier has almost nothing BUT hub flights to and from Denver. They have virtually NOTHING point-to-point, except for... flights to Mexico! Holy hell, clearly that makes them not a low-cost carrier! Man, they even have elite levels to their frequent flyer program - gosh darn, revoke their LCC licence immediately!
:You're confused as to what is actually whipsawing the mainline legacy pilots. It's not the LCC pilots - Southwest's are some of the highest-paid in the industry. It's the "Express" carriers, contracting out what used to be mainline jobs at pathetically low wages. Pilots flying those 50-seat RJs can collect food stamps. Small jet providers (and that's what Air Wisconsin, Chautauqua, Mesa and SkyWest actually are, not airlines) are flying hundreds of routes that used to be mainline jets with mainline pilots and mainline employees. FCYTravis 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Air-America West and Properties of a LCC 

message: I am sorry but who ever decided to take US Airways off the list should be blocked. The airline has been a LCC since 9/11 it started slashing fares to leisure markets, adding food for purchase to its fligts and cutting the per seat cost. Was it a true LCC before it merged with HP? Probably not, but now it certainly is. If you want to keep talk about it please do but do not take US off the list again. -Ben 05:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Back US Airways 

message: Is Aegean airlines considered a low cost airline? Having flown with it on more than one occasion i can tell you that not only it doesn't fit any of the characteristics mentioned in the wikipedia page but additionally doesn't consider itself a low cost airline. I think the entry should be removed.
--GVasil 13:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real opinion about that specific case (yet), but I do think there needs to be some clear, objective criteria for an airline to be on this list.  I have no idea what the criteria would actually be, and I doubt know if there's an authoritative organization that has codified this.  What do we do in that case, vote for  consensus?  I think it would be OK if we did that and stated the criteria in the header of the article itself.  Ideas? Torc2 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aegean airlines 

message: I took JetAmerica out of the Americas list, because they are defunct as of July 18, 2009. Thecooley (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed JetAmerica

message: Why Russia is in Europe but Turkey in Asia? --195.110.6.24 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey was before listed twice:once in Europe and once in Asia. Someone deleted the listing in Europe. There is always a problem with transcontinental countries, also with Egypt. Perhaps it is best to list these countries in the continent in which they have their capital city, so Egypt in Africa, Russia in Europe and Turkey in Asia. (Had to strike out Egypt as it should be listed under 'Middle East' in this article.) Takeaway (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia, Turkey, etc. 

message: Anyone want to create a bottom-of-the-page template for low-cost carriers to go on each carrier's article?  I'd find it useful, as I already went to the bottom of easyJet to look for one since I recall flying on a different low-cost carrier in addition to easyJet when I was in Europe, but couldn't remember the name.  No template there, though.
It would likely require cutting down to only the largest/"most important" low-cost carriers, or there could perhaps be several templates, one for each continent, which include links to the other templates as well. Any takers? Lexicon (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is inherently POV. While this list could (and should) contain an extensive disclaimer and a discussion of the definition of a low-cost airline etc, this could not be done in an infobox. The problem lays in defining a low-cost airline? With only a handful of exceptions (such as Ryanair), most low-cost airlines do not meet one or many of the "criteria". These include: single-aircraft fleet, non-membership in travel-agent booking system, no on-board frills, extensive revenue from surcharges, single-class seating, serving secondary airports, non-membership in IATA, non-membership in an alliance, only point-to-point operation, no regional affiliate, no intercontinental operations, outsourcing of all non-core operations, no frequent flyer program, and there could be more. How the line is to be drawn will undoubtedly be POV, particularly when airlines that meet none of the criteria often market themselves as low-cost. Academic sources are even more ambiguous, discussion how some airlines are going "down" to low-cost while some traditional low-cost airlines are "upgrading" to become legacy carriers. Arsenikk (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template? 

message: I don't know who insists on including Atlasjet in Turkey's list. Please give up insisting on this! Atlasjet is NOT a low - cost carrier. It is a FULL - SERVICE AIRLINE.  It provides free drinks and snacks, 30 seat pitch, free shuttle services in many airports and it doesn't charge for checking luggage. It doesn't charge for pre - selecting seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokaydince (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlasjet

message: Where to place Turkey? Asia or Europe, because almost 97% of Turkey is in Asia and even the Capital city, some people stay changing it, please answer.
Greetings,
snskiller (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor Asia, given where most of the country's area, and most of its population, is. Russia is harder, as most of its area is in Asia, but most of its population is in Europe.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to place Turkey? 

message: Israel don't have a low-cost airline. the company Israel Airlines does not exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.180.234 (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  In the future feel free to be bold and remove them yourself.  Thats not at all a controversial edit.  Ravendrop 10:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: This article needs to cite sources. Also, some low-cost airlines that should be added: Skybus (US), GoJet (US).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Skybus has been defunct for years, and GoJet is a regional airline that operates contracted connections similar to ExpressJet and others. Neither belongs here.oknazevad (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of low-cost airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214200929/https://wizzair.com/en-GB/about_us/news/wizzen292 to https://wizzair.com/en-GB/about_us/news/wizzen292
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified