Talk:List of low-cost airlines

Old discussion about naming this page

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Distinction between listing an airline as pan-european or under the respective country

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)

To start off, I suggest the following changes:

• Move Virgin Express to "Belgium"
• Air Berlin should be moved to Pan-European as it has an aircraft based in AMS, should be deleted from all other countries
• All duplicates should be removed

Any Comments? --SmilingBoy 13:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Question about which airlines count as "low-cost"

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)

I found the following mentioned on the web as discount carriers in the US:

• America West
• American Trans Air (ATA)
• Frontier Airlines
• Gulfstream International Air
• Spirit Airlines

Do these actually count as low-cost carriers? If so, we should add them here; if not, they should be removed from this wikitravel article.

Thanks!

Beland

• Any objections to removing WestJet from the Canada section? They are consistently priced exactly on par with Air Canada, and are a Full Service airline (including checked baggage free, seat selection free, online checkin free, etc etc) as opposed to the typical low-cost carriers who try to hit you for everything they can. Key point is, they aren't Low Cost, and Canada simply doesn't have a Low Cost Airline. Onecouch (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We should remove Swoop, which is defunct now 71.167.203.154 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know why on earth Virgin Blue is listed as a past low-cost airline and now as a full service airline? It is consistently only $10 more expensive than JetStar... I would beg to differ that it is full service also, there is no free of charge services that I am aware of... Except allocated seating... 58.169.146.205 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: I posted this before it was announced. Someone here knew what they were talking about :P. 124.177.29.11 (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

US Air-America West and Properties of a LCC

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)

Well whether you want to believe it or not, Ted and Song are designed to be low fare alternatives to United and Delta by their perspective companies, despite code sharing agreements between the two airlines. Many seats on their planes are priced lower than United or Delta for the same route, and these airlines are also setup to directly compete on cross country routes with other firms like JetBlue and Southwest. There fees are not the same. You can read more about these airlines on their websites, Air Transport World, and other aviation sources. It might be helpful for you to get a better understanding of low fare transportation in the cross-country aviation market. If you think about it, why would it make sense to go through the efforts of creating another airline if everything was going to be exactly identical, like you say.

As for international flights, I specifically said flights to other continents. Since you are obviously unaware of where Mexico and the Caribbean lie, this seems like it will be hard for me to convince you of. There are no AirTran flights to India, for example, nor is Southwest flying into Heathrow and JetBlue cruising over to Australia. There's a map of North America available by clicking on the link, which you probably should take a look at.

I never said that Southwest and AirTran lacked unions, so I think a re-read would be helpful in this debate. I said that it's typical that LCCs don't have unionized workforces, something that is very true and has been since airline deregulation began in the 1970s (example: People's Express). JetBlue has been able to keep workers happy by a very generous profit sharing system. Southwest is also not even close to being the most unionized airline, nor is AirTran. AirTran Jetconnect, which was pretty ineffective, certainly doesn't stack up to the vast assembly of RJ's flying for the companies that you mentioned. These are also indeed full airlines, and they would definitely tell you so – they just operate primarily as code share partners. But, as you seem to be the judge, they apparently do not live up to your airline standard. Maybe you should go over to the List of airlines article and remove them from the list, which they are on.

Getting back to the real point here, US Airways and America West, I'm going to guess that you used America West before they merged with US. America West was indeed a LCC. US Airways was most certainly not. Since they are not fully merged together, prices for US Air flights on their traditional routes remain very high (ask any of your friends flying around the East Coast), while prices for America West on their traditional routes remain inline with LCCs. US Air is not yet the super-airline that it plans to be, operating with low seat mile costs and low fares yet still offering a wide range of service. That is why they had a net fourth quarter loss of $261 million in 2005. Eventually, they hope to transition the airline in that direction. That doesn't mean, however, that it happens overnight. If these two airlines never merged, we would never even begin to debate whether or not US Air is a low fare carrier, because we both know that the "old group" wasn't. Since the two airlines barely have their ticketing services linked together, I just think that it's best that we wait and see as to how much of a "low-fare" carrier they truly become, and not jump to conclusions because of a company’s PR work. People will come to Wikipedia, see US Airways on this list, and think that they are getting a great fare price by going with them. This is not the case - their fares are substantially higher than true low fair airlines. You can go to any travel site and play around with it for every city you can think of, and you will certainly find that most times, the prices do not match their competitors. I routinely fly on US Airways, and I know for a fact that Southwest, AirTran, and JetBlue all have cheaper flights on the routes that I fly. I chose to stick with US, partially because of customer loyalty (they have a big presence where I live), and partially because I can use the miles for flights that no American-based low fare carriers have.

I've updated the list to specify that Ted and Song are brands, and I've added US Airways with a note to readers about it's status. Hopefully this is agreeable, and sorry for the long response! --Mets 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I think it's fair to call TED (RAR!) and Song (soon to be RIP) "low-fare brands" - however, I've removed the nonsensical "pending confirmation" from US Airways. "Pending confirmation" from whom? The National Low-Cost Carrier Accreditation Administration? The only objective means of defining what is or is not a low-cost carrier is to look at public statements and per-seat-mile costs. US Airways got down towards LCC status just by slashing wages and reducing amenities on their aircraft - been up front in an A321 lately? It ain't what it used to be. As for AirTran, their pilots are ALPA and their CSRs, rampers and rez agents recently filed to have an election and unionize with the Teamsters. You are confusing "low-cost" with "low-fare." A "low-cost" carrier does not necessarily have low fares. "Low-cost" means just that - they have low per-seat-mile costs. As for the "small jet providers" issue, they are not full airlines. Why? They do not have reservations systems. They do not sell their own flights. They do not have their own identities. They exist entirely to contract out with their partners, and if their partner goes away and they fail to find a new one, they will disappear. Independence Air (aka Atlantic Coast Airlines) is a perfect example. Modern "regional airlines" are no longer regional, and they are wholly dependent on fee-for-departure subsidy contracts to make a profit. The problem is that every low-bid contract is an invitation for someone else to come in and underbid your low bid. It really sucks being a small-jet provider right now. Just ask Mesaba, or Pinnacle, or Comair, or ExpressJet... When it comes to the fares... well, yes and no. Some America West fares have risen, and quite a few US Airways fares have plunged. The BloFares haven't all gone away yet, but they are slowly slipping away. The America West pricing structure is being rolled out across the entire US Airways system. These things take some time... FCYTravis 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Commerical links?

I restored the link * WhichBudget. It is a helpful site, and I can't recognise any direct link between the site and the airlines it has on there.

--Looskuh 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my rationale:

• It has ads - it basically provides links to pre-existing websites that have their own content
• It is non-encyclopedic (it contains no additional content about low cost airlines except its purported "service"
• It isn't symmetrically related to the content of the article: low cost airlines does not equal cheap flight finding service
• From the pages I checked, it only returned results for JetBlue and SouthWest - pretty limited coverage

I won't revert for the time being, but it doesn't pass WP:EL in my opinion and it invites other inappropriate links. Nposs 05:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And its not updated either - Sterling haven't flown from CPH to EDI for months. I'm concerned that it will encourage spam and I can't see what benefit the site adds. I have taken it down but would be willing to discuss. --Spartaz 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Back US Airways

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)

Possible Bias

I'm not a big wikipedia editor by any means, but I thought it prudent to point out that our big supporter of US Airlines works there. While this doesn't necessary mean that his information is incorrect, airlines are struggling, and I'm sure many employees would vigorously argue for the support of their own carrier.

Aegean airlines

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)

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)

Removed JetAmerica

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)

Russia, Turkey, etc.

Why Russia is in Europe but Turkey in Asia? --195.110.6.24 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Snskiller (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Turkey not in Asia?

some facts Turkey is for 97% in Asia and 3% in Europe, it is not in the European Union, so why place it in Europe, same for Russia, but Russia has like 14% in Europe and 86% in Asia...

Template?

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)

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)

Atlasjet

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)

Someone is still insisting on adding Atlasjet to the list. Once again: Atlasjet is NOT a low - cost carrier. It is a FULL - SERVICE AIRLINE. Have you ever seen any low cost carrier who gives all those services: No fee for check - in and selecting the seat, free on - board drinks and snacks, a 30 seat pitch, no charge for checked baggage, free shuttle services in many airports, business class seating in some flights.

Where to place Turkey?

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)

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)

Israel

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)

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)

Cite

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Airlines missing from article

AFRICA Algeria: Air Algerie; Angola: TAAG; Botswana: Air Botswana; Ghana: Antrak Air; Libya: Libyan Airlines; Malawi: Malawian Airlines; Morocco: Royal Air Maroc; Mozambique: LAM Mozambique; Namibia: Air Namibia; Tunisia: NouvelAir

ASIA Burma: Golden Myanmar Airlines; India: Jet Konnect; Japan: Air Do, StarFlyer; Republic of Korea: AirAsia Korea; Laos: Lao Airlines; Malaysia: Firefly, Malindo Air; Thailand: Orient Thai Airlines, City Airways; Pakistan: Pakistan International Airlines

MIDDLE EAST Turkey: SunExpress

NORTH AMERICA United States: JetBlue, Virgin America

OCEANIA Australia: Rex; New Zealand: Air2There, Air New Zealand

CENTRAL AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN Antigua & Barbuda: Liat Airlines

SOUTH AMERICA Bolivia: Amaszonas, Ocean Air, Voe Gol; Chile: PAL Airlines; Ecuador: TAME; Paraguay: TAM Linha Aereas; Peru: Peruvian Airlines, Star Perú

Source: https://www.tripsavvy.com/guide-to-budget-airlines-around-the-world-3150259