I found this article to be a very good read and it basically says what I have been saying for years. Legacies think they can screw passengers to make the profit, and its doing more harm than good. What does everyone else think?
Lt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
Well, the article is a bit outdated (though it does note a Feb 05 "update"), but it has some good and what I consider bad points:
-Mainly not relating domestic versus int'l travel.
I don't have a problem with LCCs, per se, but when I need to get from Houston to London, and Houston to Belize City, and Houston to Edmonton (all three I fly often) LCCs don't cut it, but amazinly CO does. And I've never had problems; I also always get a full can of soda.
Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Shawarmas for all my friends
GRRTVC From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 273 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2010 times:
I have to agree that this article raises some good points. The legacy carriers do have rather complex fare structures that probably have caused some of the problem.
The one thing I did not see this article address is labor and fuel costs. The legacy carriers generally have to deal with high labor costs. Its just natural that the longer you are in business the greater the costs are going to become. Fuel is something no one has control of but everyone has to deal with.
The LCC's (which I'm still waiting for someone to give me a clear definition of what an LCC is) have lower labor costs. FL and B6 are new the industry in comparison to the rest.