....and that remoak is a very good point.....the mongrels I fly for are regarded as a "low cost carrier" and as of late we have had the highest(most expensive tickets).....that has not always been the case but your "distinction" between the two may open a few eyeballs........

...this "lowcost carrier"identity is somewhat of a pandoras box.....ask our managment what "low-cost" means....and it changes on a daily basis...it has become an interesting concept......nothing is fixed in stone...

....if someone has a definiton of low cost v,s the low fares boys....I,d like to hear it...I have what my company tells me is their defintion...but have yet to see them actually "play the plan".......PB


petey ....give your boyfriend a "squeeze" for me will ya;)

Virgin Kiwi....do they exist?:confused:

Call the airline Black and Blue? Not Blue...but Black cuz? Virgin Black?

Fact: CP-Adi has a brain the size of a pea.
Hey, this is fun, just make something up & call it a fact. CP_Adi, you should be in airline management, hey - maybe you are?
Could someone please direct this thread back onto the original topic, and Woomera, please kick these schoolboys off.

He's just a little kid who hasn't even begun learning how to fly yet... thinks he can mix it with the big boys. Sad to see PPruNe being debased by these wannabes...

remoak....I reckon CP Adi....is pete conrads twin sister......they sound and write alike...:E }

....hit me with the low-cost V.s low fare carrier stuff....these outfits are low fare one day,then low cost the next......just look at AirNZ,s latest sagarso....:ugh:

Dont worry mate, while your cuddling a nice girl of the human variety, remember Pak-boy curls up next to a furry little lamb under the stars on a lost island somewhere in the south pacific.:eek:

CP Adi...your not the only one that gets childish PM's off Pakeha Boy....he's a bit of a tough guy, or so he thinks in his own mind,... your a w@nker PB.

remoak......southwest like you say is the model airline....

...Southwest has remained profitable all this time because they have had low costs to support what customers want in low fares.But they also have the best pay rates for their employees.

They do not get their low costs by paying poor wages to their employees and that is one of the main reasons they have become successful.Many low cost airline have used the opposite,and it IS the employees who have taken the brunt of the costs.

just goes to show that you can pay your employees well and run a low cost/low fare airline.......(the left handed;) )...PB

Yes I agree about southwest there. No only are they a model low cost airline but also to the bigger carriers as well. I was on a southwest flight to LAX in a 737 with nice comfortable leather seats, plenty of leg room, great refreshments and great customer service, only to jump into dirty stained rag covered (what I thought was a) plank with my knees in my ears 13 hours to AK on a Qantas jumbo !
Not that I am bagging qantas at all, I just think that If southwest can get you somewhere comfortably as well as cheaply then the bigger carriers should be able to do a similar job.

And by bigger carriers I mean the non low cost ones..... I think

What about "Virgin Arse"? :=

One of the key reasons that QF pulled its WLG-CHC service was to free up capacity to hurt NZ (even more) on the trans-Tasman routes......