Talk:Low-cost airlines in Asia

I unlinked some of the things that were linked on this article. We don't usually have articles for individual airports or airlines.

I also took it off of the Main Page. I think it'd be a good article to feature there, but it seems to be in a half-finished state (lots of empty sections), and we don't normally have partly-finished articles on the Main Page. See the Main Page policy for details. --(WT-en) Evan 11:38, 5 Feb 2004 (EST)

Removal of DoHop.com link
that link was spam, i think. doHop doesnt even index low cost carriers (at least on the few sample routes i tried) and thus should not be linked to on this page.

Is there a low cost airline connecting Hanoi
I would like to know if there is a low budget airline going to Hanoi from Singapore, KL or Bangkok? Thanks,


 * Tiger to Singapore, Air Asia to KL and Bangkok. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Jetstar
I think there is a information moving around that JETSTAR may withdraw from Singapore to Bangalore and I have tried to book this flight after 8th Jan'07 and there is no flight is available. Anyone can add more information are welcome. - Rajan, Singapore —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 165.21.154.12 (talk • contribs)


 * That's correct, the flight has been withdrawn. I'll revise the article.  Rumor says Tiger is planning to start flights soon(tm), but they've been saying that for a while now... (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Jet Airways
...is not a low-cost carrier: if anything, they're usually the most expensive option on any given route. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:52, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Bangkok Air(ways)
I have checked wikipedia, it states; Bangkok Airways Co., Ltd. is a regional airline it doesn't state it is a No-frills airlines or budget airlines. -(WT-en) SnappyHip 20:19, 24 February 2010 (GST)

Viva Macau has ceased operations
Please refer to: http://www.flyvivamacau.com/mo/en/press-releases/67/6-apr-2010/viva-macau-office-closure

VFD discussion
If the other ones can't be saved or salvaged, this one won't be, either. I think our coverage is best handled under air travel on a budget which gets updated a lot more regularly than those articles do. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Asian market is different & it is better to cover it in its own article. Pashley (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * could you please elaborate on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing different about the Asian market except perhaps for the less "open skies" than in Europe, but this concerns airlines as businesses and is not really much of an issue for the traveller. The article does not really cover Asia as such, but individual markets one by one, which is better handled in individual country articles. Much of the article is outdated and its redundancy with other articles and better sources (e.g. airlines' own websites) guarantees it will forever be. No reason to keep it around and confuse the traveller with the misfortune to stumble upon it. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - as someone who does travel in East Asia, I would not trust this long list of airlines and destinations to be accurate. Maybe the intent was good, but we should be providing solid travel advise, not a list of (probably incorrect) routes that I would be getting from Expedia, not WV. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not delete - Again, redirects are preferred to deletion, and I see no reason why this should be an exception. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As far as I can tell no one has cited a valid reason as to why this article should be deleted rather than merged/redirected, so my inclination would be to close this VFD as a "keep" and have this discussion continue at Talk:Low-cost airlines in Asia unless there are further arguments that would justify a deletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 13:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge or redirect
As has been proposed in the VFD, this page should be merged or redirected. air travel on a budget sounds like a good target. Thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wrh2, User:Andrewssi2, User:PrinceGloria, User:Pashley any thoughts on the matter? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd actually disagree, since air travel on a budget is not the same subject as LCC (Low cost carriers) that this article is covering.
 * I'd prefer a more targeted article on LCC's that gets rid of lists (these companies startup, merge and fall apart all the time) and focuses instead on the benefits and implications of budget airlines. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that more and more "legacy" carriers are now blurring the line. And some supposed low cost carriers (especially in the US) offer even more in terms of luggage, food and beverages on board, legroom and all the other things LCC are famous for charging extra... So how would you want to see our articles on the subject reorganized? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not too concern with the 'organization' of the articles. The question regarding any article is whether it is useful or not. As it stands the present article is a list of budget airlines and not very useful and therefore I do support doing something with it.
 * Appreciate the line can be blurred, but just speaking as someone who has done work in this industry there are still significant differences between LCC and FSC (Full Service Carrier). I believe that when you say 'legacy' you mean a FSC that has created a separate LCC operational business, or otherwise a carrier that has split its business into both models (i.e. Aer Lingus) . --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While from the business point of view there might be a difference between what one would call an LCC or a legacy/FSC, the traveller couldn't care less. Same rules apply with both, and you can now book a fare covering nothing but a seat with many FSCs who'd otherwise still sell you a proper First Class on a long-haul flight. I see no added value in article proliferation. This should be "merged" with Air travel on a budget, but I guess I did mention earlier that I do not see anything in particular worth merging, it's just either repetition or outdated trivia. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would beg to differ. A traveler booking a flight on a LCC will experience many differences when booking a similar flight with a FSC. I'm not saying there absolutely must be a separate article for LCC, but I don't believe that the traveler 'couldn't care less'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(starting on the left again) Yes I agree there is a difference from airline to airline (I have flown on different airlines and ceteris paribus I would take Lufthansa over any of the others, but usually price trumps such considerations), but Low service (I refuse to use the marketing term "low cost" thy often aren't actually cheap, just a rip off) airlines and legacy airlines are now so intertwined in similarities that it becomes hard to differentiate them. Yes Ryanair certainly has a business model that differs from Lufthansa and the same may probably be said about some airlines in Asia. But outside of offering first or business class (which is a concern only to people who would not have needs to our guides anyway, as they tend to get the flights paid for them or are such frequent fliers that they could tell us new things, not the other way around) is there really such a big difference for the bulk of airlines? I have never flown to or in Asia, so I don't know which of the Ryanair type shenanigans are common there (which are btw covered in the air travel on a budget article and mentioned every time someone says Hahn), but what exactly do you propose? As it stands now the vfd was closed and it may not be wise to reopen it. Hence we are basically left with three realistic options aside from the "keep as is" non-option. Option a) replace the content with a redirect link. option b) identify worthy content in this article and copy it to the future redirect target than proceed like option a). Option c) update this article and if necessary expand it in a matter that it deserves to be called a good WV article. I think either a or b are the best options and the only thing that keeps me from doing it myself is waiting for consensus and the question where this redirect link should point to. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So yet another month has passed and we have not made any progress. What should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I will wait a couple more days before redirecting to air travel on a budget. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)