HighlandExpress

If I'm flying GLA-LON, then BA often works out as cheap if not cheaper than the LCCs. Also don't have to deal with getting to/from STN or LTN. Having a little bit of status helps too with fast-track and lounge access very much tipping the scale in favour of BA.

jacobitetraveller

as someone who doesn't normally fly with just hand baggage the LCC price often looks good but once the extras are added on it does not work out cheap enough to make me ditch BA

layz

Same as BA then, both have HBO and baggage inclusive fares.

jacobitetraveller

not the same at all I think you have missed the point

layz

Explain the point.

EZY has fares that include no frills and has fares that include baggage, fast track, preferential seating, etc.

BA has fares that include no baggage, have to pay to select seat (assuming no status), etc

jacobitetraveller

my main point is simple I have never found LCCs prices once all the extras have been added to be significantly cheaper than BA certainly not cheap enough for me to fly to an inconvenient airport

in fact in the past I have actually found a LCC to be more expensive than BA or in fact BMI when I was flying them

now many people may have found a different result but I can only speak from my own experience

layz

That's so true. I've even had fares out of LCY cheaper than EZY from LTN (note: I'd never give LTN a serious consideration, the only LCC airport I consider is LGW). But for those who live near LTN and STN they'd consider EZY a more convenient option.

Then again I know people who won't even think of checking BA as they assume the LCCs are as cheap as it gets.

I thought the point was that you were saying that the price of the LCC was HBO but BA had the extras included which is no longer the case.

TimmyD

I'm a BA loyalist but on shorthaul, if it's not a route Cityflier flies, I now prefer Easyjet. Service is just as good if not better, punctuality in my experience is better in EZY, and I like the option of being able to buy something to eat rather than the no meal on most SH BA flights. Ryanair a different matter

000

The Flounge wins every time!

Edit. There are actually lots of reasons why I fly BA over the LCC's (and even other full service airlines):
- T5 and LCY
- Fast Track
- Lounges
- Decent carry on allowance
- Decent baggage allowance (despite aspiring to c-w-s' HBO lifestyle, I'm a long way off!)
- Generally pleasant and service driven crews and ground staff
- RFS tickets (Last minute LCC flights are usually very expensive)

I am proud to have never flown Ryanair, nor do I ever intend to.

I also do everything possible to avoid LTN (per one of our mod's handles).

EZY are generally ok, as long as you aren't committed to getting to your destination on time (or at all). But given the above list, I can't recall when I took my last flight with them (or needed to).

layz

It's amazing how often I can book an RFS a day or two before departure. One time a short notice trip to AMS was arranged at the airport itself (I had just landed from PRG seen I needed to be in AMS, booked it online while walking to flight connections, saved me a small fortune and it was in CE).

Of course RFS doesn't enter in to the average persons evaluation of BA v LCCs.

layz

I agree with most of your edited post but I will correct one misconception. EZY has better punctuality than BA (it's easier to be punctual when you're not using LHR as delays are more likely to happen at an airport running to capacity).

That said when BA are delayed you can relax with another glass of Taittinger in the Flounge

Although most of my flights have been on BA this year I've not had any serious delays or cancellations.

000

I generally agree with that when things run to schedule. However when things go bad, there's pretty much zero support with an LCC. With BA (and indeed other full service carriers), a seat on another flight or another airline is usually not an issue. With an LCC, it's bin the ticket (claim it back at some point in the future) and book a BA RFS...

layz

I would have agreed if I hadn't heard how they were treated during the ash cloud issues. They were flying EZY and offered good quality (4*) accommodation until the first flight became available.

Of course that might just be a proactive outstation and not representative of EZY in general, but it did leave a good impression.

Rewind 5 years previous to that and I was in WAW and there was a bunch of people in the queue to board the LO flight to LHR complaining how EZY let them down, the flight was cancelled and the only flight that had space was in a few days time so they had to pay walk up fares on LOT to get home and get back to work. My response at the time was it makes sense to pay extra to fly a real airline who will look after you.

So I think EZY has improved over the years. I still think in general BA would look after you better, but things aren't as clear cut anymore. There's been some examples of BA allowing passengers to fend for themselves too:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...n-pax-vce.html is the one I can think of off the top of my head.

AlienInTheFatherland

Couldn't agree more.
I live in Berlin and there are great offerings from SXF, to a huge number of destinations on direct flights (BA only offers LHR direct).
The "orange guys" have also got their service improved, much better than the "irish guys" with the harp on the tail - they are more likke the Conair film with Nicholas Cage: "Ryanair welcomes all prisoners on board"

Calchas

Yet it seems BA's operations at LHR are substantially more on time than they are at LGW.

At LGW, 73.04% of BA flights departed within fifteen minutes of schedule. The mean delay was 15.44 minutes.
At LHR, 79.02% of BA flights departed within fifteen minutes of schedule. The mean delay was 12.21 minutes.

For comparison, U2 manages 78.68% and 11.75 minutes at LGW, roughly on par with BA at LHR, but much better than BA's operation at LGW.

For on time performance, LGW is the worst UK airport served by either BA or U2.

Figures from 2014 January to June, http://www.flightontime.info/ .