Are Cheap Airfares Good For Us?

The advent of cheap airfares gave hope that more people, who previously could not afford to travel by air, would be able to do so.  It was, undoubtedly, also intended to compete with other, cheaper forms of mass transportation – trains and inter-city buses.  The marketing seems, therefore, to have been squarely aimed at people with limited financial resources, while also trying to take business away from the long-established mainstream airlines.

We have long believed that we get what we pay for, so it follows that we must expect to get less if we pay less – well, with the possible exception of some of the "sales" in shops, shopping centres and the like.  But where do we draw the line when it comes to paying for any service that won't be rendered straight away, subsequently changing your mind about it but being ineligible for a refund?  If anyone accepts our money, in exchange for a service to be rendered, should we be entitled to a refund if we change our mind about the service?

As a case in point, consider a pensioner who decides to travel to a city that's quite a long way from where he lives, for the sole purpose of attending a reunion of former school friends.  Being on a very limited budget, he looks for the best travel option and finds that Jetstar has the cheapest fares for the travel dates that he needs.  He books online and pays the same way, then tells all his former school mates, by email, that he'll be there with them – everyone is understandably excited to be meeting up again after so many years.

Closer to the date of the reunion, the guy who's making arrangements for the reunion venue sends email to everyone in the group.  The message is bad news because the venue has been severely damaged by vandals who set it on fire.  Time is now too short to book an alternative venue for the same date and the soonest available date will require the reunion to be delayed by a month.

Our pensioner isn't the only one in the group to have problems with the change of date and it's soon apparent that the reunion needs to be deferred to the same date, next year, if the others are all able to accept the deferral.  Then our pensioner discovers that cancelling his travel on Jetstar means they'll keep his money, despite providing no service at all.  He will now be unable to attend the reunion next year because the intervening time will not be long enough for him to save up for the trip – he now frets that he'll never see his old school mates again because, after all, he's not getting any younger.

Has the airline actually stolen our pensioner's meagre money, as well as robbing him of a final opportunity to get together with his school mates?  Where is the morality in having a "no refund" policy?  Is this the basis of a cheap airfare?  Do we really have to lower our expectations in line with low airfares?

Of course, the obvious counter-argument is that airlines recommend that their customers take out travel insurance.  That might be fair enough except that, even at pensioner's rates, booked online at a slight discount, the insurance premium adds something like $35 to $40 to the costs that our pensioner must pay.  And, after all, he intended to travel so why would he consider having to buy insurance – especially when he doesn't have a lot of spare money.

It's entirely possible that our pensioner would've encountered the same problem whether he'd booked on a bus or a train – or another “budget” airline. The real issue to be addressed however is :- Are  budget airlines really that much cheaper, or do they merely save their own costs by passing them onto their customers for all the free services provided by mainstream airlines?

If a traveller can pack light, to stay within the much-reduced "free baggage limit", no extra cost will be incurred for baggage.  Then, if the traveller doesn't require food or drink during the flight, no extra cost will be incurred that way either.  Airlines and medical professionals know that the dry air in an aircraft's cabin can be dehydrating for people and it is advisable to drink water, in a quantity that passengers can't carry onto any flight due to the "LAG" (Liquids, Aerosols and Gels) restriction to 100 millilitres of liquid.

Such a small quantity of water may not be enough to counter the debilitating effects of dehydration on any but the shortest-duration flights.  On a long flight, e.g. Perth to Brisbane, passengers should have more fluid than they are allowed to take on board.  The "budget" airlines will provide that liquid but it might not be free and, in that event, will mean that they don't believe there is a responsibility under their duty of care.

On that basis, it seems possible that the so-called budget airlines are merely a cruel joke on customers who must do all the budgeting themselves.  For first time flyers, it may be impossible to gauge the budget they’ll need for the flight because they simply won’t know what they don’t know about air travel, free baggage allowance, need for food and drink – and cost of the same.  Those who can afford it will also have travel insurance but, as the budget airline market targets people with limited financial resources, can those customers really afford all the costs?

Of course, travel insurance premiums are the same, regardless of whether a passenger travels on a budget or mainstream airline.  The difference is, however, that our pensioner would have been able to claim a refund, minus a fair and reasonable cancellation fee.  It would then be somewhat easier for him to make up the difference between the cancellation fee, the refund and the new ticket price, in time for next year’s reunion.

Then his only residual concern is whether or not he’ll live long enough to be at that reunion.

In this example, our pensioner’s budget wouldn’t stretch to the cost of a ticket on a mainstream airline.  He figures that an airline offering lower ticket prices is his best option and considers that there’ll be little difference between this form of transport and a train, or bus.  He’s basically right but, whether he's aware of it or not, there’s a restriction on the size and weight of luggage that will be carried without charge; he may need more water than he can legitimately carry aboard (even if he knows the limit, or indeed that there may be a need for water on the flight).

If this pensioner was to be asked whether or not a cheap airfare is good for us, I'm sure we can all guess his answer.