Virgin Australia goes fully inclusive on PER flights

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Ash W

So is that on all Perth/East Coast flights or just those operated by A330's as the linked article seems to infer.

Personally I like the idea, but think it is a tad strange and confusing to the passengers to do this on one set of routes but not every route.

737 and A330 flights.

[Ash W]

Rob make sense that it is every flight and not just A330 as the article inferred. I gather the PR machine wants everyone to believe that all transcontinental flights are A330 when some are 737's (bit like Qantas too BTW)

And Steve S2 you are right that passengers choose to fly because they want to get somewhere and not to be fed.

However these same passengers might get a little bit annoyed and feeling ripped off, rightly or wrongly if they were for example to get a Perth to Melbourne flight and get a feed then fly from Melbourne to Cairns and not get a feed, despite the flight time not being that different.

[Oliver Gigacz]

With Virgin flying all it's MEL-PER services with A330 equipment from September, will another gate besides Gate 13 at MEL be used for the A330?

Are there any other A330 compatible gates at T3?

[Paul f.]

It's not gate 13 it's gate 12 as for another gate IIRC i think it will be gate 6 or it could be 4 as they have already started painting the lines,i will have a look today and confirm the gate.

[Oliver Gigacz]

Great thanks Paul.

[Dan Hammond]

Gate 4 will be A330 as confirmed from my brother who is in ground handling for Virgin

[Mark Grima]

I just had a thought...I wonder from a business point of view what would be more beneficial, an 'opt in' or an 'opt out' option.

The traditional LCC method is obviously opt in. You pay $x and get a seat, you then add $y to get a bag and then add $z to get a feed.

As previously mentioned once you pay $xyz on the LCC you are usually not too far off just paying $xyz on a legacy carrier in the first place.

However, what if the model was reversed. Everyone is quoted $xyz, they then have the option of removing $y or $z (with $x being the seat so you can't flick that) and come up with the final price for each consumer.

I think there could be two benefits here.

1. The consumer behavior concept of Just Noticeable Difference (the consumers ability to notice a difference between levels of stimulus, in this case pricing) may be increased in a positive way. Starting with the higher price and the consumer stripping down the fare rather then building it up should illicit a more positive response from the consumer, thus making them feel as though there is a significant price difference. Secondly, the consumer would probably take the meal away because they simply don't want it, not specifically to save some money. Where as, in the opt in model, even though they don't want the meal their emotions may be increasingly negative as they may be thinking "why should I have to pay more for a meal". Even if they don't want the meal.

2. From the business point of view they could probably work the prices out to end up charging the consumer more. Because the opt out option should illicit a joyous emotion of making their flight cheaper they probably wont notice a minor difference if the end price is slightly higher then the traditional opt in method.

Obviously trying to create some discussion. Debate away.

Cheers

M