Talk:Basic economy class

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Basic economy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 12:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Will review this soon. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: Having read through this, I have some fundamental concerns that I can't get away from in relation to the article's purpose, but i'll lead on to that. In terms of identified issues on the lead prose, the following stand out:

• "..and to encourage passengers to upgrade to standard economy fares." - How could it have been introduced to encourage passengers to upgrade to a travel class (standard economy) which itself was the entry-level class prior to the "basic economy" introduction? This doesn't make sense, as the suggestion is that airlines wanted the then-entry level class to become one that is upgraded to, which could only be facilitated by the introduction of a new class, but this is not implied or clear from the prose.
• ..and are the last to board and leave the aircraft." - only 1 airline's section has this restriction noted in the prose, but the initial sentence structure and the use of "typically" implies this is common practice
• The lead itself is very short and I guess that's because the article doesn't have much factual prose to use for this section

The sections for each airline are reasonably well written, however I sense it may be a little futile to examine this with any degree of thoroughness as I am concerned that the article in its current state is not really one that could be considered for GA class. My view is that this article is not much more than an airline comparison page, bordering on marketing, although the prose gives weight to both positive and negative aspects of each airline's restrictions so could not be considered as being purely marketing in that sense.

The term "basic economy" is essentially a marketing term for a service marketed by major airlines (US airlines as noted in the article) and I am struggling to justify how it could be worth inclusion on wikipedia. As it stands, I can't consider the article as suitable to be graded as a GA, even if it were exceptionally well referenced and written. In saying that, there is clearly a movement among transport operators to compete with ultra-low-cost offerings and a google search for "super economy" returns what is essentially the same type of package for rail travel. Likewise, the concept of a lower-graded economy class seems to exist outside of the US too, such as British Airways, yet this article gives no weight towards the suggestion that this may be an international marketing ploy.

At this stage, I feel the article is leaning too far towards being promotional, insufficiently encyclopedic and lacking representation of a worldwide view, nor does it take into account similar concepts across other transport sectors.

If I felt there was any scope for short-term fixing or correction I would have put this on hold, and indeed I am more than willing to work through lengthy reviews and article rebuilds if I feel it's appropriate, but I don't at this time. You may want to consider stripping this back, such as condensing the overly worded sections for each US airline and instead focus more towards worldwide representation and similar concepts across other transport sectors. If this is achieved, i'd be willing to consider another review as it would hopefully be better justified as an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

@Bungle: thanks for the GA review. Looking at the article again I understand your concerns, and I personally noticed a number of issues as well:

• I did not mention clearly that basic economy fares were initially only available on markets where full-service airlines compete with LCCs. This is an important fact that clarifies the purpose of such fares, and I'm currently thinking how best to add it to the article.
• The distinction between low-cost carriers and ultra-low-cost carriers is not clearly defined. I initially made the distinction because of JetBlue's plans to introduce its version of basic economy, and they are a low-cost carrier, but now I think it's better to limit this article's coverage to airlines who offer or have announced plans to offer these fares.

I understand why you decided that the article is too far from GA standard to place it on hold, and I am addressing a number of concerns identified in the review.

• I am now describing basic economy as a type of airfare rather than a travel class, and instead of phrasing (standard) economy as a travel class to be upgraded to, I am now phrasing it as a more expensive product that passengers can purchase to avoid basic economy's restrictions. Please remind me if anything is not clear enough.

Regarding the concern that this article is promotional or that it should not belong to Wikipedia, my view is that there is nothing stopping a marketing term or product segmentation strategy from getting an article, as long as the topic meets WP:GNG or another applicable notability guideline. In my view GNG is clearly met here, due to articles in mainstream and specialist media critical of the concept (e.g. the Bloomberg and Skift sources) as well as articles intended for consumers who want to know what restrictions these fares entail without necessarily being interested in the marketing strategy behind them (e.g. the USA Today and Condé Nast Traveler sources). I think I have given quite a bit of weight to the suggestion that the introduction of these fares is a way for airlines to pressure customers into paying up for services they used to get for free (see for example Bloomberg and Runway Girl Network in the Reception section). Feel free to provide suggestions on how to make this article sound less promotional. For example, should I focus more on the reasons why airlines introduced and expanded these fares, rather than descriptions of these fares as offered by each airline?

As for similar products offered by train operators and airlines outside the United States, I am aware of the existence of hand baggage only (HBO) fares offered by airlines like British Airways and SAS Scandinavian, as well as train services like IZY. However, unless a source explicitly compares these products and concepts with basic economy as offered by airlines in the United States, adding such content to this article would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I will see if any source makes such a comparison or calls airfares offered by a non-American airline "basic economy".

Feel free to provide any additional suggestions as you see fit. feminist (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: Thanks for your understanding in relation to the judgement I reached. Whilst we have slightly different views on how the article could be developed or indeed its core purpose, I think we can both appreciate that it's previous state was not entirely suitable.

I have considered your comments above and how you feel about the article's purpose and positioning. I can't find any other articles which specifically deal with the concept of a lower-grade economy class bracket, unless you can? I envisaged this article could be reconfigured as such to be more broadly focused around the lower economy grade class in general, rather than a very specific emphasis on a promotional term used by American airline operators. In contrast to your view, I do think at the very least it would be advantageous, perhaps even advisory, to mention worldwide carriers that also operate a similar class of travel, even if it isn't specifically marketed in the exact way; it isn't WP:SYNTH when an international carrier makes a clear distinction between different levels of economy, one clearly sold as "basic" as per British Airways.

Fundamentally, and you alluded to this yourself, there is a distinction between "basic economy" the fare (a promotional tool) and "basic economy" the travel class (which may in fact be the same as the fare but perceived as a class due to the adoption by notable carriers).

Your thought regarding whether the emphasis should be on the reasons behind its introduction vs descriptions is exactly the point I made in the review and discussing how this came about would be far more interesting to readers than knowing who charges extra to reserve seats or who forces you to leave the plane last. Part of the GA criteria, specifically criterion 3, is that an article is broad in coverage and it would not be harmful to explain, even as a side-note, that the concept is known to be used outside of the airline space, albeit marketed differently but fundamentally not too dissimilar (unless a generic article covering the class as a whole exists or could be established). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

As you can see I have significantly expanded the article, so that it now covers similar airfares charged by European and Asian airlines. I have expanded the lead section and redefined "basic economy" as a type of airfare charged by airlines for segmentation (as defined by many sources) instead of a travel class. I have also added more content relating to airlines' rationales for introducing these fares. The article is still mainly focused on airlines in the US, because that is what most sources talk about with regard to basic economy fares. Unfortunately I have been unable to find sources that directly compare basic economy fares with similar pricing strategies on other modes of transport, though I imagine such concepts can be linked via a See also section. feminist (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Basic economy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a gander at this one! —Collin^{t c} 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Alright, after reading through the article and the talkpage discussion from the previous GA nomination, it's clear that a good deal of work has been done since then to clarify and address the concerns that the previous reviewer had about the page.

• 1a: The prose is clear and without obvious grammar/spelling errors with one exception: the first sentence of Reception takes a few reads to understand what is being communicated ("Most corporations have blocked basic economy fares because of their limitations.") Can you calrify that this means that corporations have prevented their employees from buying BE fares?
  • Done. feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 1b: Words to watch, list incorporation, and layout are all fine. Fiction is n/a. I think the lead section would greatly benefit from beginning with a definition of what a basic economy fare is/what it frequently entails (e.g., In air travel, basic economy airfares have replaced standard economy class fares on some airlines as the cheapest option for passengers. Basic economy fares generally come with more restrictions compared to standard economy fares, with frequent restrictions including...) before explaining how it is used (e.g., that it's "charged by a number of airlines for market segmentation").
  • Done. feminist (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 2a: A nice list of references in a consistent style is presented (with archivelinks! Thank you!) Ref 11 would benefit from the inclusion of the publication's name. A few refs could use accessdates (17, 44) although this is not strictly required for GA passage.
  • Done. feminist (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 2b: Travel publications and airline websites make up most of this article's sources. Airline websites are primarily used in reference to airlines' specific policies which is a valid use of them. The only source I'm questionable on is Runway Girl Network which is the sole source for an entire paragraph. Is this a RS?
  • Runway Girl Network is a specialist source covering airline passenger experience. I previously inquired about the source's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Runway Girl. Seth Miller, who wrote the RGN article, meets WP:USEBYOTHERS: Washington Post, The Hill, ABC News, CTV News. feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 2c: One concern from the previous GA nom was improper synthesis of various airlines' policies of BE fares (with phrases like "generally" to describe what is generally the case for these fares). These have largely been removed since then but a few persist in the lead; these can be dealt with by addressing the lead concern in 1b. No other OR concerns.
  • I have removed "Passengers traveling in basic economy are generally not allowed to change or cancel tickets or select seats for free." However, "More restrictions compared to standard economy fares" is uncontroversial enough and is something documented by most sources when discussing basic economy in a (US) nationwide context. feminist (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 2d: The phrase "warnings about basic economy restrictions presented during the sales process" appears in both the Runway Girl source and the article; could this be rephrased?
  • Done. feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 3a: Addresses the main aspects of the topic (its definition, history, variability from airline to airline, and reception). I couldn't find significant areas not touched on by this article while searching for BE independently.
• 3b: The airline-by-airline By market section works because it combines both the rollouts of the various BE fares and what their restrictions are. I would be concerned if these sections were exclusively highlighting the restrictions by airline but as it stands, I do not think they provide unnecessary detail and offer useful summaries.
• 4: No concerns here. The article offers and explanation for why airlines would offer this fare type as well as a reception from critics and passengers.
• 5: No stability concerns.
• 6a: Images are free and tagged as such.
• 6b: Images are not purely illustrative.

Overall, the article's in pretty good shape for GA status. The items to address with 1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, and 2d are fairly manageable. Pinging feminist. Let me know if you have any questions. Kindly —Collin^{t c} 19:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Let me know if my fixes are enough. Thanks for the review. feminist (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Feminist: Your contributions address the concerns I had raised and I believe the article now qualifies as a Good one! I note that you took out any specifics of what restrictions BE fares include from the lead which was not my intent–I think that's useful info to include, I had only hoped it might be qualified a little differently. Maybe something like "They typically replace standard economy class fares as the cheapest option for passengers and generally come with more restrictions compared to standard economy fares. Restrictions vary by airline but may include x, y, or z." It's not crucial to passing GA though. Congrats! —Collin^{t c} 15:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Basic economy class (as opposed to Basic economy airfares) to standardize with other airline class articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Basic economy → Basic economy airfares – The term 'basic economy' is a bit misleading/ambgious; many people may think this is a type of economy theory. Even the lead of this article opens with "Basic economy airfares are charged by a number of airlines." So 'basic economy' is just an adjective, the main topic is 'basic economy airfares ' and we should make this clear in the title too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering BE is a travel class and in concordance with first class (aviation), business class, and economy class, maybe the move for this page would be 'Basic economy class'? Whatever gets decided here can probably also apply to premium economy. —Collin^{t c} 05:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Support move to Basic economy class, and Premium economy → Premium economy class, as per above. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, unless anyone can show evidence that "basic economy" more commonly refers to economic theory (and/or other topics) compared to its use in the airline context. I agree that basic economics would more likely refer to economic theory, but that is an entirely different article title. feminist (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Basic economy class to be consistent with other travel classes. Vpab15 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Basic economy class per Vpab15, or anywhere. The current title is an Easter egg (pun noted). Oh yes, and Premium economy → Premium economy class as well. No such user (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.