What the Latest news on Tiger Airways?

What the Latest news on Tiger Airways?

Are they still in service in many areas? I flew with them twice (return), and I have to say i wasn't too impressed. As well as being quite sick for weeks after flying with them. (I think it may have been some food we brought?)

Why not try Google News and doing some of your own reading? Airport Party you ask a lot of questions which you could find the answers to yourself including reading the articles here as well as some questions which are a bit daft, IMHO.

oh thanks so much arrogant dog!

I'm just calling it as I see it Airport Party, no need to start name-calling.

Al only said what we we're all thinking. Sick of the silly questions too!

I have to say I agree, as much as I like hearty discussions, I feel like these questions could be answered by reading 2 months of AUSBT articles....start reading buddy!

Actually I doubt you'll find anything on Tiger here on AusBT unless it's a peripheral mention in an article about on-time performance (where we tag all the airlines). That's because we're about business travel rather than aviation per se, and there's no way that I would consider Tiger as appropriate or relevant to the business traveller!

AirportParty: I suggest that Al's right in his recommendation that you hit Google or Wikipedia for Tiger info, as we don't bother covering Tiger here. (You may also find some Tiger coverage at Ben Sandilands' Plane Talking blog on Crikey).

ok then, dont see the need for comments above your's though.

AirportyParty, you made some pretty useless comments on one of my questions a few weeks ago...you will forgive of us of trying to politely point this out.  But seriously, we mean no offence.  I love this forum and the info that comes out of it, its just not a general aviation free for all.

Hi David,

Not meaning to question your editorial direction too much, but why completely avoiding Tiger? It seems to me that they're quite a competitive force in the market (in that their existence on a route often directs fares/capacity movements forom other airlines); and since the grounding they *have* markedly improved their ontime/cancellation rates.  What makes them any less worthy of reporting than, say Jetstar in the local market?

Especially since you're also reporting on other low-cost carriers (e.g. AirAsia and Scoot) which probably have as little relevance to the business traveller as Tiger itself.  It seems to me like a fairly narrow-minded set of exclusions.

Just my $0.02.

Hi Chris - and thanks for sharing your 2c! :)

Tiger is an all-economy airline aimed at the leisure market. I honestly don't see Tiger as having any appeal to the serious business traveller, except for a few who may be counting their pennies way too much - anmd to be honest, I don't see them as the target audience for our editorial or advertising.

It seems to me that they're quite a competitive force in the market (in that their existence on a route often directs fares/capacity movements from other airlines)

That may be true, but that's from an aviation-industry perspective – and that's the domain of aviation industry reporters (Steve Creedy, Geoff Thomas, Ban Sandilands, Will Horton), aviation/industry websites and forums, as well as some mainstream papers (eg Clive Dorman in SMH/Age). They'll all report on competitive pressures, industry analysis and predictions, track fares etc. That's not what we do, because we're not about 'aviation' or 'the aviation industry' per se – we come mainly from the perspective of the traveller. So we leave the aviation/industry reporting to those who are geared that way and serve that audience, and focus on what we do as a point of difference.

and since the grounding they *have* markedly improved their ontime/cancellation rates.

That's true, and we noted that in our most recent roundup of on-time performances.

Especially since you're also reporting on other low-cost carriers (e.g. AirAsia and Scoot) which probably have as little relevance to the business traveller as Tiger itself.

Two things that AirAsia X and Scoot have which Tiger lacks: some form of premium cabin and some marketing towards business travellers. If Tiger had both we'd consider it.

What makes them any less worthy of reporting than, say Jetstar in the local market?

In the local market, meaning domestic? We don't report on Jetstar in the domestic market either. Our domestic focus is almost exclusively Qantas and Virgin. There's always an argument to be made that any publication should cover X, Y and Z but in the end you make a call on what's most relevant to your primary audience and focus most of your energy on that, and I don't see that Tiger currently merits any coverage with regards to the vast maority of business travellers.

We don't report on Jetstar in the domestic market either

Your Jetstar category has a fair bit of direct coverage of Jetstar domestic services (new fare offerings, IFE, etc) http://www.ausbt.com.au/tags/jetstar/page:1 -- sure it's less than Virgin or Qantas's coverage, and rightly so.  But, if seems that the choice of coverage here at least includes things that have an effect to travellers on other lines, such as competition in airfares.

So, if discussion of Jetstar fare movements are warranted as relevant to business travellers, then why aren't movements of fares on Tiger? Having observed fares on a couple of routes relevant to me since before Tiger got grounded, it seems to me that they dictate prices in the low and mid-range economy fare bands.  Even if your readers aren't likely to use these fares, it would seem reasonable that it get the same level of coverage as Jetstar in that regard.

We've had almost no stories about Jetstar domestic as stand-alones – if you look through the Jetstar story set you'll see most have been about significant developments such as 787 (not domestic) and IFE, which is not purely domestic but also is of broader interest as a technology trend piece, and the rest are round-ups, where Jetstar fits into what we're doing.

We covered fuel surcharge & carbon pricing as this was news and part of the Qantas announcement, we covered Jetstar carry-on baggage rules as a general wrap-up (and included regional airlines like Rex and Skywest) and also a flexi-fares in a similar comparison (QF, Virgin and Jetstar).

But I don't consider those few stories as "a fair bit" of coverage in the context of how many stories we've run.

And again, we don't cover the 'competition' beat - we don't get into aviation industry or analysis. That's for other sites (and there are plenty of them already) which appeal to industry/aviation types, so we don't waste time trying to do what they already do so very well, instead of our doing something different and unique which plays into a new niche.

Even if your readers aren't likely to use these fares, it would seem reasonable that it get the same level of coverage as Jetstar in that regard.

If AusBT readers aren't likely to use Tiger fares (and I believe the vast majority are not) then I don't see a reason for AusBT to be writing about them.

Why should AusBT cover Tiger if they're not part of our target market? Just because Tiger has low fares doesn't automatically mean they merit coverage.

To use an example: McDonalds sells cheap coffee but would you write about it in a website for coffee-drinkers? I think not, not only would it be irrelevant and inappropriate for the audience but it'd send your readers and advertisers a sign that you're not serious and you don't know your market.

In any publication (and I speak from experience as an editor at SMH, ACP Magazines and others) stories have to be judged on what's appropriate to the publication's target audience and our resourcing. (Indeed, the stories you choose not to run (and there are plenty of those every day which we look at and rate as failing the 'impact & interest' test) define a publication as much as what you choose to run.)

So for that reason and on the basis of what I've already explained, I simply don't consider Tiger is a fit for the vast majortiy of AusBT readers.

I agree.