Let's talk about the Rex website

[Mattg]

I know a lot of people here have criticised the Virgin Australia website, but has anyone noticed just how terrible Rex's website is?

It looks like it's from about 2005... because it is! (The copyright notice even says so.)



I guess it (just) gets the job done, so they haven't thought it necessary to update the website with a new one. Much like their fleet of planes.

 

[samh004]

Probably why no one is taking them seriously?

I did visit the SYD Rex lounge, once. Movida was better value.

 

[wandering_fred]

For some of us it is Rex or a 5 hour drive

Assuming you want to be wandering
Fred

 

[p--and--t]

Their website is old and a bit clunky, but works. I guess the old adage, if it works don't break it (perhaps QF could take a leaf from their book ).

I get their planes are older, but I don't know of any reliable new commuter plane being built and is available to buy today that is viable on the slim routes they mostly service (are all too big). Additionally, I have flown on older and less well maintained coughpier planes, from "majors" in the US and elsewhere.

On board service is nothing to talk about, because well, there isn't any. But they don't pretend to be in that market.

The key thing about REX is often they fly you to places others won't. Also they make a profit each year (Covid-19 aside), been around quite a long time, generally reliable, and less likely to go belly up on you in normal circumstances like a lot of small operators (and some larger ones)

 

[AisleSeat]

Yeah, wow, that site is something else. While the design is very outdated, I would value functionality over form on an airline site. However, this site has so many accessibility issues, a user who relies on keyboard navigation would have a hard time booking a flight.

Load the site, and use the tab key to navigate. Watch how the focus skips over all the navigation and the "Flights" tab (and straight to "Insurance"), which is the first tab. Very poor.

 

[jakeseven7]

I know a lot of people here have criticised the Virgin Australia website, but has anyone noticed just how terrible Rex's website is?

It looks like it's from about 2005... because it is! (The copyright notice even says so.)

View attachment 218422

I guess it (just) gets the job done, so they haven't thought it necessary to update the website with a new one. Much like their fleet of planes.

What is internet explorer and Opera?

 

[samh004]

The key thing about REX is often they fly you to places others won't.

Don't they operate a lot of routes that are essentially state-sponsored though? I'm sure Qantas and/or VA would have loved a piece of that action if they could get it.

 

[p--and--t]

Don't they operate a lot of routes that are essentially state-sponsored though? I'm sure Qantas and/or VA would have loved a piece of that action if they could get it.

Correct. But often the sectors are so slim, they don't justify anything larger than a SAAB and not justify multiple operators. Most aircraft used by other airlines would be an overkill on some routes.

Where they are busier, I'm sure QF will have tried to get a piece of the action. (Eg Kangaroo Island)

Some routes that require a more substantial aircraft are only VA - like Christmas Island

 

[jb747]

When I was working, I used Rex a lot. I agree that their web site is pretty terrible. For a casual user it would be hard to find things...it was hard even if you used it a lot. But, it didn’t need much of an update. Going from 2005 to 2010 would be fine.

 

[samh004]

When I was working, I used Rex a lot. I agree that their web site is pretty terrible. For a casual user it would be hard to find things...it was hard even if you used it a lot. But, it didn’t need much of an update. Going from 2005 to 2010 would be fine.

Can you select seats before you get to the airport/check-in?

If they're serious about starting a capital city service they might need a few small updates.

 

[StevoQFtraveller]

The website is a bit old fashioned - like me! As the airline is servicing a lot of smaller community centres it is not surprising that the website is very provincial in character. I'm in one of those smaller provincial communities and the website is fine for what the airline is offering.

 

[eastwest101]

Yes it is very old fashioned - but it always works without exception, and I have always been able to book a ticket when I need to, unlike some other fancier airline web sites with bigger budgets and an entire IT team that look pretty but break every second day, so you end up having to phone a call centre and waste hours of your time for the most routine of tasks..

 

[Robert McDonald]

Yes, it's old-fashioned, like the Rex staff you meet at the airport, who do ridiculously old-fashioned things like helping old people with their luggage.

 

[nutwood]

I totally agree with many of the above. The Rex site is most definitely old and clunky but I have yet to have a problem with it. Booking a flight is not rocket science and I am happy to accept an older site that works consistently and reliably.
Does anyone really want bells and whistles that look great but at the critical moment of payment; "Error 5567. Please contact customer support for assistance"?

 

[antycbr]

I totally agree with many of the above. The Rex site is most definitely old and clunky but I have yet to have a problem with it. Booking a flight is not rocket science and I am happy to accept an older site that works consistently and reliably.
Does anyone really want bells and whistles that look great but at the critical moment of payment; "Error 5567. Please contact customer support for assistance"?

Having no loyalty program or loyalty partners also removes a heap of complexity.