I can't find the original posts the OP made in relation to being "scolded" about views expressed - probably a legacy post that can't be found on the forum.
I don't quite understand the premise of creating this topic (it feels like a big "told you so"). And the claims seem more or less a truism or using specious reasoning. For example,
mstyson said:
regardless of cost, service is the only means of surviving in any business in Australia
seems too obvious.
We all know Tiger has a low regard in this country, but putting them aside the other LCCs in this country - JQ and DJ - are doing quite fine even though we still hear complaints about them here and there (as well as the incumbent full cost carrier QF, but they are all still in satisfactory shape).
The real debates range around how much service should one expect as a minimum from an airline for a certain fare. This is where some people will chime in and say, "You will get what you paid for".
drron said:
I am obviously a pessimist-my fear is that LCCs will eventually terminally harm the Legacy airlines forcing me to travel with them.
We can't exactly blame LCCs for putting pressure on the legacy carriers. Someone had a new business model, tried it and now it has proliferated in the age of airline deregulation.
Some elements of LCCs are making their way into the legacy carriers, such as increased component pricing (e.g. charging for base checked baggage) and higher penalties. Whether this is legacy carriers clutching at straws to find more profits or giving into customer demands (e.g. a customer who travels mainly carry-on only wants to be "valued" more for not having to check in luggage and thus not adding to the weight of the plane;
or simply a legacy carrier trying to keep up with the LCCs who make decent ancillary revenue from component charges), it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be pushed onto LCCs.