Beno From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 428 posts, RR: 4 Posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4752 times:
I was having a look through the Skytrax site and reading some passenger comments and one thing that struck me why reading AA/UA comments is the number of people who said they deserve to go out of business. Most of the comments I read excepted that costs needed to be cut areas such as catering and IFE but most of the complaints were about the rudeness and bad attitudes of staff. I know not all staff within these companies are rude and have bad attitudes but from what I read there seems to be a large percentage of staff who don't care.
If I was working at UA/AA I would be trying to do the best job possible and trying to keep as many passengers happy as possible afterall they are the airlines only hope for survival.
I am interested to hear some peoples comments from this board.
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4739 times:
While I don't feel that any company "deserves" to go out of business, I also don't agree with the government, in a free-market economy, propping up companies that are mismanaged (like the Big Six). Free-market economy dictates that you either evolve, streamline and compete or dissolve. Nowhere in that equation is continued government bailouts.
That being said, I don't think any of the majors deserve to be in business. Their CEO's are robbing them blind, accepting "performance bonuses" for less than stellar "performance" (you want to make it a true "performance bonus" then pay them a percentage when they are profitable and make them pay that same percentage when they lose money! THEN watch how quick they get things going!), and union groups demanding pay rates that are unsustainable. No other industry can do this on a regular basis and survive, much less continue getting government bailouts to fund continued mismanagement!
No, UA/AA don't particularly "deserve" to go out of business but neither do they "deserve" to remain in business!
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4685 times:
AA and UA deserve to go out of business only if they cannot provide a service at a cost that customers are willing to pay. As departed AA CEO Donald Carty recently noted, "we gave our customers what they wanted at a cost they were not willing to pay." Nothing profund about that from my "insider's" perspective.
If the stated wants and wishes of customers are allowed to be the predominant basis in deciding what services will be offered, crisis of the type we see at AA and UA is inevitable. Customers are more than happy to receive more service than they are willing to pay for if a business is willing to give added perks (which come at added cost) "for free."
Conversely, WN and the like-minded (and successful) airlines they've inspired are wise enough and realistic enough to proactively answer the question "what are customers willing to pay for?" before offering the "goodies" customers are not willing to pay for and base their service on their correct understanding of the issue.
No one seems to be asking whether WN or B6 deserve to go out of business -- both are giving customers everything they are willing to pay for (with a smile) at a cost that is less than the revenues their customers are willing to pay for the service provided. That's another way of saying they're profitable.