Jetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2985 posts, RR: 8 Posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
Tell me what you think about...
1. When is a no-charge seating upgrade appropriate?
2. For an average sized individuals, is an economy class seat for 4-6 hours (or less) so bad?
3. Do you want low fares or maximum service? Are both possible?
I may be jaded. It seems to me that there are too many people out there trying to get something for nothing. Airlines guarantee safe transportation, not a romantic life experience. If you buy a Timex, should you expect a Rolex? What's the difference?
I appreciate your input. Thank you.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5484 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
1. It's appropriate when there's a problem that results in a loss of your time. I think it's appropriate to ask for one, and if you get it, then I think it's ok. We're only paying through the roof just to sit on the damn plane.
2. 4-6 hours in economy isn't bad. I flew 9 hours on LH ORD-MUC, it wasn't that bad.
3. I want low fares. I care more about price than service. I would rather pay $200 roundtrip with no service rather to spend $300 roundtrip with a meal on each flight. Both are possible, just not in the US.
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6197 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1423 times:
1. An upgrade is appropriate if you've earned it. I don't think it's appropriate to ask for one just because you've been slightly inconvenienced.
2. On most "full service" airlines, I would say it does suck pretty bad. Personally, I like the idea of getting rid of first class altogether and make the economy product a bareable experience. This can be done by increasing the seat pitch and installing leather seats with PTVs and a decent meal. Have I mentioned Jetblue yet??
3. I personally prefer a low fare. Being a young guy, I'm pretty price sensitive. Price and schedule are the two things that sell airline tickets. I believe the travelling public has spoken in that regard.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
MrLineGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 1357 times:
We're only paying through the roof just to sit on the damn plane.
Actually part of the problem that many airlines aren't making money has do to with the very low fares that are out on the market these days. Air fares (believe it or not) are at very low levels when compared with the history of the airlines and their respective fares. Airlines are loosing money for many reasons, one of them being LOW YIELDS(read=low fares)! Airlines can't make money selling $99 One-way between ATL-LAX for example.
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5484 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 1336 times:
Well, what if they offered the fares at $99 one-way!? That means load factors would increase considerably, because most Americans now just don't have the money to spend a bunch of money for a vacation or whatever. When they jack up the price, it just doesn't seem appealing to the average person who looks online to get a fare to see his cousin in NJ. Let's see, an average Joe Shmoe goes online. He sees a fare for $200 roundtrip from LAX to EWR. He thinks it's a good price to see his cousin, so he goes. Thousands of others think the fares are great too, so they buy them. Or Joe Shmoe goes online and sees LAX-EWR for $450 roundtrip, and thinks if his cousin is worth $450! Therefore, lower fares result in more pax! I sure hope that made sense!
MrLineGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1209 times:
Load factor increases with low fares, I agree. But an airline is NOT going to make money on a route with an airplane filled to capacity if each of those people has paid a very low price for their ticket, as the ATL-LAX example shows. Just because more people fly doesn't mean that the airline is making money. Look at United, they are flying heavy loads but those heavy loads consist of people who pay very low fares, thus providing very low yields. Those low yields are not enough to turn a profit (or in some cases even break even!) Think about it...the airline has to pay landing fees, airport fees, buy fuel, pay for the airplane, insure the airplane, pay it's employee's and so on and so on. Just because an airplane is full doesn't mean that airplane is making money for the airline, there is much more to it!
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3777 posts, RR: 30 Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1158 times:
Do you want low fares or maximum service? Are both possible?
The market has spoken loud and clear -- the overwhelming majority of passengers, both business and leisure, have voted for low fares over maximum service, at least on short-medium haul domestic servuces. Upper management of "legacy" dinasaur airlines are, to their peril, too myopic to see it, even though the handwriting has been on the wall for more than 20 years. Instead they go on offering meaningless "frills" at high cost, that no one truly cares about when their money talks. But since the "legacy" airlines have been willing to offer the meaningless "extras" for low fares, passengers are more than willing to take advantage of the senseless largess.
Tbear815 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 704 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1089 times:
The race for freebies and upgrades started with the mileage game craze. Regretably, some of us literally don't fit in a coach seat. When you are 6'3" and weigh 215 lbs., you literally have to go to the bank to fly First Class. My last trip was F on a "major airline" and all I can say it was crap.
Yes, you get what you pay for, however, IF you have to pay the premium, you really should get premium service - and freebies and upgrades should learn to be a little humble around full-fare pax. And that service should start on the ground - the "premium" clubs shouldn't look down their nose at a full-fare pax.
And, by the way, Kevi747, I'll flirt with you anytime for whatever reason!
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5484 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
Whatever, what about flights from midwest to east coast! Tons are just ridiculous. I couldn't get out of MN to EWR on NW, I wasn't prepared to pay $350 for a ticket, that was just ridiculous. I don't think it's fair to have to pay a ridiculous fare just to sit down for two hours. Charging $350 roundtrip and having the plane full, they'd make tons. With the crap-ass economy, no one is going to pay ridiculous fares. They are beginning to think.....
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 973 times:
1. An upgrade is appropriate if you've earned it.
Here's the rub, though. One person's definition of "earned" might be radically different than another's, and usually is.
So one person might think they've "earned" an upgrade if they've had a 30 minute mechanical delay. Another might think they've "earned" it because they've flown 5 times on this airline in 3 years and darn it, they're good customers.
You might also have someone who flies religiously and only feels they've "earned" it when their mileage status reaches whatever elite level is permitted free upgrades.
In today's day and age, everyone wants something for nothing. We're an instant gratification, convenience-based throwaway society and have become too accustomed to getting what we want at the touch of a button or on demand.
Regrettably, the major carriers have catered to this segment of the populace and encouraged them to become louder and demand more and more. While I dislike traveling on Southwest Airlines and think they're not very classy, they never let their customers down because they already have low expectations to begin with.
That's why other airlines routinely have disgruntled passengers. They've been promised the sun the moon and the stars and feel slighted when they get even a little less than that.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
ZSSNC From Germany, joined Feb 2003, 428 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 945 times:
1. IMHO only if Economy Class is fully booked and upgrades have to be done. In that case, however, I think only frequent fliers with high tier levels should be upgraded.
2. I find Economy Class seating pretty cramped on most airlines. The best I have experienced so far was UA Economy Plus (it figures). The worst seating I experienced was SQ long haul on a 744 (those footrests are the worst thing SQ could do with just 32" seat pitch, perhaps they should name their A380 CattleTop). Yet, as most airlines are still dumping prices one should not expect a 34" seat pitch in Economy Class either...
3. As an airline employee I would rather see high fares and a healthier market. Yet, I do not mind LCC's like WN either, as long as they offer a transparent and fair product (excludes FR e.g.).
Airbus A340-600 - the longest temptation in the sky