KL911 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2003, 5423 posts, RR: 15 Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
Superb, that's what we all want, isn't it? The lowest fare. I mean, why do I need airmiles if flights are so cheap? I'll bring my own food, drinks and portable DVD player. Inflight magazine? Bring your own or buy it at a kiosk at the airport. Seatpitch? Doesn't bother me for a 1 or 2 hour flight if the flight is so much cheaper.
The best way to start is for all the 'big' ones to cut a minimum of 25 percent of their staff , choose either short and mediumhaul or longhaul, specialise in that, so every airline will only do where they are good in. Ryanair, easyjet and basiqair show us it's possible on the short and medium distance routes. Companies like VS and CX will take care of the longhaul where comfort, a meal and IFE is needed.
Don't worry about feeder flights, just book a lowcost to the nearest longhaul gateway.
Let me know what you think of that..
( and let everybody please protect that beautiful KL queen against that awful AF monster................)
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12150 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
The LCC's realize that they can not be all things to all people, nor do they want to. It is the major airlines that do not want to see that they do not have to be all things to all people. Also the majors are afraid that if they decide to do something like be a major flyer and also drop routes that make no money, what happens when and if business travelers return? Make a business plan and stick with it.
KL911 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2003, 5423 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
That's also a problem with government owned carriers, they have to many routes that just don't make money because the government tells them to fly there. Ofcourse the 'BIG' ones are afraid, Ryanair and Easyjet together have more than 180 planes on order, I know what will happen when they get them and I know it will be good for us...
Aussiestu From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 780 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
Ah yes that all sounds fantastic but low cost carriers fly to low cost airports and thus if you want to continue on another flight to a longhaul destination then you will need to get to a major airport to fly from. The big carriers are not about to make it easy for lowcost carriers to fly into the big airports, if they do then they may as well give up? So you are now flying to australia but the only way to fly from say scotland is to fly to LTN or STN then transfer yourself to LHR or LGW.......no thanks let me stick with the majors and get a seemless transfer. Then of course we raise the points about late flights and delayed services and the lack of help that low cost carriers supply. It will NEVER work in my opinion. But PLEASE thats just my opinion?
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4527 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
Anyone remember the good old days when flying was more than just a trip on a glorified bus?
I like an airline that still has some degree of inflight service, inflight entertainment, and meal service on longer flights. Some people don't like airline food, but as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have service, than bring my own magazine, food, etc. That's for the longer flights.
For shorter flights it really isn't a big deal though I do enjoy being served a drink inflight. And swiping the safety cards and inflight mag when no one is looking. It's part of experience that makes flying different from bus travel, save for one being faster than the other.
I'm not for the transition of the airline industry into nothing more than the greyhoud of the skies. Even SWA provides more inflight service than you're suggesting the airlines do. And SWA is a LCC.
So I can't say I agree. From an economics standpoint, the airlines would LOVE to lower the service to that level, and lower the seat pitch even further, because it would save them millions annually. Imagine the savings without the expense of inflight mags, drinks, music channels, headphones, etc...plus an additional 10 people crammed into each airplane. The majors would love it.
The passengers wouldn't. Seat pitch doesn't matter as much on a short flight...to a degree. if my knees are being pinched by the seat in front of me, then even on a 1 hour flight that's too long to have to deal with that. All the passengers on a short flight these days get at least a little bit of attention, if only to ask if they want a bag of peanuts. I'd rather have that, than be completely ignored for the flight.
For longer flights passengers, myself included, expect a little more, especially from the big names like AA and UA. People know what they're getting when they fly on jetblue or southwest. but when they fly AA, they expect a higher degree of service. It's just how the airline is recognized, along with most of the other majors.
Why do you think that people look back on aviation in the 50s through the 70s as being the "glory" days of air travel? For aviation enthusiasts, it's for the classic airliners. But for everybody, it's because back then you had a completely different experience than you have today. Good food, good drinks, lots of service even domestic, you could sometimes get a meal on a Los Angeles to Chicago flight. People miss those days of service, but economically, they were a nightmare.
What we have today is a compromise. Where's the fun in air travel if there's absolutely nothing inflight except the view out the window and what you bring along with you? Unless you're flying your own plane or in a small aircraft like a Baron, the whole "experience" of air travel becomes much more...mundane, generic, sterile. Might as well take the bus.
Keep service in the airlines. I'd like to see service IN-creased, but we know that there isn't the funds to do that.
I'm flying to Hawaii next year. I've ruled out flying a carrier that doesn't provide much inflight service, because this will be the first time I'll get to experience a long haul, and I really would like to have a chance to experience real IFE and real airline meals for a change. Not take a 5 hour bus over the pacific. And I'm willing to pay extra for that additional service, too. Price isn't everything when deciding to book a flight. The service and reputation of the airline come into play as well, along with the schedule and aircraft type.
Anyway, call me picky, flame me all you want, but inflight service, no matter how large or small, should never be completely done away with, or dummied down even lower than what the LCC's provide. It just makes flying that much more special, and keeps that many more flight attendants with paychecks to feed their families with. I am NOT for laying off another 25% of workers in the industry, talk about a crazy idea. Where are these people going to work now that you've laid them all off. From a flight JFK-LHR to flipping burgers at Mcdonalds, there's a glorifying career change. Have a heart.
But yes, from an economics standpoint, the majors would love your idea. But some of us, including those holding jobs in the industry, would like the jobs of the flight attendants to remain. And I'll stand by that.