Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of US Legacy Carriers Post-new Threats  
User currently offlineB777A340Fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 774 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4349 times:

Following recent threats on flights originating from the UK to the US and targeted towards legacy carriers such as UAL, AA, and CO, I wanted to get your opinions on travellers' minds. Do you believe non-frequent flyers are going to be more inclined to fly non-US/UK/legacy carriers? That is, price/convenience aside, do you think travellers would feel safer flying non-legacy airlines? Don't take this as a sign that I think all will go down the tube, there is nothing more that I want than for these airlines to survive...I won't ever let terrorists hinder my travel plans or my daily life, just wondering what your thoughts are and what the future may hold.

[Edited 2006-08-11 16:04:06]

[Edited 2006-08-11 16:05:12]

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1137 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4346 times:

According to TIME magazine BA was also targeted.

User currently offlineSJUSXM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4346 times:

I think it may have some affect upon the inexperienced traveler,but among frequent flyers and other "experienced" travelers i dont think it will. The legacy carriers are targeted by terrerists. AMERICAN, UNITED, are symbols of America, not only in name. Just as PAN AM and TWA were.

Shane from DE (6)



AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4898 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

5-10 years ago, you probably would have seen a migration of travelers to non-US airlines (that's what happened in 1986 after the Libya bombings, and then again in 1989 after Pan Am 103, and then in 1990/1 during the 1st Gulf War). Since then (particularly after 9/11 and the subsequent Afghanistan and Iraqi wars), however, I believe many Americans have gradually accepted (like the Europeans did years ago) that worldwide terrorism is a part of life and that they have to move on with theirs (which includes flying overseas and potentially on US flag carriers).
Don't get me wrong, when things happen overseas, particularly when targeted against Americans, you will still see a dip in Americans travelling abroad, but the trend is towards more resilience and less of a dramatic dip in international travel as in previous years.


User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4288 times:

I'm thinking Emirates, Etihad, Qatar are pretty safe.

(ducking)


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7539 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4262 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 4):
Qatar are pretty safe.

Qatar just had a hijacking attempt.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4243 times:

when the bombings started on the London tube and bus network, it was a shock to all,but it never stopped londoners from using it,the termination in people is to carry on regardless,and show the terroists we wont be beaten and you will never win. This is the same for air travellers around the world.

dave


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4204 times:

Indications are already coming in that there is minimal impact to airline operations today. Screening times are normal.

The world has once again adapted very quickly to the world of living under the threat of terrorism. There is a hassle factor for living in this decade but I waste far more time battling traffic than I do wasting time for security screenings.

It is doubtful that most people will change their plans. And given that worldwide travel is strong, there will be plenty of good people willing to replace those who choose not to fly.

Freedom to live a productive and satisfying life always wins over terrorism.


User currently offlineCongaboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 352 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4140 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 7):
Freedom to live a productive and satisfying life always wins over terrorism.

Indeed, WT...and it would be disrespectful to those who provide(d) our freedoms to shy away and let these dregs become successful. Just further evidence that they think they know our culture; that we are driven by our greed and self-satisfaction. That's why a team of passengers stormed the cockpit on UA over Pennsylvania...

I will fly on UA to LHR in a few months, and I have no intention of changing. When your number is up, your number is up.



"Joey, you like movies about gladiators?"
User currently offlineCoyoteguy From Mexico, joined Oct 2001, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 4):
I'm thinking Emirates, Etihad, Qatar are pretty safe.

As well as offering some of the best service... Lets see.... a glass of water and an inedible meal on AA served by an elderly unsmiling attendant, or full gracious service on EK..... hmmmmm  Wink


User currently offlineCoyoteguy From Mexico, joined Oct 2001, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

But to be serious, I think a number of people will think twice about flying, either because they are scared, or because they don't want to put up with the inconvenience of the new 'security' regulations. I would expect to see pax numbers dropping quite a bit, which will not do much for the airlines bottom lines. Another round of chapter 11s and liquidations? I would not be surprised.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13079 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

There will be additional costs for airlines as more bags will be checked in, even for short flights, so people can transport their cosmetics and toileteries. This means more staff will be required at check in and baggage handling. More beverages will have to be supplied by the airlines, especially bottled water so more costs there too. Of course, this will be on top of the high fuel prices.

User currently offlineSJUSXM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4020 times:

I would expect to see pax numbers dropping quite a bit, which will not do much for the airlines bottom lines. Another round of chapter 11s and liquidations? I would not be surprised.



I too see people thinking twice, but no way will it be as bad as it was around 9/11. Let's remember that this threat was THWARTED. I certainly think people during their second thought will remember that no attack occured and that it is safer now than it was before. I definately don't see it affecting airlines in the way it affected them after 9/11



There will be additional costs for airlines as more bags will be checked in, even for short flights, so people can transport their cosmetics and toileteries. This means more staff will be required at check in and baggage handling. More beverages will have to be supplied by the airlines, especially bottled water so more costs there too. Of course, this will be on top of the high fuel prices



While i truely agree with you, there also will be faster boarding times because of less carry-ons



AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
User currently offlineCongaboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 352 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 11):
There will be additional costs for airlines as more bags will be checked in, even for short flights, so people can transport their cosmetics and toileteries. This means more staff will be required at check in and baggage handling. More beverages will have to be supplied by the airlines, especially bottled water so more costs there too. Of course, this will be on top of the high fuel prices.

This brings up a good point regarding productivity gains through kiosk check-in. Kiosks provided a great way to check-in if you were not checking bags...no need to encounter an agent. Now, alot of the bags that people brought on board will most likely get checked, adding time and manual intervention by tagging bags.

Look at the bright side...maybe the boarding process will go faster, minus the fuss we go through when overhead storage runs out.



"Joey, you like movies about gladiators?"
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3964 times:

There is no assurance that this liquid and gel ban will last for the long term. It is very possible that it will be lifted or modified. If nothing else, hotels and airlines will start offering more amenities including the banned toiletry items or some enterprising soul will set up a little toiletries booth in the arrivals area of every US airport. The restrictions in place now are little more than annoying. Rational people aren’t going to change their plan because of a slightly more restrictive carry on baggage policy. And remember many people do check luggage already… for them, it’s just a matter of rearranging the way they pack. For people who only use carry-ons, they just have to figure out a way to obtain toiletries when they arrive.

NYC of all places should be the most skittish about terrorism but they bounced back very quickly from 9/11 and the city is stronger than ever. Life in the 21st century is hard but people can and will adapt, as they have for centuries in the past. Those of who who predict demise have probably not been forced to deal with the adversities that are the norm for most of the world’s population – and are far more significant than not being able to keep your aftershave and toothpaste by your side.


User currently offlineB777A340Fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3947 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14):
Rational people aren’t going to change their plan because of a slightly more restrictive carry on baggage policy.

I understand that...most people wouldn't change their travel plans because of a stricter carry-on-luggage policy. I think what the foil taught us all is that terrorism is very much a threat, if not imminent. But I was referring more about people's fear of flying ....and what they would consider safer.  Smile


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sum Up The Future Of US Legacy Carriers posted Sun Sep 18 2005 02:43:35 by Afrikaskyes
Future Of US International Flights/carriers? posted Thu Jan 8 2004 21:32:30 by Kaitak
$50 Fare Inc By US Legacy Carriers... posted Sat Apr 8 2006 00:03:12 by AirRyan
Unadvertised Benefits Of The Legacy Carriers posted Sat Dec 24 2005 02:21:13 by Cory6188
Future Of US Airways FLL Focus City posted Wed Dec 14 2005 01:47:50 by Kkfla737
Future Of US Airways At PVD posted Tue Sep 6 2005 00:54:08 by Jmc1975
727 Operations By US Legacy Carriers posted Tue Jun 14 2005 22:08:21 by Wheelsatc
Future Of US Domestic 1 Class Or 2 Class? posted Wed Apr 13 2005 20:42:34 by RL757PVD
US Legacy Carriers: Ending The 'limbo' posted Sun Nov 14 2004 23:15:07 by Ozglobal
Why Are All US Legacy Carriers In Trouble? posted Wed Sep 22 2004 22:16:32 by BoeingPride800