Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
Typically, in 1960, load factors somewhere in the low to mid 50s were profitable for U.S. scheduled "certificated" trunk and local service airlines (equivalent to today's majors and regionals). In fact, Delta's then-CEO W.T. Beebe as recently as 1980 made the comment (in Air Transport World) that systemwide load factors over 60% meant a noticeable decline in customer service. Those words are as true today as they were 27 years ago, technology advances notwithstanding.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 1): In fact, Delta's then-CEO W.T. Beebe as recently as 1980 made the comment (in Air Transport World) that systemwide load factors over 60% meant a noticeable decline in customer service. Those words are as true today as they were 27 years ago, technology advances notwithstanding.
Don't mistake the cause with the effect there. It results in noticable declines in customer service because they staffed for good customer service at a 50% load factor. The difference between now and then is that they currently staff for good customer service at that same 50% load factor, but expect to get 80% load factors. If they took that model and properly up-staffed the flights, customer service numbers would improve dramatically...as would costs.
It's not the number of people flying that make for bad customer service, it's the number of people the airlines are willing to staff (and how much those customer service agents think they're entitled to be paid.)
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
Quoting Lemurs (Reply 3): It's not the number of people flying that make for bad customer service, it's the number of people the airlines are willing to staff (and how much those customer service agents think they're entitled to be paid.)
But I thought advances in technology made up for the gap between dractically reduced reduced staffing (relative to pax carried) and astronomical increases in number of pax carried? That is, if you believe the mantra of the credibility-challenged managers of the U.S. legacy airlines.
Even if you choose to believe their mantra, the fact remains that when large numbers of people are consistently packed into a confined area (as happens at 80% systemwide factors) people, like lab rats used in experiments studying reactions to crowding, tend to become rather irritated, even though (thankfully) most humans are able to keep their feelings from boiling over into inappropriate aggressive behavior. This reality has nothing to do with adequate staffing levels or lack thereof.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
