Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Flaw In The Airline Business Model  
User currently offlineRobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 941 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even though the world has had an airline business for about 80 years now, it is generally not a very good business. There are short periods of profitable times, even a boom year now and then, but then the airlines can lose more money in a 5 year period, say after 9/11, than they had made during the previous fifty years. I know that many will point out the exceptions, but in general, the airline business is a tough one with many factors that are beyond the control of airline management- oil prices, geopolitics, earthquakes, epidemics etc.

I always thought that instead of airlines having to pay airports to operate from them, the airports should pay the airlines! For without the airlines, there would be nobody parking their cars at the airports at $30/day, nobody renting cars, nobody eating at the restaurants or buying at the shops.

I can fly from my home airport, BOS-Florida for $200 RT... and when I come home a week later, my parking fee is the same $200. The airlines should get a "cut" of that fee as if they weren't there with their flights, there would be no passengers parking at the airport.

Obviously, there are major expenses to operate an airport which need to be paid for by concession fees, leases and landing fees. But the larger point here is that airports and concessionaires and generally profitable while airlines are generally not profitable.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7186 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13155 times:

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
The airlines should get a "cut" of that fee as if they weren't there with their flights, there would be no passengers parking at the airport.

Consider that the property could be more valuable for some other less noise making and polluting purpose as an airport,
maybe if the airlines attempt to sit on the BRAC commissions and take over old military bases they could lower their operating cost and prevent NIMBY's.

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
But the larger point here is that airports and concessionaires and generally profitable while airlines are generally not profitable.

Airports are in static locations, management is more stable, they do not switch locations for lower tax rates, do not aggresively compete with other airports on concession fees, have regulatory authority to ensure that no new airports are built within their area of authority, most have voters who have to approve spending, the list goes on and on.
Additionally, a number of airports are not generally profitable since some are not self sustaining requiring tax payor funds.


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1594 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13108 times:

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
I always thought that instead of airlines having to pay airports to operate from them, the airports should pay the airlines!

In some cases they do. There are subsidies provided by airports to bring in new airlines. I just read yesterday that DFW is paying QF several million dollars to operate their new service.

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
The airlines should get a "cut" of that fee as if they weren't there with their flights, there would be no passengers parking at the airport.

You can reverse this as well, if there were no airport for the airlines to land the planes there would be no passengers.

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
Obviously, there are major expenses to operate an airport which need to be paid for by concession fees, leases and landing fees. But the larger point here is that airports and concessionaires and generally profitable while airlines are generally not profitable.

I understand your point but its the industry they choose to operate in. Moving forward however, I think you will see more discipline from the airline management and a focus on ensuring they are flying profitably. Most of airlines really seem to be ditching the 'managing for market share' mindset and are adopting a 'managing for margins' mindset. Historically there was a tolerance for losses in the airline industry because they all were generally losing money (mainly because there was no effort to ensure profitability, losses were just considered acceptable if certain things happened like fuel price increases) now the airlines are being more proactive in increasing revenues and lowering costs to ensure profitability even during the challenging environments. Once the industry changes its approach, the tolerance for airlines that are not profitable will wane (unprofitable airlines in the pass were not really held accountable because it was accepted that the industry would have periods of unprofitability but once it becomes an airline specific problem they will be held accountable) . Bottom line, from here on I think you will see that the airline industry will change its course and become net positive. The downside of course is that it is us, the traveling public, that will be paying the bill to ensure that the airlines are profitable. But that's how all other business operate, they manage supply and demand and make sure they charge enough to make a profit - it just to took this industry forever to figure out how to get it done.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12732 times:

The first passenger service Seattle to Los Angeles by United was priced to fill the available seats, because United had the mail contract and had to fly the distance and more or less on time regardless. Passengers were a needed bonus.

About 20 years ago I read that passengers liked to pay about $15 less than it cost the airline to fly them. Why? Amongst other reasons a seat on an airline of worth nothing without a person in it. And then there are competitors. The dynamics of the market are such that there is high pressure to undercharge. During regulation all of this was taken into account.

Free market fundamentalists think the market is rational and efficient. In certain circumstances it is. In others it is not, and it commonly is called 'market failure'. The aviation industry and the medical industry both experience this. Oddly enough, aviation favors low prices that batter the industry, and the medical industry produces ever increasing costs (currently 18% of GNP), far above inflation. Very roughly speaking if I don't like air travel I reduce that travel to a minimum and benefit other ways. If I have a badly infected tooth I fix it or die - government ensures there are no back alley dentists.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9368 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12483 times:

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
always thought that instead of airlines having to pay airports to operate from them,

That's basically th Ryanair business model. Also called raisin picking. Goes mtogether with the exploitation of brainwashed passengers who have been told that the carrier is "cheap". Clever application of the IKEA role model where the furnitures are cheap but you have to go through the whole shop and by the time you reach the cash point you bought expensive stuff no one needs and you actually did not want to buy.

Does not work for the real airlines who provide the general public a full service including interlining and cargo and many more things the raisin pickers deny.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3805 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12481 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 2):
But that's how all other business operate, they manage supply and demand and make sure they charge enough to make a profit - it just to took this industry forever to figure out how to get it done.

Understandably so when one considers the history of the airline industry. Even here in the U.S. where airlines have always been privately owned, (ostensibly) for-profit businesses, they were de facto public utilities -- and acted accordingly -- until deregulation turned their world upside down. And when we're talking about an industry as vast and complex and capital/labor intensive as major airlines, for the airlines to have made the adjustment from public utilities to for-profit enterprises in ~30 years "ain't bad"...IMHO.

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
maybe if the airlines attempt to sit on the BRAC commissions and take over old military bases they could lower their operating cost and prevent NIMBY's.

...except that the NIMBYs would then build new housing developments where none had existed since the beginning of time, directly under the flight arrival and departure paths, and then demand draconian restrictions on flight ops and/or that the airport be moved to another distant location.


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12466 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 3):
Free market fundamentalists think the market is rational and efficient. In certain circumstances it is. In others it is not, and it commonly is called 'market failure'.

Not sure what planet you are on, but just because a market is not operated the way you would like it, does make it a failure on some grand level.

Capital intensive? Sure
Boom - bust? Yup

I'm always shocked when good money is thrown at bad airlines, but that's how the free market works. Heckuva lot more efficient than the regulated days.

If banks/institutions/manufacturers think they can make a return on their money in airlines, they will invest it. No return possible - if your 'broken market' was even 1% true, there would be no investment or capital flow at all.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12315 times:

One has to posit either divine fiat or some sort of evolutionary adaption to assert that markets are usually efficient. It would also help to have some good current evidence. Markets tend to be more efficient than governments in a number of areas (and with some the other way around), but neither are stellar performers.

But the question posed by the tread starter is why are airlines generally consumers of capital and not creators. It is a good question, touched upon from time to time on this forum, but definitely worth posting and discussing. I have offered a couple reasons. A third very speculative one is that owning and running an airline is a lot sexier than most other enterprises, and guys who can afford to do have done so - usually with the same capital consuming results.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12010 times:

I always believed the "flaw" in the air business model was the fun of it. People hop in and out, based on a whim to play airline, and force prices to stay much, much lower than they should be. Like it our not, we should be paying at least double or more what we are for an airline seat. I was in the hotel business, same problem was no-rev empty rooms. But we could raise our rates every year without fear another hotel would open up tomorrow next door. Or that another chain would start serving our location the next week. Result is that the SAME room I sold for $7.47 back in 1973 costs $179 today. But you can find airline tickets at almost the same price as they were then.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15739 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11910 times:

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
I always thought that instead of airlines having to pay airports to operate from them, the airports should pay the airlines!

Some airports do exactly that.

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter):
I can fly from my home airport, BOS-Florida for $200 RT... and when I come home a week later, my parking fee is the same $200. The airlines should get a "cut" of that fee as if they weren't there with their flights, there would be no passengers parking at the airport

First, most airlines do sell packages, so they will get a cut of hotel, rental cars, etc. Secondly, you could say that airlines are getting a cut of that money since presumably the airport's operating fees would have to be that much higher without parking revenue.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11744 times:

You don't need to have a Harvard MBA to understand how to run an airline.

To fly a plane from A to B, you need to account for the cost of labor, the cost of landing fees, the cost of fuel, a proportion of the gate fees at A and B, catering for the flight, overhead (salaries for management and other fixed costs), a portion of the annual cost of maintenance on the aircraft, a portion of the lease or other ownership costs), a reasonable return on investment, and so on.

Then, after caculating the amount of revenue that can be generated by mail and cargo, you get the amount of money needed to collect from fares. Work though the mathmatics for first, walk-up coach, and discounted coach (called yield management in the industry), you can see what fares need to be to make the flight profitable.

If the fares are significantly higher than competitors, then you either need to eliminate the flight or figure out what can be done to charge a higher fare than a competitor.

Unfortunately, airlines have let themselves become commodities. They really can't offer additonal value (i.e., more amentieis) in exchange for higher fares. AA has been competing with WN for years, even when AA offered free services that WN didn't, such as food in coach and seat selection. Yet, Pennisula Hotels doesn't compete with Holiday Inn, and Hilton doesn't compete with Motel 6. Each of those brands goes after a different segment of the market.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11609 times:

I would also hazard that with the amount of major airlines decreasing and the remaining tending to consolidate into super airlines or alliances, airports will have a harder time justifying those ludicrously expensive fees as airlines will simply not compete for landing slots as much and will have a much higher leverage in their negotiations.

I do agree that airports need to share some of the risk, especially the larger ones near main cities for which the traffic flow is ensured by the local economy, not the other way around...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11323 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 3):
Free market fundamentalists think the market is rational and efficient. In certain circumstances it is. In others it is not, and it commonly is called 'market failure'.

  
I fully understand investing in a startup with a solid business plan. Solid meaning having identified a segment where they will be able to compete and generate profit in a likely time frame.

I do not understand why billions of dollars are pumped in to companies with horrible track records.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 7):
But the question posed by the tread starter is why are airlines generally consumers of capital and not creators. It is a good question, touched upon from time to time on this forum, but definitely worth posting and discussing. I have offered a couple reasons. A third very speculative one is that owning and running an airline is a lot sexier than most other enterprises, and guys who can afford to do have done so - usually with the same capital consuming results.

  

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
If the fares are significantly higher than competitors, then you either need to eliminate the flight or figure out what can be done to charge a higher fare than a competitor.


To expand. Fare is just one part. Cost is the other. Difference between fare and cost is what counts. That your fare is significantly higher isn't bad as long as you offer something people are prepared to pay for. We see this every day as people pay for business class over economy and so on.

Problem is that airlines have taken on so high fixed costs that during long periods they are not focused at generating profit but rather covering as much of the fixed costs as possible, If they can operate a plane and loose one dollar less that way than by mothballing they will. It is considered good business practice. And it is, if done for short periods.

Problem is that there is so much capacity that this seems to be the norm rather than exemption. In my mind too high expectations on P2P and frequency have caused the system to have too much capacity.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7186 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11138 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 12):
Problem is that there is so much capacity that this seems to be the norm rather than exemption.

Some airlines are doing just fine with the current industry capacity, others less so, what capacity can do is to make marginal and poorly run carriers profitable.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 976 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11121 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
To fly a plane from A to B, you need to account for the cost of labor, the cost of landing fees, the cost of fuel, a proportion of the gate fees at A and B, catering for the flight, overhead (salaries for management and other fixed costs), a portion of the annual cost of maintenance on the aircraft, a portion of the lease or other ownership costs), a reasonable return on investment, and so on.

Then, after caculating the amount of revenue that can be generated by mail and cargo, you get the amount of money needed to collect from fares. Work though the mathmatics for first, walk-up coach, and discounted coach (called yield management in the industry), you can see what fares need to be to make the flight profitable.

You're describing cost-plus pricing, and it's a method that often results in inefficient cost structures. If airlines are using it, maybe that's their problem. Arguably, the better philosophy is target costing, which is backwards from the process you describe.

Target costing starts with the price that customers will pay for a good or service. It subtracts the desired profit margin to determine the target cost of the good/service. The cost structure is then set to achieve this target. This is a superior method as it preserves profit margins instead of just taking what's left over between the going market price and a haphazard cost structure. It also puts significant downward pressure on costs instead of just accepting them for what they are or picking arbitrary cost-saving targets.


User currently offlineWNbob From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9888 times:

When air travel fell into the "commodity" category that's was the begining of the end. Price of entrance seems to be low as Boeing, Airbus, third party leasings can't give away their planes fast enough. We need some EXCITEMENT in this industry, we need a VISIONARY, we need a REVOLUTION.

User currently offlineroguetrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9748 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
Then, after caculating the amount of revenue that can be generated by mail and cargo, you get the amount of money needed to collect from fares. Work though the mathmatics for first, walk-up coach, and discounted coach (called yield management in the industry), you can see what fares need to be to make the flight profitable.

Sticking to that basic method produces profitable airlines - Ryanair and Southwest come to mind. BUT, all the legacy carriers of America and Europe are stuck in the broken and financially unstable hub-and-spoke model which (in their odd thinking) means they should and do fly numerous unprofitable routes for the sake of the hub. It may very well be that SFO or DEN or ATL is unprofitable for AA, but it is not conceptually possible for them to stop serving such major markets...whereas WN left SFO (and DEN too?) when they couldn't make it work because they exist much closer to the ideal you set out, that each route/city must pay for itself.

Quoting cmf (Reply 12):
I do not understand why billions of dollars are pumped in to companies with horrible track records.

One interesting thing about US legacies in particular is that their frequent flier programs are probably the main viable asset they have that is always profitable. Chase gave financing to a bankrupt UA because it profited so much from offering the MileagePlus credit card, likewise Amex financed Delta because of the profit they make selling Delta credit cards. It's almost like they are in the business of creating/selling frequent flier miles, with the airline part just being a function of that...

RT


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9524 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
Some airlines are doing just fine with the current industry capacity, others less so,

Some are the exemption, not the norm.

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
what capacity can do is to make marginal and poorly run carriers profitable.

Can you provide an example of a poorly run carrier who became profitable by adding a lot more capacity.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7186 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8811 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
Can you provide an example of a poorly run carrier who became profitable by adding a lot more capacity.

All carriers benefit when capacity is cut, as pax choice goes down. All airlines have been lowering capacity in the US, the result is higher yields, higher load factors, fares are on the increase.

As for adding capacity, that's a much tougher nut to crack, only way I could see that was probably before de-regulation or if regulation rears its ugly head again.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
You don't need to have a Harvard MBA to understand how to run an airline.

To fly a plane from A to B, you need to account for the cost of labor, the cost of landing fees, the cost of fuel, a proportion of the gate fees at A and B, catering for the flight, overhead (salaries for management and other fixed costs), a portion of the annual cost of maintenance on the aircraft, a portion of the lease or other ownership costs), a reasonable return on investment, and so on.

Then, after caculating the amount of revenue that can be generated by mail and cargo, you get the amount of money needed to collect from fares. Work though the mathmatics for first, walk-up coach, and discounted coach (called yield management in the industry), you can see what fares need to be to make the flight profitable.

If the fares are significantly higher than competitors, then you either need to eliminate the flight or figure out what can be done to charge a higher fare than a competitor.

Sure it's that simple. Except. The airline business being largely a commodity, you *cannot* charge much more than your competitors, and you *cannot* just "eliminate the flight" (you either have to find another route to fly, or you're stuck paying the financing and whatnot on an idle aircraft, or trying to dump the aircraft). So it's often a choice between taking a modest loss on a flight, or a bigger loss dumping the flight or trying to get rid of the aircraft.

That’s the real flaw in the airline business – once you’re in it, and there are competitors and empty seats, you’re either stuck taking a big loss by getting out, or a little loss by staying in.

Quoting WNbob (Reply 15):
When air travel fell into the "commodity" category that's was the begining of the end. Price of entrance seems to be low as Boeing, Airbus, third party leasings can't give away their planes fast enough. We need some EXCITEMENT in this industry, we need a VISIONARY, we need a REVOLUTION.

Ugh. None of the customers want a revolution. They want cheap and reliable transport. If you don't like being in a commodity business, be in a different business.


User currently onlinecslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 840 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8211 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):
Unfortunately, airlines have let themselves become commodities. They really can't offer additonal value (i.e., more amentieis) in exchange for higher fares.

I think that real story is how someone can fix this flaw in the airline business model by decommoditizing air travel.



--cslusarc from YWG
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 8086 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 14):
Target costing starts with the price that customers will pay for a good or service. It subtracts the desired profit margin to determine the target cost of the good/service. The cost structure is then set to achieve this target. This is a superior method as it preserves profit margins instead of just taking what's left over between the going market price and a haphazard cost structure. It also puts significant downward pressure on costs instead of just accepting them for what they are or picking arbitrary cost-saving targets.

But, up until the recession, look at what the hotels were doing. They were upgrading rooms like crazy, with better mattesses, better bedding, flat-screen TVs, better toiletries, and such. And, they were increasing room rates while improving rooms.

The airlines have worked on the notion of making items that were once free subject to fees, so that they can offer lower fares to compete. This is the exact opposite of how most businesses work. You take items that were once additoinal cost and include them in the base price, while increasing the base price, although the increase is less than the price for the item, when it was an option.


User currently offlineozark1986 From Italy, joined Sep 2011, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6740 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 21):
But, up until the recession, look at what the hotels were doing. They were upgrading rooms like crazy, with better mattesses, better bedding, flat-screen TVs, better toiletries, and such. And, they were increasing room rates while improving rooms.

ckfred is barking up the right tree. The airlines are not offering the premium product/service that justify charging more for a seat. The hotel industry has a tremendous amount to teach the airline industry.


User currently offlineesdex From Australia, joined Jan 2011, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5691 times:

Airlines, especially those with international markets, have very challenging risk exposures. Expensive plant in the aircraft with relatively few manufacturers, long delivery times which require long term vision to capitalise, relatively expensive labour with high training costs and a number of other restrictions that other industries don't face, volatility of key overheads such as fuel, volatility of external economic environment - when time's are tough, people don't tend to travel as much, significant regulatory burdens such as licensing, foreign exchange risk, political risk - not only issues such as terrorism but market protectionism and comeptitive hurdles such as subsidised/protected markets etc. Unless you're in for the long haul over 15-20 years, airlines represent a significant investment risk compared to other industries. Not to say you shouldn't do it though!

User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5390 times:

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 20):
Quoting ckfred (Reply 10):Unfortunately, airlines have let themselves become commodities. They really can't offer additonal value (i.e., more amentieis) in exchange for higher fares.
I think that real story is how someone can fix this flaw in the airline business model by decommoditizing air travel.

I agree that the fundemental issue is that airlines (particularly the US airlines), by not clearly differentiating their product versus a competitor's, have allowed themselves to get sucked into being a commodity (with attendant low margins and a desire to seek the economies of scale through consolidation). The question is whether this can be reversed?



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
25 OzGlobal : A good topic. There is too much uncertainty attached to too much capital in the airline business, with ever growing margin squeeze. You will never hav
26 kcrwflyer : 1. I've never seen the $30/day lot or garage. If I ever paid that to park at an airport there better be a gold bar in the trunk when I get back. 2. D
27 LAXtoATL : Granted it is a premium lot, but ATL certainly has a $30/day a lot. And I assume they aren't the only airport in the country with one and I would gue
28 GCT64 : Don't ever park at LHR then! after the last time I got stung (and there was no gold bar in the trunk), I vowed never to give them any more car parkin
29 PanHAM : Parking at FRA is about € 25,00 per day / 24 hours which are usually reached after 4 hours. The deal is that the next 20 hours then are "free". Park
30 ckfred : Back in the days of regulation, airlines differentiated themselves. Delta was a southern carrier, with southern dishes in its meal service, and many
31 MaverickM11 : If you have a finite number of ad dollars, why would AA advertise in ATL? This is one of the bigger problems in the industry--people say all kinds of
32 ckfred : But advertising in your home markets is like preaching to the choir. If you live in the Metroplex, and your business travels took you regularly beyon
33 frmrCapCadet : I thought your post had a good summary of the economics. Here in the US WN is the exception, their profit margins are consistent, but not robust. In
34 wnbob : Huh? customers are happy with air carriers? The last time I checked air carriers' reputations are only slightly better than lawyers and the cable com
35 roguetrader : Because AA does actually provide something special and arguably better than Delta in ATL - a private bag claim, no-train gate access and a (subjectiv
36 cmf : I would suggest that is exactly the point I was making. They added more capacity than the market could absorb while keeping fares at profitable level
37 Post contains images rwessel : They may be unhappy, but they've repeatedly demonstrated that what they really want is cheap. And, apparently, the opportunity to complain about some
38 Burkhard : Completely agree. The main flaw is that the airline business is a true global world wide business, but is treated like a local one. When I look into
39 par13del : Hmmmm, not disagreeing fully but global commercial entities such as those are what created the GFC which the entire world is suffering the consequenc
40 Burkhard : It was not the real economy and real global industry who created the GFC - a really global airline would be able to react to local or regional market
41 rl757pvd : If you took a closer look at the airport side of the house, you would see this is not the case, especially in recent years. Airports are not and can
42 Flighty : Utterly ridiculous (for aviation). Aviation is a successful example of free market action. A great (safe and fast) product is provided to everybody a
43 frmrCapCadet : So why can't they make money? That is the point of discussion on this thread.
44 Post contains links NathanH : The US Airline industry has lost almost $60 billion domestically since deregulation. I would hardly call that a successful example of free market act
45 mayor : Pre DL/WA merger, DL didn't advertise at all in SLC as the flights to ATL, DFW and PDX were always full.....no need to. When did WN leave DEN??? Also
46 incitatus : London Heathrow gets 77 pounds if you park the car by the terminal for 24 hours. That is $120.
47 dfwrevolution : No, it's exactly how a business should operate. You charge prices based on what customers are willing to pay. The fact that airlines have been succes
48 RobertS975 : I assume from your "handle" that you are from Charleston, WV (KCRW). Indeed, that would explain your views about airport parking rates, as the long t
49 Flighty : Touche... it is true, airlines do not make money. They are so competitive they actually lose money. But, at least they deliver the goods to society (
50 Post contains links NathanH : It is my understanding that after 9/11 the airlines got a TON of govt money. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/eveningnews/main532311.shtml
51 Flighty : That was a one time thing back in 02 or something related to direct war damages. Do we really want terrorism to determine which airline survives or d
52 NathanH : I'm not saying that it was wrong at all. I think it was the right thing to do. But it certainly wasn't a "free market" which was the point I was maki
53 frmrCapCadet : One of the ironies of the lousey financial performances of airlines: no one doubts the huge contribution they make to the economy, I don't think the e
54 LoveTheSkies : My mother traveled from FRA to OKC in 1987 and paid 1900.00 Deutsche Mark ($1000.00). You look at the fare today and it hasn't changed. When I moved t
55 Post contains links frmrCapCadet : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8782_apasiataairtraveloutlook.html "ATA, whose 230 member airlines carry 93 percent of all passengers, expects
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...
Free Fares On Airline? Business Model? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 21:12:26 by Eksath
The Business Model Of A Low Cost Airline! posted Mon Jul 26 2010 04:47:26 by Speedbird741
The Flaw In The Airline Business Model posted Sun Sep 18 2011 06:09:15 by RobertS975
The Allegiant Business Model-Why No Copycats? posted Thu Oct 16 2008 20:03:28 by Ridgid727
Is High Oil Prices Good For The Airline Business? posted Fri Jun 20 2008 01:43:47 by Panais
Define The Allegiant Business Model As You See It posted Wed Nov 16 2005 21:28:51 by KarlB737
Fate Of The Airline Business posted Sun Sep 16 2001 20:18:14 by EBlackAdder
Where Did The Sukhoi Supersonic Business Jet Go? posted Tue Aug 31 2010 10:37:03 by deskflier
What's The Next Airline To Receive A380? posted Wed Jul 7 2010 01:02:14 by JEKY
The State Of The Regional Airline Industry posted Mon Jun 7 2010 10:11:01 by flyboy80