Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Decline Of Airline Travel In The US (NYT Article)  
User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26981 times:

First of all, this thread is meant to discuss this article, not to start an all-out brawl at any specific airline (even though one is mentioned in the article):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/wo...vel-is-not-what-it-used-to-be.html

I believe that it perfectly states both the economic state of affairs in the US airline industry post-bailout as well as the current mental state of the majority of customer service folks I have encountered over the past few years. The loss of services, the nickel and dime fees, the de-humanizing of customer service...to me, this is the proverbial "frog in the boiling water scenario." Ten years ago, if we would have been discussing all the changes that have come to the airlines with the fees and the diminishing services, most of us would have been completely and utterly enraged at any particular airline that would dare to take away such perks from us...akin to throwing the frog into boiling water to see him jump out. But instead, the airline industry has slowly "boiled us" with fuel fees, baggage fees, fees for credit cards, fees for phone tickets, fees for carry-ons, smaller planes, reduced frequencies, no more free snacks (or drinks on some carriers), etc.

I think the industry as a whole is a great case study in business ethics about how a business as a whole starts out by treating customers as friends and family and ends up treating them like a wallet with disposable income.

285 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2807 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 26995 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
The loss of services, the nickel and dime fees, the de-humanizing of customer service...to me, this is the proverbial "frog in the boiling water scenario."

I disagree. Consumers can act and have. But they won't sacrifice price for perks.

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
But instead, the airline industry has slowly "boiled us" with fuel fees, baggage fees, fees for credit cards, fees for phone tickets, fees for carry-ons, smaller planes, reduced frequencies, no more free snacks (or drinks on some carriers), etc.

The airlines have done most of this, which is pretty crazy. But I place a large part of the blame with the consumer. If Joe Schmo the business traveler would pay the 50 bucks extra to fly his airline of choice to PVD we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the consumer goes for the lowest fare they can find and books it. When they do that airlines need to find revenue from somewhere else. Baggage fees are great and mean they have less personnel and extra revenue. Credit card fees haven't been charged on the airlines I've flown recently. Phone charges make sense. This isn't 1984 anymore. Everybody has a link to the internet. I have three devices right now that can go and book a flight on any airline within reach. I think airlines should charge for phone ticketing because you are actually getting serviced by someone who is getting paid. Not a server in Idaho. That I don't blame them for. The carry on fees are limited to ULCCs who offer one way fares from 29 dollars. It's tough to complain about being charged another 30 bucks for carryon when your roundtrip ticket on Spirit was a third of what AA cost. Now the smaller planes I don't really buy. 5 years ago I would agree. But the 50 seat RJs are leaving in favor of larger regional jets. Frankly I'd rather take an E-170 over a 737 any day of the week. There is also no such thing as a free snack. You pay for it somewhere. If I have to forego my sip of coke and my 3 mini pretzels, so be it.

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
I think the industry as a whole is a great case study in business ethics about how a business as a whole starts out by treating customers as friends and family and ends up treating them like a wallet with disposable income

So now the airlines are evil for treating everybody how every other business in the world treats people? Frankly we have to get the 1960s image of air travel out of our heads. It is gone. Yeah travel was hip and comfortable back in the day. But I'll take the safety we've gained in those decades along with the rudeness just fine. When you grow up in the northeast the rudeness becomes a part of daily life. The airlines are finally in a place where they are making money and doing well for themselves. They've matured and it was about time.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 26914 times:

Boo frickin hoo--passengers are getting exactly what they pay for. Everyone can start paying '60s era airfares, adjusted for inflation, and we'll go right back to those 'golden days' that were really never that golden to begin with.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 26753 times:

Admittedly, I haven't yet read the article but would attribute some of the shift on passengers themselves. Flying used to be a "special" event during which people would dress appropriately, treat the crew with respect or even deference, and relish the opportunity to get from point A to point B in a comfortable, expedient manner. Step on a plane in the continental US these days and you'll often see just the opposite with passengers harboring an outwardly hostile attitude (i.e.: "I paid for this ticket, therefore you work for me") and an unrealistic expectations with regard to service. Part of it is no doubt the result of industry-wide pressures, but part is almost certainly (IMO) the result of the "dumbing-down" of American culture, and the erosion of basic manners, courtesy, and tact.

777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 26614 times:

I find the process of flying in the US, and on US carriers, to be vastly different to that in Europe. An airport in the US, like a lot of other things there, has this culture of "fear". They're constantly reminding you of the "boogyman" and to be aware of it. Everyone is acting more like security guards than customer service agents. The border patrol with the black uniforms and the gun. Having your finger prints and picture taken by the man in the booth and and being asked serious questions and treated like you're under suspicion all the time. The TSA dressing (and acting) like police officers doesn't help. Even in the air, the flight attendants of taken on an air of superiority and are thinking and acting like they're the flying police force. Just about everyone I've dealt with in a US airport or in the air has forgotten that they're in the service industry. It's just not a nice experience. Last time I visited was from Copenhagen to Newark. The airport in CPH was a relaxed affair. The flight on SAS, despite being far from luxury, was also a relaxing experience. Then you arrive in Newark and the stress begins. I go out of my way to avoid US airlines and I look elsewhere for vacations now.

User currently offlineusdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 978 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26432 times:

One of things that disappeared years ago was the opportunity to help the passenger directly when checking them in. Nowadays the passenger can do almost everything directly with the kiosk or the website. The fact that they have alternate flights at their fingertips puts them in charge. While I do not think the attitude of the flight attendants has changed significantly in the past 10-12 years, I find that many customer service agents are not courteous enough. They no longer defer to the passenger and instead brutally enforce airline policy no matter how it makes customers feel. There is no sense that rules are guidelines; everything is enforced, and if you get out line, you get yelled at. That's what happens when profit takes a seat above dignity.

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26290 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
Consumers can act and have. But they won't sacrifice price for perks.

Yes and no.

The problem, to be frank, can be split into two halves:

1) The American consumer behaves like a European LCC consumer even if s/he is a legacy passenger. They are obsessed by lead-in price.

2) The legality of pseudo-monopoly practices in US aviation allows the legacy carriers to act in lockstep in terms of reducing amenities, so that no carrier is at a competitive disadvantage.

It is true that in Europe many passengers accept the no free bag / no free IFE / no catering product that American passengers do, but when they fly LCCs. The difference is that in the USA this appalling service level applies to even long-haul domestic flights (e.g. Hawaii) and is practised by legacy carriers.

In contrast, where I live in Australia the dominant domestic airline's tickets include luggage, AVOD, food and drink even in Economy Class, and the next competitor has elected to move upmarket to include more of these amenities so that it can raise its yields. As you would expect in any sane market, if the vendor reduces quality, the yield falls. Sadly this is not true in US aviation.

But most of the problem is the dysfunctional state of ticket sales. Instead of having four legacy carriers pitched at different market niches from full-service to no-frills, there are four legacy clones, differing only by the location of their hubs. And whereas in the rest of the world, First/Business class ticket sales are a massive profit driver (or else the cabins are removed), in the USA the legacy carriers have to comp access to their elites or else face a competitive disadvantage.

This absurd state of affairs has two sets of long-suffering victims. The first is the legacy airline passengers, who endure service standards beneath those offered by legacy carriers in places with similar sector lengths (Australia, South Africa, East Asia). Their lack of choice is evocative of consumers in the old Soviet Union. Again and again I hear "if you want a meal, buy a First Class ticket", which is like saying "no cars will have electric windows unless you buy a Mercedes". And the other victims are the shareholders, whose companies repeatedly sink into bankruptcy in this twisted, anti-competitive "market".


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26202 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
1) The American consumer behaves like a European LCC consumer even if s/he is a legacy passenger. They are obsessed by lead-in price.

It's not an American consumer behavior--it's a human behavior, and it is proven over, and over, all over the world.

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
2) The legality of pseudo-monopoly practices in US aviation allows the legacy carriers to act in lockstep in terms of reducing amenities, so that no carrier is at a competitive disadvantage.

This is total nonsense. The most profitable carriers in the Americas now are G4, NK, and CM, all which have varying levels of amenties, down to zero.

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
In contrast, where I live in Australia the dominant domestic airline's tickets include luggage, AVOD, food and drink even in Economy Class
JQ started serving meals for free? In any case Australian domestic capacity is largely controlled by two carriers; the QF group and VA control almost 90% of the domestic capacity, so competition isn't even within the same galaxy of the US. Do you know how many US carriers control 90% of the domestic capacity? At least eight. And QF continues to swap capacity out for JQ, probably because those darn Yankees are flooding the Australian market and demanding lower ticket prices right? 

[Edited 2013-08-26 04:04:24]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinefreakyrat From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 874 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airlines in the US also start routes and then sometimes do not charge the proper fares to make a decent yield even though they are filling the planes.

A LCC in the US which isn't so Low Cost anymore is WN. You buy your ticket and you know exactly what you are getting is basic transportation from point A to Point B. They are good at what they do and you are at least treated right.

I took two flights in Europe last year an BA and LH. Both were very good. One was on a Eurowings CRJ900 between AMS and HAM and back. Both flights they served light meals on.

The other flight on BA was between LHR and HAM and back and both flights on the A320 and A321 they served light meals on.

The BA crews were very attentive and the female flight attendants on BA were dressed in the retro look pillbox hats. I thought there whole look was very formal and very British. I actually liked it.

The Eurowings crews also were also very proper and formal.

I could just sense a direct contrast between the service in Europe as opposed to the US.


User currently offlineswaluvfa From United States of America, joined May 2002, 277 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 25725 times:

Quoting 777fan (Reply 3):

You so perfectly hit the nail on the head with that statement!


Another really simple reason for all of the change the last 15 years, is the dramatic shift in pricing power. Not saying that it was necessarily a bad thing, but very clear and apparent. Up until around 15 years ago, the airlines had the pricing power. The majority of consumers did not have access to internet booking, so they just had to go with the airline that they knew in their city, or call the different airlines to get the different fares. The airlines knew this, and could price the fares accordingly. As the internet boom took off in the late 90s and early 2000s, the pricing power VERY QUICKLY shifted from the airline to the consumer. The consumer consistently wanted the rock bottom, lowest fare, and the airlines HAD to be radical and drastic to meet this new reality of pricing. Again, was this a bad thing, NO, but you get what you ask for and pay for.


User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think long haul flight is up.
What has changed is a the dramatic reduction in short haul flying.
Years ago it was common for a businessperson to fly from DTW to ORD or MDW, but the hassles of having to be at the airport so early for security, the grossly inflated block times because of ATC delays, and the cost of transportation at the Chicago end means I know a lot of people who used to fly but now drive 4 hours each way. Frankly I found myself often driving from Minneapolis to Chicago. The 7 hour drive time door to door especially when my first appointments were going to be in the far northern suburbs did not seem bad compared to an effective travel time of 4 1/2 hours by air (from time I had to leave the house to the time I checked into a hotel in Deerfield IL.

I had another friend who similarly stopped flying on his frequent trips to Indianapolis from DTW. He lives in Ann Arbor and found it just as fast or faster to just get in the car and drive.



The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4030 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25515 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
2) The legality of pseudo-monopoly practices in US aviation allows the legacy carriers to act in lockstep in terms of reducing amenities, so that no carrier is at a competitive disadvantage.

I would expect practices called "pseudo-monopoly" to lead to pseudo-monopoly profits. Where are they?



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25275 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
But I place a large part of the blame with the consumer. If Joe Schmo the business traveler would pay the 50 bucks extra to fly his airline of choice to PVD we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the consumer goes for the lowest fare they can find and books it.
Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
The American consumer behaves like a European LCC consumer even if s/he is a legacy passenger. They are obsessed by lead-in price.
Quoting swaluvfa (Reply 9):
The majority of consumers did not have access to internet booking, so they just had to go with the airline that they knew in their city, or call the different airlines to get the different fares. The airlines knew this, and could price the fares accordingly. As the internet boom took off in the late 90s and early 2000s, the pricing power VERY QUICKLY shifted from the airline to the consumer. The consumer consistently wanted the rock bottom, lowest fare, and the airlines HAD to be radical and drastic to meet this new reality of pricing.

But who is the "consumer"... the flyers or the corporations purchasing the tickets for flyers. A lot of corporate travel policies require the employee to book the lowest fares and exception reports point out those who do not.

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
the US airline industry... baggage fees, fees for credit cards, fees for phone tickets...

Didn't Air Canada go before US legacy carriers in implementing these pricing models... or "unbundling of services"?

Quoting 777fan (Reply 3):
Flying used to be a "special" event during which people would dress appropriately, treat the crew with respect or even deference, and relish the opportunity to get from point A to point B in a comfortable, expedient manner.

Air travel for a lot of folks today is about commuting to work and is therefore more of a necessity.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 3):
but part is almost certainly (IMO) the result of the "dumbing-down" of American culture, and the erosion of basic manners, courtesy, and tact.

Absolutely agree. Very me-me-me vs the rest of the world.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2087 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25142 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
The most profitable carriers in the Americas now are G4, NK, and CM, all which have varying levels of amenities, down to zero.

Agreed but why should legacies compare themselves with LCCs? Shouldn't they offer a better all inclusive Y class at a higher price to a segment of passengers who are ready to pay more for better product. Or else re-launch as LCC. They want to be called legacies, want to offer LCC product, yet cannot make profits.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25017 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 13):
a segment of passengers who are ready to pay more for better product

If there was such an animal, it would have been discovered by now.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineItalianFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1099 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 24750 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 13):
a segment of passengers who are ready to pay more for better product

If there was such an animal, it would have been discovered by now.

Just look at Virgin America to see how well that has worked out lol.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2087 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24602 times:

Quoting ItalianFlyer (Reply 15):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 13):
a segment of passengers who are ready to pay more for better product

If there was such an animal, it would have been discovered by now.

Just look at Virgin America to see how well that has worked out lol.

I guess race to bottom is the only option.


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24548 times:

But there are a lot of positive trade-offs that people would not want to give up to go back to those glamourous days of the golden age of flying.

1. Having to call several airlines or a travel agent who you may not know whether or not they are doing a thorough job in providing the best routing and pricing. I think most would prefer to have all the information at their finger tips to make a better ticket purchasing decision -- which contrary to popular belief can be driven by other things, such as better routing

2. Walking into an airline terminal and having to stand in line for 45 minutes to check-in and get a boarding pass. I think most would prefer to do this at home/office, on a mobile device, or at a kiosk

3. Limited food options in terminals past security. Hot dogs, popcorn anyone? While some may want to romanticize inflight meals they were never really that good. US airlines doing away with them has led to better options in most terminals to eat before hand or bring on board

4. Having to hold onto that paper ticket. Who would want to have to do that again?

Yes, we all miss 2-4-3 seating on the B747... the standard 34" seat pitch... young, thin, immaculate FA's in go go boots. But would we really want to go back to those days and give up the advances we have today??


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8482 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24359 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
Instead the consumer goes for the lowest fare they can find and books it. When they do that airlines need to find revenue from somewhere else.

The "lowest fare" is supplied by the airline. The consumer does not dictate what the fare is. The airline does. So if the airline can't make a profit with X fare while providing a decent service, then they should raise it to the amount necessary. I always stated and will continue to state this: The race to the bottom affords only short term gains which benefit only the airline executives and Wallstreet. In the long run it will drive away passengers, destroy jobs, and invite more government regulation which in trerm will make things even worse. The fuel surcharge is a perfect example of this lunacy. The airfare is supposed to cover the cost of transporting the passenger. Does that not include fuel?


User currently offlineMats From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 633 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24291 times:

There are many aspects of American air travel that work:
1. It's safe; in fact, it's incredibly safe.

2. Although it's rarely a bargain, airfares in the US are often affordable, even if one tacks on ancillary fees. With the addition of Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, ITA, and others, the system is now more transparent than ever.

3. You can fly just about anywhere in the US. Some airports have monopolies, making them more expensive, but we have the country very well covered. International hubs are bigger and easier. If planned correctly, one no longer has to claim bags, recheck with another carrier, re-clear security, etc. to go from domestic to international flights.

4. There is variation among carriers, but we have web sites and mobile applications that make the process simpler. We no longer have to call and wait fora person to answer and tell us if a flight is on time.

5. Frequent flyer programs, despite their devaluation and other frustrations, are real. The airlines really do reward loyalty with free tickets every day. They're not "free" in the grand scheme of things, but it's a real and often useful system.

6. Legislators support the flying public in many ways. Delays and baggage fees have caught the attention of Congress.

And here's what isn't working:
1. It's packed. Planes are smaller, and there is little room for error. The agent might want to put you on the next flight, but it's full. So is the next flight. So is the next flight, and so is the next flight after that.

2. Delays at major hubs (La Guardia, Newark, San Francisco) are brutal. These delays have always been there, but now there isn't any "wiggle room." There is no other flight, no other airline, nothing to do but wait.

3. The TSA. The only thing that has improved has been the introduction of PreCheck and the removal of most full-body x-ray equipment. In my view, they are the greatest disruption to the flying experience.

4. Outsourcing. The agents at a desk might not be able to help because they don't work for the airline you're flying. These are often kind, helpful people, but they work for someone else.

5. Nickel-and-diming. I've only paid a baggage fee once in my life (on the defunct PLUNA), but I think it's unfair. Unfortunately, it's been a financial boon to airlines with low margins. Paying for add-ons really bothers customers, especially when it means that the airline over-promises and under-delivers. It's even more appalling when one has an expensive ticket. I was shocked that I bought a revenue first class domestic ticket on US Airways, and they wanted extra money for me to choose an aisle seat.

Savvy travelers can use credit cards to skip bag fees, but it's an imperfect system. Airline food has been a problem for decades, but I still struggle with the idea of "a la carte" pricing for flights from--say--Dulles to Honolulu. Kudos to Hawaiian Airlines for toughing it out and providing complimentary meals. First class suffers too. The food may be complimentary, but have you seen what and how US Airways serves on transcons?

6. The clubs are sad. Free WiFi and usually clean bathrooms make them worthwhile. But they're often over-crowded, over-priced, with weak coffee and nothing to eat. At $400-500 per year, the airlines can do a lot better.

My own advice to travelers is as follows:

1. Passengers should have low expectations. Delays happen. They're awful, and they're nothing new. Bags get lost, flights get overbooked. These are all familiar, they're just a really awful part of life. Anger doesn't solve the situation. If there is no plane or no crew, it's not helpful to scream at the gate agent. He or she is powerless too.

2. Plan as carefully as possible. Avoid very tight connections or a 5:00 pm out of a New York airport.

3. Pay up. It's hard to do this in tough economic times, but it can be really worth it to fork over money for premium economy, WiFi, or other amenities that might make the trip more bearable.

4. Loyalty matters, like it or not. The airlines really do stratify people based on their loyalty and credit card status. If one flies enough, it's worth sticking to a single carrier or alliance, getting the credit card (usually less than $100) to make life easier. It's helped me enormously. Sometimes I'm ticked off at United, but they tend to be a lot nicer to me when problems happen.

5. Look out the window. It's still amazing.

6. Wear your seatbelt. Everyone is so busy worrying about terrorism that they're in a rush to display their shoes to the TSA. If one looks at the data, the number one source of injury is an unfastened seatbelt. Yes, I know, sometimes the sign is illuminated for too long, sometimes it makes no sense, sometimes crews are overly vigilant or indifferent. Take some responsibility and buckle up.

7. Don't get drunk.

8. Get earplugs or noise-cancelling headsets. Babies are going to be crying; they cant help it (they're babies.) Parents can try every trick in the book, and the kids will still scream. So get a tablet or iPod, some noise-cancelling headsets, and drown them out.


User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24265 times:

I would also partly "blame" the internet for this. As more and more of the flying process becomes automated, the human contact progressively decreases.

A woman sitting next to me on a flight several years ago, whose calls on the flight attendant button went repeatedly unanswered said to me something I have not forgotten: when it comes to safety needs, it's the passenger's job to listen to the crew. But when it concerns comfort needs, it's equally the crew's job to listen to the passenger. By and large airlines seem to do this pretty well.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23965 times:

Outfits like the NYT and NPR are called "bleeding hearts" because it describes their mindset about all situations and all topics.

In 1999, tickets were "too expensive" which "hurt poor Americans."

In 2002-2008, airlines had over-capacity that "decimated blue collar airline worker pensions and jobs." (And had record affordable ticket prices... but never mind that).

In 2009-2013, one certainly struggles to locate bad news in the airline sector. Despite overall improved comfort, reliability and job security for workers... now BAG FEES result in "an ineffable, overall decline" and "malaise" in the minds of upper middle class, hyper literate airline travel journalists.

NYT/NPR are where sour puss things are discussed. Nothing new.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23938 times:

Quoting AT (Reply 20):
I would also partly "blame" the internet for this. As more and more of the flying process becomes automated, the human contact progressively decreases.

Internet, automation and the icing? Convenience. As the saying goes, we all like water and follow the path of least resistance. Those, like most, looking for the best possible price go to sites (Expedia, Orbitz, Hotwire, Cheaptickets, etc) where the work is already done and packaged for you, all one has to do is buy and fly. Who wants to go through the trouble of booking and shopping different airlines for the best deal?


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23709 times:

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
My own advice to travelers is as follows:

9. Never expect an airline to take care of you when things go wrong.

10. ALWAYS have a Plan B. Educate yourself about where you are going, how you are getting there, and options. You can only depend on you.


User currently offlineATLTPA From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23650 times:

I think it is reasonable for all fliers to expect courteous, friendly service at any price point paid, no matter the extras or upsells they've gone for.

That seems to be missing out there--or at least in my frequent travels. I run into a lot of rudeness towards passengers on the part of all-too-many airline employees. That shouldn't be (I don't even see that at McDonald's). Never mind the fact that I am a good and loyal customer of the airline I use.

I agree with the consensus here that most airline passengers book based on price alone, making this process of upselling almost compulsory if the airlines are to make profits. Interesting that the consumer is so hyper aware of pricing on gasoline and airline tickets like no other segments of retailing.

ATLTPA


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24288 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
Phone charges make sense. This isn't 1984 anymore. Everybody has a link to the internet.

Until we have the same power and flexibility as a phone agent, this is a complete nonstarter.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
But I'll take the safety we've gained in those decades along with the rudeness just fine. When you grow up in the northeast the rudeness becomes a part of daily life.

This is just sad. There is no excuse for rudeness ever. Rudeness is a personal failing on an individuals part, because they can't get over themselves. It's an outward manifestation of selfishness.


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 34
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24156 times:

This article is one person's musings on a few experiences with one airline. I wouldn't give it much credence.

Air travel gives me exactly what I want: reliable, safe access from point A to point B. Just a little planning effort makes it remarkably unlikely that you'll have a big delay or other problem. As noted above, don't book through a NYC-area airport at 5pm. I mostly fly WN, so I rarely have to deal with bag fees. And BWI and MDW are not, in my experience-congestion-prone hubs. Do delays happen sometimes, even there? Yes. But that's life.

I want terminals to work. It's great if they're beautiful, like YVR for instance, but function at reasonable cost matters most. So what if LAX is an ugly airport, for instance. It works extremely well, you're all just squeezed in tightly, that's all. Just like the planes on the apron there are.   And as long as there's decent food in the terminal, just give me something to drink on the plane. Most airports I visit have very good or at least acceptable food options nowadays.

Airline CSR's and FA's have been consistently professional and helpful in my many travels this year. Including a recent YVR-ORD-DCA on United, and ORD-ROC on UA last fall. The article writer's experiences with United aren't like mine.

I'm not convinced fares need to be as high as they are now for airlines to make money--there are always improvements that can be made. But the deregulated system has by and large produced much greater access and value for more travelers.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24098 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
The loss of services, the nickel and dime fees, the de-humanizing of customer service...to me, this is the proverbial "frog in the boiling water scenario."

I disagree. Consumers can act and have. But they won't sacrifice price for perks.
Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
The airlines have done most of this, which is pretty crazy. But I place a large part of the blame with the consumer. If Joe Schmo the business traveler would pay the 50 bucks extra to fly his airline of choice to PVD we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the consumer goes for the lowest fare they can find and books it.

Have to agree with this and all like sentiments. The race to the bottom for airlines are driven by Orbitz and Expedia and by the numbers pricing, vice a travel agent in person that can educate a consumer on why to pay a few bucks more for better service.

To be clear, I believe legacy airlines were brought kicking and screaming into this nickel and dime world by LCC's and web shopping. CO was the last holdout. The airline infrastructure to support the previous model now turned these same airlines towards bankruptcy.

Not that this is all bad. A business class ticket probably is cheaper today, adjusted for inflation, than a full fare economy ticket in years past. The nickel and diming and reduced service (with accompanying reduced pricing) has also opened the world to air travel and been an enormous social benefit.

If you miss the old days, buy a business class ticket.


User currently offlinecharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1131 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24002 times:

People wanted cheap seats and they got cheap seats...get over it people...shut off and fly

User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1442 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24053 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
this thread is meant to discuss this article

Ok.Let's discuss:
What an elitist presumptuous load of you know what.
When done reading you ask yourself: ok, what did this accomplish?
Basically it boils down to this: certain people on a particular side of the political aisle want their cake and eat it too.

Let's talk about the banking industry and their shortcomings...  

[Edited 2013-08-26 08:28:45]


Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlinen505fx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23789 times:

There are a couple of things that are also being overlooked here - and it goes back to the consumer themselves, so people just have to own the outcome of their decisions:

1) The American public voted in the administration that gave us deregulation - you like pre-1978 levels of air service - tough, YOU America, voted the wrong people in to office - live with your choices

2) More that 20% of your airline ticket is comprised of taxes that the airline can't disclose to you - you don't like it America? Tough - you put an administration in place that wants to tax energy, security, and infrastructure use as quasi luxury, deal with your choice America.

3) You don't like surly union protected employees? Well, there are probably a good chunk of people complaining that are union members, and another good chunk that voted administrations in to office that strengthen unions at airlines - live with your choices America

4) AIrlines nickel and dimeing you so they can eek out couple % point profit? Well, get used to it America - costs kep on rising - Obamacare sounded like a fabulous idea until real adults, that run real companies started talking about the impact - like the $100,000,000 hit DL will take or the $60,000,000 hit UPS will take annually...it was your choice America...suck it up and live with your decision

5) Long disclaimers and legalese for destroyed bags and other service exemptions? Well, as the most litigious nation on earth, you get what you deserve, lazy, suing Americans. You reap what you sew.

Do you think companies wake up in the morning and say "hey there is growth in driving customers away"? No, they wake up and say "how do we provide a service to as many people as possible with all of this crap that has put on us, by the same people we are supposed to serve?"


User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6220 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23704 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
Phone charges make sense. This isn't 1984 anymore. Everybody has a link to the internet.

Except that sometimes a problem takes 30 seconds to solve via the phone, yet days of back and forth via email. Less personnel time if the customer uses the phone.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23409 times:

A single thing that would make the most improvement is assigning bins to seats. I understand that there may not be enough bins, those passengers either get lower price seats, free gate check or check-in of a carryon size bag. This would end a lot of hassle and might even speed up loading and unloading. Another advantage is that it would be self policing. People bringing in oversize carryon(s) would infringe in someone else's assigned place - and be invited to pay for another baggage check.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8482 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22837 times:

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
2. Although it's rarely a bargain, airfares in the US are often affordable, even if one tacks on ancillary fees. With the addition of Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, ITA, and others, the system is now more transparent than ever.

None sense. Those web sites can only sell the tickets at the fares the airlines make available, or they lose money on it. So it starts with the airlines making available unrealisticly cheap fares which they then compensate for with ancilary fees. And that's to say nothing about the fact that Orbitz was created by legacy carriers: Continental, United, Delta, Northwest.

Quoting charlienorth (Reply 28):
People wanted cheap seats and they got cheap seats...get over it people...shut off and fly

Can you prove that the fares inclusive of ancilary fees, at legacy carriers are lower today than they were 10 years ago? I think you will be surprised by the results.


User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22673 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
I disagree. Consumers can act and have. But they won't sacrifice price for perks.

I agree. I'm not looking at the air-fare choices for my October trip to London from Boston, wondering whether the steak and chicken will be better if I go with BA versus Aer Lingus through Dublin.


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1682 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22626 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 32):
A single thing that would make the most improvement is assigning bins to seats.

This is a non-starter from a technical point of view. It would be totally unenforceable. We would have fist fights in the aisles, flight attendants coming totally unhinged and huge delays.

IMHO what it all boils down to is that we are the victims of our own success. We have perfected air travel to the point that it is the everyman method of movement instead of the family car (GOD how I hated those car trips in the late 50's and early 60's with no a/c and 4 fighting siblings!). It would help if people were just a tad more patient, treated each other with respect (like when I ask you to move from one aisle seat to the same seat on the other side so a parent and child can sit together and you tell me "NO!"). All it takes is one person--passenger, crew or agent--to screw up the whole transaction.

We have to come together in some sort of compromise to make what is already a bad system that is going to get worse continue to work. Everyone complains that airports are overcrowded but then they vote down the bond money to build new terminals. Municipalities hesitate to use eminent domain to expand existing facilities because it is politically unpopular. Several American cities need whole new airports--Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Boston, Atlanta and New York come to mind. But then the "NIMBY" thing sets in--"Not In MY Backyard."

What we need is a blue-ribbon panel to examine the problems and come up with a realistic master plan for air transportation that will take us to the end of the century. We need an updated ATC system, new airports that can sustain growth for decades to come and a better system for handling 21st century security concerns. It is a tough order. But what choice do we have? We cannot continue on as we are right now for very much longer. We are rapidly approaching total gridlock.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlinen505fx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22511 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
lower today than they were 10 years ago?

10 years ago in certain markets, adjusted for inflation...iffy....but everyone seems to be comparing service today to service pre-deregulation...in that case, absolutely.


User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22377 times:

I think this article is kind of pointless, but I would say here are my thoughts on the subject.

Legacy carriers generally do not put the customer first unless there is an elite status attached to their name or that has definitely been my experience.

If all people want just price then the current proliferation of ULCCs will have a major impact on legacy carriers.

I think that people want value over price to a large degree. For me I am 6'4" and I find 29" pitch completely unacceptable at any price. Add to that, I'm paying for every little thing it gives me the impression of feeling cheated as a customer.

I think if airlines could get people from A to B with little hassle, on time, and decent service 95% of people would be more than happy with a reasonable fare.

Recently in the industry passengers have to pay a fee for everything even on the legacies, and as record profits are ensuing along with major base fare increases. I think there have to be some questions asked to the airlines as to whether treating the customers as a dollar sign is the right move.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
But I place a large part of the blame with the consumer. If Joe Schmo the business traveler would pay the 50 bucks extra to fly his airline of choice to PVD we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the consumer goes for the lowest fare they can find and books it.

In what textbook is capitalism described as an economic system in which the consumer demands
higher prices than asked by the seller?

Reductionist thinking never solved a problem.   


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
None sense. Those web sites can only sell the tickets at the fares the airlines make available, or they lose money on it. So it starts with the airlines making available unrealisticly cheap fares which they then compensate for with ancilary fees. And that's to say nothing about the fact that Orbitz was created by legacy carriers: Continental, United, Delta, Northwest.

It helps solve the problem when one admits that the airlines themselves are actually part of the problem.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 21928 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 21):

In 1999, tickets were "too expensive" which "hurt poor Americans."

Quite frankly, even back that far, I doubt if very many "poor" Americans were travelling by air.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 25):
This is just sad. There is no excuse for rudeness ever. Rudeness is a personal failing on an individuals part, because they can't get over themselves. It's an outward manifestation of selfishness.

Of course, the door swings both ways.........the rudeness and attitude of pax needs to be rectified, too. Yes, we know it's a "service" economy, now, but the consumer doesn't need to bludgeon the employees with that fact to get a better attitude out of them.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinehohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 21698 times:

Someone mentioned credit card fees. I predict this will be next thing in US among major carriers (except Southwest ofcourse) where they will begin adding surcharges, especially to non preferred credit cards. It is already happening, Spirit and Allegiant charge extra for credit card processing.

Now come to think of it, why should a cash/check or debit card paying customers "subsidize" a non-preferred credit card customer ?? This is the same line of thinking for those who want free baggage allowance.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8482 posts, RR: 10
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 21600 times:

Quoting n505fx (Reply 36):
10 years ago in certain markets, adjusted for inflation...iffy....but everyone seems to be comparing service today to service pre-deregulation...in that case, absolutely.

But that's and apples and oranges comparison and and absolutely ridiculos comparison for anyone with at least some basic inteligence. You can't compare a government regulated industry with a non-regulated industry. A fair comparison is within the post deregulation era only, and there is no doubt that post deregulation the cost or air travel has been going up and continues to go up. There's a reason why the government wants to prevent the US-AA merger. It's significantly more expensive to fly today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Heck, 15 years ago I flew from BOS to London for $99 all inclusive (I have the ticket receipt to prove it). Today it will cost you no less than $350 in the off season. Heck, the fuel surcharge alone will cost more than that today. That's a 250%(?) increase. Where I live that is not the cost of inflation.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 21558 times:

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 34):
I'm not looking at the air-fare choices for my October trip to London from Boston, wondering whether the steak and chicken will be better if I go with BA versus Aer Lingus through Dublin.

Yeah, but I would. Which is just the same anecdotal evidence you just gave.

Sidenote, who would actively choose Aer Lingus + a stop? Yikes.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21234 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 35):
We would have fist fights in the aisles, flight attendants coming totally unhinged and huge delays.

We have 2 out of the 3 now, and you think assigning overhead space is going to be the tipping point? Come on...


User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21167 times:

Quoting 777fan (Reply 3):
Admittedly, I haven't yet read the article but would attribute some of the shift on passengers themselves. Flying used to be a "special" event during which people would dress appropriately, treat the crew with respect or even deference, and relish the opportunity to get from point A to point B in a comfortable, expedient manner. Step on a plane in the continental US these days and you'll often see just the opposite with passengers harboring an outwardly hostile attitude (i.e.: "I paid for this ticket, therefore you work for me") and an unrealistic expectations with regard to service. Part of it is no doubt the result of industry-wide pressures, but part is almost certainly (IMO) the result of the "dumbing-down" of American culture, and the erosion of basic manners, courtesy, and tact.

Oh my goodness you have got it DOWN! You are completely spot on. It is the decline of our culture as a whole, due to the fact that there are just so many people!!! Everyone is self-absorbed in their electronic device. It's about manners, it's about "please" and "thank you". I really feel sorry for any agent with any airline. I don't know how they continually put up with the stuff they have to deal with. I understand why they become unsmiling and robotic. Anyone would after awhile.
I'm lucky, as a flight attendant, I at least get them after they have had to deal with all the chaos in the terminal.
People treat you a bit better once they get on the plane and we are in the air. But, then, I am the one who deals with delays on the ground, diversions due to weather, etc.
I'm from the old school. I'm courteous and try to be as empathetic as I possibly can. This sounds corny but it's the Golden Rule thing.
I blame a lot of it on social media. Cell Phones, in my opinion, began a kind of etiquette plunge. I greet people upon boarding and I have to determine if they are talking loudly to me, or usually as it turns out, to whoever is on the other end of the phone, which is hidden in their ear.
I remember one time I was working a trip from OMA to DFW. We had to divert to GGG due to not enough fuel with thunderstorms in the area.. On the ground in GGG, I went through the cabin and offered my cell phone for anyone to make a call who didn't have one. A female passenger motioned me over and yelled "I am on the phone with my friend and she says it is clear in Dallas! Stop lying to us!" It was, indeed, clear in Dallas, but storms along the route had caused us to go low on fuel due to the re-routing we were required to take. I tried to explain, but she wasn't having any of it.
I think the article is completely accurate. It's a very sad result of a once proud and highly respected industry.
I do not blame the passengers (as the large majority are still very nice), and I do not blame the airlines. I blame society as a whole.


User currently offline01pewterz28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20647 times:

Really what has changed for the airlines we know they are making money, we know costs are lower than they were back before 9/11 how do me know simple employee wages are far less than they were before 9/11 and they have not gotten any better, sure fuel might be up so we never had so many fees.

What did we get and have before 9/11

-No checked bag fees
-Free Meals
-no fees to upgrade to a window seat or aisle seat
-Much lower fees to change a ticket
-We had paper tickets
-Employee pay was much higher than today and at most carriers 30% -40% less
-More flights, and less fuel efficient aircraft.
-Fares were lower
-More airlines to serve passengers

What we get now and have after 9/11
- Employees making 30-40% less than before 9/11
- Pay for a Window/aisle seat
- Pay for Priority boarding
- Pay for a bag, 1, 2, 3, 4, ect…..
- No free meals
- Pay for BOB meals
- Pay for a paper ticket
- Less flights, smaller aircraft, and MORE fuel efficient aircraft
- -Fares are higher
- Fewer airlines to serve passengers

Bottom line is the airlines used 9/11 as a scape goat and they continue to say they still suffer from 9/11 saying the cost of operating are much higher even though they are making more money on top of the fees they charge that we never had before. The way the airlines see it “Less is More”.


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20615 times:

Not surprised. I know a lot of people who would rather drive 6-7 hours whereas before they would fly. Even for trips from Denver-Chicago(12-15 hours) i know people with families who prefer to drive. Most of the gripes are about the hassle of traveling like the TSA which i know is not the airlines' fault. But the nickel diming by the airlines every part of the way plays a huge role as well.

Now i know this is anecdotal evidence but if a lot of people are doing this then it adds up!


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20343 times:

Quoting 01pewterz28 (Reply 47):
- -Fares are highe

They are? What data are you using to back that up?

Quoting 01pewterz28 (Reply 47):
Bottom line is the airlines used 9/11 as a scape goat and they continue to say they still suffer from 9/11 saying the cost of operating are much higher even though they are making more money on top of the fees they charge that we never had before. The way the airlines see it “Less is More”.

Hold on, your contention is that an event that shook the industry to its core and fundamentally changed the way not only airlines, but the country, acts is a "scape goat?" Really? Wow...

With regards to costs being higher, the simple fact is that they are. Go look at the price of oil from that time frame vs. now. Look at the costs related to security, including additional government imposes taxes on airline tickets post 9/11 that hinder an airline's pricing power in a certain market.

[Edited 2013-08-26 13:00:32]

User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 19503 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 48):
Not surprised. I know a lot of people who would rather drive 6-7 hours whereas before they would fly. Even for trips from Denver-Chicago(12-15 hours)

Yeah, and what are they paying for gas on a trip like that? About $3.75 a gallon. So I would guess that is why people don't do more of that. So, the last time I looked, oil was $107 a barrel. Yet , IMHO, the majority of people don't grasp how much this affects an airline. How the heck are they supposed to be able to stay in business unless they charge for a lot of things?
A BARREL OF OIL COST $2 TO $3 in 1970!


User currently offlinen505fx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 19480 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 42):
It's significantly more expensive to fly today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Heck, 15 years ago I flew from BOS to London for $99 all inclusive (I have the ticket receipt to prove it). Today it will cost you no less than $350 in the off season.

Yep - and every single airline that sold you that $99 ticket, went bankrupt...so there you have it.


User currently offlineseeburg220 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 19207 times:

I'm through flying. Both the airlines and consumers ruined it for me. The airlines ruined it by cutting each other's throats since de-regulation. That has resulted in more fees, less pay for workers, smaller (read fuel-efficient) and uncomfortable aircraft. The consumer has ruined it by buying the cheapest ticket and continually accepting the consequences of that action: a degradation in overall service and experience. Along with that, as mentioned earlier, people wearing nasty clothing, unkempt appearances (nice tramp stamp, lady), rude behavior and the desire to fly way more often now, than in the 60's and 70's - mainly due to the affordability of it today.

Of course, fuel prices are the main expense today for operating an airline - something that is different than from the Golden Age of flying. That's the one variable that is slow-to-impossible to change for the better, so perhaps it is the main reason for it all.

In any case, it's just no longer something I want to put myself through. At least I have good memories as a kid in the 70's, when Mom and Dad made us boys put on our Sears Best and douse our hair with Vitalis, before stepping onto a brand new Delta 747 at DFW bound for LAX (and a spanking-new L-1011 on the way back). Or the many trips on Braniff Flying Colors 727's, when the Captain would let my brother and I take photos of the cockpit (at the gate of course) with our Kodak Instamatic cameras. Yep, just a memory now...


User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 19140 times:

I forgot to add something I just read. Jet fuel is currently $127.95 a barrel. Ok, time for an expert again. How many gallons in a barrel? Approximately how many gallons does it take to fill an MD-80 going from DFW-ORD, for example?

User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 18879 times:

Quoting seeburg220 (Reply 52):
Or the many trips on Braniff Flying Colors 727's, when the Captain would let my brother and I take photos of the cockpit (at the gate of course) with our Kodak Instamatic cameras. Yep, just a memory now...

Pretty much any Captain will do the same with any kid now...


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 18777 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 50):
Yeah, and what are they paying for gas on a trip like that? About $3.75 a gallon. So I would guess that is why people don't do more of that. So, the last time I looked, oil was $107 a barrel. Yet , IMHO, the majority of people don't grasp how much this affects an airline. How the heck are they supposed to be able to stay in business unless they charge for a lot of things?
A BARREL OF OIL COST $2 TO $3 in 1970!

Its not the entirely the matter of cost but the amount of hassle once has to go through.

And airlines have made HUGE revenue gains will all kinds of fees and charges that did not exist a decade ago which has translated to HUGE profits!


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25416 posts, RR: 86
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 18705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting peanuts (Reply 29):
What an elitist presumptuous load of you know what.

Best line in the whole thread.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 46):
A female passenger motioned me over and yelled "I am on the phone with my friend and she says it is clear in Dallas! Stop lying to us!"

Hate to break it to you but I've been flying decades longer than most of you have been alive and there were always a**hole passengers.

Anyone these days can have what we had, the the same way that we got it then - by paying for it.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 18669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting catiii (Reply 54):
Pretty much any Captain will do the same with any kid now...

A couple of weeks ago, I was in the Pre-TSA line at DCA. The person in front of me was a DL captain. He chatted me up, asking where I was going. I told him, "To Miami by way of Houston." He chuckled and asked if I got a good fare (which I did). He then--off the top of his head--gave me some tip and routings that would match that fare on his airline.

It reminded me that everyone -- even down to the secretarial pool -- is responsible for company revenue.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18665 times:

Quoting seeburg220 (Reply 52):
before stepping onto a brand new Delta 747 at DFW bound for LAX (and a spanking-new L-1011 on the way back).

Just an FYI......if you were on a brand new DL 747, it would have been '70 or '71........DL didn't take delivery of any Tristars until '74, at least.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 53):
How many gallons in a barrel?

Probably, but don't forget, that amount is different once it's refined.

Quoting manny (Reply 55):
And airlines have made HUGE revenue gains will all kinds of fees and charges that did not exist a decade ago which has translated to HUGE profits!

Yes, finally the airlines are making profits more in line with other corporations. Before, if they had a 2% profit margin, they were happy.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2256 posts, RR: 9
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18541 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
there are four legacy clones, differing only by the location of their hubs.

So choice is minimal and the product the same.

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):
Their lack of choice is evocative of consumers in the old Soviet Union.

I was thinking the same, you could repaint all them in 70 era aeroflot color and we would be set to go.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
If there was such an animal, it would have been discovered by now.

Non cheapo consumers exist, but the system now is designed to catter to the lowest bidder.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 18):
The fuel surcharge is a perfect example of this lunacy. The airfare is supposed to cover the cost of transporting the passenger. Does that not include fuel?

If this continue, and you fly in a 787 they will announce " Since you are all cheapos, we won't bring cabin humidity and altitude to a confortable level, please enjoy the sardine can. LOL

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
1. It's packed. Planes are smaller, and there is little room for error. The agent might want to put you on the next flight, but it's full. So is the next flight. So is the next flight, and so is the next flight after that.

My last 4 domestic flights within the USA have been completely FULL.... and they sell the tickets very cheap, if there are people enough to fill a plane (high load factors) why dont they price up the tickets a bit and offer a better product? Because other airlines will offer cheap seats and consumers will fly in a sardine can with a lower level of service or non existant so a loop is created..... I pay almost nothing..YOU SHOULD EXPECT NOTHING.

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
5. Nickel-and-diming. I've only paid a baggage fee once in my life (on the defunct PLUNA), but I think it's unfair. Unfortunately, it's been a financial boon to airlines with low margins. Paying for add-ons really bothers customers, especially when it means that the airline over-promises and under-delivers. It's even more appalling when one has an expensive ticket. I was shocked that I bought a revenue first class domestic ticket on US Airways, and they wanted extra money for me to choose an aisle seat.

When I bought my ticket on US air, I saw the business class price, it was 322 extra, since my wife and sons were flying the difference was around 1400 extra, for a 2 hour 24 minute flight I did not upgrade. checked on the day of the flight and after I did mycheck and had my tickets, the flight was about to close, and the agen announced that they had 3 free bussines class seats for 130 extra each..... With the money I paid for bag check the difference was even lower, I was pissed, if they have offered bussines class for 200 extra I would have bought them.... crazy policies, and even crazier pricing!

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
5. Look out the window. It's still amazing.

The best thing there is after Skiing....

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
8. Get earplugs or noise-cancelling headsets. Babies are going to be crying; they cant help it (they're babies.) Parents can try every trick in the book, and the kids will still scream. So get a tablet or iPod, some noise-cancelling headsets, and drown them out.

100% agree, also bring your CLOSED water (if the TSA lets you and eat well).

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 27):
If you miss the old days, buy a business class ticket.

Even business class is a shadow of what they were.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
None sense. Those web sites can only sell the tickets at the fares the airlines make available, or they lose money on it. So it starts with the airlines making available unrealisticly cheap fares which they then compensate for with ancilary fees. And that's to say nothing about the fact that Orbitz was created by legacy carriers: Continental, United, Delta, Northwest.

As I said before its a loop, the consumer ask for a SUPER cheap ticket , the airlines provide it, and they dont give you any kind of service. Even using a ground bus is more comfortable and spacious than a business class seat.... sad state of affairs. also the consumer has a lot to blame. I would prefer them to make the ticket higher and forgo the stupidity of charging for chequed luggage, that is why now overhead bins are so full, because Joe Average, is a CHEAPO and uses a big carryon that barely fits, than using proper luggage.

ITS going to get WORSE.... so brace yourselves.

Regards TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 985 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18471 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 55):
Its not the entirely the matter of cost but the amount of hassle once has to go through.

And airlines have made HUGE revenue gains will all kinds of fees and charges that did not exist a decade ago which has translated to HUGE profits!

Do you honestly believe that a round trip ticket from ORD-SFO in coach at a cost of $278 dollars really covers the entire cost of both flights? I think both the airlines and the passengers are responsible for what has happened in the US industry. When people are buying discounted coach tickets but receiving free upgrades in to first class, just so legacy carriers can continue to try and one up each other and now airlines are afraid of what might happen if they take this benefit away from their FF and force them to actually buy a domestic first class ticket or make them stay in the seat they actually paid for.
Years ago when a passenger called a reservation agent they quoted you a price you either paid the price quoted or went to another airliner which probably quoted you the same price. Now days with the internet if you don't like the price quoted on AA, DL, or UA website you can go to priceline or kayak to try and find a lower price and chanced are you will find a lower price on whatever your airline of preference is. I wonder when was the last time anyone went to AA, DL or UA website and deliberately chose the full fare option for coach? Most of us look at the full fare option and then choose the lowest fare available because we feel like why should we pay full fare when we can have the exact same seat for more than half off.

You can't blame one without blaming the other and it will take a fundamental shift to make flying fun again for everyone.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18409 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 59):

ITS going to get WORSE.... so brace yourselves.

That's what I am afraid of...because of the idiots who frequent airlines like NK and whatnot who don't care about being nickled and dimed to death...just cause they saw a base fare of $9 and were too stupid to figure out that all the ancillary fees added up to more than what airline B was charging all-in.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18343 times:

Quoting questions (Reply 12):
Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
the US airline industry... baggage fees, fees for credit cards, fees for phone tickets...

Didn't Air Canada go before US legacy carriers in implementing these pricing models... or "unbundling of services"?

AC was also the first major North American carrier (not counting LCCs like Southwest) to switch to one-way pricing on North American routes, replacing the confusion where one way fares were often several times as high as the lowest round trip fare, and it was cheaper to buy a round trip ticket and throw away the return portion if you wanted to fly one way.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 43):
Sidenote, who would actively choose Aer Lingus + a stop? Yikes.

I think quite a few people would, if only to take advantage of U.S. customs/immigration pre-clearance at DUB/SNN on the westbound trip and avoid often very long waits to clear U.S. formalities on arrival in the U.S. if your flight happens land at the same time as a dozen other widebodies.


User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18000 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 55):
And airlines have made HUGE revenue gains will all kinds of fees and charges that did not exist a decade ago which has translated to HUGE profits

Oh ok, is that why they have all be in bankruptcy?


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 17932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 62):
AC was also the first major North American carrier (not counting LCCs like Southwest) to switch to one-way pricing on North American routes, replacing the confusion where one way fares were often several times as high as the lowest round trip fare, and it was cheaper to buy a round trip ticket and throw away the return portion if you wanted to fly one way.

One unintended consequence -- this also makes it possible to fly outbound AC and return WS -- or the vice versa -- depending on fare displays.

For instance, I flew LAS-YYC-YVR on AC last March rather than nonstop LAS-YVR on WS because AC actually had the lower fare. Btw, neither airline considers LAS an international destination (in the true sense of international) so there are no bells and whistles in the back.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 17958 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 63):

Oh ok, is that why they have all be in bankruptcy?

DING DING DING...we have the great (unfair) equalizer...the airlines who have done it right are now being crushed because other airlines mismanaged themselves into Ch 11 and can now claim lower overhead costs.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3152 posts, RR: 7
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17795 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
Boo frickin hoo--passengers are getting exactly what they pay for. Everyone can start paying '60s era airfares, adjusted for inflation, and we'll go right back to those 'golden days' that were really never that golden to begin with.

And don't forget the crashes every few weeks back in the 60s. Not to mention far FEWER choices back then. How many non-stops were there back then from SEA to FLL, MCO, AUS, CDG, TPE, SNA, BEJ, DXB, KEF...and the list goes on.

Sure you can't fly a 737 SFO-MOD anymore, but you can fly non-stop to AKL now.

First Bag Fees anger the h*ll out of me, but I'll take the good days now.


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1331 posts, RR: 10
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17680 times:

Quoting n505fx (Reply 30):
Do you think companies wake up in the morning and say "hey there is growth in driving customers away"? No, they wake up and say "how do we provide a service to as many people as possible with all of this crap that has put on us, by the same people we are supposed to serve?"

I would have thought it's 'what margin we can get away with charging the customer without turning customers away, given all the regs the airline is supposed to adhere to as well as acting as unofficial Tax Collector for the State (read government)'.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17639 times:

People have such a crisis mentality. Sheesh. The airlines right now are reliable, cabins are fairly well kept, companies are stable and paying employees. Unfortunately, it's not a dramatic story this year.

That's the problem -- few clicks, declining readership for the journos. They're the ones having a crisis.

Airlines are some of the most cost-efficient service deliveries ever, along with Wal-Mart and Amazon.com. You just don't run a 500-airplane fleet based on touchy-feely hopes and dreams. You run it professionally and safely, using math and science. The bills due each month are cosmic. An amateur airline exec could never figure out how to pay them.

It's not a Daniel restaurant and it's not a W Hotel with someone else paying the bills. Sorry guys... let's all cry about it.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17591 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 62):
I think quite a few people would, if only to take advantage of U.S. customs/immigration pre-clearance at DUB/SNN on the westbound trip and avoid often very long waits to clear U.S. formalities on arrival in the U.S. if your flight happens land at the same time as a dozen other widebodies.

I'm aware, and think that's totally ridiculous. For starters you are on Aer Lingus instead of BA, and second, it's always longer regardless of the wait line at the destination. I've done it on the LCY-JFK flight, and the only reason is the plane needs the technical stop. Customs clearance is just a perk for passengers killing time anyway. Having an extra connection expressly for clearance however is absurd.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17567 times:

Things are getting better, not worse. Including for the passenger.

As for the article, some people always complain. It's too hot, now it's too cold, if it's in the middle, they find people who think "differently" and show how they are still not happy with the temperature.

Thoroughly pointless.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17380 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 66):
And don't forget the crashes every few weeks back in the 60s.

C'mon! That was part of the golden age charm! Pay a zillion dollars for that weekly five stop flight to Rancho Cucamonga that decreased your life span by 10%. But the meals were delish! And who knows, on two of those legs you might get hijacked if you're lucky 



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25416 posts, RR: 86
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 71):
But the meals were delish!

In first class, perhaps. Or - sometimes.

You could have been unlucky, in say, 1990, and cop the (first class) Black Bean Soup on American which was as "delish" as dishwater.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17317 times:

What?? I can't believe you said that. The decline in US airline service standards did not begin when FA weigh-ins stopped. That's just crazy.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 17236 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 69):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 62):
I think quite a few people would, if only to take advantage of U.S. customs/immigration pre-clearance at DUB/SNN on the westbound trip and avoid often very long waits to clear U.S. formalities on arrival in the U.S. if your flight happens land at the same time as a dozen other widebodies.

I'm aware, and think that's totally ridiculous. For starters you are on Aer Lingus instead of BA, and second, it's always longer regardless of the wait line at the destination. I've done it on the LCY-JFK flight, and the only reason is the plane needs the technical stop. Customs clearance is just a perk for passengers killing time anyway. Having an extra connection expressly for clearance however is absurd.

But some people may prefer to avoid the long wait to clear customs on arrival when they're jet-lagged and exhausted and just want to get out of the airport. Doing it near the start of the trip is easier. And arriving as a domestic passenger also reduces the minimum connecting time if you're making another connection to a U.S. domestic flight. Fares are also a factor. EI's fares are usually lower than BA's.

[Edited 2013-08-26 16:09:40]

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8482 posts, RR: 10
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17168 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 48):
Not surprised. I know a lot of people who would rather drive 6-7 hours whereas before they would fly. Even for trips from Denver-Chicago(12-15 hours) i know people with families who prefer to drive.

If you know any school teachers they will tell you that families are taking kids out school to go on vacation, more often than they ever did before. That's not surprising. As a parent of a school aged child I do the same because flying during the condensed vacation periods is both ridiculously expensive and a nightmare. Add a snow storm in the northeast and your entire vacation is now ruined.

Quoting n505fx (Reply 51):

Yep - and every single airline that sold you that $99 ticket, went bankrupt...so there you have it.

Nope. Did it twice, once on VS and once on BA. Last I checked neither has gone bankrupt.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 60):
Do you honestly believe that a round trip ticket from ORD-SFO in coach at a cost of $278 dollars really covers the entire cost of both flights?

Then they should raise the fare to what it really costs.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 70):
Things are getting better, not worse. Including for the passenger.

But things were so bad for so long that "getting better" is not really saying much  

Again, I don't think the cost of flying is the issue here. If fares were $5 or $10 more the same people would still fly. Heck, fares have been going up every year and more and more people are flying. Basically what happened was that legacy carriers started following the same model as LC/LF carriers while at the same time trying to uphold a higher standard. So passengers expect more even though the service is the same or worse.

This articleshows that:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ars-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/
You have a significant drop for about 10 years, following deregulation. That makes sense. Regulation was bad.
Then you have the introduction of LCC's in the 90's which creates another drop. But since about 2005 fares have done nothing but go up. And I bet that if we were to exclude the Low Fare/Low Cost carriers from these statistics, that it would show that fares at legacy carriers did not drop so much after 2000, as the chart indicates. I wish there was one of these charts for each airline because I think the introduction of LLC's and LFC's distorts the truth a bit.


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 526 posts, RR: 18
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17096 times:

Quoting freakyrat (Reply 8):
A LCC in the US which isn't so Low Cost anymore is WN. You buy your ticket and you know exactly what you are getting is basic transportation from point A to Point B. They are good at what they do and you are at least treated right.

Not only does WN treat customers properly, they don't nickel and dime like most other airlines. I use them whenever possible, even if the specific base fare is slightly higher. You should support an airline that behaves honestly.

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):
The loss of services, the nickel and dime fees, the de-humanizing of customer service...to me, this is the proverbial "frog in the boiling water scenario."

You're right, and I can understand why people drive, or take the bus, on short distance trips. It's worth looking into these guys:
http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx


User currently offlinen505fx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 16941 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):
Nope. Did it twice, once on VS and once on BA. Last I checked neither has gone bankrupt.

Well...I would hardly say VS is the darling of airline profitability...anyways, weren't we talking about the state of the U.S. airline industry, not the state of the U.K. industry?


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 16787 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 74):
But some people may prefer to avoid the long wait to clear customs on arrival when they're jet-lagged and exhausted and just want to get out of the airport. Doing it near the start of the trip is easier. And arriving as a domestic passenger also reduces the minimum connecting time if you're making another connection to a U.S. domestic flight. Fares are also a factor. EI's fares are usually lower than BA's.

I've heard all the arguments. I maintain it's ludicrous to purposely put an extra stop in your trip and make it longer.

There's a reason why EI fares cost less than BA as well.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 16692 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 78):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 74):
But some people may prefer to avoid the long wait to clear customs on arrival when they're jet-lagged and exhausted and just want to get out of the airport. Doing it near the start of the trip is easier. And arriving as a domestic passenger also reduces the minimum connecting time if you're making another connection to a U.S. domestic flight. Fares are also a factor. EI's fares are usually lower than BA's.

I've heard all the arguments. I maintain it's ludicrous to purposely put an extra stop in your trip and make it longer.

There's a reason why EI fares cost less than BA as well.

Many thousands of people use connecting routings every day between points where nonstop service exists, for many reasons (price, frequent flyer loyalty, preference for certain carriers, corporate travel policies, etc. etc.)


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16386 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
The most profitable carriers in the Americas now are G4, NK, and CM, all which have varying levels of amenties, down to zero.

How do they compare to Delta's $1.6B 2012 profit?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16331 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 79):
Many thousands of people use connecting routings every day between points where nonstop service exists, for many reasons (price, frequent flyer loyalty, preference for certain carriers, corporate travel policies, etc. etc.)

And that all makes sense.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5273 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15988 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
The airlines have done most of this, which is pretty crazy. But I place a large part of the blame with the consumer. If Joe Schmo the business traveler would pay the 50 bucks extra to fly his airline of choice to PVD we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the consumer goes for the lowest fare they can find and books it. When they do that airlines need to find revenue from somewhere else. Baggage fees are great and mean they have less personnel and extra revenue. Credit card fees haven't been charged on the airlines I've flown recently. Phone charges make sense. This isn't 1984 anymore. Everybody has a link to the internet. I have three devices right now that can go and book a flight on any airline within reach. I think airlines should charge for phone ticketing because you are actually getting serviced by someone who is getting paid. Not a server in Idaho. That I don't blame them for. The carry on fees are limited to ULCCs who offer one way fares from 29 dollars. It's tough to complain about being charged another 30 bucks for carryon when your roundtrip ticket on Spirit was a third of what AA cost. Now the smaller planes I don't really buy. 5 years ago I would agree. But the 50 seat RJs are leaving in favor of larger regional jets. Frankly I'd rather take an E-170 over a 737 any day of the week. There is also no such thing as a free snack. You pay for it somewhere. If I have to forego my sip of coke and my 3 mini pretzels, so be it.

Quoting awacsooner (Thread starter):I think the industry as a whole is a great case study in business ethics about how a business as a whole starts out by treating customers as friends and family and ends up treating them like a wallet with disposable income
So now the airlines are evil for treating everybody how every other business in the world treats people? Frankly we have to get the 1960s image of air travel out of our heads. It is gone. Yeah travel was hip and comfortable back in the day. But I'll take the safety we've gained in those decades along with the rudeness just fine. When you grow up in the northeast the rudeness becomes a part of daily life. The airlines are finally in a place where they are making money and doing well for themselves. They've matured and it was about time.
Pat

You make some great points. However, while just about any business would prefer using the internet to talking to a live person, no one charges extra for dealing with a live person. It isn't the case in other travel industries (hotels, rental cars, cruises). It isn't true in retail. You can still call L.L. Bean or Lands' End and get the same price as mailing the order form or using the internet. My bank would prefer that I used a computer or phone app, but I can also go to the bank and use a teller, either in the buiding or in my car.

By the same token, it's not the 737 being replaced with an RJ. It's the widebody being replaced with a narrowbody, or even an RJ. Years ago, UA used to have widebodies on ORD-LGA. Now, it's a mix of narrowbodies and E-Jets. There was a time when DL had 757s, 767s, and L-1011s on ORD-ATL. Now, the largest plane is a 737-800, and a while back, I think they had Canadairs on the route.

What bothers us is that the hotels and rental cars have tried to improve the product, and airlines have degraded theirs. I can remember when hotels didn't have irons and ironing boards, coffeemakers, shampoos and other toiletries, or work-out rooms. And while rental cars are often base models (normally with most of the options), I've had cars with leather interiors, sunroofs, Sirius or XM, and other luxury features. It wasn't that many years ago, when you still got assigned a car, even if you were a member of the frequent renters club.

Why is it that an airline now charges for food on domestic service, while the "limited service" chains have a free breakfast, and many times, a manager's reception with some rather hearty food? My wife used to stay at a Residence Inn in Pittsburgh. If the Steelers were on MNF, the manager's reception was a regualar tailgate spread.

Think about cruise ships. If you want 2 appetizers or 2 desserts with dinner, no problem, even for those in the tiny inside cabin.


User currently offlineHomSar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15843 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):

Why is it that an airline now charges for food on domestic service, while the "limited service" chains have a free breakfast, and many times, a manager's reception with some rather hearty food? My wife used to stay at a Residence Inn in Pittsburgh. If the Steelers were on MNF, the manager's reception was a regualar tailgate spread.

Think about cruise ships. If you want 2 appetizers or 2 desserts with dinner, no problem, even for those in the tiny inside cabin.

Comparing food availability in hotels or on cruise ships to food availability on a plane is an apples-oranges comparison.

For the cruise ship case, the absolute only reason for someone to buy a ticket on a cruise ship is for the "experience" (well, with very few exceptions). Cruises have to offer that level of service because otherwise, why would anyone book a cruise? Airlines actually provide you with a practical service (i.e. getting you to your destination fairly quickly).

The other key difference for both cruise ships (which are very large) and hotels (which can also be very large) is that space (and associated weight) is at a premium on a plane. In some cases, by removing galleys, carriers can get an extra row of seats in. Planes flying around with a lot of "dead" weight not generating revenue is very expensive for airlines, because that weight translates into fuel burn. While technically, the same is true to some extent for cruise ships (and for energy consumption in hotels), it is nowhere near the same level of cost penalty as it is on an airplane. So, by eliminating meals, airlines are able to reduce the amount of food they need to store on board, which means less space taken up by food storage, which means more space to put passenger seats in.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinesuperjeff From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 4):
The flight on SAS, despite being far from luxury, was also a relaxing experience. Then you arrive in Newark and the stress begins. I go out of my way to avoid US airlines and I look elsewhere for vacations now.

Compare apples to apples and you'll find that intra-European travel is often as bad or worse than intra-U.S. Charges for everything on airlines like Iberia, Brussels, Aer Lingus, etc. in economy, for example, and even less legroom.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 80):
How do they compare to Delta's $1.6B 2012 profit?

Actually (and, IMHO, unfortunately), NK is seeing a return on investment substantially higher than any of the legacies, Delta included!

Jeff


User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15379 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 53):
How many gallons in a barrel?

In the jet fuel industry, we use 42 gallons per barrel (roughly)

That said, jet fuel is only calculated in barrels for large bulk deliveries and storage purposes mostly



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlinemacsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mariner (Reply 56):
Anyone these days can have what we had, the the same way that we got it then - by paying for it.

Frankly, being one of those few whose second flight was on a plane with piston engines and which floated (Shorts Sunderland), I will take today's travel over anything we had in the "golden age". The rules listed in this thread about being prepared for the unforeseen events are quite helpful and represent things we all should do. But to pay more for a plane that was often unpressurized, slow, extremely expensive, and many times risky, I'll stick with today's crowded aircraft which are more comfortable (albeit crowded), fast (though not fast enough), reasonably priced (though not low enough), and safe.

I travel ready for any eventuality, roll with the punches (does anyone really want to fly into DFW in a Texas summer storm?), and enjoy what we now have.

BTW, the first flight was on a C-69 Lockheed Connie about three weeks before the Sunderland flight.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25416 posts, RR: 86
Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14973 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting macsog6 (Reply 86):
Frankly, being one of those few whose second flight was on a plane with piston engines and which floated (Shorts Sunderland), I will take today's travel over anything we had in the "golden age".

I agree. My first flight was a Solent but I was year old and I don't remember it. The flights I do remember were a bit later, on Hermes and Argonauts.

I wrote about it in yet another of the so-called golden age of flying threads:

And with the noise came endless vibration, and turbulence could be a real issue. The use of sick bags was not uncommon, especially in tropical weather and I remember, more than once, hearing a passenger crying in pain during descent, from earache. That's why we were all given lollies to suck on.

There was a lot more. I remember, when I was eleven, being off-loaded in Cairo for four days - on my own. So what those flights did do, of course, was prepare me for this:

Quoting macsog6 (Reply 86):
I travel ready for any eventuality, roll with the punches (does anyone really want to fly into DFW in a Texas summer storm?), and enjoy what we now have.

  

mariner

[Edited 2013-08-26 19:32:36]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinen505fx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14545 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
What bothers us is that the hotels and rental cars have tried to improve the product, and airlines have degraded theirs.

I'm not sure I agree - I can recall a time when when there were no self service apps, no full lie flat seats, no E+ seating, no satellite TV or internet, no nearly hourly service to almost anywhere you would want to fly in the U.S., no globally linked frequent flyer programs...should I go on?


User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14483 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
What bothers us is that the hotels and rental cars have tried to improve the product, and airlines have degraded theirs. I can remember when hotels didn't have irons and ironing boards, coffeemakers, shampoos and other toiletries, or work-out rooms.

It would be harder to travel with bags under the 50 lb baggage limit if hotels didn't have irons and other amenities.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
There was a time when DL had 757s, 767s, and L-1011s on ORD-ATL.

And even the 747, too.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 78):
I've heard all the arguments. I maintain it's ludicrous to purposely put an extra stop in your trip and make it longer.

Then you don't understand. What they're getting at is pre-clearing U.S. customs at the point of departure instead of your first arrival port in the U.S. If you do, then you're considered the same as any other domestic pax and that makes it easier to connect, instead of trying to clear, later, along with several other flights from overseas.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 69):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 62):
I think quite a few people would, if only to take advantage of U.S. customs/immigration pre-clearance at DUB/SNN on the westbound trip and avoid often very long waits to clear U.S. formalities on arrival in the U.S. if your flight happens land at the same time as a dozen other widebodies.

I'm aware, and think that's totally ridiculous. For starters you are on Aer Lingus instead of BA, and second, it's always longer regardless of the wait line at the destination. I've done it on the LCY-JFK flight, and the only reason is the plane needs the technical stop. Customs clearance is just a perk for passengers killing time anyway. Having an extra connection expressly for clearance however is absurd.

Sorry, but as I mentioned above, I don't think anyone is talking about putting an extra stop in the routing just to pre-clear. Pre-clearance is done at the point of departure, so it doesn't have to be done at the U.S. gateway.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):

Nope. Did it twice, once on VS and once on BA. Last I checked neither has gone bankrupt.

Then they were subsidizing those flights by raising the fares on another.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):

Then they should raise the fare to what it really costs.

Then you'll just bitch about that.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 63):
Oh ok, is that why they have all be in bankruptcy?

No, they're making record profits (for the most part) because they "re-organized" under bankruptcy. They didn't, as you imply, go into bankruptcy BECAUSE they were profitable.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 65):
.the airlines who have done it right are now being crushed because other airlines mismanaged themselves into Ch 11 and can now claim lower overhead costs.

The "AIRLINES" (plural)? Who are these multitudes of airlines that have "done it right"? I know this is the mantra that comes down from WN corporate HQ to all the employees out there, but the "unfair" thing is getting a little old. You've got to admit, that, although WN hasn't gone into BK, it's not the same airline that it was, 5 years ago. Things have changed and all those fuel hedges aren't going to help, anymore. DL used to be one of the most, if not the most, profitable airlines in the U.S., even when we were smaller. Well, the world has changed and the ways of making money in the airline industry have changed with it. Most of those at DL, at the time, and those of us that were retired, were sad to see our company go into BK, but, we also realized it was about all that could be done. We went on for awhile, bleeding money, before they actually filed and I, for one, am glad they did.


It's funny, I can remember when DL was flush with money and doing well (previously) that we used to look at the other airlines , who were in trouble, and shake our heads. Well, I don't anymore and I doubt if the active employees do, either. They've now been there, done that. It could happen to you one day, too.......remember that the next time you trot out that tired old mantra. It won't seem so applicable, anymore.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14103 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
Boo frickin hoo--passengers are getting exactly what they pay for. Everyone can start paying '60s era airfares, adjusted for inflation, and we'll go right back to those 'golden days' that were really never that golden to begin with.

This is exactly what I think. If you want the service you have to pay for it. If you want to fly cheaply, then you can fly and pay what we are paying for now.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13966 times:

I don't really have a problem with fees and extra's for everything when I am truly paying a cheap fare, those less than cost "5 cent a mile type" T fares but when airlines charge me 30+ cents a mile for a "cheap" LUT fare (thank you DL SLC-BZN) and then stick me with $200 change fees, $25 for a bag etc. then I start to feel robbed. I willingly pay for economy plus/comfort etc., for me it is generally good value but what I really want from US airlines is something truly different and affordable between economy and business class, certainly on international flights. J is just too far out of reach (and there's a definite feeling in my mind that most US airlines only really care about the 10-15% up front and the rest of us potential future J fliers are a pain they sometimes tolerate, but secretly wish we weren't there) Y on long haul has become a low ball commodity experience, an experience I see as been over in 8-10 hours, I tolerate it and can't wait to get off. I'm glad that my trans pacific trips offer me CX, SQ, NZ, QF etc. as alternates (and I really couldn't care less about the FF miles) and with that said I am really looking forward to flying NZ Pacific Premium economy later this year, I didn't even look at any US airline alternative, I knew they couldn't compete.

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 92, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13877 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 80):
How do they compare to Delta's $1.6B 2012 profit?

DL's margin is impressive, relatively speaking, but CM's is double DL's, and NK/G4 are somewhere between DL and CM.

Quoting macsog6 (Reply 86):
Frankly, being one of those few whose second flight was on a plane with piston engines and which floated (Shorts Sunderland), I will take today's travel over anything we had in the "golden age". The rules listed in this thread about being prepared for the unforeseen events are quite helpful and represent things we all should do. But to pay more for a plane that was often unpressurized, slow, extremely expensive, and many times risky, I'll stick with today's crowded aircraft which are more comfortable (albeit crowded), fast (though not fast enough), reasonably priced (though not low enough), and safe.

You are the winner of the 20/20 vision rose colored glasses award 2013

Quoting mayor (Reply 90):
No, they're making record profits (for the most part) because they "re-organized" under bankruptcy. They didn't, as you imply, go into bankruptcy BECAUSE they were profitable.

   As if putting all the legacies out of business would *improve* service. If all the bankrupt carriers went the way of the dinosaur, we'd be left with WN, B6, G4, NK, maybe a legacy carrier or two, and none of them would be thinking that adding more meals would be the solution to anything.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13258 posts, RR: 100
Reply 93, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13613 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not getting the link. I can buy full lie flat J from LAX to certain cities that is a *far* better experience every step of the way than 1970s pre-regulation Y. And that fare is less than the same fares, adjusted for inflation, as paid back then.

Do I buy those tickets?    I'm to cheap, but that doesn't mean I couldn't have the experience if I wanted it.

And I'm with the others above, I do not miss earaches, common turbulence (I'm thankful for the latest weather radars), and uncertainty during delays thanks to the lack of computers.

Quoting questions (Reply 17):

But there are a lot of positive trade-offs that people would not want to give up to go back to those glamourous days of the golden age of flying.

   You don't want to go back. If you want really nice, charter a jet. That provides the experience of the 'old days' if not better.

Quoting questions (Reply 17):
While some may want to romanticize inflight meals they were never really that good.

So true. I was always allowed to bake, as long as I cleaned up, the night/morning before a flight. I usually carried a coffee cake (remember Tupperware?) as a 'supplement' to airline food. I haven't had that bad of chicken in two decades...

Quoting n505fx (Reply 30):
2) More that 20% of your airline ticket is comprised of taxes that the airline can't disclose to you -

That is another issue...  
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 35):
GOD how I hated those car trips in the late 50's and early 60's with no a/c and 4 fighting siblings!)

I'm not old enough, but I remember into the 1980's air fares were often too expensive and one often had to turn off the A/C in hot weather or going up hills for otherwise the car would overheat. Nothing like vinyl and sweat... I still remember how my legs stuck to the seat in the New Mexico desert.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25416 posts, RR: 86
Reply 94, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 95):
I still remember how my legs stuck to the seat in the New Mexico desert.

Back in the piston days, you didn't want to be in an aircraft on the ground in hot weather, either.

The f/a's used to keep smelling salts - ammonium carbonate - for people overcome by the heat.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinecaleb1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 63):
How many non-stops were there back then from SEA to FLL, MCO, AUS, CDG, TPE, SNA, BEJ, DXB, KEF...and the list goes on.

True, but flying was such a pleasant experience back then that most people didn't mind making a connection or two. It was still a thrill and a privilege to be on an airplane at all.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13224 times:

Quoting superjeff (Reply 84):
Compare apples to apples and you'll find that intra-European travel is often as bad or worse than intra-U.S. Charges for everything on airlines like Iberia, Brussels, Aer Lingus, etc. in economy, for example, and even less legroom.

I've flown BA, AB, LX, DY, KL, LH and SAS over here...and I'd gladly take any of them over all the US carriers save WN any day of the week.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13102 times:

If I can get there in 6-8 hours or so, I'd rather just drive than deal with the airport and the airplane passengers.

For a while there it seemed like it was just as quick for me to drive from NC to PA as it was to fly. I think it's still a close contest today.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5624 posts, RR: 29
Reply 98, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12944 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 13):
Agreed but why should legacies compare themselves with LCCs? Shouldn't they offer a better all inclusive Y class at a higher price to a segment of passengers who are ready to pay more for better product. Or else re-launch as LCC. They want to be called legacies, want to offer LCC product, yet cannot make profits.

1. Legacies compete directly with LCC's for the majority of passengers domestically. They can't just pretend that the LCC's don't exist.

2. Economy Plus et al is available on several legacies now, and is being expanded. From what I can tell, it is a higher price for those looking for a better product. All-inclusive is somewhat elusive, though.

3. "They want to be called legacies..." I don't think they give a rat's patooty what they are called as long as they make money.

Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
I was shocked that I bought a revenue first class domestic ticket on US Airways, and they wanted extra money for me to choose an aisle seat.
Quoting Mats (Reply 19):
e food may be complimentary, but have you seen what and how US Airways serves on transcons?

You mean the US Airways whose stock symbol is LCC?

Quoting psa188 (Reply 76):

Not only does WN treat customers properly, they don't nickel and dime like most other airlines. I use them whenever possible, even if the specific base fare is slightly higher. You should support an airline that behaves honestly.

I can't wait for my trip on WN to SoCal next month. $177 RT from SEA to ONT, free checked bag, and - for me - the enjoyment of passing through OAK (sb) and SMF (nb). The rental car will be more than my flights.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
What bothers us is that the hotels and rental cars have tried to improve the product, and airlines have degraded theirs.

The worst customer service experiences - by far - that I've had are with rental car companies. I don't know how you can point to them as something above an airline when they hire lousy people, have some pretty lame policies a times, make you stand in long lines to get a car that may or may not be available ("free" upgrade to a gas-guzzler - no thanks!). Seriously, some of THE WORST experiences. I have yet to experience anything even remotely close to that in all of my years of flying.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
Think about cruise ships. If you want 2 appetizers or 2 desserts with dinner, no problem, even for those in the tiny inside cabin.

There really is not direct comparison between cruising and flying, except that cruising - like flying - is gradually morphing into a lower service, lower quality, pay for the extras experience. Actually quite similar to the airlines in some respects.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 99, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12549 times:

Quoting superjeff (Reply 84):
How do they compare to Delta's $1.6B 2012 profit?

Actually (and, IMHO, unfortunately), NK is seeing a return on investment substantially higher than any of the legacies, Delta included!
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 94):
DL's margin is impressive, relatively speaking, but CM's is double DL's, and NK/G4 are somewhere between DL and CM.

You didn't say 'which airline had the largest margin', you said 'which airline was most profitable'. And ROI is not the same as 'profitable'.

As a property owner, my ROI is pretty nice....but Trump's profit is a bit higher than mine. He doesn't care that I might have a higher ROI than he.

So, to reiterate, how does CM, NK, and any other airline in the world compare to Delta's $1.6B profit last year?

In other words....which airline was 'most profitable' last year?

Thank you



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 843 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12520 times:

The best way to approach flying on US carriers and the whole experience from arriving at one airport to leaving another is to lower one's expectations to the minimum. In doing so, occasionally there's a pleasant surprise!

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 101, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12511 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 101):
You didn't say 'which airline had the largest margin', you said 'which airline was most profitable'.
Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 101):

In other words....which airline was 'most profitable' last year?

Uh ok. It doesn't make much sense to compare them on net profit when their sizes are so different, particularly when I was talking about individual passenger behavior as it translates into profitability. CM, G4, NK, even US were all able to extract much more profit per dollar than DL, so comparing the net numbers is silly. DL's net profit is dwarfed by Walmart's, though DL's profit margin is much higher than Walmart--which do you think is a more meaningful metric?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2256 posts, RR: 9
Reply 102, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12200 times:

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 102):
The best way to approach flying on US carriers and the whole experience from arriving at one airport to leaving another is to lower one's expectations to the minimum. In doing so, occasionally there's a pleasant surprise!

agree....expect nothing but getting there (somehow) and with all your belongings ....

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1682 posts, RR: 7
Reply 103, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12220 times:

Quoting 01pewterz28 (Reply 47):

Bottom line is the airlines used 9/11 as a scape goat and they continue to say they still suffer from 9/11 saying the cost of operating are much higher even though they are making more money on top of the fees they charge that we never had before. The way the airlines see it “Less is More”.

I respectfully disagree. 9/11 is not being used as an "excuse." In fact, passengers told the airlines they were tired of subsidizing others that checked 5 bags when all they had was a carryon. They complained bitterly about the food and said they would rather eat nothing. Jet A went from .27 a gallon to $3.00--levels that were simply not sustainable without some creative thinking.

The whole industry underwent a metamorphosis when the legacies started to disappear--TWA, Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff--we had to come up with a different way to do business or die. I put part of the blame on the frequent flyer programs which encourage passengers to stay with one airline at any cost. Prior to these everyone was equal. No one had a special sense of entitlement because they had flown a gazillion miles on Air Bozo--there was no jockeying for "free" upgrades to FC, agents and crews were able to do their jobs in relative peace and everyone got served the same thing. No special "breezeway" carpets for HVC's, no elite levels, no hoarding of air miles. The airlines created the monster that has grown exponentially out of control.

Quoting catiii (Reply 45):
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 35):We would have fist fights in the aisles, flight attendants coming totally unhinged and huge delays.

We have 2 out of the 3 now, and you think assigning overhead space is going to be the tipping point? Come on...

Actually, we have all three now. I never said it would be the tipping point--your choice of words, not mine. I merely extrapolated that as one example of a "service" that would be unworkable. I have taken many delays (and gotten phone calls in the middle of the night to explain them) because of carryon that would not fit into the overhead bins and had to be checked--sometimes by force. We try to request people just to put the roller bags overhead and small things like purses and computers under the seat and for people sitting in row 44 not to put your bag above row 6 but they just ignore us. My point is (and was) that it is ugly out there and is going to get uglier.


USER PROFILE
SEND INSTANT



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2723 posts, RR: 4
Reply 104, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12154 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 6):

      I agree.

I fly domestic in the US at least once per year, I fly multiple sectors domestic in Australia every year and I live and travel in Europe. I see all three systems continually.

The only thing that is clear is that the American system is the least pleasant and the worst value.

We will now have a few hundred posts form US residents explaining why the US system, through some convoluted logic, is not only good, but better than the others, although it is not cheaper and it offers virtually no included service.

For the same price that I pay in the US, in Oz and EU I get full service on new planes with a smile. The same ticket price in the US get me something amounting to a mild experience of abuse and if I have luggage, take a meal, a drink and a movie, I pay considerably more that my Oz or EU ticket. But I am told that this is misteriously more "advanced", more "evolved." I try to remember that when I see the bitter aging flight attendants, whose 401Ks were consumed by unethical management and who are now condemed to 'serve' me.

The only way I can understand these arguments from people in the US is that they are only reflecting on the question from inside the 'bubble' of their purely US aviation experience, and wanting to hold on to the belief that the glory of US aviation experience has not been lost. No other explanation makes sense.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4030 posts, RR: 13
Reply 105, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12101 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 106):
For the same price that I pay in the US, in Oz and EU I get full service on new planes with a smile. The same ticket price in the US get me something amounting to a mild experience of abuse and if I have luggage, take a meal, a drink and a movie, I pay considerably more that my Oz or EU ticket. But I am told that this is misteriously more "advanced", more "evolved." I try to remember that when I see the bitter aging flight attendants, whose 401Ks were consumed by unethical management and who are now condemed to 'serve' me.

The only way I can understand these arguments from people in the US is that they are only reflecting on the question from inside the 'bubble' of their purely US aviation experience, and wanting to hold on to the belief that the glory of US aviation experience has not been lost. No other explanation makes sense.

Although I think you have a point, you are being a bit selective on the distinction among regions. In Europe, do you fly Rynair? EZjet? Even Iberia? Probably not. A few airlines in Europe have mantained some standard of amenities included in the ticket, but some have not. In the US there is no de-luxe airline - one who wants that flies first class. Also the US government takes an active role in promoting competition in an industry that is already is very competitive. Europe still shields some traditional airlines from competition.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 106, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12111 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 106):

For the same price that I pay in the US, in Oz and EU I get full service on new planes with a smile.

Bull hockey--no you don't. Just to give you an example, NYCLAX nonstop in the next month or so starts at $292 roundtrip all in. That's about 6 cents/mlie. SYDPER, by comparison, starts at $331rt all in, or 8 cents/mile. That's 37% *more* than something comparable in the US. LONIST? $405, or 13cents/mile. You're still paying a lot more in Australia or EU, or just about anywhere else (everywhere?) vs the US. When fares fall to a similar level, then we can talk about all that wonderful service you're (probably not) getting.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2723 posts, RR: 4
Reply 107, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12057 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 108):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 106):

For the same price that I pay in the US, in Oz and EU I get full service on new planes with a smile.

Bull hockey--no you don't. Just to give you an example, NYCLAX nonstop in the next month or so starts at $292 roundtrip all in. That's about 6 cents/mlie. SYDPER, by comparison, starts at $331rt all in, or 8 cents/mile. That's 37% *more* than something comparable in the US. LONIST? $405, or 13cents/mile. You're still paying a lot more in Australia or EU, or just about anywhere else (everywhere?) vs the US. When fares fall to a similar level, then we can talk about all that wonderful service you're (probably not) getting.

You should get better comparitor sites to use!

Your exampe: LON-IST, LCC 201, Full Service: Austrian 234, Swiss 248, LH 260



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12020 times:

Quoting HomSar (Reply 83):
Comparing food availability in hotels or on cruise ships to food availability on a plane is an apples-oranges comparison.

For the cruise ship case, the absolute only reason for someone to buy a ticket on a cruise ship is for the "experience" (well, with very few exceptions). Cruises have to offer that level of service because otherwise, why would anyone book a cruise? Airlines actually provide you with a practical service (i.e. getting you to your destination fairly quickly).

The other key difference for both cruise ships (which are very large) and hotels (which can also be very large) is that space (and associated weight) is at a premium on a plane. In some cases, by removing galleys, carriers can get an extra row of seats in. Planes flying around with a lot of "dead" weight not generating revenue is very expensive for airlines, because that weight translates into fuel burn. While technically, the same is true to some extent for cruise ships (and for energy consumption in hotels), it is nowhere near the same level of cost penalty as it is on an airplane. So, by eliminating meals, airlines are able to reduce the amount of food they need to store on board, which means less space taken up by food storage, which means more space to put passenger seats in.

You are missing the forest for the trees. The point is other sectors are advancing the product. The airlines are regressing.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12008 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 90):

Sorry, but as I mentioned above, I don't think anyone is talking about putting an extra stop in the routing just to pre-clear. Pre-clearance is done at the point of departure, so it doesn't have to be done at the U.S. gateway.

So you are just going to skip quoting my response where I said I have done it at SNN on the BA LCY-JFK flight?

Oh right, you wouldn't be able to say I didn't understand then...

They were actually talking about exactly putting another stop in. Specifically taking EI instead of a BA direct.

[Edited 2013-08-27 07:03:04]

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 110, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12003 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 109):
Your exampe: LON-IST, LCC 201, Full Service: Austrian 234, Swiss 248, LH 260

Newp, I said nonstop, where carriers have the most pricing power. Incidentally you can fly ORDLAX nonstop for $198rt all in, which is 12% longer than LONIST.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12008 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 95):
You don't want to go back. If you want really nice, charter a jet. That provides the experience of the 'old days' if not better.

This is probably the most accurate post of the thread.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8482 posts, RR: 10
Reply 112, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11977 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 90):
Then you'll just bitch about that.

No I won't. I hardly ever pick the cheapest fare. Schedule is more important to me. For example, I'm 44 years old and I have never flown a Low Fare carrier and my only experience with a LCC was the grand total of 2 trips on WN. And no one else will either. If you look at all airline complaints, they're not about fares beeing to high. They're about crappy service and a miserable experience. People will continue to fly if airlines were to raise fares to more realistic values.

Quoting n505fx (Reply 77):

Well...I would hardly say VS is the darling of airline profitability...anyways, weren't we talking about the state of the U.S. airline industry, not the state of the U.K. industry?

That would be a fare assesment if all other airlines did not match the fares but they did back then and they do today, hence the so called race to the bottom. I just happened to pick those 2.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11990 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 106):
The only thing that is clear is that the American system is the least pleasant and the worst value.

We will now have a few hundred posts form US residents explaining why the US system, through some convoluted logic, is not only good, but better than the others, although it is not cheaper and it offers virtually no included service.

Not from this American, you won't.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 114, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11945 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
What bothers us is that the hotels and rental cars have tried to improve the product, and airlines have degraded theirs.

Define "us." It doesn't bother me at all. Because fares, relatively speaking, have remained stagnant or gone down when indexed to "the good old days."

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
I can remember when hotels didn't have irons and ironing boards, coffeemakers, shampoos and other toiletries, or work-out rooms.

First off, no reputable hotel chain in the last 40 years hasn't offered shampoo. But you're making the airlines' case for them with this example. Airlines have unbundled their product. Why build in food, checked luggage, etc into a higher fare if I can unbundle those functions, offer you a lower fare, and should you choose to then use these other amenities charge you for them. I'm in hotels 100 nights a year, and I can't remember the last time I used a coffee maker in my room. Or the iron.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
And while rental cars are often base models (normally with most of the options), I've had cars with leather interiors, sunroofs, Sirius or XM, and other luxury features

And you've probably either backed into them at the counter because the car you reserved was not available, or you paid an upcharge for them. Most every rental car company charges additional fees for those amenities.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 82):
Why is it that an airline now charges for food on domestic service, while the "limited service" chains have a free breakfast, and many times, a manager's reception with some rather hearty food? My wife used to stay at a Residence Inn in Pittsburgh. If the Steelers were on MNF, the manager's reception was a regualar tailgate spread.

That's like asking "why is it that a restaurant gives me free water, but at the dry cleaners they don't offer me free water when I walk in." It's two completely different industries.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 110):
You are missing the forest for the trees. The point is other sectors are advancing the product. The airlines are regressing.

Respectfully, you're missing the forest for the trees. Airfares are, when indexed against the past, at historical lows according to A4A. Airlines are meeting the product demands that the free market and its consumers are asking them to meet. Regression is in the eye of the beholder. I think the Y product on B6 or DL is much better than anything ever seen in the past.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 115, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11939 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 106):
For the same price that I pay in the US, in Oz and EU I get full service on new planes with a smile.

On which airlines specifically please. . .


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 116, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11925 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 55):
Its not the entirely the matter of cost but the amount of hassle once has to go through.

And airlines have made HUGE revenue gains will all kinds of fees and charges that did not exist a decade ago which has translated to HUGE profits!

Yes, but you have to realize that a decade ago the airlines were still adapting to the reality of today's air travel. The public demands cheapest air travel. They are giving you what you want. If you don't want the hassle of travelling by air than by all means don't travel by air. The reason the airline have, as you put it, huge revenue gains it they are for a business, and have identified a method by which they charge those who want the service and not you who would like to find the lowest possible fare and whine and complain about all the charges. Look at FR. They charge hardly anything for their flights but if you want anything you pay extra. NK has seen the light and charge for you carry on. Most airlines charge for food and for checked luggage. You can save you money by not eating what they offer. You save by only bringing minimal luggage and do not order alcoholic beverages (personally I don't find the need to drink alcohol when I fly) or the crappy food from the airline. There are ways of travelling cheaply, but if you do please don't complain about YOUR choice to travel that way. You can what you want but be prepared to pay for it.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11915 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 116):
Respectfully, you're missing the forest for the trees. Airfares are, when indexed against the past, at historical lows according to A4A. Airlines are meeting the product demands that the free market and its consumers are asking them to meet. Regression is in the eye of the beholder. I think the Y product on B6 or DL is much better than anything ever seen in the past.

Again, relative airfare costs(the trees) is not the issue (the forest). And given everyone's been bankrupt, I don't think you can say they met market demands at all.

The product is measurably worse in Y, I'm not sure how anyone could posit other wise. Now, I personally wouldn't trade back to the old days for modern safety and convenience, no question. But it's possible to have both.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 118, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11828 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 119):
The product is measurably worse in Y, I'm not sure how anyone could posit other wise. Now, I personally wouldn't trade back to the old days for modern safety and convenience, no question. But it's possible to have both.

"Measurably" worse how? By what metric? In addition to historically low fares, which like it or not IS part of the product, Y offers wifi, seatback AVOD, increased legroom options, and leather seats. Just because someone doesn't put a rubber chicken on my tray table doesn't mean it's worse.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 118):
The public demands cheapest air travel. They are giving you what you want.

Bingo. And this is what the detractors of the airline industry can't wrap their minds around. People don't want the amenities of year's gone past. No one cared about that. It was nice, for sure, but most of the traveling public would gladly take $100 off their r/t ticket if it meant not having food on their flight.

[Edited 2013-08-27 07:53:15]

[Edited 2013-08-27 08:02:49]

User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11825 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 117):
On which airlines specifically please. . .

LH, LX, KL, BA...I'd fly all of them over just about any US carrier save WN...I paid the same price as a comparable stage length in the US and got better service.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 118):
NK has seen the light and charge for you carry on.

No, they have not seen the light, they have sold their soul to the devil.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11808 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 120):
"Measurably" worse how? By what metric? In addition to historically low fares, which like it or not IS part of the product, Y offers wifi, seatback AVOD, increased legroom options, and leather seats. Just because someone doesn't put a rubber chicken on my tray table doesn't mean it's worse.

The seats themselves smaller and closer together. Increased legroom? That was what used to be standard.

Anyway, I'm not into some pissing contest over what was what. There were much better hard and soft products flying 30 years ago. There are much safer and more technologically seamless products flying now. It's not a binary argument, they both can coexist.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11799 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 120):
No one cared about that. It was nice, for sure, but most of the traveling public would gladly take $100 of their r/t ticket if it meant not having food on their flight.

You just contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences. "No one" and "most" are not opposites. Some people do care about it, and pay for it. A lot don't.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 122, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11792 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 122):
The seats themselves smaller and closer together. Increased legroom? That was what used to be standard.

Anyway, I'm not into some pissing contest over what was what. There were much better hard and soft products flying 30 years ago. There are much safer and more technologically seamless products flying now. It's not a binary argument, they both can coexist.

But you said it is "measurably" worse. I'm trying to understand the metric you're using. As far as better hard and soft products flying 30 years ago, that's a subjective statement.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 123, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11785 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 123):
You just contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences. "No one" and "most" are not opposites. Some people do care about it, and pay for it. A lot don't.

How did I contradict myself? The market has shown pretty definitively that people would rather pay a lower fare than have the amenities of years gone past. That's what the airlines are responding to.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11765 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 124):

But you said it is "measurably" worse. I'm trying to understand the metric you're using. As far as better hard and soft products flying 30 years ago, that's a subjective statement.

The seats are smaller and closer together now, hard to get more measurable than that.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 125, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11734 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 114):

No I won't. I hardly ever pick the cheapest fare. Schedule is more important to me. For example, I'm 44 years old and I have never flown a Low Fare carrier and my only experience with a LCC was the grand total of 2 trips on WN. And no one else will either. If you look at all airline complaints, they're not about fares beeing to high. They're about crappy service and a miserable experience. People will continue to fly if airlines were to raise fares to more realistic values.

Then we must be reading the complaints of a whole other sector of consumers. Whenever I see a comment, anywhere, about DL (and it doesn't even have to be about airfares), several people will come up with the comment about why doesn't DL drop their airfares or that airfares are too high and it really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The fact is, there are, no doubt many people that buy because of the schedule and others that buy because of price.

Maybe YOU won't bitch about raising airfares, but there are certainly those out there that will.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 111):
Quoting mayor (Reply 90):

Sorry, but as I mentioned above, I don't think anyone is talking about putting an extra stop in the routing just to pre-clear. Pre-clearance is done at the point of departure, so it doesn't have to be done at the U.S. gateway.

So you are just going to skip quoting my response where I said I have done it at SNN on the BA LCY-JFK flight?

Oh right, you wouldn't be able to say I didn't understand then...

They were actually talking about exactly putting another stop in. Specifically taking EI instead of a BA direct.

Sorry, I did miss that......blame it on late night, old age, whatever.......  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11684 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 127):
Sorry, I did miss that......blame it on late night, old age, whatever.......

  Ha, I usually just go for all the above so I'm covered!


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5273 posts, RR: 1
Reply 127, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11648 times:

Quoting HomSar (Reply 83):
Comparing food availability in hotels or on cruise ships to food availability on a plane is an apples-oranges comparison.

For the cruise ship case, the absolute only reason for someone to buy a ticket on a cruise ship is for the "experience" (well, with very few exceptions). Cruises have to offer that level of service because otherwise, why would anyone book a cruise? Airlines actually provide you with a practical service (i.e. getting you to your destination fairly quickly).

The other key difference for both cruise ships (which are very large) and hotels (which can also be very large) is that space (and associated weight) is at a premium on a plane. In some cases, by removing galleys, carriers can get an extra row of seats in. Planes flying around with a lot of "dead" weight not generating revenue is very expensive for airlines, because that weight translates into fuel burn. While technically, the same is true to some extent for cruise ships (and for energy consumption in hotels), it is nowhere near the same level of cost penalty as it is on an airplane. So, by eliminating meals, airlines are able to reduce the amount of food they need to store on board, which means less space taken up by food storage, which means more space to put passenger seats in.

Go to cruisecritic.com and see all the complaints about bad food, whether in the main dining room or the buffet and the laments about how cruise food used to be 5-star both in quality presentation and now are barely a step above Friday's or Applebee's.

Yet, there are people who don't care about about the food. It's all about the destinatios, the excursions, the shopping, and everything but the food.

By the same token, hotels don't always make money on the restaurants, and the lose money on room service, a lot of money. The money is made on bars and food and beverage service for receptions and meetings.

Quoting n505fx (Reply 88):
I'm not sure I agree - I can recall a time when when there were no self service apps, no full lie flat seats, no E+ seating, no satellite TV or internet, no nearly hourly service to almost anywhere you would want to fly in the U.S., no globally linked frequent flyer programs...should I go on?

All the seating used to be E+. When AA got it's first 727-100, it was 22 seats in First and 66 seats in coach. When the -100 was retired, it was 12 seats in coach and 113 seats in coach. You don't get lie flat seats on any flight out of ORD that isn't going to Europe, Asia, and South America. A lot of routes have lost hourly service. In the 90s, AA had 16 roundtrips between ORD and LAX. Now, it's 10. DL used to have hourly service between ORD and ATL, from 6am to 9pm. I think it's somewhere between 8 and 11 roundtrips now. And certainly, there is no hourly service between ORD and any destination in Florida, with the possible exception of Miami.

By the same token, globally linked F/F programs were coming into existance in the 1990s, before the airlines went fee happy. And frankly, I don't use the internet, if I have to pay for it, other than my home service. When my son wanted to connect his iPod to the wi-fi at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay, it was more than $10 a day. I told him no and let him play games on my smartphone with the cellular connection.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 100):
There really is not direct comparison between cruising and flying, except that cruising - like flying - is gradually morphing into a lower service, lower quality, pay for the extras experience. Actually quite similar to the airlines in some respects.

Some will argue that while the main dining room isn't what it was 20 years ago, the rest of the ship is usually much better. Certainly, cruise food isn't 5-stars. It's probably more along the lines of what you get at restaurants in the Lettuce Entertain You chain.


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11564 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 58):
Yes, finally the airlines are making profits more in line with other corporations. Before, if they had a 2% profit margin, they were happy.

Its not that they are making profits. Its how they do it nickel and diming their way to revenue. Right or worng. that's ONE of the factors that pushed people away from flying. That was my point.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5624 posts, RR: 29
Reply 129, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11547 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 106):
We will now have a few hundred posts form US residents explaining why the US system, through some convoluted logic, is not only good, but better than the others, although it is not cheaper and it offers virtually no included service.

I won't argue with you. However, having been flying since the 70's I can say that it doesn't seem all that bad to me these days overall. Do I miss flying DC-10's on 3 hour segments? Sure. Was it fun as a kid to get a meal on a short flight? Sure. Do either of them really matter? Not in the least. I regularly go hour without eating, and virtually anywhere else in my life it is ME who is responsible for feeding my body.

As far as not cheaper, I have no idea as I've only flown in North America. However, I have always found bargains and rarely felt like I paid too much for what I got.

Ultimately, I think it is as much as anything a cultural thing. The fact that I can fly to so many places with so many options and do it safely and reliably and for the most part cheaply really is all that matters to me. I can certainly understand why getting a meal service is still an expectation in other places and that's fine. I'm not clear on why it makes the US aviation scene "bad"?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 112):
Newp

Love it. Not sure why, but I do.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 114):
People will continue to fly if airlines were to raise fares to more realistic values.

Of course many people will still fly, but not as frequently and certainly more selectively. I can think of two trips I just booked recently for August and September travel that wouldn't have happened if the airfares were $100 more RT. And I'm ok with that. If the airlines priced higher and I couldn't fly as often, so be it. I'm actually getting off on seeing them finally stabilize as an industry.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 129):
Go to cruisecritic.com and see all the complaints about bad food, whether in the main dining room or the buffet and the laments about how cruise food used to be 5-star both in quality presentation and now are barely a step above Friday's or Applebee's.

True.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 129):
Some will argue that while the main dining room isn't what it was 20 years ago, the rest of the ship is usually much better.

True.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8482 posts, RR: 10
Reply 130, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11519 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 131):
Of course many people will still fly, but not as frequently and certainly more selectively. I can think of two trips I just booked recently for August and September travel that wouldn't have happened if the airfares were $100 more RT.

Right, but we're talking $5-$10 more, not $100. According to studies that I've seen, that's all the average airfare would have to go up in order to eliminate the "nickle-and-diming" and make customers happy. Most people aren't complaining about the prices. It's how the money is collected that seems to be a sore spot with most travelers.

Quoting mayor (Reply 127):
Then we must be reading the complaints of a whole other sector of consumers.

Here's one analysis:
http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/airline_passenger_complaints/

Generaly speaking passengers don't complain about fares.

Quoting mayor (Reply 127):
Maybe YOU won't bitch about raising airfares, but there are certainly those out there that will.

You will find complaints about everything. I personaly hate that it costs a lot to fly today although I understand that a huge percentage of the cost are taxes and fees that don't go towards the airline. Especially on international flights. Your average consumer doesn't know that. There is also a huge segment of the flying public that is young and wasn't even born pre-deregulation so for them, airfares have done nothing but go up while service went down. That's what they see. A college senior was born in 1994   There is a huge part of our population for whom B6 has always exists, and LBJ stands for LeBron James. They don't care and don't know that flying used to be a privilege for a few rich people.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 131, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11467 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 132):
They don't care and don't know that flying used to be a privilege for a few rich people.

And that's why some of us come on here and give a brief (or not so brief) history lesson, once in a while.  



If they don't understand how things were, in the past, they won't understand why things are as they are, now.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11424 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 132):
A college senior was born in 1994

And that's just frightening!  


User currently offlineWesternDC6B From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All this talk of unbundling brings to mind a "great" idea.   

Let the hotels unbundle their products as well. Let me adopt the personna of a A.net reader who complains about free baggage he is paying for because he does not pack a bag.

"Why should I pay for the cable television I never watch?" (I do not watch television; the last time I tuned in a TV station in a hotel room was 9/11/01)

"Why do I pay for a fitness center I do not use?" (I do not use them; I go to the Y, or take a walk after my evening meal.)

"Swimming pool? I'm PAYING for it so OTHER people can swim?!?" (I do not use the pools at hotels.)

As for the shampoo etc, I DO use those, and I use the coffee makers when they are present, I will admit to that much.   



Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 134, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11304 times:

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 135):
Let the hotels unbundle their products as well.

I wish they would unbundle. I fully support this.


User currently offlineAirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11285 times:

I think it is telling that the author's bad experience was with United. In my years of flying with many different airlines, United stands out as having the worst customer service, by far. I would not lump Southwest, Virgin America or Jetblue in with United, and I think that American's employees have a professional demeanor, even if the actual product isn't great. United's corporate culture, however, seems to be built on barely disguised hostility toward its customers. I am willing to pay less for my fare if it means having to pay separately for food, but I am not willing to be treated with the disregard that United exhibits everyday.

User currently offlineWesternDC6B From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 132):
Right, but we're talking $5-$10 more, not $100. According to studies that I've seen, that's all the average airfare would have to go up in order to eliminate the "nickle-and-diming" and make customers happy. Most people aren't complaining about the prices. It's how the money is collected that seems to be a sore spot with most travelers.


When I travel on business, I find the airline that is going where I am going, at the time I wish to go, and which goes through airports I can tolerate if it is a multi-stop flight. Example: I will NOT fly internationally on itineraries using Atlanta as the port of entry on my return. Their transit TSA is overflowing with those who make up their own rules depending on their mood and who have other issues that make transit FAR less pleasant than in, say, DTW or MSP.

I then compare seat pitch and other things, then pick my fare. If the fares are all within a certain percentage of each other, I am good to go. If the price difference is drastic, I readjust my priorities.

I would like to see another study: how much are the airlines saving by moving the weight of baggage from the cargo holds up into a higher location in the aircraft. I am not too good with physics, so maybe someone can explain the fuel savings they achieve with this method. Yes, yes, I know about needing more ground crew to handle what they used to handle, but can it be THAT much more?

Furthermore, how many flights are delayed while folks are dancing in the aisles doing the "Find-a-Bin Fandango"?

Someone above expressed a beef about having no bag but paying for those who brought five. In my somewhat limited travel experience I have never heard of an airline that would allow ANYONE to take five bags without paying a surcharge, regardless of their class of ticket. I would love an example. Dredging one up from 1955 and the passenger's name being Juan Trippe does not count.



Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2256 posts, RR: 9
Reply 137, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11153 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 133):
And that's why some of us come on here and give a brief (or not so brief) history lesson, once in a while.  

If they don't understand how things were, in the past, they won't understand why things are as they are, now.

Exactly, newer model humans dont know what was lost...for good and bad...

I remember those guys at midwwest express like 10 years ago they had decent space on their aircraft made fresh cookies and offered pretty good service, they went the way of the DODO because people will not pay for it.

Let say that Jet Blue has 10 flights a day to LAX from JFK and one of its Aircraft with a good schedule has: 34 inch pitch, free wifi, IFE, meal service and 2 checked bags included and costs 100 more than the standard fare (the other 9 frequencies), do you think it would work? It would be a good experiment, even offer faster disembark and priority baggage handling... I would certanly pay for it....then again most public will not!

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11132 times:

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 138):
I have never heard of an airline that would allow ANYONE to take five bags without paying a surcharge, regardless of their class of ticket. I would love an example.

While I did not miss all charges. Back in 2008 as a DL Silver when they allowed 3 checked bags, I checked 4 bags carried a board a bag, and a backpack. So that was six total bags with only one of them being charged at $50 if I recall correctly. To top it off all 4 checked bags were at the 49.5 lb mark as I had to resdistribute some of my stuff there in the check in area. I was probably a pain in the a** for the agents, but they were composed and helpful.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11091 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 140):
While I did not miss all charges. Back in 2008 as a DL Silver when they allowed 3 checked bags, I checked 4 bags carried a board a bag, and a backpack. So that was six total bags with only one of them being charged at $50 if I recall correctly. To top it off all 4 checked bags were at the 49.5 lb mark as I had to resdistribute some of my stuff there in the check in area. I was probably a pain in the a** for the agents, but they were composed and helpful.

What on earth were you carrying!?


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 140):
While I did not miss all charges. Back in 2008 as a DL Silver when they allowed 3 checked bags, I checked 4 bags carried a board a bag, and a backpack. So that was six total bags with only one of them being charged at $50 if I recall correctly. To top it off all 4 checked bags were at the 49.5 lb mark as I had to resdistribute some of my stuff there in the check in area. I was probably a pain in the a** for the agents, but they were composed and helpful.

That's quite remarkable. My last DL flight was in 2008 flying DEN-SLC-IAD. They charged me a $90 penalty because my 26 inch rollerbag was 55 pounds rather than 50 pounds.

Did I say that was the last time I ever flew DL?


User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 754 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11044 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 141):
What on earth were you carrying!?

Moving to college so basically my whole wardrobe, printer, and a bunch of other computer equipment. I wanted to drive, but it was not really an option logistically. Flew PHX-SLC-PDX had to move all 6 bags across Portland to the train to get to Eugene, it was fun times. Lets just put it this way, when I moved up there for sophomore year I drove.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 142):
55 pounds rather than 50 pounds.

I had a similar situation. Two of my bags were over, but I was lucky to be able to redistribute some stuff.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11020 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 143):
Lets just put it this way, when I moved up there for sophomore year I drove.

I bet!


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 143, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11018 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 132):
They don't care and don't know that flying used to be a privilege for a few rich people.

The "rich people" have moved onto private jets, fractional ownership or charters. Face it, airlines are now aerial bus lines.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 144, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10939 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 145):

Quoting airbazar (Reply 132):
They don't care and don't know that flying used to be a privilege for a few rich people.

The "rich people" have moved onto private jets, fractional ownership or charters. Face it, airlines are now aerial bus lines.

No we haven't. We just move up to the front and pay for that privilege.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10897 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 118):
Yes, but you have to realize that a decade ago the airlines were still adapting to the reality of today's air travel. The public demands cheapest air travel. They are giving you what you want. If you don't want the hassle of travelling by air than by all means don't travel by air. The reason the airline have, as you put it, huge revenue gains it they are for a business, and have identified a method by which they charge those who want the service and not you who would like to find the lowest possible fare and whine and complain about all the charges. Look at FR. They charge hardly anything for their flights but if you want anything you pay extra. NK has seen the light and charge for you carry on. Most airlines charge for food and for checked luggage. You can save you money by not eating what they offer. You save by only bringing minimal luggage and do not order alcoholic beverages (personally I don't find the need to drink alcohol when I fly) or the crappy food from the airline. There are ways of travelling cheaply, but if you do please don't complain about YOUR choice to travel that way. You can what you want but be prepared to pay for it.

We are going off tangent here.

The thread is about decline of airline travel and i presented the causes for it from my viewpoint. The effect is clear in that there is a decline in air travel. People are rejecting airlines as means of transportation.

All i have got is responses that are trying to justify why airlines are charging more which does not have to do much with the topic at hand.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 146, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10870 times:

It has everything to do with the topic...ultimately...it's about folks' opinions on whether or not the US airline industry is in a decline from the customer service/relations/atmosphere perspective.

This thread has gone a bit different than I wanted it to...but I really enjoy reading everyone's perspectives on it.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 147, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10860 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 129):
When my son wanted to connect his iPod to the wi-fi at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay, it was more than $10 a day. I told him no and let him play games on my smartphone with the cellular connection.

That always pissed me off..that the hotel charges for wifi and parking.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 142):
My last DL flight was in 2008 flying DEN-SLC-IAD. They charged me a $90 penalty because my 26 inch rollerbag was 55 pounds rather than 50 pounds.

Did I say that was the last time I ever flew DL?

And would the same scenario on other airlines be without cost? Will you not fly them, also? What would UA have charged you on their nonstop? That's like not ever visiting Atlanta again because you got caught running a red light there. But having run red lights in Newark, Charlotte, and Dallas....and not having been caught....those cities you still vist.

I'm curious...why DIDN'T you fly UA direct instead of backtracking to SLC on DL?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10829 times:

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 63):
Oh ok, is that why they have all be in bankruptcy?

Most of those bankruptcies happen because of mismanagement. Period.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 149, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10836 times:

I think the decline in flying is somewhat along the line of "I fly when I want to" to "I fly when I have to". I have moved considerably to the 'have to' end of things. I do three or four trips a year, and driving and train typically win out. I don't expect first class service, just polite and as hassle-free as they can make it. Which is why I promote connecting the bin with the seat, this is often a big hassle. Southwest offering baggage fries free greatly reduces the hassle with carryons, and I have always found the trips pleasant, so even if it costs more I choose them.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10764 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 146):
No we haven't. We just move up to the front and pay for that privilege.

Some do, some don't. Categorizing any group is ridiculous.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 151, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10705 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 142):
They charged me a $90 penalty because my 26 inch rollerbag was 55 pounds rather than 50 pounds.

Why did you fly to SLC instead of directly? Also your bag was over weight, what did you expect?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 152, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10580 times:

Pick my post to threads as usual, but I've heard so much over the last few months, from frequent fliers, first time fliers, and fliers who have not flown in such a long time. I'll post their thoughts below, as I've taken notes to prove my points:

The customer service industry ads a whole in the USA is in a state of total disarray. Because of the general state of the economy, and people taking jobs simply to get a job, and not because they have a psssion for their job, the state of customer- employee relations is absolutely outrageous. You have people working the checkin and bag service, as well as gate agents, who got the job because it was the only job available. I know that's not everyone, but it's what seems to be the case in the continental USA for a number of people i've talked to. Not to mention call centers. I won't go into details; we all know what goes on there: I believe that airlines, if they wanna improve their customer service reputation- bring in the Japanese. If anyone's been into Japan, even if they use an Airline like DL, they see the major difference in how you're treated vs in America. The Japanese gate agents and checkin people are extremely respectful and very helpful, and use very polite language. It's indicative of their culture. I say bring it here to the US. Train people to be polite and respectful.

Flying is such a hassle because of mergers. It is extremely difficult for people to actually fly hassle-free anymore. You have airlines like NK gouging unsuspecting customers, you have outrageous prices in the midwest, and you have very few direct flights per airport in comparison to pre-2001 Aviation industry. An example: I was talking to someone at DTW a while ago about how often they fly. This person was living in DEN and had to go to CVG every week for work before the merger. He told me because of the merger, flights to CVG were pared significantly, and while F9 and UA have upticked a bit, this guy has been a loyal skymiles customer for years. He says he has to fly less to CVG because it costs too much to fly here, on top of having to waste multiple days flying there, wheras in the past he could've made the trip a day trip. Businesses as well have to fly less and less because of the prices involved, which directly effects their bottom line. Plain and simple. Mergers are not good for other businesses.

Tear this post apart, especially those of you who are defending your megahubs, because I wanna know why you guys have never ever gave the rest of America a decent excuse.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineHomSar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10431 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 154):
I believe that airlines, if they wanna improve their customer service reputation- bring in the Japanese. If anyone's been into Japan, even if they use an Airline like DL, they see the major difference in how you're treated vs in America. The Japanese gate agents and checkin people are extremely respectful and very helpful, and use very polite language. It's indicative of their culture. I say bring it here to the US. Train people to be polite and respectful.

I understand what you're suggesting, but I honestly think that in order for this to work, we would also need the Japanese to train the American public.

Respect is a two-way street. Many people start out trying to give the best of service, but having to deal with the BS of a public with an overblown sense of entitlement (which is a very big problem in US culture) wears you down over time, to the point where many simply can't help but become disillusioned and detached as a necessity to prevent from going crazy.

I can't claim to know what life is like in Japan, having never been there, but I have a number of friends who have lived in Japan at some point in their lives, and one of the things that I gather is that Japanese culture is very much one of respect and avoiding confrontation. US culture, on the other hand, is one of being loud, acting as if you're the only person in the room, and screaming and threatening lawsuits when you don't get what you want, and finding every excuse in the book to avoid any responsibility when things go wrong.

Given all of that, simply having Japanese customer service at the ticket counter isn't going to do much of anything. I figure it would last a few weeks or months, then fade away as most employees realize that some people out there are going to be jerks no matter what, and the vast majority couldn't be bothered to look up from their cell phones long enough to realize someone is being nice to them.

Just as the traveling public doesn't value extra legroom and nice meals enough to entice them to spend the extra dollars required to support that kind of service, the typical member of the public doesn't value kindness or respect enough to reciprocate, at the expense of whatever text message they're sending at the moment. Everything is about values, whether they're financial, personal, or social. People, ultimately, get what they ask for.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 154, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10409 times:

Quoting HomSar (Reply 155):
Respect is a two-way street. Many people start out trying to give the best of service, but having to deal with the BS of a public with an overblown sense of entitlement (which is a very big problem in US culture) wears you down over time, to the point where many simply can't help but become disillusioned and detached as a necessity to prevent from going crazy.

It happens too in Japan.....but not nearly as much...but when it happens, it's usually dealing with the spoiled children born in the late 80s who were products of the asset bubble. These people are reaching the age of having kids, and because of that, some people in Japanese media have claimed a degredation of society because of those "lost decaders" attitude.

Surprisingly enough, people born around my era, 1991 onwards, are showing some more hope and courteousness...

Quoting HomSar (Reply 155):
US culture, on the other hand, is one of being loud, acting as if you're the only person in the room, and screaming and threatening lawsuits when you don't get what you want, and finding every excuse in the book to avoid any responsibility when things go wrong.

You know maybe the decline of the US Aviation industry may be a societal issue as well....



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 512 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10348 times:

Quoting peanuts (Reply 29):
Ok.Let's discuss:What an elitist presumptuous load of you know what.When done reading you ask yourself: ok, what did this accomplish? Basically it boils down to this: certain people on a particular side of the political aisle want their cake and eat it too.Let's talk about