 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / July 2008Are US Airlines Trying to Confuse Us?
Few airlines are in the business of purposely losing money. Then again, we've seen countless CEO's departing distressed enterprises with multi-million dollar parachutes and lots of cash, which might add to the demise of the airlines. So what's different from five years ago or even two or one? It's the price of fuel. Why are few European and Asian airlines in a panic, when US airlines are crying the blues? Simply increase the cost of your seats relative to the cost of your fuel. Last man standing wins after you add in the cost of your labor and equipment and still maintain a reasonable safety record for everyone who uses your service. Why confuse us with extra fees for this and that, nickel and diming us to death, and then tack on your fuel surcharge, baggage charge or whatever you want to call it today? Screw your six-dollar sandwiches; they still suck just like they did before you started charging for them. Like lemmings, they follow each other in succession, assessing the same increases that alienate the traveler. Charge us for whatever its costs and tack on your margin for the shareholders for god's sake! I just want to get from point A to point B with the least amount of disruption and delay. The flyer will determine your fate in the end. Water seeks its own level. rg BTW, I don't believe any US airline currently has an on-time departure exceeding 25% of their schedules but that is only my guess. I'm reluctant to believe anything anyone else proffers. None of my four segments on AA during the last month were on time leaving the gate. > BTW, I don't believe any US airline currently has an on-time > departure exceeding 25% of their schedules but that is only > my guess. I'm reluctant to believe anything anyone else proffers. > None of my four segments on AA during the last month were > on time leaving the gate. Anecdotal experience is not valid statistical evidence. That said, my recent Jet Blue flight, a full load, had everyone on board and left gate 10 minutes early yesterday. >Simply increase the cost of your seats >relative to the cost of your fuel. So I take it economics wasn't your strong suit in school? As a refresher, airline tickets are very price sensitive. Raising the lowest fares as little as $5 or $10 will cause that seat to go unsold. The potential passenger will either go to a competitor who hasn't raised fares or not fly at all. So instead of increasing the revenue the airline earns on each flight, they lose even more. > >Simply increase the cost of your seats > >relative to the cost of your fuel. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they > lose even more. Personally, I would suggest that this is much more related to Psychology than it is to economics. Especially Americans buy on price of the seat, not the TOTAL cost. Thus, airlines can get away with nickel and diming (or rather $15 and $50ing) us as long as the seat fair is the same or cheaper as the next guy on the website. The net payment is probably about the same, but much of it is hidden. As I mentioned earlier, I am inclined to drive anywhere I can get in 8 hours. In most cases, the door-to-door time is the same or maybe even less. It is probably cheaper and then I have a car to mess around with on my off time if I want to leave the hotel and explore. >> Simply increase the cost of your seats >> relative to the cost of your fuel. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all. So instead of increasing the revenue the airline earns on each flight, they > lose even more. This is true. The airlines realize that they're entering a stage where the "not fly at all" option is being chosen by more travelers, and are cutting capacity because they can't continue to sell all the capacity they have at a price that is acceptable to both parties. Still, the nickel and diming is extremely annoying. At least Southwest isn't playing this game. >>> Simply increase the cost of your seats >>> relative to the cost of your fuel. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Still, the nickel and diming is extremely annoying. At least Southwest >isn't playing this game. As soon as their fuel hedges run out they will. > airlines are crying the blues? Simply increase the cost of your seats > relative to the cost of your fuel. Last man standing wins after you add in > the cost of your labor and equipment and still maintain a reasonable safety > record for everyone who uses your service. Southwest Airlines has most of its fuel hedged at $55/barrel. Because Southwest doesn't need to increase its fares as fast as the others, the others are caught in a difficult position because if they increase their publiched fare, more people will flock to Southwest because its published fares are lower. So they try to hide fare increases in various other charges that don't appear when you compare airline fares. >Few airlines are in the business of purposely losing money. Then again, >we've seen countless CEO's departing distressed enterprises with >multi-million dollar parachutes and lots of cash, which might add to the >demise of the airlines. Unfortunately, this is not unique to airlines. There are lots of other stupid companies doing this as well. >So what's different from five years ago or even two or one? It's the price >of fuel. Why are few European and Asian airlines in a panic, when US >airlines are crying the blues? Simply increase the cost of your seats >relative to the cost of your fuel. Last man standing wins after you add in >the cost of your labor and equipment and still maintain a reasonable safety >record for everyone who uses your service. There's a lot more than that, but fuel is the main one now. And a lot of European and Asian airlines are hurting badly and saying so. If you could do what you say, they all would be doing that wouldn't they? Hardly that simple, when the demand goes down as you raise fares, which is why they are all reducing capacity as well to match. >Why confuse us with extra fees for this and that, nickel and diming us to >death, and then tack on your fuel surcharge, baggage charge or whatever you >want to call it today? Screw your six-dollar sandwiches; they still suck >just like they did before you started charging for them. Like lemmings, >they follow each other in succession, assessing the same increases that >alienate the traveler. Because, you'd want those surcharges right back if the fuel price drops wouldn't you? Then you'd be arguing that they should wouldn't you? >Charge us for whatever its costs and tack on your margin for the >shareholders for god's sake! I just want to get from point A to point B >with the least amount of disruption and delay. The flyer will determine >your fate in the end. Like always. >Water seeks its own level. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to believe anything anyone else proffers. None of my four segments on AA >during the last month were on time leaving the gate. Then go tell the government which has routinely been stealing the tax you pay on every ticket to fund their moronic spending even though it is specifically to update the ATC systems among other things, leaving us with the most outdated one in the developed world causing a great deal of these delays. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.