Airlines Get Billions From Unbundled Services 432
Hugh Pickens writes "In hearings before Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that airlines reported revenue of $7.9 billion from baggage fees and reservation change and cancellation fees in calendar years 2008 and 2009 — fees on unbundled services that once were considered part of the ticket price. 'We believe that the proliferation of these fees and the manner in which they are presented to the traveling public can be confusing and in some cases misleading,' says Robert Rivkin, the Department of Transportation's general counsel. Published fares used by consumers to choose flights don't 'clearly represent the cost of travel when these services are added.' However, Spirit Airlines President and CEO Ben Baldanza defended the practice of unbundling, saying it allows his airline to charge lower fares (PDF) and allows the customers the choice to purchase the services or not."
2+2=5 (Score:5, Informative)
If they're making billions (from unbundled services) that they weren't making before, then they obviously didn't lower fares all that much.
This is good for them, not so good for us.
Re:2+2=5 (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but could you show me where it was TFA (or some other source) said that this revenue (not profit) is above and beyond what the airlines were making before?
It matters.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but could you show me where it was TFA (or some other source) said that this revenue (not profit) is above and beyond what the airlines were making before?
Airlines were bleeding cash.
Their main expense (fuel) is mostly locked in through multi-year contracts
and that hasn't changed over the timeframe we're talking about.
Now they're not bleeding as fast.
The only significant change has been the unbundling.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, just because the services were bundled does not mean they were free. Part of your ticket went to paying for them, whether you used them or not. Imagine McDonalds started counting every meal as a sale of burger, fries and soda with a rebate. Their revenue on fries would skyrocket, but you can't seriously say they are making billions they weren't making before. And how you draw the conclusion from the increased fries revenue that the burger hasn't gotten cheaper I don't know. If anything it's those billio
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Banks, Airlines, Energy companies, Grocery stores, Gas stations - when does it end?
Girl Scout Cookies . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Not taxed?? It's taxed twice, once as corporate profits, and then again on distributions / capital gains.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, a hundred times no.
Charging people ridiculously high fees for checking baggage means that peopl
You're not flying cheaper! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what really pisses me off; people take this attitude that, hey..I don't have extra bags, I don't want the food, so I am flying cheaper! Well guess what stupid, you're not flying cheaper.
I travel very often so I have a fair idea of how the traveling costs trend and what I notice is that I get fucked harder and harder by the airlines, but since there is price fixing, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Don't get me wrong, if the tickets WERE actually cheaper by not including the bags, than I would be fine with that. BUT, they are not cheaper. If anything, they are more expensive AND you pay your extra 100 bucks for bags. WTF?
You want to go by weight? I weight 160lbs and my wife is 105lbs. Why should she pay the same like me? Why can't she have an extra bag?
Why can that fat as fuck American sitting next to me get the same price?
They should chance the whole thing to per lbs, yourself and bags included. That is whats fair.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you remember when they started charging the baggage fees? They started doing this in 2008, when crude oil was, what, at $140/barrel at its height?
The baggage fee was the option for many of these airlines (which didn't hedge their fuel costs wisely, as, e.g. Southwest had done) to stay in operation, without scaring all their customers away with fee hikes.
Perhaps today when the fuel cost isn't so high, we are not exactly paying less by getting less service for the "basic" ticket. But it was certainly tr
Re: (Score:2)
Well guess what stupid, you're not flying cheaper.
Sure you are - Here's some anecdotal examples:
In 1990 I flew YVR-LHR. It was my first big backpacking trip after university. I remember the fare was around $950 - Around $1540 in today's dollars. By comparison, that same trip on those same dates would cost $1465 today - Almost $100 less.
I remember around 1999 I used to fly YVR-DEN once a month on United. The flight, purchased three weeks ahead without a Saturday stay was around $1000. Indexed to tod
Re:You're not flying cheaper! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You're not flying cheaper! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not discriminatory , it's physics. It costs X amount of energy to move Y mass from point A to point B. Guess where that energy comes from? Fuel :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's one thing to charge people more for taking up a second seat, but charging people who naturally way more isn't really appropriate.
I don't know, man, it's a slippery slope here. A second seat is a resource just like added fuel is a resource; if a plane full of 105 pounders costs 75% as much as a plan full of 200 pounders, then there is just as much reason to charge heavier people more, regardless of the cause, as there is to charge people who take up more than one seat. In fact, you might say that charging more by weight is more fair, because the per-seat issue would be a natural extension. Someone who is 400 pounds would take up 2
Re:You're not flying cheaper! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're buying more of what they're selling. If you went to the hardware and bought lumber, you should expect to pay the same as everyone else for a 2x4. If you went to the hardware store and bought "enough lumber to make me a bed", you should expect them to scale the price to how much lumber you actually needed. Airline tickets aren't exactly like either of these cases, but I hope you can see that what's not "discriminatory" flies in the face of reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to make this argument then the actual ticket price would be calculated by a complicated function involving weight, width, seated height, nasalness of voice, and body odor. Passengers flying with children would be required to post a bond paying for everyone else's ticket ahead of time, potentially but not probably refundable on arrival.
Instead, passengers who can more or less fit into a seat pay for a seat, and passengers who don't pay for two. And if you don't like it, travel some other way.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should I have to pay more because I'm a larger person than you?
Easy: because it costs more to fly you than it does to fly me over the same distance. Why should I subsidize the cost of flying your big bones? Answer: because life, for fatties and string beans alike, is rarely fair.
Re:You're not flying cheaper! (Score:5, Informative)
It's disriminatory? It's like saying Walmart charging you biggies $1-2 on large clothing sizes (they do) because they use more material. For the airlines, more weight = more fuel burnt. I bet you have a bigger food bill than a 120 lb person as well, who are you going to cry discrimination there?
It's not discrimination. It's reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if he's 2+ meters he could be close to underweight at 90.7 kg (200 lbs). Factor in a large frame (no, not the "I'm big boned" excuse, some people really do have a larger frame than others) and being in good shape (meaning high percentage of bodyweight as muscles and low percentage of bodyweight as fat) then 90.7 kg could very well be considered slender at anything over 1.9 meters. Hell, I have a friend who's just under 1.8 meters who looks skinny at around 90 kg but he's also very fit which means
Unbundling without choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You always have a choice in a free, competitive marketplace: you don't have to fly with Spirit Airlines.
If you are flying domestic, you can always fly Southwest, which to date has no luggage fee up to two checked in bags (I think).
If you are flying international, any of the major airlines (Spirit isn't even the biggest or second biggest airline) will be happy to take you w/o charging for carry-on luggages.
One could make an argument about whether the airlines have been completely forthcoming about the costs
Re:Unbundling without choice (Score:4, Informative)
I'll grant that the assumption of "free, competitive marketplace" is too often made regarding various industries where the assumption is not justified, but airline industry isn't one of them.
The one thing, competitiveness of a market depends on most is what is called "barrier to entry", which can be various things, from laws/regulations enacted by congress, monopoly granted by various levels of government, start-up capital costs, customers' switching costs, etc. With no barrier to entry, any excess profit will be fleeting, as profit opportunity will attract competition, lowering prices and, essentially, removing the profit. With airline industries, there is no government-enforced monopoly, and most flyers have minimal switching costs (perhaps loss of points in loyalty programs).
While one could argue that there is never a completely free, competitive market, I would say airline industry comes close enough. I propose two measures of whether a market is competitive: number of competitors (high is competitive), and the profit margin in the industry (low means competitive). By these two measures, airline industry is competitive. Given any route, as long as you don't impose arbitrary requirements as your sibling poster has done (why must you fly direct? And really, can't you fly to nearby airports in the same area, rather than insisting connecting only two specific airports?), at least 3 or 4 airlines will be competing for your money.
In fact, people (especially those who cheered on the recent United-Continental merger) say there is too much competition in the airline industry, which led to airlines having a reputation of being a terrible industry to own in your stock portfolio (the only airline ETF, FAA, is specifically designed for speculative purpose, not investing).
So, reality supports my (implicit) claim that airline industry is "free, competitive marketplace". What reality do you live in?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>So, reality supports my (implicit) claim that airline industry is "free, competitive marketplace". What reality do you live in?
Southwest Airlines looking into coming to our local airport. The other airlines blocked their entry so that they could continue to charge three times the price for an equivalent ticket.
As long as gate space is a concession regulated by local governments, the legacy carries will do everything they can to make the marketplace as non-free and non-competitive as they can.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't Spirit airlines the same airline that will charge you for luggage whether you check-in or carry-on. [google.com] How many people travel with no luggage? Simply put the only choice Spirit offers you is whether you pay them more to handle your bags or pay them less for the privilege of handling your own bags.
You mean pay them less for the privilege of shipping your bags across the country along with you. Do you expect that UPS would do it for free if you just loaded it onto their airplanes for them and unloaded it yourself at the destination? If it really doesn't cost anything for Spirit to do this, they should go into competition with UPS -- they can put UPS out of business if they've managed to eliminate all costs of shipping beyond handling.
This forgets the unintended consequences... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of which is the excessive amount of carry-on baggage that people now bring on to planes. Instead of checking that larger bag and only bringing the laptop case/bookbag/etc on the plane, everyone tries to cram as much stuff as they can in their two carry-on bags so they don't have to pay baggage fees. On the airlines on which I have traveled they tend not to enforce the carry-on restrictions tightly, so many people bring oversized bags which monopolize the limited space available. As a result, you pretty much have to hover by the entry area on the concourse and rush on to the plane to ensure that you will be able to find a place for your single bag. Moreover, this rush for space creates a lot of tension between passengers. On planes with limited carry-on space I have seen arguments break out between patrons over the bag placement. It's distinctly unpleasant to be crammed into an aluminum tube while two people trade insults over space for their laptop case.
Re: (Score:2)
2 words: Gate check.
Only if the check in agent make an error... (Score:2)
So who's to the rescue? (Score:5, Insightful)
With our brilliant free market capitalism in place, a competitor should be here to the rescue to innovate and beat the crap out of these guys who don't take care of their customers. For we have a choice, and that makes our way of life the envy of everyone.
Any minute now. Any minute!!!
I am also waiting for a better cable company, better internet service, a better bank, and oh, a better PC...
Any minute now!!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're not thinking libertarian enough. We must allow the public to carry firearms through airports again and to exercise their second amendment right to defend themselves against what the common law considers theft. When companies find it too expensive to hire and replace drones to collect thes
Southwest (Score:5, Informative)
With our brilliant free market capitalism in place, a competitor should be here to the rescue to innovate and beat the crap out of these guys who don't take care of their customers.
There is, Southwest Airlines. No bag fees (a fact which is heavily advertised).
The thing people like you don't realize is that capitalism is not an instant fix, but it does fix things in the long run - Southwest has been very popular and is expanding to more cities and locations. I can take that airline to a lot more places in the U.S. than I used to be able to, in part because of better customer service that made sure I would fly Southwest unless there was no other choice.
How is that not capitalism in action?
Re:Southwest (Score:5, Insightful)
What free market fundamentalists like you fail you comprehend is that we humans have a relatively short lifespan. Life is too short to wait a decade for the mythical "competition" to maybe sorta improve the airline market. Free marketeers remind me of a religion. Those, too, promise that all wrongs will be fixed a few decades later once your life ends and you are in heaven. Maybe, but I'd rather have them fixed in this life, and soon. For the last 30 years, lunatic free market policies have caused crisis after crisis while making life worse for working people. It's time to dump this discredited, outdated religion for a 21st century pragmatic approach that actually makes life better for those who work, rich scum squealing notwithstanding.
Bigotry in any form is an ugly thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yyyyyeah. There do exist those of us who would rather not fly Redneck Air.
Just like there used to be people who liked to hang other people on crosses, or set them on fire for witchcraft, or string them up on nooses because of the color of their skin.
I'm not sure how you feel about joining the ranks of such distinguished company, but there's very little at this point between you and them. I'd think about that were I you.
Myself, I am open minded to people of all backgrounds, and they can make whatever cringe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...but it still comes off as pretty stupid on a site filled with otherwise intelligent people.
I was with you until right there. Are you referring to Slashdot, or did I miss something? Honestly?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Southwest (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what makes Southwest better than the other airlines?
They're not like you.
They aren't pompous assholes who are too good to take the occasional traveler. They don't take themselves, their airline, or their industry too seriously. When they screw up, they are genuinely sorry.
Southwest understands that they are in the business of hauling people from A to B as efficiently as possible. They understand that people who fly Southwest aren't flying because they like flying, they are flying because it's the best way to get where they want to go.
Need to change your plans? They don't charge fees for that. No other airline does that.
Want to bring a bag or two? They don't charge you $30 to do it.
They aren't pricks, they get the job done, and they don't charge you BS fees. That's more than you can say for just about any other airline.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That company exists, it's called Southwest Airlines. Free Snacks, free soda, 2 bags up to 50lbs each are free to check, and you get your two carry ons. Oh, and their fares are usually around the cheapest. Sometimes they are $20 more than another airline, but you know you'll be paying more than $20 just to check a bag.
I don't fly a lot, usually 4 - 5 times a year. But if I'm flying domestically, I fly Southwest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get your point and I do agree overall, but you picked some really bad examples. Cable companies are (natural) monopolies, and most ISPs are simply the cable companies or the phone companies, also a monopoly. Free market practices don't particularly apply there.
Banking? There WERE small-town banks but most of them are closed these days. There are still credit unions and a handful of banks to ch
Also on cable companies (Score:2)
I am also waiting for a better cable company
That is impossible as long as government controls block competition for your cable dollar (satellite doesn't really count being essentially unidirectional). So while you are railing on capitalism the very regulation you wish to impose on airlines is denying you choice in cable.
better internet service
See: Cable.
a better bank
There are great banks if you are willing to look beyond the monsters.
and oh, a better PC...
Found [apple.com] it [amazon.com].
Ticket prices (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the competition takes place on web sites like Orbitz [orbitz.com] or Travelocity [travelocity.com] where the only criteria for comparing airlines is route and ticket price. There's no indication of whether a particular airline charges extra for checked bags, carry-on bags, or refreshments. Nor is there any indication of how much leg room to expect, how often the airline departs on time, or how often the airline leaves passengers on the tarmac for six hours.
When the only information passengers have is route and ticket price, the airline that can scheme to have the lowest upfront price will win.
Re:Ticket prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Only initially, and only with very occasional travelers. Taking me as an example, I don't fly more often than 2-3 times a year, yet I've had my share of good and bed experiences with different airlines... and I'll always look for options from the airlines I had good experiences with while scanning through Kayak's results.
Now, if they are much more expensive than somebody else, I'll consider the others... but I'll pay the 5-10% more to fly the ones I like.
We all remember the crappy legroom, shitty entertainment options, and bad food, even if the search engine doesn't show it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Economics has the answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Air travel is making a comeback, but... (Score:5, Informative)
I find it interesting that the airlines have unbundled services so that they can "lower air fares", yet they still can't seem to make profits the way they used to. This article in the NYT (see link below) points out that while passenger and freight volumes are back up to pre-recession levels, the airlines are still not making pre-recession profits. Another point that I found interesting is that passenger load factors are also significantly higher in the past. So from a cost-accounting perspective, the airlines have reduced or shifted several large factors in their cost bases: underutilized aircraft, "fees" for things that used to cost the airlines extra, and industry consolidation that should also reduce employee costs (two merged airlines don't need as many mechanics, pilots, or flight attendants). A couple more points should also give some food for thought. The aforementioned industry consolidation gives the airlines more power to raise ticket prices because of reduced competition (and fewer routes). Also, oil prices are not nearly what they were in 2008/2009, so that's another large expense that has been reduced.
The point I'm trying to make is that the airline industry has seen major shifts that should in theory increase revenues while decreasing expenses. Something else must be going on and I don't have the whole story, but it makes me wonder if there is some serious mismanagement going on. Or maybe unbundling combined with all the other hassles of air travel are starting to make customers change their behaviors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/business/global/19iht-ravover.html?_r=1&ref=business [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Draconian security measures are scaring customers off and costing the airlines extra. Not to say that the airlines are blameless.. they dont lower prices, but institute hidden charges for things like luggage.
You can't complain, you can't compare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The next couple of comments show no experience did you really mean to imply that airlines place you on the cannot fly list if you complain? All voucher offers I have been given are for money on future tickets so no worthl
Re:You can't complain, you can't compare (Score:5, Insightful)
Baggage in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
When heading into the States not long ago I had to transfer through Chicago O'Hare to a smaller, provincial airport. American Airlines unsurprisingly lost my luggage, but thanks to a tag it was located as being with the handlers back at Chicago. The friendly woman at the check-in desk where I'd arrived after the second flight gave me a complimentary kit that included a toothbrush, toothpaste, mini-haircomb and so on.
The expedient service was what struck me most though; the next day a guy in a van drove up to where I stayed and dropped it off needing a signature and ID to confirm. All this was free, all of it was worked out and the lady at the desk looked astonished at me if I asked there was a fee to expedite getting my suitcase back - it contained mostly clothing that I could buy at a mall or whatever, but also a few items somewhat more important.
AA must have yearly meetings where this baggage issue is brought up; remember that scene from Fight Club where the anti-hero played by Ed Norton opposes the cost of keeping a shoddy system with unhappy customers that might kick up an occasionally costly issue to fixing everything and performing a good service. If the good service is more expensive than paying customers off, and in the case of improving baggage loss rates it likely is, then AA keep the crappy service to the inconvience of customers.
As cynically compelling as that movie was, this principle is applied rigorously behind closed doors in many firms who simply seek to maximize profits by definition of what they are. If it means a person losing something valuable or otherwise getting aggrieved (crashing a shoddy car and being injured), then let's cast that aside and keep the margin at an acceptable level. Unethical? Sure, but that's business.
That airlines are now charging seperate fees for this service without presumably making a marked improvement could be harmful to them in the long term; if passengers know they're paying X for luggage carriage for every piece inclusive of the first then they can more directly demand a refund. Something which isn't quite as easy to do if its bundled in and you get chucked a cheap kit of goods to clean up that they manufacture in quantity. So this all could be a good move with respect to luggage, as it might make firms like Delta or AA or anybody else with high passenger volume improve somewhat.
TAXES! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does the government care? They now get a lower tax revenue! Before, if your ticket cost $500, they got whatever percent (let's say 10), so $50. Now if they strip down the ticket so that it's only $400, plus $100 in other fees, the government is losing $10 they would've previously received. Food, baggage, seat placement, etc, all get taxed at a lower (or non-existent) rate when they're sold separately.
A matter of time (Score:3, Insightful)
choice to purchase the services (Score:2)
Except the don't explain the charges well enough, and not all are optional anyway.
I don't like the TSA/airline rule interactions (Score:2)
If you fly an airline that charges for checked bags, and you accidentally put a banned item in the carry-on, you either have to pay the fee to check the bag, lose the item, or mail at a high cost (if you have time). Probably this isn't a very big revenue generator, but I still find it annoying. The same goes with banning bottled water then selling it for $3 a bottle. Or setting up long security lines, then letting people through who pay a higher rate. This last one seems undemocratic. Its different tha
Go ahead, get mad. (Score:2)
Get all the mad you want - it won't do any good. They're providing a service that you can't get anywhere else and people are paying their prices so they have no reason to change.
Supply. Demand.
I wonder how much they lose due to delays (Score:4, Insightful)
By the time all this crap gets settled it's usually 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time and all the airline has done is cost themselves money and pissed a lot of people off..... brilliant!
Ryan air - the king of this sort of scam (Score:4, Informative)
One change that they introduced some months back [thisismoney.co.uk] was a charge on credit card use. Because they have to offer one form of card payment without charge (a UK or EU law) they chose a card that almost no one uses -- a prepaid card that costs some £15 a year and a 50p transaction charge. It is all about grabbing as much money from their customers through hard to avoid extra charges so that they can make decietful adverts claiming to be cheapest.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
SWA is not more pleasant to fly (Score:4, Informative)
Southwest changes with the times and makes a profit.
Southwest is a company I respect and I fly with them sometimes but there is much not to like about their service too. The main thing I think they have going for them is that they have come to grips with the fact that air travel is not a luxury item anymore. It's a bus that flies - nothing more. I don't dislike Southwest but they aren't perfect by any means.
Generally I'll look at Southwest as an option but they simply aren't flying many of the places I go.
Bundle my ass.... (Score:3, Interesting)
They advertise $100 tickets then you get stuck finding out there is:
Airport Fee $10 (2x)
Gate Fee $10 (2x)
Drink Cart Fee $10
Fee Summation Fee $5
Pressurized Cabin Fee $10
Baggage Scanning Fee $10
Baggage Loading Fee $5
Baggage UnLoading Fee $15
Airplane Taxiing Priority Fee $10
Advertising Fee
SABRE Ticket Processing Fee $5
Convenience for not requiring human intervention in purchasing tickets $5
Do you really think you can fly from SF to LA for $99? No. Because the damn fees for everything. I'm waiting for those airmasks to have the following instructions on them:
In the event of a lose of air pressure, please secure the mask to your face. Take a calm deep breath and then exhale normally so that it is replenished for the person in the seat next to you.
Can you imagine if McDonalds did this shit?
Ordering Fee $10
Cooking Fee $5
Putting paper on food tray Fee $5
Fee Per Ketchup $1
DriveThrough Convenience Fee $10
Spill proof lid $10
Straw ($2 per)
Hot food guarantee Fee $10
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well on the rare occasion you take the two week Euro-trip it would at least be nice to know that there's going to be a 20% markup on the ticket when you book.
It's not about the cost, it's about the disclosure.
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno. I can have as much luggage as will fit into my trunk, or, if going overseas, into my passenger ship cabin.
I'm sorry, but when the airline industry decided that instead of actually solving the problem (completely isolating the pilots from the passengers, thereby completely eliminating the possibility of using the aircraft itself as a precisely directed weapon) they were going to permanently oscillate on the knife-edge between screaming paranoia on the one hand, and utter moral cowardice on the other, they lost my family and myself as customers.
But ships, and cars, remain quite lovely travel options. No homeland insecurity personnel pretending to be useful, no unreasonable limits on what you may transport, and both types of travel are competitive, financially speaking.
Also... cruise ships and passenger ships are still committed to making your journey pleasant, even entertaining. Given the extra time they have to work with, they can go beyond dressing the service people attractively (which the airlines have given up on) and simply picking attractive service people (which the airlines have also given up on)... there are shows, gambling, fine meals, pools, rock wall climbing, many other things.
Of course, if you can drive yourself somewhere instead of flying, you can add as many recreational activities as you like -- you're the cruise director, as it were. Everything from fine meals to strip clubs to side trips to the nearest museum or art showroom.
As opposed to being scanned, searched, checked for listing with various intrusive (and massively unconstitutional) agencies, forced to wait in long lines, having your toiletries and snow-globes confiscated, shoehorned into seating that was apparently designed by a one-armed/one-legged midget engineer with no objection whatsoever to the idea of the person in front of you reclining right into your crotch, eventually being fed government-surplus nuts (only on luxury flights, though) and diet soda by a transvestite in a hideous pantsuit for about the same cost as a fine meal on a ship.
Last year, on my trip to the east coast, I took a side trip through Crater of Diamonds State Park and took home a sweet little trophy -- a blue-white -- which sits in my mineral collection today. Got where I was going on time, did my business, and drove back the long way around, took lots of photos, etc.
Airlines. Man, I'd have to be *so* short of time to sink that low ever again. Or they'd have to roll themselves back to the 60's in terms of service, and then step it up. Difficult to imagine either way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's ok if you've got six weeks to get there. If you've only got a couple of days then ships aren't too practical.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I like it (Score:5, Funny)
Generally speaking... Start earlier, plan instead of react, gather your obligations and commitments timewise... If you can't do this, perhaps it's worth re-considering how you've arranged your life. Very few folks on slashdot are short of mental resources. If your life sucks, perhaps a reboot is called for.
So if you can't take six weeks off at once your life sucks?
Boy, you must be a schoolteacher.
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
And when I commute between DC and NYC, I drive. Everything you say is true - it bothers me a lot that the industry has sunk so low, and it bothers a lot of other pilots too.
Unfortunately, our ideas don't count for much, and the reality is that the huge majority of paying people pick how to get from A to B on the basis of price alone. The amount of resources airlines bring to 'revenue management' (a fancy way of saying figuring out how much to charge for a seat) is rather amazing; they have models that adjust the value a seat will bring in based on time to departure, and they are constanly refining their models, to the point where they can predict their revenue from a given flight within +-1% pretty consistenly desipte cancellations, rasing, lowering, then rasing the price of the seat (Costs? Not so much
Several airlines have tried the idea of 'all first class' - establish a brand specifically known for its top notch service, and deliver it. They have all failed in recent years, Midwest being one of the last. It seems that there are not enough people willing to pay for superior service to make a go of it as a scheduled airline. The non-scheduled operators, who charge an order of magnitude more (see Netjets et al.), on the other hand, apparently take superior service with absolute seriousness, and deliver it well - they are growing relatively robustly to fill the gap between dedicated corporate/celebrity bizjets and the becoming Greyhound scheduled operators.
I actually wish more people would think and do as you, so it was economic to run a quality airline, even if it was smaller in size. When enough people demand something, the market sometimes delivers. Enjoy your travels!
Re:I like it (Score:4, Informative)
You don't do much travel in Europe then do you?
Ryan air, takes unbundling and hidden costs to a new level, even charging as much as 40 Euros to "print" your ticket for you if you didn't print it at home. And then the flight is like one long advertisement from the moment you take off until you land, only allowing 1 carry on of any type (not the usual Carry on + personal item (purse/laptop/brief case etc...)
EasyJet, Wizz Air, and German Wings, while slightly better aren't much better. And the big name brands aren't all that far off either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the pilot has a heart attack? Let him or her die, even if by some lucky chance there's a doctor among the passengers? Not to mention flying the plane will be a bit harder without the pilot. Should the copilot do CPR, or fly the plane? What if the plane suffers a serious but not quite fatal problem, and there are experts among the passengers who can help, as happened in this flight [wikipedia.org]? What if a pilot needs a bathroom break? Could a pilot ever need access to some part of the plane outside the cock
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to see what government regulation can do to an industry take a look a telephones in the last century. Phone technology virtually stagnated for 50 years because there was no competition thanks to a whole library f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You don’t. That’s the very point of this.
They unbundled it. But they did not lower the prices. So in essence it just is a sneaky way to make it more expensive.
Which in my eyes is fraud, and should result in expelling everyone involved from the country until the end of his life, making it punishable by death to ever enter the country or try to directly or indirectly start or take over a business in the country.
Why do so many people never get, that you can just go “MY COUNTRY, MY RULES!
Re:I like it (Score:5, Informative)
But they DID lower prices. A quick search shows this. Last year, Southwest was the cheapest to Vegas. Now, Delta and others are $100 or so cheaper. Add in the bag charges and it's back to where it was when I flew last year.
Re: (Score:3)
But they DID lower prices. A quick search shows this. Last year, Southwest was the cheapest to Vegas. Now, Delta and others are $100 or so cheaper. Add in the bag charges and it's back to where it was when I flew last year.
Really? How's your opinion on the "Resort Fees" they're charging in Vegas?
I normally fly Canadian carriers so I wasn't aware the rules had changed. Dinged $25 on the way to Vegas. Then dinged another $52 in resort fees.
Sure its *ONLY* $77. But fraud is fraud. I purchased a full package. If I'm paying extra when I get there (aside from voluntary tip) then it's fraud plain and simple.
Plus I had to abandon my toothpaste and hair gel at the hotel which was cheaper than paying the $25 checked baggag
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My girlfriend's first time was in the backseat of a car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In most cases people only get "frauded" if they let themselves. For example I recently was charged $35 late fee for a credit bill I never got. The phone operator refused to do anything, so I got ahold of the supervisor and told him point blank, "Remove the fee or close the card. Your choice." He decided he's rather not lose my ~15,000 a year business and refunded the money.
You pay $15,000 a year in credit card interest? Or you get charge $15,000 a year and pay no interest? If the latter, you're more likely worth about $300 a year to them. Credit card companies are usually glad to get rid of customers like that.
Re: (Score:2)
(Anecdotes are fun, aren't they?)
But now we have data!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But they did not lower the prices
Cite?
I fly about six times per year and in almost all cases the base fares are lower than they were ten years ago (indexed to today's dollars).
Re:I like it (Score:4, Informative)
but fares over the Atlantic are much higher
In 1990 I flew YVR-LHR. It was my first big backpacking trip after university. I remember the fare was around $950 - Around $1540 in today's dollars. By comparison, that same trip on those same dates would cost $1400 today - Almost $150 less.
In the mid 70s my parents flew the family to England to visit the relatives. My parents had to take out a bank loan to cover the airfares - They were that high.
Now they fly to England twice a year without thinking about it.
Historically, TATL fares have never been lower.
Re:I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
He's talking about the 70s, when you could buy a very nice 4 bedroom house for $32,000USD (that's what my parents paid in 1974 for their brick colonial in a town of about 100,000 people - and that was expensive back then). The average yearly salary was less than 10 grand. And a ticket overseas would cost about 5-6 grand. I remember it well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That might all be true, but it does not really change my point.
Sure, but 'your point' isn't really germane to the discussion at hand - It doesn't really matter whether my parents took out a loan, sold the family jewels or won the lottery. The point is that in the 70s airfares were hella expensive, to the point where one had to lay their hands on a large pile of cash just to buy a few tickets, whereas today you can almost buy a ticket to Europe simply by smashing open your piggy bank.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, a bank loan to cross the atlantic???
Hey, it worked for Chris Columbus.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Excuse me, a bank loan to cross the Atlantic???
Hey, it worked for Chris Columbus.
Was this when he was making the Harry Potter films?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, a bank loan to pay for airfares??? I can see where the credit crisis originated. How hard is it to save money (and earn some interest) and then pay for the flight to England?
If you've just been told your Grandmother only has a few weeks to live ? Very hard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>strangely they still are making a profit.
I don't understand people when they complain about companies making profit. If they weren't making a profit, then there'd be no planes for you to fly, because the companies would be bankrupt. BTW have you ever thought about driving? Back when I traveled a lot from Oklahoma City to Minneapolis, I used to drive. My coworkers flew. They usually arrived at 5 o'clock while I arrived at 6 or 6:30. Not a significant difference but my drive was a lot more
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand people when they complain about companies making profit.
We complain about companies making profit when *at the same time* they're whining to the government about how they are in fact not making any profit because of circumstances A, B and C and therefore need to be allowed to screw over their customers through methods X, Y and Z without getting any hassle over it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually you don't, what really happens is that they price they charge for the tickets stays the same and the "fees" just become pure shareholder profit. If anything the prices for tickets has become more expensive even when correcting for the price of fuel and labor. So, we have more expensive flights with a lower quality of service - isn't baronism wonderful?
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines should probably be treated like public utilities, if not actually socialized.
Yeah, putting the government in charge would _really_ improve airline travel.
They are already so heavily managed and burdened by government that they can hardly be called free enterprises.
Then, uh, get the government out of the way and let airlines run the airline business instead of burrowcrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, putting the government in charge would _really_ improve airline travel.
I think the point wasn't "put them in charge to improve it", it was "put them in charge so the right people get blamed for the failures"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HA! So rather than let the free market handle it (and it will handle it quicker than the government will), you want to have to wait until the next election cycle and then hope that the people remember that it was some politician that caused the problem with the airline and not the people running the airline.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work real well.
Politicians got this country into the mess it's in right now. We don't need them doing to the airline industry what they've just done to the banking industry (which
Pure privatization is not really possible. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, putting the government in charge would _really_ improve airline travel.
You say that as if they weren't already in charge, through extremely restrictive regulation.
The airlines are part of the transportation infrastructure. You could as easily leave road-building to unregulated private citizens as airlines.
Jet aircraft are noisy and dangerous. Air traffic is a nuisance and a hazard. They need big areas to land in and take off from which should be as close as possible to major population centers, so they can't really be built without the application of eminent domain, and acc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's worked wonders for other industries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Airlines should probably be treated like public utilities
They once were; look up the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Airline Deregulation Act. From 1938-1978 airlines were told between where at what times to fly and how much to charge by a government oversight board.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
You are completely missing the point. Companies are not being honest, that is the problem. With your self-sufficient attitude, you may as well go to the place walking. But your approach is selfish. Maybe one day your grandma or your pregnant wife would not be able to handle her luggage by themselves, or will need to eat something at the plane, and they will be taken advantage of. Of, course, you will not have a problem with that, would you, big guy?
If the fees they charge for these services are in line with the cost of providing them, then no, I don't have a problem with that. TANSTAAFL. OTOH, if they're overcharging for them in order to subsidize a cheaper price on the ticket than it should be, then yes, it's a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that they DON'T.
Airlines piece-price services for two reasons. 1) Price it high enough, nobody will use it and they can stop providing it. 2) Remove the cost of that service from the base ticket so that the base ticket prices can be profitable -- not lower, just profitable.
Every time I buy a ticket from United, they offer to sell me 6 inches more legroom
Re: (Score:2)
Having luggage you can manage on your own has nothing to do with nothing.
Most of my domestic flights are business. Invariably, the tickets are purchased 10 to 3 days in advance. This means, invariably, I am in the worst location on the airplane, while having paid the most.
I am the last to board, by virtue of the seating group assigned to my section on the plane, and it can be hit or miss whether I can actually carry on my carry on as the bins are full of crap from vacationeers who paid 1/6th what I did for
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
You fly cheaper in the same way that those grocery club cards save you 50% on your groceries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even get me started on LyingAir (RyanAir) who wouldn't let me take my Nikon 200-400mm Lens (worth $6K) in the cabin with me
Ryanair's conditions of carriage are all very clearly laid out their web site, include baggage allowances and liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the airline will be providing you with more service than to passengers and you will rightfully pay more.
Re: (Score:2)
than to *other* passengers (who don't have as much luggage)... in case my typo made it unclear.
Re:So what happens when... (Score:5, Interesting)
Solution, start weighing every passenger and charge them by weight. Or, everybody pays the same up to 175 lbs and then there's a $20 surcharge for every ten pounds over that.
US carriers would clean up.
Re:Security vs. checking baggage (Score:4, Interesting)
They even took my blunt ended scissors away. Not sure what the hazard potential of scissors specifically designed not to allow you to accidentally stab yourself but...
My old boss had his cigar cutter taken because it was plastic and could be taken apart and used as a weapon. The next time he flew he took a metal cutter and they took that away too because it was heavy duty and could cut someone's finger. Being the angry Cuban he is he went into one of the shops inside the secure area, bought a new cutter and went back to show it to the screeners.
It's all about CYA. No one wants to be the guy who let through something that caused trouble later.