An interesting find. People pay more for better products.

[Soku39]

Bore at work, found this surfing the web:

http://forums.hipinion.com/viewtopic.php?t=263209

Caveat, the people that post on the site are most like 20s and early 30s. So no families or real expenses, but still I find it very interesting. Pilots aren't the only ones that think airlines should charge what the product costs. I find it sad that SWA is now running ads about not having to pay to check bags, and they are the "low cost" carrier. Since when does a low cost set the standard.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Re: An interesting find. People pay more for better products

Bore at work, found this surfing the web:

http://forums.hipinion.com/viewtopic.php?t=263209

Caveat, the people that post on the site are most like 20s and early 30s. So no families or real expenses, but still I find it very interesting. Pilots aren't the only ones that think airlines should charge what the product costs. I find it sad that SWA is now running ads about not having to pay to check bags, and they are the "low cost" carrier. Since when does a low cost set the standard.

There are a lot of factors at play here that sort of even the playing fields for US carriers. Safety, for instance. The safest US airline probably has a safety rate of 99.9999%, whereas the most unsafe, has a safety rate of 99.9998%. So no one is really shopping for safety, at least domestically. Now if you asked me how much more I'd pay on a $1000 ticket on Aeroflot to fly a US carrier, I'd wager to say $500 or so more.

On-time arrival rates generally don't mean much to the general flying public. Most are attributed to external phenomena (weather, etc.) and I would wager that few think the experience differs greatly between airlines. Business travelers probably have more fine tuned sense for this, but they tend to have little control over the purchasing process.

What about service? That's a tough one. I'm the type of passenger that just expects to be treated with basic courtesy - I don't need someone to hold my hand or dedicate their time to fixing my mistakes (i.e. too large a carry-on). So as long as the airline isn't snippy with me, I can't think of any reason to give poor marks for service. Plus it varies incredibly by crew. Some of the best and worst crews I've ever encountered have been on the same airlines. Haven't seen consistency anywhere really, except to say that SWA flight attendants generally seem more chipper.

The only thing I could think that US passenger would pay more for (outside of routing) would be the type of aircraft flown. I don't have data on this, but I bet Southwest does - how much is it worth to a person to fly on a "big-jet" versus a "puddle-jumper"? I guarantee you there's an incremental difference there, and that's why SWA launched an ad campaign pointing out the size of their fleet.

But in conclusion, you more or less get the same with every carrier out there - so why would a person pay more for one over the other for the exact same flight?

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Re: An interesting find. People pay more for better products

I find it sad that SWA is now running ads about not having to pay to check bags, and they are the "low cost" carrier. Since when does a low cost set the standard.

Well, when they're profitable, AND pay their people well, AND offer a good product, AND manage to keep a pretty darn good schedule, AND they've been doing this for years . . . well, it's safe to say they are setting the standard!

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Re: An interesting find. People pay more for better products

Now if you asked me how much more I'd pay on a $1000 ticket on Aeroflot to fly a US carrier, I'd wager to say $500 or so more.

Aeroflot isn't nearly as bad as it used to be. And besides, they codeshare with Delta. You need to be carefully booking through JFK to make sure it isn't operated by Aeroflot anyway.

Then again, they did have that drunk captain who couldn't get through the PA announcement in Russian, let alone English last year on a flight to JFK...

(I've flown on Aeroflot before, it wasn't that bad. Like anything in Russia though, there are so many ways to die, you can't focus on just one...)

 

[Blackhawk]

Re: An interesting find. People pay more for better products

It's a little of both. Look at what happened to Midwest/Midwest Express. "Best Care in the Air" was not just a motto- that was the airline. I loved to jump-seat on them and would have flown them if they ever flew where I wanted to go. Yet they are history.

 

[gatorbuc99]

Re: An interesting find. People pay more for better products

I couldn't give you an answer to the Midex issue, but i can't for the life of me figure out why there's not bigger emphasis on this point. Sad as it is to see, we need one of the majors to go under, it'll better the industry. There's too much competition, too many seats chasing too few butts who don't deserve air service...it's (or should be) a function of the carrier's ability to make a profit, not a right to have air service. As an industry, we've priced ourselves out of profitability. How can you move forward as a corporation in an industry that does nothing but lose money? How can you earn a decent wage when your company is struggling? Add to this guys taking 121 f.o. jobs for peanuts in return, you don't stand a chance. I love flying as much as the next guy, but for anyone looking to get into the 121 world the next few years, i wouldn't reccommend it. It's not a pretty picture, just not worth it, the benefits aren't overriding all the other . I'll keep my flying to a hobby for now, until i see things getting markedly better, i hope others have a similar train of thought, hold out for more, for better. Making it to the 121 level should be the pinnacle of the career, you should be "set" once you make it to a 121 career, regardless of if it's a regional or legacy, but unfortunately my fantasy world continues to be just that.