1500hr Rule - Do you think the industry will adjust? If so, how?

[Firebird2XC]

At higher fares, the 50 seaters will never be profitable, because they'll be empty

Your argument doesn't really hold water because it's grossly over-simplified. There are tons of variables that determine profitability of a given operation, and assuming that people won't fly just because fares went up $10 a seat per hour of flight time is largely speculative.

Airline travel has been commoditized. People assume it's a part of their existence- they'll grumble and whine about airfares the same way they do about things like the prices of gas or milk.

Not to mention, as long as people have stakes in people traveling, somebody else will provide incentive on the backside. The hotel and tourism industries have a huge steak.

Not to mention- due to the huge uptick in gas prices in the last decade, driving has a very high break-even for the person traveling alone.

Until there are viable high-speed travel alternatives, raising airfares a little here and there will go largely unnoticed.

 

[ppragman]

All that may be true, but we have to look at averages in behavior. There is a reason that the military first targets people in their late teens and early 20s in terms of being "fearless".

True - that said, they also put 22 year olds into the cockpits of F-16s, etc.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

True - that said, they also put 22 year olds into the cockpits of F-16s, etc.

Considering those are college grads plus 2 years of UPT then Graduate training, I highly doubt all but a tiny % (if any) make it to a fighter or heavy before the age of 23...more likely 24.

 

[seagull]

True - that said, they also put 22 year olds into the cockpits of F-16s, etc.

Now we roll back to my reply in post # 239.

 

[Mike H]

Your argument doesn't really hold water because it's grossly over-simplified. There are tons of variables that determine profitability of a given operation, and assuming that people won't fly just because fares went up $10 a seat per hour of flight time is largely speculative.

Airline travel has been commoditized. People assume it's a part of their existence- they'll grumble and whine about airfares the same way they do about things like the prices of gas or milk.

Not to mention, as long as people have stakes in people traveling, somebody else will provide incentive on the backside. The hotel and tourism industries have a huge steak.

Not to mention- due to the huge uptick in gas prices in the last decade, driving has a very high break-even for the person traveling alone.

Until there are viable high-speed travel alternatives, raising airfares a little here and there will go largely unnoticed.

If that's true, the airlines should just raise their prices and make tons more money. The higher the prices, the more profit they'll rake in, right? Passengers will grumble and pay the higher fare, like you say they will. So why doesn't any of that end up working that way?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

If that's true, the airlines should just raise their prices and make tons more money. The higher the prices, the more profit they'll rake in, right? Passengers will grumble and pay the higher fare, like you say they will. So why doesn't any of that end up working that way?

That is exactly what is finally going on. That's why the airlines are finally making some profit.

 

[jtrain609]

That is exactly what is finally going on. That's why the airlines are finally making some profit.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

AND THE DRAGON SLEEPS IN THE NIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

 

[Firebird2XC]

If that's true, the airlines should just raise their prices and make tons more money. The higher the prices, the more profit they'll rake in, right? Passengers will grumble and pay the higher fare, like you say they will. So why doesn't any of that end up working that way?

That is exactly what is finally going on. That's why the airlines are finally making some profit.

AND THE DRAGON SLEEPS IN THE NIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

Perhaps I will take you on as my Paduwan learner, Mike H.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

If that's true, the airlines should just raise their prices and make tons more money. The higher the prices, the more profit they'll rake in, right? Passengers will grumble and pay the higher fare, like you say they will. So why doesn't any of that end up working that way?

Sometimes does in the short term, but demand sometimes drops off suddenly. Capacity has been kept lower than in the past.

Doesn't work forever though- eventually customers get grouchy about every flight being sold out- and it hurts leaving money on the table when you are turning your best customers away.

 

[ppragman]

Considering those are college grads plus 2 years of UPT then Graduate training, I highly doubt all but a tiny % (if any) make it to a fighter or heavy before the age of 23...more likely 24.

Ok, army WOFT program - the point remains the same. Maturity isn't something that you can generalize about.

 

[USMCmech]

Ok, army WOFT program - the point remains the same. Maturity isn't something that you can generalize about.

99% of applicants in the Army's WOFT program are prior enlisted and/or have some college under their belt. So by the time they are in the co pilot seat of a helo they are older than 23

 

[Ian_J]

Ok, army WOFT program - the point remains the same. Maturity isn't something that you can generalize about.

99% of applicants in the Army's WOFT program are prior enlisted and/or have some college under their belt. So by the time they are in the co pilot seat of a helo they are older than 23

And apropos to nothing, they are co-pilots upon graduation and will remain so for a few years following graduation.

 

[ClearedToThe]

Your argument doesn't really hold water because it's grossly over-simplified. There are tons of variables that determine profitability of a given operation, and assuming that people won't fly just because fares went up $10 a seat per hour of flight time is largely speculative.

Airline travel has been commoditized. People assume it's a part of their existence- they'll grumble and whine about airfares the same way they do about things like the prices of gas or milk.

Not to mention, as long as people have stakes in people traveling, somebody else will provide incentive on the backside. The hotel and tourism industries have a huge steak.

Not to mention- due to the huge uptick in gas prices in the last decade, driving has a very high break-even for the person traveling alone.

Until there are viable high-speed travel alternatives, raising airfares a little here and there will go largely unnoticed.

Clearly you have missed the fact that several airlines this year have tried unsuccessfully to raise fares by as little as $10...

 

[Firebird2XC]

Clearly you have missed the fact that several airlines this year have tried unsuccessfully to raise fares by as little as $10...

You must mean this, from a week and a half ago:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/02/15/airfare-hikes-fail/1922995/
"The latest unsuccessful attempt came from Delta Air Lines. On Wednesday, Delta raised domestic fares bought within seven days of travel by $4 to $10 round-trip, says Rick Seaney, CEO of FareCompare.com, which tracks airfares. By Friday, they'd backed off. The reason? No other airline matched it, said Delta spokesman Anthony Black."

But clearly, your information is outdated, as of 21 Feb 13:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/02/21/fares-rising/1936525/

"Delta started the wave on Tuesday, boosting the price of tickets purchased within seven days of domestic travel by $4 to $10 round trip, Seaney says. Several other carriers have followed, including United, American, US Airways, and on a more limited scale, Southwest. Southwest's participation is usually key in guaranteeing a fare increase's success because other carriers don't want to be seen as charging more than their cheapest competitors."

Oh- but the real coup de grace to your argument is here:

"The increase comes as airlines reported narrower profits in 2012 than they saw the year before. Last year, there were seven successful price increases."

This year's increases have seen resistance from the customer base, but when one airline starts a push, and the others follow, it's continually pushed until resistance caves.

Bob Crandall's method of collusion still exists- but this time the airlines are more careful not to actually say it.

It's happening.

 

[ppragman]

99% of applicants in the Army's WOFT program are prior enlisted and/or have some college under their belt. So by the time they are in the co pilot seat of a helo they are older than 23

Still - the opportunity is there for motivated candidates. As it should be with people. But I'm a staunch egalitarian and believe that if it's a rule, or an opportunity supported by the establishment, it should be open to all people regardless of race, creed, age, etc.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Still - the opportunity is there for motivated candidates. As it should be with people. But I'm a staunch egalitarian and believe that if it's a rule, or an opportunity supported by the establishment, it should be open to all people regardless of race, creed, age, etc.

You won't find that in the Army WOFT program. On a variety of levels.

 

[ppragman]

You won't find that in the Army WOFT program. On a variety of levels.

There are limitations to this thing - but frankly, I'm convinced that anyone who doesn't think young people should be given a shot is a person who didn't have their • together at the same time period.

 

[Firebird2XC]

There are limitations to this thing - but frankly, I'm convinced that anyone who doesn't think young people should be given a shot is a person who didn't have their together at the same time period.

And yet, it's highly common. But the military flight programs are a bad comparison to civilian ones. Ideally, military programs are designed to weed out undesirable character traits at any age, then replace them with desired traits- or just other people.. Aggressively, if necessary, at that.

The civilian training process doesn't have that. In fact, until the trend on things like PFT is permanently reversed, we have the opposite.

 

[ppragman]

And yet, it's highly common. But the military flight programs are a bad comparison to civilian ones. Ideally, military programs are designed to weed out undesirable character traits at any age, then replace them with desired traits- or just other people.. Aggressively, if necessary, at that.

The civilian training process doesn't have that. In fact, until the trend on things like PFT is permanently reversed, we have the opposite.

The problem with this is that it's pay scales that are being based upon age - not experience. You could have a guy seat-locked for a few years on the FO payscale, even though he's got 3000hrs in type and 4000TT. In the left seat, you could theoretically (right now anyway, this'll change after the 1500hr rule) have a guy in the left seat with 1500hrs exactly and 100 in type or whatever. If you have the hours, can pass the checkride, upgrade away - if you have to have a limit for it - well then, 21 like every other ICAO country.