Fuel is Down...So whats up with the charges

surreal1221 said:
Try this one for size.

Flying isn't suppose to be CHEAP.
Click to expand...

If someone can make money at it and maintain an affordable fare, why not?

I don't go along with this whole premise that flying (commercial, GA, etc) needs to be intentionally priced high to keep the riff-raff out or to protect a dinosaur business model.
 
Barty said:
If someone can make money at it and maintain an affordable fare, why not?

I don't go along with this whole premise that flying (commercial, GA, etc) needs to be intentionally priced high to keep the riff-raff out or to protect a dinosaur business model.
Click to expand...

My comment has nothing to do with keeping the riff-raff out or protecting a dinosaur business model.

It has to do with the realization that transporting people or boxes from point A to point B faster than the next available mode of transportation costs something, and there should be a premium put on that cost.

The way the companies achieve that premium is up to them (clearly).
 
Keep the fares up. A'hmo axe for a pay raise.

Labor has subsidized irrationally low fares for far too long.

Los Angeles to Oklahoma City tomorrow:

By Air:
(Orbitz) Lowest non-stop one-way fare: $384, 2 hrs, 45 minutes.

...which is cheap, it'd cost $400 to fly VIS to SFO back in the 1980's and that's about 200 miles in 1980's dollars

By Bus:
(Greyhound): $166, 1 day, 7 hours (31 hours)

Travel by air is still a massive bargain.
 
I think the biggest problem facing commercial aviation is that people don't see the value outside of being able to get from point A to point B faster. In short, it has become a commodity and airlines are going to have to treat it as such. You may be able to maintain some premium fares on routes that are primarily used for leisure travel, but if you've got someone just trying to get to their parent's for Christmas, they're going to shop you heavily and weigh that against the hassle of dealing with the airport vs. driving.

I think the battle the airlines are having to fight in convince people that the fares are worth the money is not what is happening in the air, but rather the ordeal on the ground.
 
Barty said:
There's a simple solution to that, find another place to get your lessons from and encourage others you know to do the same. If they start asking why you're leaving, tell them why.

My club/school dropped them and not surprisingly people started flying more. Now if the FBOs at the field would get the hint and drop their prices for 100LL, maybe the base rate would slide a few bucks as well.
Click to expand...

The flight school/FBO still has to clear profits from the shipment they got at the higher price, so you want to see cheaper fuel prices eventually, fly more so they get another fuel shippment at a cheaper price. Not mentioning the fact that sometimes your paying for which FBO couch is better, thats another story.
 
n57flyguy said:
The flight school/FBO still has to clear profits from the shipment they got at the higher price, so you want to see cheaper fuel prices eventually, fly more so they get another fuel shippment at a cheaper price. Not mentioning the fact that sometimes your paying for which FBO couch is better, thats another story.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't make sense. Here's why.

People sell their inventory today at a price that allows them to replenish their inventory. In other words, the high(er) price 100LL has already been paid for, at least in part. As I'm sure we all have noticed, the price of gasoline (mogas or avgas) shoots up before the oil that is that costly even hits the refinery. Basically it is the supply chain reacting pre-emptively to the expected rise in their costs. Because if they don't raise prices NOW, they can't afford to buy TOMORROW. Its that simple.

Fact is, the FBO knows their cost for the next tank are going to be lower and they could reflect that in their pricing today, but they just choose not to. Granted, 100LL has a much more limited market than both Jet A and mogas so some of it is the FBO owners trying to cusion the price volatility a bit, but if they're holding onto those prices for too long, then we, as consumers, need to excercise our market power and buy elsewhere.
 
quote=killbilly;1042424]Not always...but you have to look closer....

SWA's fully restricted fares are sometimes a little higher. But their unrestricted fares are much lower than other airlines. Refundable and changeable fares, too.[/quote]




Agree about not being the cheapest, but they do have some crazy sales. About a two months ago I recieved an email promo for 50% off all flights departing KBUF. I booked a return flight to San Jose for $130 taxes in. The refundable and changeable part came in handy cuz I cancelled and now have a credit good for one year.
 
Perhaps the airline bought oil futures and as a result of that are still paying the high prices of a year or so ago even though current prices are down.
 
SJM said:
Same with flight schools. When oil prices went up this summer, they added fuel surcharges. Now that oil prices are one third of what they were when the surcharges were added, guess what happened to the surcharges? Still there!
Click to expand...


I was talking to the hubby about this yesterday. We typically have a large international population here and lately we've really been hurting for more international students. I overheard my boss telling someone that they didn't like the price increase and a lot of the prospective students that they had kind of dropped away when they upped the prices due to fuel, so if that's the case and fuel is back down, why not come down on the prices? I know there's always a chance it could go back up and I know it's not a common business practice to lower prices but if that's part of the problem, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top