It is stupid to. And if the airlines raised the baseline of what it really costs to fly, and THAT became "what you needed to pay", they'd finally stop cutting their own throats and creating their own losses.
Spirit's $100 carry-on fee starts next month
- Thread starter Oxman
- Start date
It is stupid to. And if the airlines raised the baseline of what it really costs to fly, and THAT became "what you needed to pay", they'd finally stop cutting their own throats and creating their own losses.
WacoFan
Bigly
No, no Mike - get with the program boy - the airlines have NO control over their operations. No - it is xpedia, travelocity and other third parties as well as the customers themselves that set the prices! It is all their fault.
Agree with you....and I dont understand this logic that pilots here use.....blaming some stupid search engine for the woes of their own management. Expedia, Orbitz, travelocity, etc, would not exist if the airlines themselves didn't create the environment that allowed them to operate and do what they do. Let the bottom-feeder airlines BE bottom feeder airlines; the legacy carriers shouldn't try to stoop to that level of service, amenities, etc; because 1) they can't compete with cheap, and 2) they shouldn't have to. Let the cheap ass pax ride the cheap carriers and get what they pay for.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes, of course, the military pilots and health care industry managers know the airline business better than the airline managers. How silly of me to think otherwise. 
SeanD
Well-Known Member
Does anyone really think if airlines raised their fares to cover the actual operating cost of that flight people would just stop flying? I sure don't. The only thing that would concern me is how the airline decides to distribute the profit. I don't think airline management has any good morals left to actually reward their employees with proper wages.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
They're not, and frankly I don't see it as a moral question. You and I are paid enough to keep the jets moving. Remember, you're only worth what you negotiate.
Yes, of course, the military pilots and health care industry managers know the airline business better than the airline managers. How silly of me to think otherwise.
Anymore than an airline pilot commenting on how DoD should be budgeting and what programs they should retain or cut?
So now you're defending management? I need to save this!
But seriously, do you really believe that legacy airlines can compete with bottom feeder airlines? It's a fools errand. And it will only sink the legacy. Look at CalLite, Ted, Song, and other attempts at trying to be an LCC. How did those work out? What Im saying is that legacy airline management is trying to fight a war they can't win, and that will only deplete them. Their own personal Vietnam. But its not a battle they need to fight, IMO, because what they will get if they win, isn't worth the sacrifice necessary to get it.You yourself said that you are willing to pay for a certain level of service and amenities; and Im the same way. Thats who legacies need to be focusing on. Do you really want to fight to carry Joe Sixpack Redneck around who boards in flip flops and a wife beater shirt? A guy I know who flies for a ULCC once told me that SWA should thank Spirit every single day for Spirit taking the dregs away from SWA.
You get what you pay for, Todd. You know that. Do you really want the people who are only looking for everything cheap? Offer a good product, and people WILL pay for it. I know I do. There are still people here who fully believe in getting what they pay for, and will pay to get what they want.
WacoFan
Bigly
Yes, of course, the military pilots and health care industry managers know the airline business better than the airline managers. How silly of me to think otherwise.
Business is business. I doesn't matter if you are drilling for oil, managing health care businesses, or making glass-dildos - business is business. You create a product, price it for the profit you want to achieve, or whatever the market will bear (whichever is more) and you proceed. Some exceptions to this are intentionally losing money for a while to drive someone out of business (the Standard Oil move). What you do not do is price your product below what it costs to provide. The customers are not setting your prices. The customers are not setting your policies. The customers are purchasing a product from many available - that's it. To blame others for a businesses own ineptitude is, like I said in my first post in this thread, the height of impotence. If we can make money in one of our businesses - we do it. If the market changes and we cannot make money in one of our businesses - we cease being in that business, fire the employees and reallocate to the businesses that provide the return we want. Easy Peasey.
Truthfully, that's down-the-road concerns. Id first be concerned with keeping the airline viable and out of bankruptcy to begin with; and one part of that huge equation is in not trying to fight the LCC battle, when you're not an LCC. There's just no way to compete, and an airline will kill itself trying to do so. Either you go in whole-hog, or you don't. It can't be half-assed, as has been tried already by the legacies, with those operations not lasting long at all.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's not the question. The question is whether all of the airlines would participate in the fare increase, and if they didn't, would the passengers shun the carriers that raised fares in favor of the carriers that didn't. And I think we all know the answer to that question.
Here is what always happens:
Airline A increases fares by $5. Airlines B, C, and D match the fare increase. But airlines E and F decide that they can snatch some more market share by not matching the fare increase. Expedia shows airlines A, B, C, and D with a fare of $300, and airlines E & F with a fare of $295. The customers all book on airlines E & F, completely filling their flights. Airlines A, B, C, and D are only half full, and their flights operate at a loss. The airlines realize that they can't keep up the fare increase if airlines E and F won't match it, so they are forced to reduce their prices back down to match their competitors in order to not lose market share. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That's the reality of the airline business, folks.
It's a reality, yes, but who usually are airlines E and F, rhetorically speaking? For the very low fares and differences in prices, they're usually not "equals" of airlines A/B/C/D. They're a niche. They're a no frills. An LCC often. And they will attract a certain demographic of traveler: people who occasionally fly and are looking for a cheap ticket for the times they occasionally fly. Is this who airlines A thru D want to hinge their marketing efforts towards, or even put a ton of effort into? To get what? The few tickets these travelers purchase yearly? As I said before, is expending the effort to fight that war to keep these people, worth the end-objective that will be won from the war? Thats what the individual carriers have to be able to answer.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
We have civilian control of the military in this country for a very good reason. Sorry, not analogous.
When it comes to knowing how to run an airline? Absolutely. Richard Anderson knows how to run an airline. You don't. That's not an insult, it's just a statement of fact.
Not only can they, but they already are! It's taken a huge shift in the way the legacy carriers do business, but with the exception of AMR, which is still saddled with outrageous costs due to a stubborn refusal to go through bankruptcy ten years ago, the legacy carriers are holding their own right now. Is it a stable industry? Absolutely not. But that won't happen until regulation returns. So, in other words, it won't happen. And it's not the fault of management.
Yes, I am willing to pay for that, but people who are willing to do so are few and far between. The bread and butter of the airlines is the business traveler, and companies don't allow their business travelers to select their own flights based on their own criteria. They usually have a travel office that books the cheapest fare, or they have policies in place requiring their travelers to book the cheapest fare. Expecting airlines to be able to survive by competing on product rather than price is a fairy tale. It just doesn't work that way, and it never will.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Not true. Sometimes it's the "niche" carrier, but in many cases it's a fellow legacy carrier hoping to snatch up market share. But it really doesn't matter either way. The business traveler is still going to be stuck riding on the "niche" carrier, anyway, because that's what his company requires him to do if they have the cheapest price. And the legacy carrier loses that business, regardless of the level of service offered. Welcome to the reality of the airline business.
Yes, its analogous, since Im not talking about control of the military; Im talking about a non-military person trying to determine tactics and strategy for a military. Its a stupid argument either way, since business is indeed business, and since civilians do tactics and strategy all the time.
Really? And how has that been working out over the past few decades? The list of failed carriers is long and distinguished.
It IS the fault of management when they try fighting wars they can't win. And trying to compete with an LCC by lowering yourself to the LCC level, and thus bankrupting yourself in doing it, IS fighting a war you can't win. Can you tell my why I don't see Ted/Song/CalLite planes on the ramp anymore? The programs were an ambitious attempt at trying to compete, but its just not possible without becoming an LCC yourself, in all the ways LCCs operate. But thats not going to happen. This isn't rocket science for management to figure out.
There is indeed truth to this, as the government does the same thing to their employees that travel: find the lowest fare, consistent with federal government travel regulations. Be it an airline ticket, a rental car, etc. And here is where it gets dicey, because government will demand low fares, airlines will price low fares below what they can profit from, airline will eventually go bankrupt, government will bail them out with taxpayer $$$, and the cycle continues again.
SeanD
Well-Known Member
I've been kicking around the idea of writing an article about this topic for work. I might PM you if your interested in supplying your perspective on it.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's where you are Waco are wrong. Business is not business. Waco couldn't manage his way out of a wet paper bag in this industry, no matter how good he may be in his chosen field of health care.
And rarely has that been the fault of incompetent management. The 190 bankruptcies that have resulted since the deregulation act are largely the fault of two things:
1. Start-up carriers that were started by businessmen who falsely believed exactly as you and Waco do, that because they were successful in other businesses, that their business experience could be carried over to the airline business and make them successful. They learned the hard way that they were wrong.
2. Airlines being forced to restructure, and in many cases failing to do so in a hyper-competitive environment, following a complete structural change of the industry after deregulation. Many of these managers actively lobbied against deregulation, because they knew exactly what would result from it. Bob Crandall is a perfect example of this. He warned everyone that the industry could not survive deregulation without extreme chaos happening first, and he was right. His experience in the industry led him to that conclusion, and his smart business acumen helped him to successfully restructure a legacy carrier and completely revolutionize the airline business in spite of the problems created by the very deregulation that he fought against. He was among the best of the airline executives, and he still struggled to deal with the problems created by deregulation. The bankruptcies and other financial problems of the other carriers that weren't so lucky weren't always due to incompetent management. A structural change so severe as deregulation simply couldn't be handled, no matter how good the managers, at every carrier.
Because the good ideas generated by those projects were integrated into the legacy carrier's mainline operation after they were tested out on the LCC subsidiary.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Sure.
There are certain business principles that still apply, even though each and every business has its own particular nuances. That's where I believe he might be referring to business being business. At least that's my take.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Yes, I've learned over the years that even if getting there means SFO-CLT-PNS becomes SFO-PHL-DCA-SYR-CLT-PNS on 2 carriers, you can get there. Just dedicate an entire day to travel, know how to non-rev and think on your feet very quickly, think outside the box, and you can get there for free.
HRDiva
Well-Known Member
That w
That works if you have the entire day! But if you don't, $29 is certainly worth it to me!
