this must kinda suck, eh?
- Thread starter triple7
- Start date
Heath
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Heath
You make some good points but here is a quote from someone that knows a little be more than any of us on the realities of running an airline.
"In many industries, product differentiation provides a powerfull competitive advantage, as well as an effective barrier to entry. Established companies with strong brand identification and customer loyalty stemming from product differences, advertising presence, or customer-service superiority enjoy a distinct advantage over newcomers. yet price and schedule so heavily influence the purchasing behavior of airlines customers that brand identification becomes a secondary issue.
While customers may have a "favorable airline" more often than not they are willing to switch to another carrier for even small differences in departure time, or a few dollars' differences in price. This is, at list in part, because the duration of most flight is short, and there is a limit in the amount of meaningful product differentiation that can be accomplished in that time. This ready substitutability of one airlines' product for another's has a powerful influence on how each industry participant behaves. While each participant's actions make sense within its particular framework, the cumulative result is severe price instability for the industry as a whole"
By Robert L. Crandall
ex CEO of AA.
Bottom line is, in the aviation industry schedule and price are the major determinant on a customer decision to flight on airline A or airline B. not safety or experience.
At the end of the day an seat on a 737 on airline A or a seat on a 737 on airline B is still the same seat.
Schedule and frequency are king.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the "group think" mentality that some effective marketing can bust. All the airlines believe that they're dealing in a homogeneous product, so they are pricing and behaving that way. There has been NO effort at serious product differentiation. I'd challenge you to point to a single ad campaign that stresses that one company's planes are safer than another.
Now a good point was made, that I had considered, you really do put yourself on the line when you hang your brand on its safety. A crash or two and you're the whipping post of the media and late-night talk hosts. It would really hurt them. BUT, at that point, you'd be back to being a homogeneous milk product and could price accordingly.
Last point, many of you have posted something to the effect of "I wouldn't pay X extra for this," only to have someone else post "I would pay X for something else." This is KEY to the point. Everyone's different. This type of campaign won't work for everyone, none do. But, there is a substantial portion of the flying public, even the frequent business flyers, who are always a little nervous about flying. Many people just don't enjoy flying. To that block of consumers, being branded as the safest is an asset that would cause them to develope loyalty to your brand, and DAL, IMHO, is the most perfectly poised carrier to develop such branding by bragging about higher pilot pay, etc.
Now granted, most people here know the training and work involved to get to even a regional airline seat, so this kind of stuff isn't going to get to most people here. But you have to realize that you feel safe in the right seat of a tin box with a student intent on digging your grave with your 150's fixed pitch prop! Many people worry about flying even commercial jets, and those people would put a premium on flying with an airline with which they felt more safe.
Certainly there's a limit to how much more they'd pay, but I'd say spending your ad dollars trying a campaign like this certainly couldn't hurt. It could only help to win you some of those ticket purchases when the customer sees AirTran at $140 and DAL at $175. And it would HAVE to be more effective than the current commercials spouting how they have more international destinations than anyone else. Again, NO ONE cares about that except DAL's competitor companies. The only route a passenger cares about is the one they intend to take next.
Get it? Maybe it wouldn't be enough to pull them out of bankruptcy, but I'm positive such a campaign would cause some consumers to be convinced that its worth a little extra to fly DAL.
Just my humble opinion,
Hi Heath
You make some good points but here is a quote from someone that knows a little be more than any of us on the realities of running an airline.
"In many industries, product differentiation provides a powerfull competitive advantage, as well as an effective barrier to entry. Established companies with strong brand identification and customer loyalty stemming from product differences, advertising presence, or customer-service superiority enjoy a distinct advantage over newcomers. yet price and schedule so heavily influence the purchasing behavior of airlines customers that brand identification becomes a secondary issue.
While customers may have a "favorable airline" more often than not they are willing to switch to another carrier for even small differences in departure time, or a few dollars' differences in price. This is, at list in part, because the duration of most flight is short, and there is a limit in the amount of meaningful product differentiation that can be accomplished in that time. This ready substitutability of one airlines' product for another's has a powerful influence on how each industry participant behaves. While each participant's actions make sense within its particular framework, the cumulative result is severe price instability for the industry as a whole"
By Robert L. Crandall
ex CEO of AA.
Bottom line is, in the aviation industry schedule and price are the major determinant on a customer decision to flight on airline A or airline B. not safety or experience.
At the end of the day an seat on a 737 on airline A or a seat on a 737 on airline B is still the same seat.
Schedule and frequency are king.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the "group think" mentality that some effective marketing can bust. All the airlines believe that they're dealing in a homogeneous product, so they are pricing and behaving that way. There has been NO effort at serious product differentiation. I'd challenge you to point to a single ad campaign that stresses that one company's planes are safer than another.
Now a good point was made, that I had considered, you really do put yourself on the line when you hang your brand on its safety. A crash or two and you're the whipping post of the media and late-night talk hosts. It would really hurt them. BUT, at that point, you'd be back to being a homogeneous milk product and could price accordingly.
Last point, many of you have posted something to the effect of "I wouldn't pay X extra for this," only to have someone else post "I would pay X for something else." This is KEY to the point. Everyone's different. This type of campaign won't work for everyone, none do. But, there is a substantial portion of the flying public, even the frequent business flyers, who are always a little nervous about flying. Many people just don't enjoy flying. To that block of consumers, being branded as the safest is an asset that would cause them to develope loyalty to your brand, and DAL, IMHO, is the most perfectly poised carrier to develop such branding by bragging about higher pilot pay, etc.
Now granted, most people here know the training and work involved to get to even a regional airline seat, so this kind of stuff isn't going to get to most people here. But you have to realize that you feel safe in the right seat of a tin box with a student intent on digging your grave with your 150's fixed pitch prop! Many people worry about flying even commercial jets, and those people would put a premium on flying with an airline with which they felt more safe.
Certainly there's a limit to how much more they'd pay, but I'd say spending your ad dollars trying a campaign like this certainly couldn't hurt. It could only help to win you some of those ticket purchases when the customer sees AirTran at $140 and DAL at $175. And it would HAVE to be more effective than the current commercials spouting how they have more international destinations than anyone else. Again, NO ONE cares about that except DAL's competitor companies. The only route a passenger cares about is the one they intend to take next.
Get it? Maybe it wouldn't be enough to pull them out of bankruptcy, but I'm positive such a campaign would cause some consumers to be convinced that its worth a little extra to fly DAL.
Just my humble opinion,
tonyw
Well-Known Member
You're talking about selling airline safety in a marketing campaign?
Well, how are you going to differentiate between the airlines on that? They are all damn safe. Very few crashes occur. When they do happen, they are huge news.
You can't sell someone on paying more for a "safer" airline when all of them are very, very, very safe.
There are other things to sell an airline on, but safety ain't one of them.
Well, how are you going to differentiate between the airlines on that? They are all damn safe. Very few crashes occur. When they do happen, they are huge news.
You can't sell someone on paying more for a "safer" airline when all of them are very, very, very safe.
There are other things to sell an airline on, but safety ain't one of them.
mpenguin1
Well-Known Member
Wooooooo, you can not use airline safety in a marketing campaign. The DOT (Department of Transportation) & the FAA will shut down that commercial the minute it makes it to the airwaves and would levy heavy fines for any airline that attempted to do so.
About the only thing that can be used for a marketing campaign would be seat pitch, IFE (Inflight Entertainment) and/or meal service & of course ticket pricing.
It is the position of the DOT that every US airline is safe to fly on.
About the only thing that can be used for a marketing campaign would be seat pitch, IFE (Inflight Entertainment) and/or meal service & of course ticket pricing.
It is the position of the DOT that every US airline is safe to fly on.
Heath
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
You're talking about selling airline safety in a marketing campaign?
Well, how are you going to differentiate between the airlines on that? They are all damn safe. Very few crashes occur. When they do happen, they are huge news.
You can't sell someone on paying more for a "safer" airline when all of them are very, very, very safe.
There are other things to sell an airline on, but safety ain't one of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you read my previous post, what I'm pitching is that they should play on the fact that yes, they have the highest paid pilots in the industry. They also have some of the most experienced pilots in the industry. Contrast this versus their low-cost competitor's hiring young-uns and ask "who do you want flying YOUR airplane?"
Similar to Michelin's "Because so much is riding on your tires" campaigns.
I'm not aware of any DOT regulations against stating that your pilots are more experienced. It doesn't state that other airlines aren't safe, maybe just less safe.
You're talking about selling airline safety in a marketing campaign?
Well, how are you going to differentiate between the airlines on that? They are all damn safe. Very few crashes occur. When they do happen, they are huge news.
You can't sell someone on paying more for a "safer" airline when all of them are very, very, very safe.
There are other things to sell an airline on, but safety ain't one of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you read my previous post, what I'm pitching is that they should play on the fact that yes, they have the highest paid pilots in the industry. They also have some of the most experienced pilots in the industry. Contrast this versus their low-cost competitor's hiring young-uns and ask "who do you want flying YOUR airplane?"
Similar to Michelin's "Because so much is riding on your tires" campaigns.
I'm not aware of any DOT regulations against stating that your pilots are more experienced. It doesn't state that other airlines aren't safe, maybe just less safe.
JaceTheAce
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know Tony, people'll drive across town to save $.05/gallon on gasoline. You figure after driving from Mesa to Glendale for gas, in traffic, and then waiting in a monster line, you ate up the cost advantage at the first couple of stop lights.
On talk radio, I heard a story of someone renting a Uhaul in AZ to drive to SAN to purchase a couch at Ikea on a 10% off sale.
I'm thinking, round trip Uhaul isn't all that cheap, plus driving time, plus gasoline, plus higher California state tax... Would have been worth it to purchase it locally, keep the tax revenue in the local economy and that 10% higher price and free delivery would have easily offset the Uhaul rental, drive time, gasoline and higher CA state tax.
[/ QUOTE ]
People are sheep....
[/ QUOTE ]
California does not have much higher sales tax... 7.75% - isn't North Dakota's just as high? like 7%?
[ QUOTE ]
You know Tony, people'll drive across town to save $.05/gallon on gasoline. You figure after driving from Mesa to Glendale for gas, in traffic, and then waiting in a monster line, you ate up the cost advantage at the first couple of stop lights.
On talk radio, I heard a story of someone renting a Uhaul in AZ to drive to SAN to purchase a couch at Ikea on a 10% off sale.
I'm thinking, round trip Uhaul isn't all that cheap, plus driving time, plus gasoline, plus higher California state tax... Would have been worth it to purchase it locally, keep the tax revenue in the local economy and that 10% higher price and free delivery would have easily offset the Uhaul rental, drive time, gasoline and higher CA state tax.
[/ QUOTE ]
People are sheep....
[/ QUOTE ]
California does not have much higher sales tax... 7.75% - isn't North Dakota's just as high? like 7%?
[ QUOTE ]
California does not have much higher sales tax... 7.75% - isn't North Dakota's just as high? like 7%?
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks to ole Mayor Daley and his budget crisis, sales tax in the city of Chicago is now going to be a whopping 9%!!
I don't think I'll be buying anything in the city anymore..........
California does not have much higher sales tax... 7.75% - isn't North Dakota's just as high? like 7%?
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks to ole Mayor Daley and his budget crisis, sales tax in the city of Chicago is now going to be a whopping 9%!!
I don't think I'll be buying anything in the city anymore..........
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Don't get me started on Daley. This guy needs to go away ASAP...
tonyw
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you read my previous post, what I'm pitching is that they should play on the fact that yes, they have the highest paid pilots in the industry. They also have some of the most experienced pilots in the industry. Contrast this versus their low-cost competitor's hiring young-uns and ask "who do you want flying YOUR airplane?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's say that I accept your premise here.
Well, then, what will they do about the routes they run as Delta Connection or United Express or American Eagle or Continental Express or US Airways Express?
Because they'd be lying there. The people there do not have as much experience.
And those pilots are just as safe.
I would put my family's life in the hands of the regional pilots here like FL270, FlyChicaga, mrivc, and eatsleepfly as readily as I would put their lives in the hands of Doug and flyover (before he retired) and the rest of the mainline pilots. The guys at the regionals do not have the time or compensation that Doug and flyover have, but my family would be just as safe.
Flyover, you happy? As much as you've been picking on me at AP, I'd still trust my family's life to you.
Well, if you read my previous post, what I'm pitching is that they should play on the fact that yes, they have the highest paid pilots in the industry. They also have some of the most experienced pilots in the industry. Contrast this versus their low-cost competitor's hiring young-uns and ask "who do you want flying YOUR airplane?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's say that I accept your premise here.
Well, then, what will they do about the routes they run as Delta Connection or United Express or American Eagle or Continental Express or US Airways Express?
Because they'd be lying there. The people there do not have as much experience.
And those pilots are just as safe.
I would put my family's life in the hands of the regional pilots here like FL270, FlyChicaga, mrivc, and eatsleepfly as readily as I would put their lives in the hands of Doug and flyover (before he retired) and the rest of the mainline pilots. The guys at the regionals do not have the time or compensation that Doug and flyover have, but my family would be just as safe.
Flyover, you happy? As much as you've been picking on me at AP, I'd still trust my family's life to you.
flyover
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Flyover, you happy? As much as you've been picking on me at AP, I'd still trust my family's life to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate it. And I'm not even current and my medical is expired!
Agree with you that using safety or flight time in advertising is big area to stay away from. I flew with many captains at Delta who made left seat in just a few years. Delta was doing it at Express during the big growth period. Besides my superstition that it is bad luck, I don't believe it resonates with the public at all.
Many years ago ALPA decided to make an issue of how much safer ALPA pilots were than non-union pilots. It ended badly and they have never tried it again.
Flyover, you happy? As much as you've been picking on me at AP, I'd still trust my family's life to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate it. And I'm not even current and my medical is expired!
Agree with you that using safety or flight time in advertising is big area to stay away from. I flew with many captains at Delta who made left seat in just a few years. Delta was doing it at Express during the big growth period. Besides my superstition that it is bad luck, I don't believe it resonates with the public at all.
Many years ago ALPA decided to make an issue of how much safer ALPA pilots were than non-union pilots. It ended badly and they have never tried it again.
Heath
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you read my previous post, what I'm pitching is that they should play on the fact that yes, they have the highest paid pilots in the industry. They also have some of the most experienced pilots in the industry. Contrast this versus their low-cost competitor's hiring young-uns and ask "who do you want flying YOUR airplane?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's say that I accept your premise here.
Well, then, what will they do about the routes they run as Delta Connection or United Express or American Eagle or Continental Express or US Airways Express?
Because they'd be lying there. The people there do not have as much experience.
And those pilots are just as safe.
I would put my family's life in the hands of the regional pilots here like FL270, FlyChicaga, mrivc, and eatsleepfly as readily as I would put their lives in the hands of Doug and flyover (before he retired) and the rest of the mainline pilots. The guys at the regionals do not have the time or compensation that Doug and flyover have, but my family would be just as safe.
Flyover, you happy? As much as you've been picking on me at AP, I'd still trust my family's life to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, I totally agree with you that they're ALL safe. This is about perception. No need to address the issue of connectors and subcontracts in a commercial. And like I said in a previous post, that type of commercial isn't going to get any traction with the types of people who frequent this board, precisely because we KNOW how qualified ALL the pilots are. But for most of the nervous flying public, this isn't the case and could easily be capitalized upon by a marketing-saavy company.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you read my previous post, what I'm pitching is that they should play on the fact that yes, they have the highest paid pilots in the industry. They also have some of the most experienced pilots in the industry. Contrast this versus their low-cost competitor's hiring young-uns and ask "who do you want flying YOUR airplane?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's say that I accept your premise here.
Well, then, what will they do about the routes they run as Delta Connection or United Express or American Eagle or Continental Express or US Airways Express?
Because they'd be lying there. The people there do not have as much experience.
And those pilots are just as safe.
I would put my family's life in the hands of the regional pilots here like FL270, FlyChicaga, mrivc, and eatsleepfly as readily as I would put their lives in the hands of Doug and flyover (before he retired) and the rest of the mainline pilots. The guys at the regionals do not have the time or compensation that Doug and flyover have, but my family would be just as safe.
Flyover, you happy? As much as you've been picking on me at AP, I'd still trust my family's life to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, I totally agree with you that they're ALL safe. This is about perception. No need to address the issue of connectors and subcontracts in a commercial. And like I said in a previous post, that type of commercial isn't going to get any traction with the types of people who frequent this board, precisely because we KNOW how qualified ALL the pilots are. But for most of the nervous flying public, this isn't the case and could easily be capitalized upon by a marketing-saavy company.
flyover
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I totally agree with you that they're ALL safe. This is about perception. No need to address the issue of connectors and subcontracts in a commercial. And like I said in a previous post, that type of commercial isn't going to get any traction with the types of people who frequent this board, precisely because we KNOW how qualified ALL the pilots are. But for most of the nervous flying public, this isn't the case and could easily be capitalized upon by a marketing-saavy company.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think there was a time when safety was an issue. Then we went through deregulation. Even airlines like Value Jet could survive incidents and accidents. Then on one day the public saw 4 jetliners flown intentionally into the ground, and they saw it again, and again, and again. And they came back to fly in record numbers. If this ever was a marketable commodity, (and there were several ad campaigns done many years ago along the lines of "experienced professionals") it isn't anymore.
Hey, I totally agree with you that they're ALL safe. This is about perception. No need to address the issue of connectors and subcontracts in a commercial. And like I said in a previous post, that type of commercial isn't going to get any traction with the types of people who frequent this board, precisely because we KNOW how qualified ALL the pilots are. But for most of the nervous flying public, this isn't the case and could easily be capitalized upon by a marketing-saavy company.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think there was a time when safety was an issue. Then we went through deregulation. Even airlines like Value Jet could survive incidents and accidents. Then on one day the public saw 4 jetliners flown intentionally into the ground, and they saw it again, and again, and again. And they came back to fly in record numbers. If this ever was a marketable commodity, (and there were several ad campaigns done many years ago along the lines of "experienced professionals") it isn't anymore.