United to stop serving international coach meals!?

[derg]

I think the issue is incremental income. Say they sold X amount of tickets at Y price for a flight in December. The cost of doing business dramatically shoots up after X amount of tickets were sold so there's no opportunity for incremental income to defray the increased cost of the flight. Snatching away food service presents UAL with an opportunity for incremental income, hopefully which will help support the flight which is going to cost more money to complete.

In a business sense, I can "kinda" see it, but since the airlines are in the customer service business, it comes off as cheeseball. Especially in the international market where there's a lot of competition and, at least in Europe, Europeans have the fat loot to spend and have a large variety of choices in getting from point a to point b.

Hopefully, fingers crossed, that'll drive business over to my employer.

 

[N826AW]

A buddy of mine works for a major airline as a Financial Analyst. He started as a ramper, onto dispatcher, over to revenue management and now as senior analyst of special projects. He wrote up a piece for a newsgroup that he's a member of describing the ins and outs of yield, pricing, and revenue analysis. It was great because it spelled things out in layman's terms and explained how 'just raise prices all around' doesn't work.

I'm trying to get him to send me a copy to repost here because I found it educational. But the last time he distributed it he caught some heat from a SouthernJet pilot.

 

[Firebird2XC]

I went to a restaurant the other day and was incensed that they didn't fly my to Cleveland.


No wonder Bennigans is out of business...............much to the chagrin of Butters.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153471/?searchterm=butters


.

Bennigans sucked. I used to date a Bennigans bartender.
She didn't suck.






Then again, if she had, we might still be together!

HEY-OH! :yup:

 

[Barty]

Oh lordy the classic raise ticket prices response. Its not that simple. What do you look at when you buy a ticket period? You look at the bottom line and that's the price.

That would be true, except that they've heaped on so many fees and cut out so many services it has become impossible to accurately compare one airline's service to another.

Yes, people do look primarily at price, because unless you're flying 1st class, there is little that differentiates one airline from another these days. Generally, customer service sucks, any bright spots are of the effort of an individual trying to help someone out and not because that's the corporate policy to actually avoid shafting someone. Basically, air travel has become a commodity, therefore consumers are only willing to pay commodity prices.

However, I don't think I'm alone in saying that if the airlines are going to treat their service as a commodity item, then they could at least be up front about how much a ticket really costs and just lay it out there. If turns out that nobody is willing to fly at a given fare, then they'll either cut the flight entirely or look at their current business model and decide what needs to be done to make it profitable at a price people are willing to pay in significant numbers to be worthwhile.

 

[FlyingAccountant]

Ok. Explain to me why you can't raise ticket prices across the board?

I just flew Midwest out to LGA from MCI and back last weekend. Totally full aircraft both ways. The ticket prices were 15-20% more than the competition when I booked on Midwest. But the service is better and it was a direct flight. People WILL pay more!

As someone noted, it's illegal for one. For two, google the "Southwest effect".

As far as your Midwest flight, well, what you paid isn't what necessarily everyone else paid. And you also have no idea what kind of profit was made off of that flight, if any. Full airplanes don't necessarily equate to high yields(profits).

 

[mtsu_av8er]

I went to a restaurant the other day and was incensed that they didn't fly my to Cleveland.

:yup::yup::yup::yup::yup::yup::yup:

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

As someone noted, it's illegal for one. For two, google the "Southwest effect".

As far as your Midwest flight, well, what you paid isn't what necessarily everyone else paid. And you also have no idea what kind of profit was made off of that flight, if any. Full airplanes don't necessarily equate to high yields(profits).

DING DING DING!!!!! We have a winner.

If they can't fly a route for a profit, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING THE ROUTE or they should make changes to make it profitable. They should evaluate the profitable routes, the marginal routes, and the routes that absolutely kill them and readjust their gameplan accordingly.

 

[tonyw]

DING DING DING!!!!! We have a winner.

If they can't fly a route for a profit, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING THE ROUTE or they should make changes to make it profitable. They should evaluate the profitable routes, the marginal routes, and the routes that absolutely kill them and readjust their gameplan accordingly.

Or we could go back to the days of the CAB and we'd be fine.

The CAB would say, you can fly this route at this price and that would be that. No more trying to undercut your competition by a buck or two so that you show up first on Expedia.

I consider the air transport system to be similar to a utility. We tell utilities you can charge your customers x dollars for water, gas, electricity or whatever. So why not do it for the air transport system? It's just as important.

 

[wheelsup]

DING DING DING!!!!! We have a winner.

If they can't fly a route for a profit, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING THE ROUTE or they should make changes to make it profitable. They should evaluate the profitable routes, the marginal routes, and the routes that absolutely kill them and readjust their gameplan accordingly.

Due to the losses (potentially) that oil is now having on their operation airlines are in fact doing this, heck it's probably the first time in history that they are making some smart moves.

 

[JaceTheAce]

Ok. Explain to me why you can't raise ticket prices across the board?

...because it would be illegal.

 

[meyers9163]

Honestly and this is my thought only. The reason the airlines are in such trouble today is not due to SWA being able to get prices set for a barrel of oil. Rather its the fact we have the internet. The internet has forced airlines to lower prices and if it were not for that evil thing in my honest oppinion I think airlines would be better off. But that damn internet came about.

 

[wheelsup]

UAL has failed to differentiate it from US Airways, who has failed to differentiate itself (for the most part) from Northwest, who has failed to differentiate itself from Delta, etc. etc.

With the internet yes they all sort from left to right, but items bought on eBay also sort from lowest to highest. So why do you pay more for the same item from someone reliable? I do this all the time, I will pay more from a reputable source.

When I go to Target instead of Wal-Mart I knowingly pay more for the environment, slightly higher quality items, less cousins of Britney Spears, etc. However flying on pretty much any airline is a miserable experience, even worse than shopping at wal-mart. If you arrive on the same day you are doing well these days.

Blaming the internet is funny because it also provided quite a bit of the job growth (technology) that the airlines benefitted from in the form of increased business travel. A double edged sword.

 

[Barty]

Honestly and this is my thought only. The reason the airlines are in such trouble today is not due to SWA being able to get prices set for a barrel of oil. Rather its the fact we have the internet. The internet has forced airlines to lower prices and if it were not for that evil thing in my honest oppinion I think airlines would be better off. But that damn internet came about.

The internet has given people the ability to compare prices without having to make a dozen phone calls and hope that everyone they talk to is being honest about the fares they're quoting. That's about it.

Airlines made the choices to cut fares to the point where the route wasn't profitable on their own. Honestly, if some of the full fare airlines couldn't offer service at a competitive fare into some markets, they should have either changed their business model (best idea given today's climate) or pull out of that market. Continuing to run airplanes into certain airports just so that you can say "we can get you there!!" even though there's absolutely no way for you to make money doing it is stupid. That's one of many reasons that the hub and spoke system is inefficient and outdated. Airlines concentrate so many operations into certain airports that they've got to keep the aircraft moving out of those airports, even if it means routing an aircraft into a city that is swarming with discounters. SWAs system at least keeps their airplanes running between cities that they've proven they can make money at day in and day out.

 

[taildragger173]

If they can't fly a route for a profit, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING THE ROUTE or they should make changes to make it profitable. They should evaluate the profitable routes, the marginal routes, and the routes that absolutely kill them and readjust their gameplan accordingly.

Its not always that easy. Carriers might take a loss on a particular route but that flight contributes to the profitability of another market. For example, lets say that United takes a loss on MSP to DEN. If they cut that flight, they now cut the possibility of making money on those connections and might see leakage to other carriers (such as NWA out of MSP). Cutting MSP to DEN might make DEN to SAN unprofitable where it currently is profitable. Its very difficult to shrink into profitability.

If a route does not contribute beyond that flight with connections and an adjustment can not be made to make it profitable (retiming the flight, different equipment and so on) then it should be removed from the network.

As far re-regulating the industry is concerned, if we went back to the days of the CAB we'd see a much smaller industry meaning fewer jobs for all of us. As far as pricing is concerned Crandall at AA figured out how to sell half of the jet at a discount while the industry was regulated. He sold half of the jet as a charter effectively killing the charter airlines in this country. That really was the advent of modern day yield pricing.

 

[wheelsup]

That's one of many reasons that the hub and spoke system is inefficient and outdated.

Google "hub and spoke" and I think you'd be surprised which company actually developed it. Hint: It's a highly successful package delivery company.

Hub and spoke is actually the most efficient method to take lots of packages/people from multiple originations to multiple destinations.

even if it means routing an aircraft into a city that is swarming with discounters. SWAs system at least keeps their airplanes running between cities that they've proven they can make money at day in and day out.

US Airways runs planes into Manchester, which features a boatload of SWA flights. However SWA doesn't serve the airports that US Airways does, so US Airways can take a passenger from say Ashville, NC and bring them to Manchester, NH.

SWA cherry picks routes, if all the airlines switched to the SWA model only outlying airports in the major cities will be served, look at SWA's route structure, while it's large it's nothing when you compare it to even a small network carrier. Maybe that's what will happen, who knows, if the airlines keep contracting.

 

[flyboywbl]

Fly 1st Class. Free booze. The you'll forget all about the fact your ticket cost 2-8 times a Coach ticket. Also the flight will be shorter and the sturdiest, sorry, Flight Attendant, will be hotter. Just don't do what my uncle did and Detox on the plane an cause an emergency landing on his way to rehab.

Thats a funny story. At least when he tells it, it is. The rehab place told him to get loaded so that he would not detox. He sat in first class and passed out. The lady next to him complained that he reeked of booze so they through him off. He said he would just sleep and not bother any one but they still threw him off. Angry he made a drunken comment to the extent off "Well F You then, i hope this one goes down". Good thing this was pre 911 but still the TSA got involved and the Flight attendant said that my uncle claimed there was a bomb on board. Witnesses attested that he had not said there was a bomb but he was still to drunk to fly. Sure enough he sobers up enough for the next flight to detox on the plane and force an emergency landing.

"Looks like I picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue" -Airplane :bandit:


Any way i always wondered why airlines don't just breathalyze people when they are suspected of being intoxicated. I get a kick out of watching Airline and people denying they have not been drinking when they can barley stand.

Sorry i'm just board and rambling. Sick of studying for my MEI ride. Got enough here to start several threads. Sorry to hijack yours.

-Matt

 

[CrippleHawk]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2hssF7MnyXo&refer=home

That is OBSCENE...come on people....seriously??

They have decided not to do that for now. Which is a smart move. To even think that UAL management would think of a plan like that, makes me wonder if they are on crack...........OR just ####### stupid. Here is the link

http://www.boston.com/travel/blog/2008/09/united_to_keep.html

Also check this site out. Seriously GLen Tilton should step down

http://www.glenntilton.com/

Why am I Interested in this? Simply because if UAL goes down under. I will have to find another job . (I don't work for UAL but I work with 1 of their regional contractors)

I work at Dulles International 1 of their main International hubs.