We can't raise ticket prices because people won't fly

mrivc211

Well-Known Member
Does everyone remember this line from years past? Ok, What I'd like to know is in the last 6 months when oil rose to 150/barrell and all the carriers had no choice but to raise fares, did people stop flying?

No. Of course not.


So why did it take oil going to 150/barrell for the airlines to raise fares? Had they raised fares before the hike, they would have been able to operate profitably. Fares should have come up even higher as oil rose.

This just proves that it had nothing to do with sustainability, and everything to do with mgmt not wanting to take care of their employees.

OK, rants over.
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Glad you saw the light.

Also be happy the great defender of Yield Managers and Pricers is no long able to access the website.
 

fly8slep

New Member
did people stop flying?

No. Of course not.

.
They can't raise the prices because there are about 632 airlines in the U.S. Therefore keeping you employed. If there was only UA and AA and maybe even SWA prices would be around $600 for LA to NY.
 

Customx

Well-Known Member
If there was only UA and AA and maybe even SWA prices would be around $600 for LA to NY.

What would be wrong with charging $600? That's what a typical ticket costs here in Korea for the same distance and time. A two hour flight to Tokyo runs about $350-500 and people here don't complain about that.
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
I don't think airlines understand what kind of pricing power they really have.

People don't fly because they enjoy it. If they do, they're idiots and need to be taken out back and shot.

They fly because it is the only way they can get where they need to get quickly enough.

I still fly enough to make premium passenger status on United. But I don't do it for fun.

I do it because it's the only way for me to get to Alaska with enough time to actually do something when I am there. I do it because it's the only way for me to get to Colorado to do some skiing. I do it because it's the only way for me to head out west and enjoy America's Finest City. I do it because if I want to go to a friend's wedding (you know who you are) I can't do it any other way.

When you've got a product like that, you've got pricing power.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, if you don't make the first page of Expedia, they won't book you.

What if all the other airlines have no seats? With record load factors, that's certainly close to the truth right now.
 

jspeed87

Well-Known Member
The smartest way for airlines to run is charge more money. People are still going to fly.They have no other option. Thats like $6 hotdogs at a ballgame, everyone still buys it. That being said, they should add more luxury and comfort. That will make everyone happy even the Pilots and FA's. Increase their wages too. Make a structured pay system for pilots based on experience not senority.
 

E_Dawg

Moderator
To use the LA to NY example, 2792miles = $435 in GAS alone, assuming a very generous 25mpg.

That, and 40hrs of driving time... assuming a very generous 70mph average speed.

Not counting the time and $$ for the hotels you'll have to sleep at.


So why is something that gets you there faster and (arguably) more comfortably less expensive?
 

jet-dreams

Well-Known Member
I might not know what I am talking about here...
I seems to me that less people are flying today than were a year ago... Am I wrong?
 

teetee

New Member
As a person that flies the airlines occassionally, I have to say that I will just plan a vacation closer to home if airfare is at a price I can't afford. If I have a budget of $1000 for an entire vacation for my family, I have to stay in that budget. If I have a budget of $3000, I stay in that budget. I think a lot of people are that way, it all depends on budget. There have been many times we haven't been able to afford to fly or drive a long distance, so we go to a location closer to home. For business travel, it is on the companies dime.

The airlines shouldn't be taking a loss because I am riding on the plane. I can plan a vacation without an airplane...heck when I was growing up flying across the country for a vacation was a treat not a standard. I am riding it, I should pay in some way (fly on sky miles and trueblue points a lot). I do think that if they raise the price to the actual cost to fly you there, they should allow you your luggage, at least a snack and a beverage for free...no more of this $2.00 for a $0.50 snack and $25 for the first bag checked.

For the business travelers, if companies don't want to fork over the money for a flight, then they need to use technology how it has evolved and do web conferences and things like that.

It only makes the economy worse having a company taking a loss cause they don't want to charge a passenger the true cost of getting them from point A to point B. Oh, it would also help if they could convince the stupid TSA to change some of the pointless procedures. They would be able to raise their rates with even fewer complaints if that could accomplish that one.
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Evil Landlord Capitalist
I might not know what I am talking about here...
I seems to me that less people are flying today than were a year ago... Am I wrong?
We had the highest load factor in our company's history last month. I think it was something like 87.5%. It's dropped off for September, but that's normal every Sep-Oct. Those are some of the slowest airline travel months of the year. We'll probably still pull in records for those months, though.
 

Barty

Well-Known Member
To use the LA to NY example, 2792miles = $435 in GAS alone, assuming a very generous 25mpg.

That, and 40hrs of driving time... assuming a very generous 70mph average speed.

Not counting the time and $$ for the hotels you'll have to sleep at.


So why is something that gets you there faster and (arguably) more comfortably less expensive?
It has almost always made more sense to fly in those situations, unless you're on a family vacation that involves making multiple stops in-between, of course.

What DOESN'T make sense are these sub-100 mile hops, particularly ones that originate from a busy terminal such as Atlanta. There are flights to-from MCN, CSG and CHA into Atlanta every day. Why?? For what most airlines charge for these flights, they're either losing a ton of money just to fill the seats (not that they fly anything larger than an RJ out of these places anyway) or charging people out the nose. I know it would absolutely kill some of those airports to lose the traffic but I'm willing to bet even at Atlanta, you can pick up a rental car and drive to any of those locations faster than waiting for the connection. I guess if you lived in one of those cities, it would change the perspective somewhat, but I just can't see the purpose of continuing service from a business standpoint.
 

Firebird2XC

Well-Known Member
The reasons nobody wanted to raise prices was because every management group in the industry was playing chicken.

Who can bleed the longest and not fall down?

Now that a few carriers have 'bled out', somebody will snap up the vacated profitable routes with assets from other areas marked for "capacity reduction".

Watch *both*of management's hands.
 

skydog

New Member
So the airlines should charge more so they can: 1) offer more services, and 2) pay you more. As a consumer, I'd rather just pay less and do without the "services."
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Evil Landlord Capitalist
It has almost always made more sense to fly in those situations, unless you're on a family vacation that involves making multiple stops in-between, of course.

What DOESN'T make sense are these sub-100 mile hops, particularly ones that originate from a busy terminal such as Atlanta. There are flights to-from MCN, CSG and CHA into Atlanta every day. Why?? For what most airlines charge for these flights, they're either losing a ton of money just to fill the seats (not that they fly anything larger than an RJ out of these places anyway) or charging people out the nose. I know it would absolutely kill some of those airports to lose the traffic but I'm willing to bet even at Atlanta, you can pick up a rental car and drive to any of those locations faster than waiting for the connection. I guess if you lived in one of those cities, it would change the perspective somewhat, but I just can't see the purpose of continuing service from a business standpoint.
Those routes aren't designed for O & D traffic, they're designed for connections. Someone trying to get from ORD to MCN, for example. Yes, the leg from ATL to MCN is very short, but ATL is just serving as the hub to make the connection. The passenger isn't actually only traveling that short distance.
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
There are flights to-from MCN, CSG and CHA into Atlanta every day.

Ask how many people on those flights started in ATL. It'll be a VERY, VERY small percentage. Most of those passengers originated in another city and changed planes in ATL. Makes no sense to fly from MEM-TUP on a Saab when you can drive it in under two hours, but the flight's almost always full. Why? Those people that live in TUP don't have direct flights to places like New York, Orlando or San Francisco.
 
Top