Has pax aviation evolved at all since 1965? (No....!)

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Adn here we come once again to the whole point of the post...."the good ole days" I love it when a plan comes together....LOL

[JSACKS 0]

Right-on!I'll buy YOU a beer at the AVSIM fest in September too, mate!Cheers,JS

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

LOL, hold that thought because I can't make it. Yet once again I'll have to miss out.:-(

[JSACKS 0]

Hey, well, look on the bright side: ya won't have to fly in an overcrowded, overheated, subsonic toilet for 7+ hours.!!JS

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

haha, rgr that.

[Guest]

The advent of low cost carriers, competition at price level instead of service level brought on by a general tendency of customers to buy the cheapest instead of the best which started in the 1970s and continues to this day, and increasing calls for efficiency and capacity sparked by higher fuel prices and limited slot availability are the sole causes for the conditions we find in airliners today.2 of those are directly sparked by customers valueing price more than service, the third is more or less a derivative of that (if passengers didn't mind the price so much airlines would get away with higher prices brought on by packing less of them into a single aircraft, because passengers would be willing to pay more and there would be fewer of them who could afford those prices).So it IS all about money, and it's in general the customer who decided it would be that way.

[Guest DreamFleet]

Well, maybe the industry is not doing well, but I knew I should have bought American Airlines stock when it was down around $11-12 not long ago. Now it is in the mid $20s. Back in the 1960s we used to pay around $600 during peak season for a R/T coach ticket to MXP (Milan) on a TWA 707. Until the recent oil fiasco and fuel / ticket prices to Europe going up, it wasn't much more to get that same price in peak season just a couple years ago.Let me put that in perspective. In 1969 we paid around $600 R/T per person for that airline ticket to Milan. A new Cadillac Sedan DeVille used to cost around $7,000 back then (less without options), or 11.6 times the price.Or, my father used to spend a month on the Italian Riviera in northern Italy for 4 weeks. It used to cost us around $5000 for the month (including rental car and air fare).A new Cadillac today will cost around $40,000. However, the coach airline ticket to MXP does not cost $3448.Do the math. It's a whole different economy today. Now, has airline flying evolved? YES, it costs much less, and it is much safer, what else would you expect?Sleeper seats and Caviar in coach?I'm a bit younger, so my first international flight was in 1965. ;-)These days, at least domestically, I fly Continental. I check in online, 24 hours before the flight, assign myself the comfy, more leg room seats at the wing exits (yes, you can do that), show my Amex card with boarding pass and get into the Presidents club for free.Doesn't sound so bad to me!Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Unfortunatley that is part of the cause, yes. It's a downward spiral with no end in sight sadly.

[Guest jboweruk]

>>>I do think it is still a tragedy that Concorde is stuck in a>>museum. It WAS supposed to be the future of pax aviation in>>1968. >>Again, if you call it tragedy - your choice. An aircraft that>burned insane amount of fuel and was reserved for a few very>wealthy.>>>>>I read Nels Anderson's write-up of his flight recently in a>>Ford TriMotor that was built in 1929. Look how far things>>progressed between 1929 and 1969--and then look at what has>>happened between 1969 and 2006? Not much. Same type of>>plane, same type of mostly everything. Not much progress>from>>a pax point of view at all.>>Again, your interpretation of events. >>>I'm just sorry that not only is the state of the industry as>>horrible as it is, but that there also is nothing new or>>better to fly in since 1969. >>The industry is doing fine. >>Michael J.>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif>http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgAnd who set Concordes prices? Passengers, market driven prices as usual, when BA asked people what they thought a ticket on Concorde should cost they invariably at least doubled the actual price. So BA charged it, and the lady regularly flew at least (AT LEAST) 70% full most times. One ex captain said, he never knew less than 3/4 full, and they needed 50% to break even. Concorde needed an engine upgrade, nobody will deny that, and an avionics upgrade. But is it really so great that everybody can fly? When you consider the following I do think it's a tragedy:1/ aircraft are destroying the atmosphere, more planes=more destruction.2/ the skies are becoming so overcrowded that ATC can barely cope, in 10 years time at current levels of growth flying will no longer be safe.3/ more planes=more fuel use, fuel is running out, war will come out of that, then where you gonna fly to anyway with the whole world embroiled in a huge war for oil eh?

[michal 44]

>Doesn't sound so bad to me!I am in complete agreement with you Lou.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[JSACKS 0]

All of this discussion leads me to ask a question:Should they have de-regulated the US airline business? Was it better (for the pax) when we had a more regulated industry ?How is it that the airline industry overall has never been more than marginally profitable with only people such as Southwest capable of earning sustained and growing profits and profitability? Has it become a "Dutch auction"--a race to the bottom--largely because pax are apparently (and maybe really) unwilling to pay any more ?I feel that there is a connection between regulation and civility (comfort?). I don't see the shame in regulation (and nor do countless "free-marketers" in high places). I work in banking which is immensely heavily regulated in the US and this does not stop most banks in this country from generating stupendous profits each year as well as enabling countless billions of transactions to take place smoothly and providing customers with a vast choice of products and services at prices that clearly they can afford. Why is such a situation so impossible to achieve in the US pax aviation business?Because we deregulated the industry years ago.....?[The thing about the US experience, interestingly, is that now the spread of cheap, unregulated travel has spread to Asia and there is the very real prospect that over the next decade, the legendary service and comfort of great, global Asian airlines will become a thing of the past. This really makes me shudder (and depressed!).]Any views here?JS

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

You know, right now I really think it's a case of which came first? The chicken or the egg? LOLAs much as I hate to say I do think that some things are better off when regulated by the government. Look at the saudi's and their oil for example. I have heard their citizens get custom houses over there. In our state of Alaska, those residents get a certain amount back at tax time if I remember right because of the pipeline.Would we be in the same prediciment of high gas prices if we exported the oil we have sitting in the ground and above the ground for that matter? I think not.That's a little off base their but you get my drift.The airlines used to be a great place to work and they paid really good, not any more. Yes, Southwest has been the one shining example of making it work, but at the same time I believe their ramp agents only make about 8 bucks per hour.The only way to make this free economy system work is if everyone spends the money in order to keep it in constant ciruclation. Over the past 50 years or so that's been slowly dwindling down and now we're starting to really see the ramifications of it.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>Should they have de-regulated the US airline business? Was it>better (for the pax) when we had a more regulated industry ?absolutely they should have. the problem is that the government is STILL regulating the industry. United got a 2 year free pass government subsidy recently. NWA/Delta all are enjoying this now. how is that fair for American who has always avoided bankruptcy? would we be better with Eastern/Braniff/Pan Am still around, nope.>How is it that the airline industry overall has never been>more than marginally profitable with only people such as>Southwest capable of earning sustained and growing profits and>profitability? Has it become a "Dutch auction"--a race to>the bottom--largely because pax are apparently (and maybe>really) unwilling to pay any more ?you can FORCE pax to pay more which is what the industry is doing by reducing capacity. the industry is marginally profitable because it works on volume and its margins are razor thin. when everyone matches fares the revenue side is basically a fixed amount, but costs then become the focus and management pecks and pecks away until they get what they want in terms of labor costs, etc all the while rewarding themselves with stock options, etc (look at what the united folks did when they emerged from bankruptcy, THEY REWARDED THEMSELVES RATHER THAN THE WORKERS WHO LOST PENSIONS, ETC).>I feel that there is a connection between regulation and>civility (comfort?). I don't see the shame in regulation (and>nor do countless "free-marketers" in high places). I work in>banking which is immensely heavily regulated in the US and>this does not stop most banks in this country from generating>stupendous profits each year as well as enabling countless>billions of transactions to take place smoothly and providing>customers with a vast choice of products and services at>prices that clearly they can afford. Why is such a situation>so impossible to achieve in the US pax aviation business?you are wrong. it is our CULTURE now that has changed. people used to view flying as a privilege and dressed up, etc. now with today's busy society flying is another essential evil. a lot of people have done it and it is no big thing now. instead of suits, we get flip flops and tshirts.deregulation was needed because basically the big 4 domestically (American, United, Eastern, and TWA) dominated the CAB and were basically forcing them to hand over new routes to them. banking is no where near the regulations forced on carriers by the CAB and the government. did the government drive your banks interest rates or markets where your banks make their money? did they force your bank into where it can operate?i always wonder why mcdonalds/burger king/etc does not partner with an airline and sell burgers, etc on an airplane. it would not take up to much space and i think would work economically. >[The thing about the US experience, interestingly, is that now>the spread of cheap, unregulated travel has spread to Asia and>there is the very real prospect that over the next decade, the>legendary service and comfort of great, global Asian airlines>will become a thing of the past. This really makes me shudder>(and depressed!).]it isn't just flying, but all business that is reducing service, etc to maximize profits. walmart is the prime example. the market drives this. people are willing (as evidenced by record load factors) to put up with shoddy service as long as the price is right. price drives most decisions in this business (its relatively the same service of taking you from point a to :( even if you have a lot of ff miles with another airline.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Great points there CRJ.

[Guest]

Government interference is never good in the long run.Had there been no deregulation you'd have seen price increases in airline fares similar to those everywhere else where there's no real competition (and which to a degree we see in Europe where competition is strictly limited by governments controlling slots at airports and handing them out mainly to their national airlines and partners).As a result a ticket on KLM Amsterdam-New York-Amsterdam can cost you several times more than a ticket New York-Amsterdam-New York on KLM...A ticket Amsterdam-Birmingham-Amsterdam on KLM can cost you almost as much as a ticket Amsterdam-New York-Amsterdam depending on when you fly (some days you get far lower fees, that's when the pressure from the single low cost carrier flying the route once a day is highest).Your service however would be unlikely to be at the same level as it was in the 1960s. After all, with no competition to speak of why should airlines give service?The passengers wouldn't have a choice...