Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cessnaflyer

Airlines vis-a-vis Passengers

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

What's the "proper" amount for an airline ticket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What's the "proper" amount for an airline ticket?One that is higher than cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it is cheaper to take an airplane some where then a bus then you know something is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it wrong for airfares to be less than bus fares - or indeed any other fares susch as railway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing, as long as you are making a profit. Profits are what make the business world go 'round and 'round...........take away profits and you take away the incentive to service the customers.It's all about the money.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why is it wrong for airfares to be less than bus fares - or indeed any other fares such as railway?" Because you cannot pull an airplane over to the side of a cloud. Safety is not cheap, remember,you get what you pay for:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed you can't pull over to the side of a cloud, but operating costs include much more than safety aspects and isn't a reason for air travel to be more expensive than other modes. The fact is budget airlines in Europe have deveoped a very efficient (financially) business model by abandoning the dreadful practices of the traditional airlines - that's why many of the latter are in financial difficulties. Rail fares in the UK are sky high despite government subsidy - but that's because it is an inefficient operationg with little real competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Indeed you can't pull over to the side of a cloud, but>operating costs include much more than safety aspects and>isn't a reason for air travel to be more expensive than other>modes. The fact is budget airlines in Europe have deveoped a>very efficient (financially) business model by abandoning the>dreadful practices of the traditional airlines - that's why>many of the latter are in financial difficulties. Rail fares>in the UK are sky high despite government subsidy - but that's>because it is an inefficient operationg with little real>competition.You cannot compare European airfares to US Domestic ones. US Domestic carriers average stage lengths are usually double what the European ones are.The problem is simply the fact that the internet and the LCC's have finally removed pricing power from Legacies. The legacies simply bleed cash now because they price to compete with the LCC's. It doesn't help when start ups like Skybus and Go! flood the market with cheap seats on the backs of their cheap labor. Also, the US Govt. subsidizes Delta, US Airways x2, Continental x2, NWA, United, etc through the bankruptcy process. This simply allowed them to dump debt and slash employee benefits and wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem is simply the fact that the internet and the LCC's have finally removed pricing power from Legacies."That's not a problem - it's a good thing. It's put pricing power back where it belongs with the consumer by taking it from the airlines. The airlines loved the old days when they operated cosy cartels. At one time only two carriers were allowed on the London-Paris route and they pooled their revenue. More recently, before 1 April this year, only British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, United and American Airlines could offer direct flights from Heathrow to the US because of cosy cartel agreements. you refer to cheap labour - how do you define that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>That's not a problem - it's a good thing. It's put pricing>power back where it belongs with the consumer by taking it>from the airlines. The airlines loved the old days when they>operated cosy cartels. At one time only two carriers were>allowed on the London-Paris route and they pooled their>revenue. More recently, before 1 April this year, only British>Airways, Virgin Atlantic, United and American Airlines could>offer direct flights from Heathrow to the US because of cosy>cartel agreements. IT IS THE EXACT PROBLEM.They are simply dumping capacity already onto an already filled to capacity market further driving prices down. It wasn't cosy "cartel" arrangements wrt to international routes, but government treaties.What Go! did to Aloha was borderline criminal in its price fixing. The "market" in aviation is a "myth". There is no FREE market. It is a price fixing scheme which the larger carriers match extremely low fares to try and save market share. The airlines CAN NOT control themselves.And YES cheap labour from the startups is a FACTOR. Take Allegiant for example versus US Airways out of LAS. Allegiant has ZERO pilots/fa's/mechanics on 5 year vacation, benefits, pay, etc. But hey, US Airways got to be subsidized by the US taxpayer TWICE in the last 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What Go! did to Aloha was borderline criminal in its price fixing. IIRC Aloha was involved in trying to squeeze out Pacific Wings, so it's a two-way street.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments entered into those treaties under pressure from the airlines involved - the governments didn't think them up all by themselves. When it was proposed to change the treaties those airlines complained bitterly.Why shouldn't a low cost budget airline not offer lower fares than the legacy carriers? If the legacy carriers can't match those fares then they should get out of the business like any other uncompetitive firm.I've no doubt cheap labour is a factor but wht's wrong with cheap labour - apert from the fact unions don't like it?I gree that the the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise an airline - it should be left to sink or swim on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Governments entered into those treaties under pressure from>the airlines involved - the governments didn't think them up>all by themselves. When it was proposed to change the treaties>those airlines complained bitterly.>>Why shouldn't a low cost budget airline not offer lower fares>than the legacy carriers? If the legacy carriers can't match>those fares then they should get out of the business like any>other uncompetitive firm.>>I've no doubt cheap labour is a factor but wht's wrong with>cheap labour - apert from the fact unions don't like it?>>I gree that the the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise an airline ->it should be left to sink or swim on its own.Do you live in the UK? If so, why not allow more immigrants in to keep wages down and allow the British economy to grow? It's no different over here. Non-cabotage language has been in place for awhile because aviation is a "national security matter".If the companies can properly "market" their product then DO NOT hamper the workers rights and allow us to properly strike and not be subject to the antiquated RLA (again under the ruse of national security). It is not a two way street.Successful low cost carriers are a rarity in the US domestic market. Most bleed so much initially that they are gone in a heartbeat. Others were specifically setup to circumnavigate labor contracts (New York Air for instance). It's not only their cheap labor, but the government also robbing from the rich (AA and United) to pay for the poor (JetBlue): AA/UA were REQUIRED to give up THEIR slots at ORD due to "congestion" only to have uncle sam give them to JetBlue. This isn't fair competition. The legacies are no better as they simply fall into their "market share" trap and further tap into their employees pockets. They cannot keep doing this forever.European airlines are now putting 250hr wonderkunds into the right seats of some large airplanes (like that chick who almost crashed the airbus for Lufthansa). This is where your cheap labor and a loss of "professionalism" will lead you to. Do you want "cheap" labor upon an engine failure or for that engine retrofit? Cheaper is not always better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites