Super Savers and other nonsense.

Post #54,536 by mmoffitt 10/2/02 4:44:59 PM Reply	Super Savers and other nonsense. >>...(there were no "super savers" back in the day) Um, yes there were "super savers" in the "bad old days" they were called "red eye's". >>"Back in the day" the airlines distinguished themselves by being the only guy >> in town. WTF? You actually think there are more major carriers now? What are you, a toddler?
Post #54,541 by admin 10/2/02 5:05:53 PM 10/2/02 5:11:04 PM Reply	Re: Super Savers and other nonsense. Um, yes there were "super savers" in the "bad old days" they were called "red eye's". Not the same thing. There has been an ENORMOUS fare proliferation since deregulation. Back then, there were maybe 5 fare types, and everyone had the same fare. Nowadays, you can at times pull up a good 25(!) or more separate fare types for a single seat -- F, O, B, M, Q, Q12R, Q14NR, Q14NRX, Q14NRX8, etc. ad nauseum -- and this from ONE carrier. Each of these fare types has a different price, different restrictions, different combinability. This is from yield management (and mismanagement, as Bill points out). Trust me, fares these days are extremely complex as compared to what they used to be (I have a particular knowledge of this fact that few in the IT industry do, incidentally). Domestic fares a few years ago had gotten to a point where some domestic trips were actually harder to compute than an international trip (before intl. changed), and international at that point was considered impossible to properly calculate without a specially trained agent. [edit: added below] Also, there are now Web fares, many of which cannot be used (or even seen) in the CRS that the agents use. And, you may have different web fares based on which web site you are looking at: Orbitz, Expedia, or say Northwest's own web site. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Oct. 2, 2002, 05:11:04 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #54,598 by mmoffitt 10/2/02 11:06:00 PM Reply	Clarification. Your point is well taken and I misinterpretted Beep's post. I stand corrected. The "red eye's" were cheaper is all I meant. To be sure, deregulation has caused untold problems, unnecessary complexity, fewer choices, etc. Your post is yan example of [tongue in cheek] "how much better things are now that the airline industry is de-regulated". bcnu, Mikem
Post #54,544 by bepatient 10/2/02 5:18:19 PM Reply	Route restrictions Pre-deregulation routes were restricted. There may be less carriers now...but they compete in more markets than they used to. There are remnants of that era left in certain airports under the guise of "slot restrictions"...giving airlines control of the terminal gates and limiting access to new entrants. O'Hare and LaGuardia are 2 such airports. No I'm not a pup. It has nothing to do with the number of carriers...it has everything to do with route competition...which is drastically higher now. [link\|http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html\|For example, between 1979 and 1988 American Airlines increased the number of domestic airports it served from 50 to 173, and United Airlines from 80 to 169, both without major benefit of mergers. As of February 1992 a traveler between Boston and Phoenix could choose among six airlines; in 1977 there were only two. Again, back in 1979 only 27 percent of all passengers traveled on routes served by three or more competitors; by 1988 more than 55 percent enjoyed that kind of choice.] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #54,599 by mmoffitt 10/2/02 11:09:09 PM Reply	Little cities lost out. I think you'd concede that point, but if you want me to pull the data out, I'd be happy to. I'll grant you that there are now 4 airlines to choose from out of major (Class B airspace) airports. Will you grant me that there are fewer, more expensive flights out of the (many more) Class C airports? If not, lemme know and I'll gladly pull the data for you ;-) bcnu, Mikem
Post #54,659 by bepatient 10/3/02 11:31:21 AM Reply	Concede loss of frequency. But then again...the class C airport I was in had no business landing DC-9s (which were mandated) to load 8 - 12 passengers. Now they are served by an "Express" carrier...flying 25 seaters. They actaully fly more often though...even though cumulatively the airport has less inventory available. (2 100 passenger dc-9s versus 4 25 passenger Crowne 200s). Will admit, though, that my little WV airport is not the norm for frequency of service increase. Other airports that I have used did see reductions from 3 or 4 to one or 2 flights per day. As for fares...in real terms I would bet that these are still lower, on average, to an established mix of destinations. If you have data contradicting this...feel free to provided it...since I've not seen it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!