Post #53,917
9/30/02 8:37:02 AM
|
Wonder if any "Free Marketers" have noticed...
that the airline industry is one of the BEST examples of how "de-regulation" is a bad idea (admittedly, the electricity industry is a more recent example).
Back in the bad, old, un-Murican, un-Bizness days when the airline industry WAS regulated, there were around 17 major carriers. The price difference between flying out of Fort Wayne, Indy and Dayton to LAX was virtually nothing. More competition, more even-handed fairs and schedules, more airplane orders creating more jobs and yes, Virginia, safer skies (the years immediately following de-regulation were among commercial aviation's worst in terms of fatal accidents - (aside: of course that hero of the Right, Uncle Ronnie, had something to do with the worst years in commercial aviation's history when he fired all ATC workers). Oh, and let's not forget perhaps the most important issue to the "customers":
Because airline fees were fixed from point to point, how did an Eastern, a Pan Am, a TWA, a Delta, a United, an American, a PSA, a Piedmont, etc. distinguish itself? By the level of service provided to its customers. People back then used to select an airline for how well they were treated, the configuration of seating on their airplanes, their on-time rating, even (believe it or not) how good the food and movies were in-flight. In general, how well they treated their passengers as human beings determined how well or poorly an airline did.
Thank Goodness we got rid of that communist inspired regulation, things are so much better now.
bcnu,
Mikem
|
Post #53,931
9/30/02 11:08:13 AM
|
Check the fares.
Their >real< levels are much lower...allowing more people access to the flights...(there were no "super savers" back in the day)
The problem with the major airlines is simple...they cannot manage their way out of a wet paper sack...they've allowed their organized labor to rape them (ever wonder why the steel industry vanished??)....they've added hundreds of unecessary flights between major markets, they've lost control of their pricing model...and the list can continue incessantly.
So...what has been the airlines response to crisis? Cut the legs out from their distribution model (agencies sell 3/4s of all airline tickets and now are compensated $0 for doing so), undercut their own revenue by offering "web deals", cry about "merchant fees"...all creating roughly a billion in savings which they promptly hand to the unions...and the unions take it...threaten further work actions and blissfully ignore the fact that they will ALL be unemployed withing 3 years if they don't give back on work rules (sub 30 hour workweeks, forced payhikes for entry level pilots, call center staff at triple the market rate and the inability to reprimand front line staff for providing crap service)...and with all of this effort you have Delta crying about "lost revenue" when air marshalls sit in 1st class (when out of 12 seats...maybe 1 of them was paid for)
Southwest, JetBlue and several other startups seem to have figured it out. Control labor costs, give the customer the correct expectation, pick markets wisely and place the correct amount of inventory in those markets...then fulfill on your commitment. Do these things...and you make money.
I, for one, think the government may need to step in on pricing to >force< the carriers to set prices according to some logical formula based upon cost...because the current "yield management" pricing places a 0 value on the seat...and the airlines have consistently (and self-destructingly) managed their yield right into the basement.
"Back in the day" the airlines distinguished themselves by being the only guy in town. Service was higher "back in the day" across all companies...and service now sucks across all industry...>that< is not an airline specific problem.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #53,965
9/30/02 12:38:02 PM
|
um...I note that
you ignore mmoffits central point - that while service used to be higher, safety was ALSO higher.
Ignoring that - of course airlines are currently mismanaged. The top execs grew out of middle managers that learned over the course of their careers that service was the key to the airline and that they could ignore cost factors. (They're slowly learning otherwise now - witness Delta Express.)
Unfortuately, airlines have also tried to skimp on maintenance costs in an effect to beat the bottom dollar. (Witness ValuJet, et al.) They're slowly learning.
Back to the original topic: regardless of whether or not it's mismanagement, the airline passenger is going to treated far worse now than ever before.
In large part it will because of airline security - take a look at Israel's airlines if you want to see what airline security really requires. (IIRC) It's like a 4 hour arrive before flight - just to process through the security. (Makes our airlines look downright friendly.)
The other aspect of passenger treatment is going to be the economic model. I know of only one airline (Midwest, iirc) that attempts to differentiate itself via service to the customer. Southwest is a prime example of a profitable airline that differentiates itself via treating the customer like cattle. (And, like it or not, the vast majority of the public prefers lower fairs to higher service.)
Not that I expect our ruling class to stoop to our level, however. Fractional airlines are already becoming a preferred choice among them.
|
Post #53,988
9/30/02 2:31:24 PM
|
Safety is regulated.
So you can ignore that aspect of "deregulation". No carrier "skimps" on maintenance...or they are shut down...even if the "skimping" is unproven allegation.
ValuJet allowed illegal cargo onto a plane and that plane crashed.
The more recent issue of tailscrew wear is a problem with the aircraft...not maintenance.
At any rate...this [link|http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n3/reg14n3-mckenzie.html|study] and the continuation of the lower accident rates shown [link|http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table5.htm|here] would seem to indicate that airline travel is actually safer after deregulation.
As far as service...I again ask you to look at the customer's expectation. Is it realistic? Is it realistic to view the seat as a commodity...and only expect to pay commodity pricing...yet demand more service from a network carrier than a "low cost" carrier?
Is the simple fact that network carriers offer more point to point service something that should be considered "higher service levels".
And again...the non-network carriers can fire someone on the spot for providing poor service...the network carriers cannot. They can't even reprimand the person. They have no authority over that employee at all. These are the workrules that the idiot managers of the airlines let through when they "thought" they were being smart and when in reality they were benefitting from lower jet fuel prices.
So...you may >expect< a higher level of service from a network carrier...unfortunately they are the ones who are least capable of actually providing it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,032
9/30/02 5:42:14 PM
|
Where is your tongue?
I hope that when you stated: Is the simple fact that network carriers offer more point to point service something that should be considered "higher service levels". That it was firmly in your cheek. jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #54,035
9/30/02 5:54:14 PM
|
Reality check.
No...it was not.
Part of the "service" is the product offered. Its not just "customer" service.
If you want to get from Topeka to Rochester...you cannot do it without using a network carrier.
That is a service. And it is a service that carries a cost. A cost that ensures that a network carrier will never be able to compete with a low cost carrier in individual markets.
The mismanagement here is that the airlines fail miserably to make and market this point...and fail miserably at passing this cost through to tickets...especially low end super saver tickets...which in many cases involve carrying the passenger farther out of his/her way to get to the final destination.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,298
10/1/02 12:32:04 PM
|
Lots of trouble with posting...
so I'll go with the short, short version. :-)
Valujet did carry hazardous materials which is what caused the crash.
However, during the investigation of the crash maintenance records were checked and they were found to have violated numerous regulations. (Same thing happened with the Alaska airline.)
I'd also point out accidents per flighthour is level or climbing slightly.
As for the rest, if you want to blame the unions, be my guest.
But the economic model is a commodity market and passengers have shown that they prefer lower fairs to service regardless of whether it's a network carrier or not -- and unions aren't involved in that equasion.
|
Post #54,388
10/1/02 10:03:46 PM
|
Re: Lots of trouble with posting...
However, during the investigation of the crash maintenance records were checked and they were found to have violated numerous regulations. (Same thing happened with the Alaska airline.) Maintenance violations were not implicated in either crash. Both carriers were grounded until records were updated. I'd also point out accidents per flighthour is level or climbing slightly. And they're still much much better now than pre-deregulation. And...are the 4 ill-fated Sept flights in that calculation? As for the rest, if you want to blame the unions, be my guest. Are you actually >reading< my posts? I'm putting the blame on management. Unions serve a purpose...but in the case of airlines they have priced themselves out of competitive range. They will either make serious concessions...or they will put their members out of work...permanently. But the economic model is a commodity market and passengers have shown that they prefer lower fairs to service regardless of whether it's a network carrier or not -- and unions aren't involved in that equasion. They most certainly >are< involved in that...because the non-network carriers are >non< union. So in order to meet the market expectation...one of 2 things must occur...the network carriers get their costs in line with non network carriers (union bash...highly unlikely) or the carriers change the market expectation. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,433
10/2/02 9:14:35 AM
|
Sigh..bepatient...you're being obtuse.
I just don't know whether or not your doing it on purpose or not.
>>However, during the investigation of the crash maintenance records were checked and they were found to have violated numerous regulations. (Same thing happened with the Alaska airline.)
>Maintenance violations were not implicated in either crash. Both carriers were grounded until records were updated.
I didn't say that either crash was the cause of bad maintenance -- rather I said that because of the economic model that the carriers were SKIMPING on maintenance. The crashes caused a review of the records and revealed that they were skimping on maintenance.
I'd also point out accidents per flighthour is level or climbing slightly.
And they're still much much better now than pre-deregulation. And...are the 4 ill-fated Sept flights in that calculation?
Sigh - first, look at the chart again. 0.297, 0.296, and 0.312 are much better than 0.241, 0.315, 0.196? Or are you only looking at the fatal accidents? If you read the chart - yes, the sept 11th passengers are included - as are the passengers in the flights of years 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1994 (other years where an illegal act was responsible for an accident.) (However - that was all more moffitt's point than mine)
>But the economic model is a commodity market and passengers have shown that they prefer lower fairs to service regardless of whether it's a network carrier or not -- and unions aren't involved in that equasion.
>>They most certainly >are< involved in that...because the non-network carriers are >non< union. So in order to meet the market expectation...one of 2 things must occur...the network carriers get their costs in line with non network carriers (union bash...highly unlikely) or the carriers change the market expectation.
so, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're arguing that if the major airlines (networks) handle their union problems (if effect, get their costs under control), they'll provide a higher level of service? And you cite Southwest as an example? <Chuckle> - you must have a different definition of service than I do. I do not consider Southwest as a example of an airline offering high service.
|
Post #54,437
10/2/02 9:54:08 AM
|
Really? Differing definitions I suppose.
Safety is regulated. Carriers found to be in violation are grounded. Have a problem with a carriers maintenance..how about making sure the FAA inspection teams do their job (a point made in both the Alaska and VJ situations...# of inspectors at these carriers was inadequate and far lower than at the >network< carriers.
Also...the 2 airlines cited would both be considered >low cost< carriers...so you >could< draw the conclusion that we should not allow new market entrants...because they have statistically poorer maintenance. (nudge nudge)
On the statistics...the chart is all post deregulation. The numbers are much worse further back in time (almost double)
==================
On service.
What is your definition of >superior< airline service...cashews instead of pretzels? Most people consider on time performance, price, and staff helpfulness as service provided...all areas where SW excel...
If you want to add preferred seating, dinner, bigger seats, free drinks...well now you're talking 1st class on a network carrier...and if you want it...pay for it...or fly enough to get upgrades. I've had fine service provided to me by UA, US and NW all within the past 6 weeks. I get upgrades and I pay the higher prices.
Allowing direct control of the staff at the point of service >will< improve the service levels provided.
Example A - Employee is in a bad mood...knows that she cannot be fired for rudeness...
Example B - Employee is in a bad mood...knows that if she is rude to people she will get fired...
Which one do you think will be nicer to you?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,520
10/2/02 3:23:47 PM
|
Chuckle...
Safety is regulated. Carriers found to be in violation are grounded. Have a problem with a carriers maintenance..how about making sure the FAA inspection teams do their job (a point made in both the Alaska and VJ situations...# of inspectors at these carriers was inadequate and far lower than at the >network< carriers.
so Valujet weren't skimping on maintenance - they just didn't have enough FAA regulators to catch them? Yet, if Valujet wasn't skimping on maintenance, what could the FAA regulators have caught them for? this is getting surreal. (And it's no longer worth debating with you - if you want to claim that there aren't economic incentives for skimping on maintenance - so be it.)
Most people consider on time performance, price, and staff helpfulness as service provided...all areas where SW excel...
If you want to add preferred seating, dinner, bigger seats, free drinks...well now you're talking 1st class on a network carrier...and if you want it...pay for it...or fly enough to get upgrades. I've had fine service provided to me by UA, US and NW all within the past 6 weeks. I get upgrades and I pay the higher prices.
I wish you well on purchasing your 1st class seats on Southwest and Delta Express.
|
Post #54,537
10/2/02 4:46:38 PM
|
You seem to be missing points on purpose.
No purpose debating the maintenance issue any further. Those 2 carriers skimped. There were incentives..and they were allowed to get away with it because the FAA was understaffed.
They got caught. They were grounded. Neither case contributed to the crash as far as the NTSB was concerned. So we're debating a non-issue.
The fact remains that air travel is safer post that pre-deregulation. It might be on a high currently...but that post deregulation high is still roughly half that of pre.
As far as the 1st class seats (not purchased...FF levels allow it)...if I could fly SW or Delta Express I would...unfortunately they don't fly here...and they don't go where I need them to go. I suppose I could drive 2 hours to catch a plane that would connect me 3 times to get to my destination...but that wouldn't meet my service expectation...now would it?
What...exactly...is >your< point...except to disagree with mine?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,549
10/2/02 5:39:13 PM
|
Fair enough - one last post
Point:
Your argument appears to be that since the crashes of ValuJet and Alaska were not maintenance related there isn't an issue. Merely up the number of inspectors and the problem goes away.
My argument was that deregulation caused a economic incentive to skimp on maintenance and that some had tried. Period, that's it. That's all I was saying.
Point:
Your argument appears to be that safety was increased since deregulation.
Frankly, this wasn't my argument and I shouldn't have gotten involved in it. I don't have the data or the specs to argue it (nor the desire).
If you want to fly first class on SW or Delta Express, be my guest.
But, last I checked, neither service offered it.
And that is my ultimate point - and it has nothing to do with unions or airline mismanagement.
|
Post #54,579
10/2/02 9:21:28 PM
|
Well that was easy.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,638
10/3/02 9:17:11 AM
|
Coming from this end, however ...
[I]f I could fly SW or Delta Express I would...unfortunately they don't fly here...and they don't go where I need them to go. I suppose I could drive 2 hours to catch a plane that would connect me 3 times to get to my destination...but that wouldn't meet my service expectation...now would it? But coming from Cleveland to visit the folks in Philly, I'll take Southwest to Baltimore and rent a car there. I save enough on airfare to pay for the care for a three-day visit, which is more convenient than asking my parents to borrow the car. (Like staying with your parents for three days isn't already enough to make you feel like you're 16 again.) ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #54,657
10/3/02 11:24:08 AM
|
If you're coming over a weekend...
...I would double-check...because usually don't pay more than $200 (usually less) to go in the opposite direction...SW usually is about 75 bucks cheaper from BWI...but CO matches. Dunno about you...but that difference would be made up by the rental and I'd be out the 4 hours.
Also...sign up for US Airways eSavers...if you want to come spur of the moment sometime (I've done it)...those are usually about 140 (same as BWI) and Philly Cleveland is in there at least once a month.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,660
10/3/02 11:32:23 AM
|
Last time I came
SW was $89 round-trip to BWI. Cheapest I could find direct was $330 from Continental. I wouldn't be surprised to find that round-trip from point A to point B isn't always the same price as point B to point A.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #54,669
10/3/02 11:45:59 AM
|
Also wouldn't be surprised to see...
...that SW has moved their price up a bit.
They're starting to bank on customer loyalty...and raising fares between certain cities.
If you book 2 weeks out...usually always CO and SW will match each other...and the Philly direct will usually be about $75-100 higher (except for those eSavers, but you can't really >plan< with them).
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,538
10/2/02 4:47:01 PM
|
You seem to be missing points on purpose.
No purpose debating the maintenance issue any further. Those 2 carriers skimped. There were incentives..and they were allowed to get away with it because the FAA was understaffed.
They got caught. They were grounded. Neither case contributed to the crash as far as the NTSB was concerned. So we're debating a non-issue.
The fact remains that air travel is safer post that pre-deregulation. It might be on a high currently...but that post deregulation high is still roughly half that of pre.
As far as the 1st class seats (not purchased...FF levels allow it)...if I could fly SW or Delta Express I would...unfortunately they don't fly here...and they don't go where I need them to go. I suppose I could drive 2 hours to catch a plane that would connect me 3 times to get to my destination...but that wouldn't meet my service expectation...now would it?
What...exactly...is >your< point...except to disagree with mine?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,024
9/30/02 5:19:18 PM
|
So it's all the union's fault, Bill?
How simplistic a strawman...and yet, United, the largest (or second largest, depending on whom you ask) is owned by its employees, all union stiffs. They're doing exactly as you demand: "Giving back" on work rules, salary, benefits, etc. And they're teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. How does that figger into your "equation"?
"They cannot manage themselves out of a wet paper sack." That's the root cause. Management, not union, is the problem here (And by your own words, too!)
jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #54,037
9/30/02 6:04:04 PM
|
No its not.
But it is a huge factor.
Management allowed the union labor to develop into the issue it has become. Check the workweek length and salary versus non union. It provides non union airlines with a distinct cost advantage...and much more control of the point of sale service (that you are complaining about).
Another problem is that carriers have forgotten about core competency...and thus feel compelled to staff huge call centers (filled with higher cost union employees) to compete against travel agencies who can, have and continue to provide much better customer service at hugely lower cost. There are many other examples of things the airlines insist on doing badly...instead of outsourcing to improve both cost and service.
Part of "managing" is managing the union relationships...and the carriers have failed miserably. The unions are well advised to give back...but they have so much to give to restore competitiveness that I don't think it can actually happen. I don't expect the union to do anything except try to make the best deal for its constituents...unfortunately sometimes the golden goose gets its head cut off in the process.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,440
10/2/02 9:59:25 AM
|
Organized labor killed the steel industry?
"they've allowed their organized labor to rape them (ever wonder why the steel industry vanished??"
I did wonder. I investigated. Aside from the astounding non-invisibilty of the steel industry, if you had stuck with the bad management riff, you would have been right. But only partly so. Government "protection" of the steel industry is at least as much to blame for allowing inefficient operations to survive (note: not "vanish").
Uncompetitive steel operations: The new welfare queens.
[link|http://www.econstrat.org/dphelps.htm|One source].
Excerpt-
The subject of this meeting is \ufffdCan the steel industry survive?\ufffd Not a new question. It has been debated in every \ufffdsteel crisis\ufffd we have experienced for decades: in the 1960s, 1975, 1977-8, 1981, 1984, 1991-2, 1996-7, 1998-9, and again today. And what has happened? Steel has survived, although not all companies have thrived. However, each time there was a crisis, the industry was granted some form of import relief, along with subsidies, loan guarantees, etc. During these tumultuous decades for the domestic steel industry, two things happened. First, some non-economic integrated steel capacity was shed while investments in productivity enhancing/labor saving equipment were made, and second, the minimill sector relentlessly pushed the integrated steel producers out of one product line after another, from re-bars early, to the most recent battle ground, commercial grade flat-rolled products.
What is the common thread throughout? Trade protection; demanded by many in the industry and needed by the weakest. The government has been compliant, and granted trade protection in each case. Protection has included import quotas, minimum prices, a nearly decade-long quota system, followed by relentless anti-dumping trade case filings, which began three months after the quota system expired in 1992 (over the objections of the union and some in the domestic steel industry who wanted quotas to last even longer). And throughout the decades, the industry slowly and methodically liberalized US trade laws \ufffd the US now has the most economically irrational and protectionist trade laws of any World Trade Organization (WTO) Member. The use of these laws has now finally become a stumbling block to our country\ufffds ability to advance the cause of free trade at the WTO. The US has lost decision after decision at the WTO \ufffd that is, all of them \ufffd affecting steel and the abuse of our international obligations. The steel industry and its continued use of these abusive trade laws along with demands for more and more protection and subsidies remain their goals, whether or not it harms other parts of the economy and workers, including even their own customer base. This is a sad legacy for the US, which has led the move to free trade in the post WWII era and is clearly the biggest beneficiary of open markets and trade liberalization in the world.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #54,446
10/2/02 10:15:25 AM
|
Compared to what it used to be...
...it has vanished.
Perhaps I was too simplistic in that reference...because the overall situation is a parallel...with the management being inadequate...the blame game prevalent...and the labor side being slow to realize that give-backs were necessary and job losses inevitable. Theres a point made later in the article about government funding "closure assistance" for affected workers instead of the protection at the borders...not a bad idea in either case...don't give them money...pay their severance costs and retraining expenses when work rules are re-established at a more realistic level.
At least in the airline industry the carriers realized that fleet age was costing them money and moved to renew fleets (thanks to CO using it to advertise)...but the renewal of assets may have come too late in the game for the majors.
And also like the steel industry...the large players are being hamstrung by smaller, lower cost players picking off pieces of the overall market...
The only difference is (until this year)...the airlines hadn't been heavily protected or subsidized. There's a few billion in loans available now that will change that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,526
10/2/02 3:55:50 PM
|
Got any trade-off numbers
between the bottom-line effects of greedy union slugs VS the total compensation packages of management, from CIEIO on through that vagueness, middle-management?
Apples and apples, say? Leaving aside, that is - the insoluble argument about Which Group is Greedier\ufffd - in a system whose very basis is the maximizing of personal greed / at the expense of all and anyone not-me (I believe that's a sane deconstruction of the core 'incentive' rationale for amassing capital)).
(Econ is such number-fun; it's so bloodless, and each tenet generates a family of logical obfuscations - leading to the next; sorta like that other pseudo-science, The Law ?)
Ashton
Looking for Nobel material next: The Chaos Theory of Econ, Explained
|
Post #54,536
10/2/02 4:44:59 PM
|
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
10/2/02 5:05:53 PM
10/2/02 5:11:04 PM
|
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
|
Post #54,598
10/2/02 11:06:00 PM
|
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
10/2/02 5:18:19 PM
|
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
10/2/02 11:09:09 PM
|
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
10/3/02 11:31:21 AM
|
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]
|
