Salesmen do have to travel. But I work in the computer industry, which may be a bit ahead of the curve, and a lot of other people are cutting back. I’ve run an internal conference for over 10 years. When it began, we had two sites on the alternate coasts, and lots of people flew in. Now almost no one travels to it - we do it pretty much on line, except for the really local people. The external conference I help run has gone from 100% face to face steering committee meetings to 50% teleconferences. I suspect this will spread as geezers like me who are used to face to face retire and those who grew up on line take over.
People are even thinking about putting entire conferences on line. It will take a while, but when the generation raised on Second Life takes over, meeting people in a virtual hall will be seen as equivalent to meeting people in a real hall - and it will be a lot easier to convince your boss to let you go.
I thought that was the purpose of the program. Back before it became easy to monitor people’s choices, and before comparison was possible, it was not hard to select travel times requiring the use of one’s favorite airline. In the late '80s - early '90s I flew almost exclusively on United, partially because I usually went to Chicago or Denver, but also because I had the most miles there. So I’m surprised that this was news to the airlines.
In fact, some airlines just got a cash infusion by selling some more miles to credit card companies. The coverage at the time stressed the need for cash, but I suspect it might have been timed to precede the worsening of the terms. If I were one of the affinity card banks I’d be mighty unhappy.
I think the airlines are soon going to be in the same boat as the music companies, where new technology cuts the hell out of their customer base. I’m in a call every week with people scattered throughout the world, many working at home miles and miles from a company facility. A lot of the airline travel I did 20 years ago would be teleconferences today. Increasingly the businessman who is willing to pay a premium to fly at the last minute is becoming an airline fantasy. We’ll see if the Southwest no nickel and dime policy wins. They have raised prices also, by the way, and I doubt anyone disputes the need for that. The average traveler, paying more at the pump, understands that airlines do also.
But the airlines make their money on business travelers, and for many of them a couple of bucks extra is in the noise. In fact flights to many vacation destinations are getting cut back severely, since the airlines are not making enough money on travelers who are watching every penny. These travelers are going to be far more annoyed at being forced to drag water bottles around than they would be if the fares went up a buck. Dealing with this one or twice a year is one thing - every week or every month is quite another.
I hope you don’t need a filter to drink water from airport water fountains. I’d worry that they have enough force to let you get the bottle filled. I’m not at all sure about bring something I’m going to drink from into an airport bathroom. :eek: I’m also not thrilled about putting a full water bottle in the same case as my laptop.
Sure, the airlines can put in pay toilets, and coin slots for seat lighting and air. But do they really want to make the experience somewhat worse than riding a bus in a third world country?
If USAirways fails or loses money because of this move, so be it (but it is easy for me to say that because I don’t live in or care much about travelling to their main service areas).
There is something uniquely difficult about coming up with a viable business model for an airline – I’m not sure if anyone other than Southwest or Ryanair has really succeeded over a long period of time. It doesn’t help that there seems to be some enduring “romance of air travel” (despite the hellish reality) that has led entire airlines to be started for the dubious business purpose of nostalgia (I’m thinking Kiwi here, founded by a bunch of romantic veterans of Eastern Airlines).
It’s worth noting that multiple airlines which were the polar opposite of the stingy USAirways approach (lavish catering and booze for “free,” lovely seats, plush cabins, beautiful lounges) have recently sunk beneath the waves – Eos, MaxJet, Silverjet. American tried upselling to modestly-more-comfortable-flying with its More Room Throughout Coach program, and pretty quickly ended up jamming the seats back into their original tighter configurations when it turned out they couldn’t get the same revenue with fewer seats (i.e., people were not willing to pay more for a more comfortable flying experience).
There’s an anecdote (probably unprovable) that more money has been loss than made, in aggregate, since the birth of commercial aviation. Warren Buffet routinely jokes that there should be a suicide-prevention-style crisis hotline that he could call if he’s ever tempted to invest in airlines again, or that the investing public would have been done a huge favor if someone had shot Wilbur and Orville at Kitty Hawk.
I think there’d be somewhat lessened passenger disgust with the nickel-and-diming behavior of the airlines if there wasn’t also the security theater bullshit of the TSA. You want me to pay for drinks? Fine, I’ll plan ahead and get myself something outside the airport at a reasonable price. Except I can’t do that anymore because of a half-baked idiotic attack plan and then the TSA taking it and running with it when everyone can see that it was a stupid idea and that the TSA response is just another example of security theater.
Agreed. Charging for the first piece of checked luggage (as American recently started doing) is particularly annoying and inconvenient as the only reason one would really have for entrusting a less-than-massive bag to the dubious mercies of the baggage system would be to avoid the onerous checking-for-liquids-and-gels rules of the TSA. It’s not the airlines’ fault, strictly speaking, but it’s a really annoying damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t whipsaw.
I can see that. I’m old enough to remember when flying was a pleasurable experience except in rare cases of mechanical or weather problems. I few on Eastern a lot. I remember getting a nice piece of steak in coach.
I know the argument for deregulation was lower fares, but I was able to fly quite a bit as a student. So I have a bit of that nostalgia also - though I doubt it is a good business model.
I’m not looking for luxury from the airlines, but only a bit of respect. Southwest has that for free. I haven’t lived on the major routes that the airlines you mention flew for years, so they were never an option, but I wonder if people perceived them as being more expensive than they were.
I find it odd that the majority of airline ads I see these days are for the first class reclining seat-beds and staterooms for overseas flights. Except for the Southwest ads, that is. Are these ads only for these seats (is it worth it) or do they case an aura of luxury on the entire airline?
From what I’ve read, that seems plausible. But I wonder what the situation was at the moment of deregulation? Can it just be that this proves that selling your product at a loss is one way of drawing customers?
I forgot to mention that multiple people have also tried to revive Pan Am (a very very romantic target for airline buffs given its international reach, the Clipper Class chic, etc.).
Others could learn from SW, I agree, though they serve a niche that they essentially created and probably fully occupy.
Don’t think so, as their aggressive (well, aggressive for business class type seating) pricing was well-publicized. The idea wasn’t stupid – if a mainline carrier can do okay with ten $9,000 trans-Atlantic business class seats and 90 $400 coach seats, we should be able to do okay with 60 $2,500 business class seats. People appreciated the concept, I think, and they got a lot of favorable buzz. But fuel costs and the market did them in.
It’s both. Bragging about your cramped coach seats is not so advantageous or brand-differentiating as showing fine dining and lie-flat couches (even to those who will be back in steerage). Like any business, though, airlines like to pimp and upsell to their most profitable product, and as I’ve indicated before, international business and first class travellers are the Holy Grail of airline marketing. The airlines would gladly rip out every coach seat and kick off every backpacking college student on a $400 ticket to sell more tickets at a price point that could be 15 to 20 times higher. Business and first class travelers are also largely price-insensitive because they are disproportionately drawn from the ranks of: (a) the ultra-wealthy, for whom the distinction between $5,000 and $9,000 is less than the difference between $400 and $450 for your backpacking punk kid; and (b) business travelers who are paying with OPM (company-funded travel) and thus, also, likely not too attentive to whether $7,000 is truly value for money or is a price they would pay with their own money.
Which brings me to your “is it worth it?” question. The glib answer is that to those who don’t feel the pinch of the very high cost, of course it’s worth it. The seats are indeed substantially more comfortable. The food on many international carriers is positively tasty. Even paying with my own money, if I had a one or two day trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific trip (which sometimes happens in various businesses), I would pay a substantial premium over the coach fare to be able to arrive well rested and not as haggard as I am when flying internationally in coach.
I actually surmise that this was the business model behind the “discount business class” airlines that failed – to move international business/first class away from something largely occupied by the super-rich, or those who weren’t paying their own money, which it is now, to a mix of those people plus reasonably well off self-funded travelers who would pay a significant but not ridiculous added amount to escape the steerage experience.
Man, this has gotten way complicated. We’re not talking about bringing world peace.
Simplly put, why can’t the airlines just continue to give a little cup of water to those who want it. No way is that going to drive up the cost of your ticket by any significant amount.
Look at us, bickering over two bits (less, I’ll bet). :rolleyes:
Peace,
mangeorge
In the real world I have a wee-wee, don’t wear mascara, and I’m on the ground in my kitchen. On the internet I can be man, woman, airline passenger, spaceship pilot or bunny rabbit, all with the click of a mouse.
I’m of the opinion that water, like air and a place to go potty, are basic human needs that should be provided wherever you go.
Even if not, the idea is retarded. You are going to lose more money from people being pissed off than you will make off selling water. How many people even ask for water vs other drinks on planes anyway? Just increase the ticket price by a dollar or two.
Soda, coffee, tea, alcohol, are luxuries. Water is a necessity. Next they’ll be charging to use the head…
Damn, jackdavinci, don’t give them any ideas.
After all, you don’t have to use the head. Anybody can wait a few hours. And they have rrs in the secure areas.
Presuming the “charging for drinking water” model expands beyond this one experiment, there’s no way the nonpotable-water-in-the-bathroom situation will continue. All it’ll take is a couple of cheapskates refusing to buy the bottle and then getting sick by sipping from the lavatory tap; the resulting lawsuits and, more importantly, attendant publicity will drive the introduction of rules and regulations requiring the lavatory water to be drinkable. Then we’ll be back to where we are now, with the airlines passing out free water. Which is, perhaps, as it should be, but it’ll be a painful circle to get back here.
No, I just want to be able to bring a bottle of Fiji and a burrito onto the plane with me the way I used to be able to before the TSA went even stupider than they already had been. Seriously, it’s been almost 20 years since the last successful airplane bombing in the West and I’m supposed to buy a bullshit argument about “binary liquid explosives”?
