Latest airline ripoff

[MadJack]

SWA already did raise their prices but they mask it. they are charging for business class :mj07: for the same seats as everybody else, they just are making people pay MORE for early boarding.

i use to hate them, got to like them, and now am back to hating them. **** SWA!

i don't mind paying extra for comfort either. miswest has the right idea and i think they should take it a step higher for even more money and i think other airlines should follow.

people will pay, if not **** em! let them fly SWA!

 

[fatdaddycool]

SWA already did raise their prices but they mask it. they are charging for business class :mj07: for the same seats as everybody else, they just are making people pay MORE for early boarding.

i use to hate them, got to like them, and now am back to hating them. **** SWA!

i don't mind paying extra for comfort either. miswest has the right idea and i think they should take it a step higher for even more money and i think other airlines should follow.

people will pay, if not **** em! let them fly SWA!

yeah:00hour

 

[MadJack]

take 3 or 4 rows off the damn plane, spread the seats out to give more leg room, give people a $10 meal and a few free drinks and charge them $50 extra. WTF? :shrug:

there's motel 8 and there's the hilton. people pay extra for better service and comfort. christ! get on the ball you overpaid airline ceo's.

am i wrong here :shrug:

 

[yyz]

take 3 or 4 rows off the damn plane, spread the seats out to give more leg room, give people a $10 meal and a few free drinks and charge them $50 extra. WTF? :shrug:

there's motel 8 and there's the hilton. people pay extra for better service and comfort. christ! get on the ball you overpaid airline ceo's.

am i wrong here :shrug:

Of course not, but someone crunched numbers, and that aint how it's gonna play out.


But when a guy tells me at "x" amount of dollars a full plane can't turn a buck......I have to ask, "Why the hell are you charging that price?"

This tells me that, quite simply, you should not be in business.

I haven't followed this as closely as someone like FDC might have, but WTF???? Jack, if you sell burgers, and need to sell them for .50 apiece to break even, you can't keep the doors open selling them for even .49! It's simple math, isn't it?

So, what do we have? Too many airlines? Too many flights maybe? If you have 6 flights a day going from NY to LA, make it 3 flights, and jack the price up! What am I going to do........walk there? For numbers sake:

6 planes hold 200 each = 1200

Each plane has 80% capacity, making it 960

3 planes = 600 full, and is still 80% full due to increased cost vs drop off of people not willing to pay, making it 480


I took a sample flight from NY to LA four months out. It cost 468.50

This means, with my simple example, 6 current planes would take in $450,000

The 3 planes could be increased to $680, and it would take in $325,000

Now, you come in $125,000 less, but you have three planes you can fly some place else doing the same thing, or you sell them. That's three crews you don't have to pay, and that much fuel you arent using. Plus, I'm guessing if you dropped 50% of your planes from a route, you would probably run more than an 80% avg on the remaining three.

Granted, I don't have actual numbers from the airlines, but I think you get the idea. If I'm way off base on this, than I am......but someone "in the know" should be able to do something similar, don't you think?

 

[Mags]

SWA already did raise their prices but they mask it. they are charging for business class :mj07: for the same seats as everybody else, they just are making people pay MORE for early boarding.

i use to hate them, got to like them, and now am back to hating them. **** SWA!

i don't mind paying extra for comfort either. miswest has the right idea and i think they should take it a step higher for even more money and i think other airlines should follow.

people will pay, if not **** em! let them fly SWA!

Jack:

That was exactly Midwest's model until 911. That, and with the rise of Soutwest, made it difficult to charge $50 more per flight - especially in our market - Milwaukee - which was Midwest's hub.

PRIOR TO 911 - it was like a hotel in the sky. All 2 accross seating, fine dinners included (at one time, it was not uncommon to get a lobster tail or filet mignon, free wine with dinner, and real linens and silverware.

Of course, it all changed with 911. And with Southwest. People started demanding flying coast to coast at $49 each way.

Interestingly, on my flight back from Tampa this week, the pilot, halfway through the flight, got on the radio and gave us a math lesson.

It went something like this: "Folks, I'd like to help you understand your ticket price. We used X number of gallons of fuel today - and I'm assuming you can double that, since most of you flew roundtrip. At $5.55 a gallon for jet fuel, that means each and every one of you (he didn't break it down for fat vs. skinny people) cost $190 in fuel costs for this flight. Now the average ticket price on this flight was $240. And we are not even talking about landing fees, ticketing costs, salaries, etc. Nor have we mentioned my salary! I justed wanted everyone to understand the cost pressures the industry is facing today.

All I could say is wow - a lot of people on the plane were shocked. A lot of people's eyes opened during that flight.....

 

[Mags]

take 3 or 4 rows off the damn plane, spread the seats out to give more leg room, give people a $10 meal and a few free drinks and charge them $50 extra. WTF? :shrug:

there's motel 8 and there's the hilton. people pay extra for better service and comfort. christ! get on the ball you overpaid airline ceo's.

am i wrong here :shrug:

I strongly agree - but the increase would have to be more - so they can actually turn a profit - probably $150 more on some routes.

The problem with this idea is - WHO is going to be first? As soon as they raise their prices, eveyone else will pick up market share.

Airlines are very slow to match price increases unless they have to - as they are all fighting for market share. But you'll notice they'll match price decreases rather quickly.

And if the CEO's got together and agreed to raise prices? I have a hunch the Fed's would get involved and call it "price fixing" or something like that, as Joe the once a year traveler would scream to high heaven that he couldn't afford a vacation that year. And I can understand why - he's been given 1980's prices on air fares since 1980, and he doesn't expect them ever to go up - to do so would be un-american in his eyes!

To quote Southwest: "DING! You are can now, for free, travel accross the country!" Well, something like that...

 

[yyz]

Oh, one more thing.

When I said, "You come in $125,000 less"?

That's the way the CEO of the company would look at it, and that's why the companies do shitty.

What you need to realize is that the $450,000 represented $75,000 per plane, while the $325,000 meant $108,000 per plane.

Now, your typical greedy CEO thinks, "Let's get more planes out there, and increase that profit!"

Then, you are back where we are at.

FDC, make some calls, get me in over there for a year or two, I'll fix the mess, and only take $500,000 a year, and 2% of profits while my model is in effect.

 

[fatdaddycool]

here is just a small tidbit of information on what the industry is faced with and pay special attention to the fact that the delays were caused by ATC which Reagan replaced when he busted the union for which he should have been jailed. The fact that we are using 1960's technology is only a small faction of government intrusion into the ability to post a profit.
These costs are pure losses

 

[MadJack]

FDC, make some calls, get me in over there for a year or two, I'll fix the mess, and only take $500,000 a year, and 2% of profits while my model is in effect.

greedy bastid!

 

[yyz]

FDC, how many flights per day are the airports trying to squeeze off now, as compared to 1980?

 

[fatdaddycool]

Oh, one more thing.

When I said, "You come in $125,000 less"?

That's the way the CEO of the company would look at it, and that's why the companies do shitty.

What you need to realize is that the $450,000 represented $75,000 per plane, while the $325,000 meant $125,000 per plane.

Now, your typical greedy CEO thinks, "Let's get more planes out there, and increase that profit!"

Then, you are back where we are at.

FDC, make some calls, get me in over there for a year or two, I'll fix the mess, and only take $500,000 a year, and 2% of profits while my model is in effect.

You know what YYZ, I have absolutely no doubt that you would as well as I or many others on ts forum. We have worked for a living and realize that there arelines that can be crossed. When AA turned its first profit in six years two years ago to the tune of $407,000,000.00 give or take. The top 72 executives promptly took $380 million of it in executive bonuses and when we lost $167 mill just in this first quarter this year, they promptly gave tehmselves another 72 mil in incentives. You know what they offered us for a contract two days later? After a concessionary agreement made 7 years ago has now lapsed in which we gave up 27% in wage and benefit cuts along with a week of vacation and 7 alloted sick days and only get paid for half a day when we do call in sick, we were offered no raise, but a lump sump payment of $5500 before taxes to be split into two payments of $3300 this yr and $2200 next year along with the return of one holiday Memorial day which now gives us six as compared to the twelve paid holidays we used to have. These concessions were given up with the notion and promise of a 'turnaround plan" which was supposed to send us right back to profitability. In this plan union personnel have personally accounted for more than $917,000,000 in cost saving ideas, and we get offered $5500 because the company is broke. Raising prices is easier said then done as it regulated as to the percent increase allowed by law believe it or not and if we did raise them everyone would be flying Valuejet again and getting eaten by alligators in a month.

I really do kind of apologize for jumping on you so hard dude I really do, it's just that the flying public demands cheap pricing and the majority of the public will simply not pay the price for the extra services so you have to make your money in other arenas. A very difficult position for my profession currently. I am sorry if that sounds whiny but it is the truth and I know anyone can say just get out but at 43 it is difficult to turn to a completely new career.

Hope this helps,

FDC


Again I am sorry I jumped on you, you didn't deserve it, sorry,:00x1

 

[fatdaddycool]

FDC, how many flights per day are the airports trying to squeeze off now, as compared to 1980?

Depends on the airport of course as Atlanta has now become the busiest in the nation with 112 scheduled departures per hour when 72 is all that can be feasibly handled taking into account the 30=45 second mandatory delay between takeoffs not to mention landings. LGA has just over 100 and Ord is at 110. 24% of those flights will be delayed without cause. The planes are flying full though and very few flights go out with less than 75% capacity.

It really is a government problem not an airline problem as the ATC's are employed by the government not the airlines and the airports ore owned by the Gov't and therefore we must look to them for relief for the consumer. While international and business travel is our bread and butter there has to be a better way.

Almost forgot, in 1980 there were very few "start up " airlines such as Jet Blue and atlantic coast airlines and midwest and such. These smaller companies have very little operating costs and can simply undercut any agreed upon fare hike by the majors. In the early 80's there was little competition as each airline had its niche. United got teh Southeast Asia Routes while AA got the European and south America routes. Delta at the time stuck mostly to domestic travel while Pan Am and TWA were geared twoard international travel and did not operate under a hub and spoke program, a business design that has proven to be the most effective. Northwest was also a destination to destination carrier but has since changed as well as Continental, after they broke the union of course along with Eastern and Braniff. The business design must be changed to cater to the business traveler as they are your main source of income, but many airlines have been forced to eliminate many of the amenities that made air travel a much more pleasant experience. I know that this sounds like sour grapes but it isn't just the airlines that are in peril, it is the transportation industry as whole and it is very frustrating for me. Not trying to say anything but I did work very hard to get to the position in the union that I now hold which is a fairly high ranking position and it is very frustrating when people elect you for several terms and all I have been able to accomplish is tune up my bad news speaking skills. The union cause is something I deeply believe in and that directly correlates to the blue collar worker and I am tired of us all getting fuhked by corporate and government greed. Sorry about the long post again, but it is kind of my thing now.

 

[SixFive]

mags, 6'5" 220? Me too! I'm just used to being uncomfortable on a plane.

I guess if I travelled for business like you and my job payed for it, I would want better accomodations too. As it is now, with me paying, I'm a little too tight for that. I will pay more for non-stop, but the main thing I look for is value.

example: I went to Vegas in February. I flew SWA for I think $440 round trip (2 people). Both legs were non-stop, and at the time, this price beat the chit out of every other airline by at least $250, and all the other airlines had stops/layovers.

I was in the first part of the boarding process both flights (after the business class members), and on the flight out, I got to sit on the bulkhead which was luxurious by my plane standards. Tons of leg room. Coming back, I sat on the aisle in the very back with closest access to the bathroom since I was deathly ill :mj02:

In this case above, why in the world would I fly another airline?

 

[SixFive]

The ONLY reason they are providing cheaper rates is because they have few employees and a much smaller operating cost. When Ish in Dakkar forgets that its righty tighty lefty loosey and your headed straight for the side of a hill, I highly doubt that you will like the song the flt. attendant is singing then.

Still don't see how fewer employees is bad if they can get the job done? Does AA have too many and guys falling all over each other? Seriously, in your job, could you easily fit in more work, or are you going non-stop the entire time? Do either airlines have a union?

These administration bonuses blow me away too. Utterly ridiculous. I see the same bs at my job. Cut the staffing at the level where people are actually working, but add in more middle management all the time. Terrible; cut out a few $12.00 and hour jobs and add in a few $150,000 a year salaries. really bright!!

Has SWA had any accidents with their substandard workers? I really don't know. thanks.

 

[Mags]

mags, 6'5" 220? Me too! I'm just used to being uncomfortable on a plane.

I guess if I travelled for business like you and my job payed for it, I would want better accomodations too. As it is now, with me paying, I'm a little too tight for that. I will pay more for non-stop, but the main thing I look for is value.

example: I went to Vegas in February. I flew SWA for I think $440 round trip (2 people). Both legs were non-stop, and at the time, this price beat the chit out of every other airline by at least $250, and all the other airlines had stops/layovers.

I was in the first part of the boarding process both flights (after the business class members), and on the flight out, I got to sit on the bulkhead which was luxurious by my plane standards. Tons of leg room. Coming back, I sat on the aisle in the very back with closest access to the bathroom since I was deathly ill :mj02:

In this case above, why in the world would I fly another airline?

Well, since I run my own company, I pay for a lot of my flights (clients sometimes do also).

I'd still pay more to be comfortable. Lucky for me Midwest is the carrier of choice in Milwaukee - the only one that flys direct to most larger citiies.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Still don't see how fewer employees is bad if they can get the job done? Does AA have too many and guys falling all over each other? Seriously, in your job, could you easily fit in more work, or are you going non-stop the entire time? Do either airlines have a union?

These administration bonuses blow me away too. Utterly ridiculous. I see the same bs at my job. Cut the staffing at the level where people are actually working, but add in more middle management all the time. Terrible; cut out a few $12.00 and hour jobs and add in a few $150,000 a year salaries. really bright!!

Has SWA had any accidents with their substandard workers? I really don't know. thanks.

6-5.
I haven't turned a wrench in quite some time because of my work in the umion but no of course not. Just as many places of employment there is always room for increased production I am sure. However, I don't have any problem with getting the job done with a few less workers as long as they are US workers. Tired of seeing all our good paying US jobs being outsourced is really more to my point. I respect you and your opinion but again read that entire article I posted and know that it is your money they are talking about. Those costs have to be reflected somewhere. Just sayin

 

[vinnie]

Crisis-hit airlines to lose 2.3 billion dollars this year



ISTANBUL (AFP) - IATA said Monday its member airlines faced losses of 2.3 billion dollars this year due to soaring fuel costs, dramatically reversing a forecast of profits nearly twice that figure.


"The industry is in crisis, perhaps the biggest crisis we have ever faced," said IATA secretary general Giovanni Bisignani at the start of its general meeting in Istanbul.

The International Air Transport Association represents around 240 air carriers accounting for 94 percent of world air travel.

In April, it forecast profits of 4.5 billion dollars (2.9 billion euros) for the industry. But as oil prices soared above 135 dollars a barrel, operating costs have rocketed -- forcing a radical revision.

After sustaining losses of around 40 billion dollars after the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the airline industry has recovered in recent years, posting healthy profits of 5.6 billion dollars last year.

"Our industry is like Sisyphus: after a long uphill journey a giant boulder of bad news is driving us back down," Bisignani said.

He warned that losses this year could total 6.1 billion dollars if oil stays around 135 dollars a barrel. The figure of 2.3 billion dollars was based on oil averaging 106.5 dollars over the year.

On Monday, oil changed hands at around 126 dollars.

The dire predictions came amid mounting evidence that some in the airline industry are already losing the struggle.

Last Friday, the British reduced-fare business-class airline Silverjet suspended operations and entered administration, leaving it on the brink of collapse, after running into serious funding problems.

"Twenty-four airlines went bust in the last six months," Bisignani said, adding that ticket prices were set to rise "to reflect (the) cost structure."

British Airways head Willie Walsh agreed, telling a discussion panel: "I expect that the fares will increase."

Jean-Cyril Spinetta of Air France-KLM expected low-cost carriers to struggle but nonetheless survive, even if some have to bow out, especially in Europe.

"I'm not saying the low-cost model will disappear, but in Europe lots of low-cost (carriers) will disappear," he said.

The head of the German unit of British carrier EasyJet said in an interview published Monday that high fuel prices would trigger a rash of airline bankruptcies in Europe.

"Several airlines in Europe will go out of business," John Kohlsaat told Berlin's daily Der Tagesspiegel. "Theoretically, 50 are endangered."

Kohlsaat said several carriers had been hit hard by rising fuel costs and were sliding into the red -- a development that in the end would leave only British Airways, Air France-KLM, Lufthansa, Ryanair and EasyJet.

Those best equipped to survive were the companies with a new fleet of planes, which consume less fuel than their older counterparts, and those with low operating costs.

"A new Airbus consumes 20 percent less fuel than an old Boeing 737," Kohlsaat said.

Speaking in Istanbul, the head of Malaysia Airlines said his company would freeze recruitment and was considering axing more routes as part of cost-cutting measures triggered by rising fuel prices.

In another sign that airlines are looking at new ways to cut their costs, 10-strong global airline alliance OneWorld said Monday that its members were considering buying fuel collectively.

OneWorld representative John McCulloh said a proposal for Oneworld -- which includes British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Qantas and Japan Airlines -- to buy fuel together to save on costs was to be considered at a meeting next week.

 

[MadJack]

 

[vinnie]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,up - up and away

 

[StevieD]

It all comes down to oil. This is the neocon front in their attack to wipe out the middle class. Flying is bad enough but it is only the tip of the ice burg. Wait until we try to heat our homes next winter.