cbire880

Do you really think those are the people filling up your airplanes all week?

el jefe

We need to start using treadmills for takeoff.

ABK MAN

My Opinion:
to a certain degree, I think legacy airlines & their mgmt. is between a rock and a hard place, to pass the buck to the consumer is the correct and logical choice, yet, they are forced to match or compete with price with the LCCs that are cutting their legs out from under them on the basis of price. So, its a no win situation. Once the LCC finally goes out, or fares come back up, there will be someone else willing to offer very cheap fares, and so it continues . . .

Now with that said, I also recognize the issue with mgmt. taking out incredible compensation packages for themselves, espcially if they had just recently asked labor to make concessions, I disagre with this tactic, and if I was an employee of such an establishment, I'd be mad . . . In my mind, it makes no sense, not to the welfare of the business, and not to the most important asset ot the business, THE EMPLOYEES ! ! !

sargeanb

Here's another solution:

http://www.aviationindustrygroup.com...-1218-1224.pdf

How many of our RJ routes are turboprop replacement routes....quite a few. I know the majority of our routes out of CVG could be replaced by Tprops, for alot less operating costs, instead of the 135's/145s we've got on them. On the less than 500 mile legs, with the price of fuel these days, turboprops are the way to go. As fuel prices increase, the turboprop is more economical on longer stage lengths. I'm seeing a step backward in our future. Also maybe a little re-regulation is in order...the gov't stepping in and forcing airlines to increase prices across the board in order to maintain this country's air travel, which is a critical part of our infrastructure. While the general public would see this as a slight to them in this tough economy, the quality of air travel would increase significantly, as airlines would be more profitable...makes sense.

People have less disposable income these days, and I think instead of driving or looking for alternatives to flying (since there really aren't any that don't cost about the same), people probably just won't travel as much as they had planned since they can't afford it. Biz travellers, those that can afford to pay the extra cost if all the prices go up, will keep on flying, as their business requires it. Discuss

captchris

Much of that has to do with the SWA model. I guess if all airlines didn't do maitnence they could all charge less too!

Senior Skipper

You stole my comment captchris

In other industries, when the price of a common raw material goes up, the workers don't take a pay cut. Why do we get less? What the eff is wrong with charging more for a ticket? Operating costs can only go so low; at some point, you need to increase revenue. Even within the industry, mom and pop flight schools are smart enough to figure it out - gas costs more, so charge the students more.

I can't figure out how airline managers are classified as leaders. They should be called followers. One airline drops the price on one route, and they all blindly follow. Guess what, one airline can't carry ALL the pax from A to B. Some will be left over for you. I wish one day I'll see that airline X has increased prices. When they see that somebody else has the gonads to do that, they'll surely follow suit.

DYNASTY HVY

Carriers have tried to raise rates and John Q public has balked at it.
What we have here is the GREYHOUND bus mentallity of the so called flying public.
So in short if it isnt cheap they will not fly ,kind of weird that way because thet,ll spend 100 bucks on goodies at the ball park without a second thought lol.

Ya know when you are in for a bad flight when you have the window seat and a 300 pounder sits next to ya for 4 hrs .
God I miss the old days!

ChickenFlight

I obviously wish fares would go up and I am in no way defending executives but there is a simple and fundamental flaw with unilateral fare increases: lack of pricing power.

When the merger deal between NWA and DAL appeared imminent, one of the arguments against it was that it would lead to a CAL/UAL merger and thus create some all powerful oligopoly between the above mentioned and AMR. When that argument was put out there, the Wall Street Journal concluded that even if these new "Mega 3" existed with NO reduction in capacity, they would only control about 30% of the domestic market (I would copy the article but it costs money and I'm an RJ FO). Needless to say only having 30% market control among 3 producers is an awful pricing situation for an industry to be in, but those are the cards we are dealt.

One argument could be made that even though they would only control 30% of the total market they would dominate the smaller secondary connector markets via the regional feed. The problem with that is that if you raise fares for Ma and Pa in Peoria, they will drive to Chicago and hop on SWA or some other undercutting carrier to go on vacation. The higher end business pax will pick up some slack and the low level business pax may very well get squeezed out of the market, leading to no net gain in revenue.

Knowing all of this, our robbing executives have chosen to squeeze as much out of us as they can and run away with the cookie jar rather than getting caught with their hand in it. They had a chance to quash the LCCs with more mainline flying and they didn't. They had a chance to keep us competitive by creating an alternative to driving to the hub with economical turboprops but they didn't. Hopefully they will realize this in time and create a permanent fuel "hedge" in the form of airplanes that will forever burn less fuel as well as raise rates slowly and surly as the LCCs cost structure reach more equally competitive levels. But what do I know...I'm just a pilot.

UnlimitedAkro

Want to be a billionaire overnight? Be the guy to figure out how planes could taxi around on the ground with the engines off.

Radials Rule

This was already tried by a billionaire.

Virgin Atlantic Abandons Ship on Carbon-Saving Plane Towing March 12, 2008 —

With much green fanfare two years ago Virgin Atlantic airways announced its plan to tow planes to the take off runway. Normally planes taxi on their own jet engine power to the runway starting grid they are supposed to take off on. Towing the Virgin planes meant keeping their engines off, thus saving up to two tons of carbon pollution on every flight. Now, it has been discovered the company is reneging on its tow plan and environmental watchdogs are crying “greenwash.”

In December 2006 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gave the green light to Virgin president Sir Richard Branson for the towing plan. But gradually over the past two years Virgin stopped towing their planes because the landing gear is weakened by the towing process. Further, some airports could not accommodate the starting grids necessary for the plan. Virgin, according to a Time of London report, has abandoned its plan.

Environmental organizations are now calling Virgin’s plan a greenwash: advertising green for market share while continuing pollution practices. Jeff Gazzard, board member of the Aviation Environment Federation, told the Times: "Virgin is using bogus green initiatives in an attempt to make passengers feel less guilty about flying and persuade regulators to allow the industry to carry on growing at its present unsustainable rate."