Greedy airlines

[Sargent_Schultz]

Your point being? I'm sure Walmart sell more than any other US retailer. Doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.

 

It means economies of scale no other airline, especially legacy airlines can match. I suspect it is one of the reasons the legacy airlines nickel and dime the majority of their passengers, but it doesn't justify it.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Isn't WN joining the "nickle and diming" group? I thought you now had to pay $10 extra to get a decent seat. Seems that is the begining of tacking on fees. If there is not enough complaints about this they will keep adding fees.

 

It is an optional fee - with or without you will still have a seat on the plane and there are other options. Seems to me some legacy airlines charge extra for window or aisle seats. I think the middle seats actually have a little more room.

 

I don't care if my suitcase is first, last, or middle in boarding the plane. I do care when I am forced to pay extra to get it on the plane.

 

Drinks are another option that are less expensive on SW than on legacy airlines. Don't the little bottles all cost the same? Just more nickle and diming.

[paul929207]

It is an optional fee - with or without you will still have a seat on the plane and there are other options. Seems to me some legacy airlines charge extra for window or aisle seats. I think the middle seats actually have a little more room.

 

I don't care if my suitcase is first, last, or middle in boarding the plane. I do care when I am forced to pay extra to get it on the plane.

 

Drinks are another option that are less expensive on SW than on legacy airlines. Don't the little bottles all cost the same? Just more nickle and diming.

All the fees other airlines charge are optional. You don't have to check bags. You don't have to buy a soda. You don't have to buy a snack. You don't have to buy a meal. You don't have to buy a cocktail. Is there an amount for a drnk that is nickle & Diming and an amount that is not. I would think any charge is 'nickle & diming".

 

But you can reserve a seat and not pay an extra $10.

 

It seems obvious, that anything WN does is great and a brilliant extra charge. While anything any other airline does is just ripping off the customer.

[Sargent_Schultz]

All the fees other airlines charge are optional. You don't have to check bags. You don't have to buy a soda. You don't have to buy a snack. You don't have to buy a meal. You don't have to buy a cocktail. Is there an amount for a drnk that is nickle & Diming and an amount that is not. I would think any charge is 'nickle & diming".

 

But you can reserve a seat and not pay an extra $10.

 

It seems obvious, that anything WN does is great and a brilliant extra charge. While anything any other airline does is just ripping off the customer.

 

You don't have to go to the bathroom - how long before pay toilets? I bet it isn't SW that starts that.

 

Sometimes you have no choice but to check bags. A number of items are not allowed to be carried on. Since the government will forever be a partner to airlines, they might as well regulate them and any fees charged. As mentioned previously, it is better to have one Bozo in charge than 2 competing ones.

 

SW has never charged for soda but that is exactly what one airline tried and maybe still does. THAT was nickel and diming to a new level, until the latest luggage scams.

 

Legacy airlines started charging for luggage under apparently false pretenses of fuel costs. Fuel prices plummeted, luggage fees increased. Flat out lies and nickel and diming.

[Shorex]

Oh just one more tidbit in the news:

 

Is Southwest Airlines about to start charging for checked luggage?

Actually, I hope they don't -- the overall market is better served with more choices.

[flhokie]

I always find it amusing when people think Southwest is so much better and less expensive than the major/legacy airlines.

 

I fly several times a week for business (all domestic). In the past year I have flown WN 1 time--by choice (and they do serve my home market--MCO)

 

Some of the reasons I fly the major/legacy carriers over WN...

 

- Their fares to have been less than WN (except for one flight). I never check a bag (yes, it's possible to pack for a week in a legal rollerboard suitcase) so baggage fees are not an issue.

 

- Having an assigned seat (regardless of time I check in or arrive at the gate)

 

- Expedited check-in and security lines, first class upgrades (or choice coach seats) and bonus miles that come with loyalty (and--to the person who says that the leisure travels supplement this--those of us who are preferred with airlines spend a lot of money on tickets throughout the year--not just a budget ticket once or twice a year--we get more because we pay more)

 

- The ability to change flights same day--free when preferred (even if not preferred, it's a $25 - $50 fee if there is a confirmed seat, no charge to stand-by if there are no seats available at check-in). My parents booked WN for a short flight in December. When they arrived at the airport much earlier than planned, they asked to standby for an earlier flight, but were told it would cost them $160 per person (for tickets that each cost less than $!00). This fee was to stand-by (not a confirmed seat) for the earlier flight. I thought they must have some how been confused, but when I flew my one WN flight recently I saw the sign at the gate that clearly states that you must upgrade to a full-fare (highest available) fare to stand-by for an earlier flight (not to get a confirmed seat on an earlier flight---just to have the possibility).

 

- The ability to use my frequent flyer miles to travel nearly anywhere in the world (not just some of the lower 48 US States).

 

- I can fly to cities close to the small towns I often must visit for work. WN's network is limited and would often force me to drive at least double (and often more) the distance to clients.

 

The airlines are not swimming in cash by any means. Yes, in the past, there was a lot of mismanagement in airlines, but many have become extremely lean in an attempt to just stay in business. Having worked in the industry for a while, I can speak first hand that most airline employees continue to work in the industry for the love of it--definitely not the pay (or losing your pension, pay cuts, constant threat of layoffs).

 

If you calculate what it costs any airline to operate a flight (jet fuel, aircraft, maintenance, insurance, airport fees, inflight crew, ground staff, catering, other equipment, etc.), the average fares charged are very reasonable.

 

To those who have wished that major airlines go out of business, a lack of competition and capacity would cause an increase in fares by those airlines remaining so be careful what you wish for.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Ditto. I'm outta here.

 

It shows. :p

 

Thanks for reminding me about the SW survey - I normally ignore those but will be sure to fill out ASAP! :)

[Sargent_Schultz]

I always find it amusing when people think Southwest is so much better and less expensive than the major/legacy airlines.

 

I fly several times a week for business (all domestic). In the past year I have flown WN 1 time--by choice (and they do serve my home market--MCO)

 

Some of the reasons I fly the major/legacy carriers over WN...

 

- Their fares to have been less than WN (except for one flight). I never check a bag (yes, it's possible to pack for a week in a legal rollerboard suitcase) so baggage fees are not an issue.

 

FYI - SW is a major carrier - in fact, the largest in terms of domestic passengers served, as previously mentioned.

 

I do not just fly SW. I am not an infrequent flier and I probably flew more on legacy airlines last year than SW and probably Delta at that, then American. Many thousands of miles.

 

For me, SW is often the cheapest option. Even if I have to rent a car and drive and account for my time. Yes, I understand pay myself first. I do. Apparently the same for many other people. Sometimes I don't want to drive and sometimes I enjoy the diversion - new places to discover and explore.

 

This thread isn't about SW. I started the thread over the nickle and diming by airlines over checked luggage fees. If you don't check luggage, I don't understand why this thread isn't a don't care for you.

 

I tend to check luggage - lots of it - especially when I am going on a cruise for a week (or longer). I think most people do.

 

Yes, many people fly a lot more than I do and have an allegiance to a particular airline that they have a vested interest in. So what? I don't berate them when they pay extra just to gain an extra perk. I damn sure don't want to subsidize it.

 

 

It does not justify the nickle and diming by some airlines charging for checked luggage.

[flhokie]

FYI -

 

Yes, many people fly a lot more than I do and have an allegiance to a particular airline that they have a vested interest in. So what? I don't berate them when they pay extra just to gain an extra perk. I damn sure don't want to subsidize it.

 

 

It does not justify the nickle and diming by some airlines charging for checked luggage.

 

Your baggage fees are not subsidizing the perks that frequent flyers receive. I rarely, if ever, pay the lowest fare that is offered on a route---as a business traveler most of my travel is booked 1 month out at the most (as with most business travelers). I pay more so, when I fly more while paying more, I get a few extra perks (in fact, most of these perks, like my bonus miles and expedited lines don't really cost anthing, but they do make a difference when you are on the road the majority of the time).

 

You pay for what you use when it comes to the fees for airline services--this applies to all airlines. WN does the same thing with their early check-in fee--if you want to have a good chance at a decent seat you pay a fee. If you want to stand by for an earlier flight, you must upgrade to the full fare. With other carriers, if you want to check baggage you pay a fee (and yes, it is possible to travel for weeks--including a cruise--without the need to check bags). I'd rather pay a lower fare and pay a little extra if there are specific services I want than to pay a higher fare to subsidize others using those services I don't need.

[Globaliser]

Those in the cheapest inside cabin eat the same food as those in a suite.

Not on the cruise line that I use most.

If you want butler service in your suite fine, but don't expect me to subsidize it.

Huh? I thought that it wasn't fine by you? You said:-

The elitists who think they deserve more because they paid more than another passenger are dinosaurs who will be assimilated.

Anyway, transposing this to the airline industry, you are ignoring the facts (again). Leisure travellers do not subsidise the frequent flyer's perks. If anything, it's the other way around.

 

If you do not understand this, then you have no understanding of the economic relationship between frequent flyers and their airlines. "Frequent flyers", as in those who fly hundreds of thousands of miles every year, not just "many thousands" like you.

[paul929207]

Not on the cruise line that I use most.Huh? I thought that it wasn't fine by you? You said:-Anyway, transposing this to the airline industry, you are ignoring the facts (again). Leisure travellers do not subsidise the frequent flyer's perks. If anything, it's the other way around.

 

If you do not understand this, then you have no understanding of the economic relationship between frequent flyers and their airlines. "Frequent flyers", as in those who fly hundreds of thousands of miles every year, not just "many thousands" like you.

Well said. Like his idol and name sake Sargent Schultz appear to "Know Nothing"

[dznymom]

This thread is highly amusing. There's enough hot air for some of you to get airborne without a plane! There are a few things that I personally find important when I fly, so these things always come into play when I choose.

 

I like to get where I am going on time, and unless weather is a factor Southwest does a great job with this. Perhaps this is because they don't schedule all their flights to arrive at the same airport at the same time like most of your legacies. In 2009 American Airlines had the worst on time performance of the major airlines. My experience with them confirmed that for me.

 

I do not like being seated next to certain types of travelers. By not having an assigned seat I have the abililty to choose not only my seat, but who I sit near. If I see a screaming baby while waiting at the gate I am comforted by the fact that I won't be in the adjacent seat. If I see a sneezing, coughing, drooling businessman, I know I can steer clear. Even just an annoying chatterbox or a sleazebag can be avoided.

 

I am very spontaneous. With Southwest I have the ability to change plans on a whim without penalty. If I am lucky enough that the fare is lower, I even get the difference as a credit. Plus if I am diligent and watch fares, I can take advantage of a reduced fare on a previously purchased ticket.

 

There are small inconveniences with Southwest. I check in as close to the 24 hour mark as possible, and when I know this might be a problem, I fork over the $10. This sure beats choosing a legacy and paying more to bring my luggage, arrive late and sit next to Typhoid Mary.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Not on the cruise line that I use most.Huh? I thought that it wasn't fine by you? You said:-Anyway, transposing this to the airline industry, you are ignoring the facts (again). Leisure travellers do not subsidise the frequent flyer's perks. If anything, it's the other way around.

 

If you do not understand this, then you have no understanding of the economic relationship between frequent flyers and their airlines. "Frequent flyers", as in those who fly hundreds of thousands of miles every year, not just "many thousands" like you.

 

There are certain basic necessities that reasonable to expect on flights, such as a bathroom, at least water, and at least one bag free.

 

The cattle who fill the seats on planes fly the same number of miles as the elitists. If the load capacity isn't sufficient, the airline is forced to reduce capacity.

 

An individual cattle class flier may not fly as many miles per year as an individual elitist (with an ego to boot), but there are far more cattle than elitists. Since there are more seats for cattle than for elitists, the collective number of cattle fly many more miles than the fewer elitists.

 

If there were no cattle, the few elitists on board do not pay enough to get that plane off the ground. The plane can still fly with no elitists on board. Instead they will populate first class with wannabe elitists and interline fliers.

 

For the anti-SW crowd, Jet Blue still allows the first checked bag free.

 

The mainstream cruise lines are as I described and are very much anti-elitist.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Well said. Like his idol and name sake Sargent Schultz appear to "Know Nothing"

 

When you have nothing intelligent to say, attack the poster, eh? :rolleyes:

[fbgd]

The one thing that is fairly apparent from the "Southwest crowd" (for want of a better term) is that being nickel and dimed is something you're all against...losing sight of the big picture that being charged in several small portions can often result in paying less than one big lump.

 

There I'm done. I've made my point. Bye bye.

 

An individual cattle class flier may not fly as many miles per year as an individual elitist (with an ego to boot), but there are far more cattle than elitists. Since there are more seats for cattle than for elitists, the collective number of cattle fly many more miles than the fewer elitists.

 

You'd be surprised at the number of passengers out there that fly hundreds of thousands of miles per year. On average around 5% of members of the airlines frequent flyer members hold elite status. You can be fairly sure on average they fly more than 20x that of the once per year flyer.

 

BA have shown that you can run an extremely premium heavy operation and do very well out of it. Some of their longhaul aircraft run with over a third of the aircraft seating in premium classes. Sure they've had their fair share of profitability issues over the last year or so but those same conditions resulted in your beloved Southwest posting a loss too.

 

When you have nothing intelligent to say, attack the poster, eh? :rolleyes:

 

I think you've said enough to justify it...

[Gardyloo]

When you have nothing intelligent to say, attack the poster, eh? :rolleyes:

Similar to using "elitists" when you mean "elites?"

 

Oy.

[Sargent_Schultz]

 

There I'm done. I've made my point. Bye bye.

 

 

 

I doubt it.:rolleyes:

[chipmaster]

Higher bag fees

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B5N720100112

 

 

Greedy they are not, missmanged possible.

 

Many/most airlines have lost billions and are near bankruptcy. Its a fine line between missmanaged, bad luck, bad business model and the need to charge extra fees to stay afloat and greed.

 

I am all for business making a profit, and those that innovate and are best managed to make a lot. Without profit than we lose the service and we all lose. We should think back 30 years ago and compare with what we have now. None of us should complain... its far cheaper and easier to fly now than anytime in the past.. almost :D

[paul929207]

I assume Southwest does not nickle and dime passengers by charging for alcoholic drinks? After all there are many of us that won't fly sober.

[Sargent_Schultz]

I assume Southwest does not nickle and dime passengers by charging for alcoholic drinks? After all there are many of us that won't fly sober.

 

For once, you are correct.

[Globaliser]

An individual cattle class flier may not fly as many miles per year as an individual elitist (with an ego to boot), but there are far more cattle than elitists. Since there are more seats for cattle than for elitists, the collective number of cattle fly many more miles than the fewer elitists.

Maybe they do, although I doubt it (for the reasons that fbgd states). But the cattle still don't make real profits for the airline, let alone subsidise the frequent flyers. 80% of the profits come from those 5% of passengers.

If there were no cattle, the few elitists on board do not pay enough to get that plane off the ground. The plane can still fly with no elitists on board. Instead they will populate first class with wannabe elitists and interline fliers.

Again, you are wrong. If the premium cabins are sold out but economy is empty, the aircraft will fly at a whopping profit. If the premium cabins are empty but economy is sold out, the aircraft is breaking even at best.

 

But your misconceptions are no surprise - you don't understand what economic role the "cattle" play in the airline operation. They're important to the airline, but it's not because they constitute profitable payload themselves.

 

So don't flatter yourself that you are subsidising the frequent flyers who you despise so much.

[paul929207]

If the people in the front are "Elitists", what are the people in cattle class? Trailer Trash?

[Sargent_Schultz]

Maybe they do, although I doubt it (for the reasons that fbgd states). But the cattle still don't make real profits for the airline, let alone subsidise the frequent flyers. 80% of the profits come from those 5% of passengers.Again, you are wrong. If the premium cabins are sold out but economy is empty, the aircraft will fly at a whopping profit. If the premium cabins are empty but economy is sold out, the aircraft is breaking even at best.

 

But your misconceptions are no surprise - you don't understand what economic role the "cattle" play in the airline operation. They're important to the airline, but it's not because they constitute profitable payload themselves.

 

So don't flatter yourself that you are subsidising the frequent flyers who you despise so much.

 

Again YOU are mistaken, with the possible exception of BA, which nobody flies. Several airlines have no business or first class and make profits. SW has had 36 or is it 37 consecutive profitable years.

 

If costs aren't covered, there is no profit and the only way to cover costs is to fill seats.

 

Once again, I hope you don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.

[kenish]

Don't forget about cargo. Widebodies can fly most routes profitably as long as the holds are full of cargo even with the cabin empty. Every pound or cubic foot of luggage is lost cargo revenue to the airline.

 

Many "redeyes" are more about overnight cargo than carrying passengers, although this may have changed with higher fuel costs.

 

<SW has had 36 or is it 37 consecutive profitable years.>

 

The winning streak (17 years BTW) ended a few quarters ago. The past few years were profitable thanks to fuel hedges and not core revenue. Nothing wrong with that, but even WN warned that expiration of hedges would erode profits. That came true several quarters ago and Q308 thru Q209 have been losses. I'm too lazy to look up the latest results. The moderation in fuel prices is straining their balance sheet further as some of their hedges are priced in higher than current spot prices.

[Sargent_Schultz]

SW had a losing quarter or so, but has still been profitable for the year for a number of years. All without ripping passengers off for baggage fees.

 

" Year end results for 2008 marked Southwest’s 36th consecutive year of profitability."

 

http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/factsheet.html

 

Please do not believe the propaganda being spread by others. Laziness is what the legacy airlines count on.