Greedy airlines

[paul929207]

I have stayed out of this thread because, well feeding trolls is not something I do, but I am sure your having a good time doing it.

 

Just to point out another fat you have wrong.

 

The ratio of earning for a flight goes.

 

First, Business, Cargo and then Coach.

 

If you take a look at the cost of a first class ticket you will see that those 12-16 seats up front bring in move revenue than the 130 seats behind them.

 

And yes I am a Southwest fan, they are very good at what they do and on short hops I am happy to fly with them.

 

But then again, I am also one of those damn elitists who on a 12 hour flight doesn't want to be cramped in a seat with a 31 inch seat pitch, so I fly in J.

 

Also you should remember, Southwest (WN) has a money losing airline operation, but a rather successful fuel hedging operation.

 

Anyways, there is no way this thread is going anywhere, if you don't like what the airlines are charging, don't fly them, it's a great drive from LA to Miami.

But then you run into the greedy oil companies. Of course our friend from Stalag 13 would love that. The oil companies certainly know how to make a profit and not too much comes from the elitists using premium.

[frugaltravel]

Also you should remember, Southwest (WN) has a money losing airline operation, but a rather successful fuel hedging operation.

 

I have been staying out too, but I think you should do your research before posting incorrect information. Net income from operations (which does not include fuel hedge gains/losses) has been positive regardless of the fuel hedging. The only reason they have had losses in recent quarters is due to the fuel hedging losses. Check any finance website for WN's annual reports/income statements. I generally use finance.yahoo.com.

[Sargent_Schultz]

 

If you take a look at the cost of a first class ticket you will see that those 12-16 seats up front bring in move revenue than the 130 seats behind them.

 

 

I doubt those 12-16 seats are filled 100% of the time with full fare passengers, which is a big problem for some airlines now.

 

Meanwhile, the cattle sections are mostly full.

 

Better to replace those 12-16 seats with 50 cattle seats, if one sells and the other doesn't.

 

Plane (sic) mismanagement - not knowing your customer mix.

 

Instead of driving from LA to Las Vegas next time, try SW. You will be allowed to bring back two suitcases of money - No Greedy Luggage fees required.

[paul929207]

I doubt those 12-16 seats are filled 100% of the time with full fare passengers, which is a big problem for some airlines now.

 

Meanwhile, the cattle sections are mostly full.

 

Better to replace those 12-16 seats with 50 cattle seats, if one sells and the other doesn't.

 

Plane (sic) mismanagement - not knowing your customer mix.

 

Instead of driving from LA to Las Vegas next time, try SW. You will be allowed to bring back two suitcases of money - No Greedy Luggage fees required.

I notice you are big on terms like "I doubt" In other words, you are just making it up as you go along. How many people in the "cattle section" are paying full fare?

 

How about having to pay extra to get a seat? Not everyone needs to check luggage, but everyone needs a seat.

[Sargent_Schultz]

I notice you are big on terms like "I doubt" In other words, you are just making it up as you go along. How many people in the "cattle section" are paying full fare?

 

How about having to pay extra to get a seat? Not everyone needs to check luggage, but everyone needs a seat.

 

At least I am telling the truth. I've seen lots of people throw out obviously made up numbers, as if they were factual. Lots of hypotheticals. :rolleyes: No sources, no way to verify, no nothing.

 

I am growing tired of the deliberate attempts to change the subject and/or hijack the thread. :rolleyes:

 

To say nothing of the harassing and personal attacks. :rolleyes:

 

Meanwhile, the greedy legacy airlines continue to jerk passengers around with luggage fees.

[Sargent_Schultz]

I notice you are big on terms like "I doubt" In other words, you are just making it up as you go along.

 

p.s. I know they aren't always paid for because sometimes I'm in them and on other occasions I see the mad dash for free or low cost upgrades by the wannabe elitists.

[paul929207]

p.s. I know they aren't always paid for because sometimes I'm in them and on other occasions I see the mad dash for free or low cost upgrades by the wannabe elitists.

So you are an elitist.

[Sargent_Schultz]

So you are an elitist.

 

I am a credit cardist.

[Globaliser]

Meanwhile, the greedy legacy airlines continue to jerk passengers around with luggage fees.

Please, let's not forget that the "greedy airlines" in your book also include those who don't charge luggage fees.

 

I bet your "greedy airlines" include those who charge for drinks, and those who don't charge for drinks. I bet your "greedy airlines" include those who charge for meals, and those who don't charge for meals. I bet your "greedy airlines" include those who have one or more premium cabins, and those who only have one cabin.

 

In fact, everything you've posted suggests that in your book there are only two types of airline in the world: "greedy airlines" and Southwest. Isn't that right?

[paul929207]

In fact, everything you've posted suggests that in your book there are only two types of airline in the world: "greedy airlines" and Southwest. Isn't that right?

 

You almost have it figured out, but it is "greedy airlines flown by elitists".

[Sargent_Schultz]

There are two types of airlines - those who nickle and dime passengers with absurd fees for things such as luggage and those that don't.

 

SW happens to be an airline that maintained the status quo and makes a profit doing so and then there are the greedy airlines that think their passengers are too stupid to figure it out the shell game they are playing.

 

Some claim the greedy airlines are doing it in the name of the almighty shareholder, but when they go bankrupt, the stockholders get nothing. Ask those who hold stock in JAL (with 4 government bailouts).

 

Between an eroding customer base and shareholders who don't want to lose everything, perhaps the mismanagement of the legacy airlines will end.

[scottbee]

There are two types of airlines - those who nickle and dime passengers with absurd fees for things such as luggage and those that don't.

 

SW happens to be an airline that maintained the status quo and makes a profit doing so and then there are the greedy airlines that think their passengers are too stupid to figure it out the shell game they are playing.

 

Some claim the greedy airlines are doing it in the name of the almighty shareholder, but when they go bankrupt, the stockholders get nothing. Ask those who hold stock in JAL (with 4 government bailouts).

 

Between an eroding customer base and shareholders who don't want to lose everything, perhaps the mismanagement of the legacy airlines will end.

 

WN also nickle and dime passengers, just in a different way. Check in fee to get a decent seat, WN charge for that, or give it with their premium fares. Legacy carriers charge for food, WN just doesn't offer it.

[Sargent_Schultz]

WN also nickle and dime passengers, just in a different way. Check in fee to get a decent seat, WN charge for that, or give it with their premium fares. Legacy carriers charge for food, WN just doesn't offer it.

 

All of the SW fees combined are less than the charge for the first suitcase on legacy airlines. Some legacy airlines also charge for "decent" seats.

 

Airline food is crap. Not offering it is a blessing. However, SW does have more than just peanuts on their longer flights. Overpriced airport food has improved in quality and selection and you can always bring something with you from home or other location.

[kenish]

Thought I had stepped back from this thread. My vote was with the airlines, especially when other choices of fares and airlines are available and we're free to vote with our wallets.

 

On the other hand, this truly fits my personal definition of "greedy", presuming this report and what I heard on the news last night are the full story:

 

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-395940?hpt=Sbin

 

DL also gave relief workers from a church in Maine problems until media attention caused them to change their decision.

 

What is missing is their heart, brain, or both!

[FlyerTalker]

If the "full story" includes this part from the cited webpage, then I have to agree with AA:

ChrisMorrow has been updating on the task force's situation for much of the week. American Airlines Director of Corporate Communications Martha Pantin told her, 'Our temporary policy is certainly not designed to harm those seeking to take supplies in. But the reality is that Santo Domingo, Puerto Plata and Santiago are the only operating airports in the area we serve that are relatively close-by to Haiti. Accordingly, our flights in and out of Santo Domingo are extremely full with passengers. As a passenger airline, with very full flights and the normal allowed complement of passenger’s checked bags, there is essentially no room on the aircraft for additional bags and supplies beyond the bags that every passenger is allowed. Putting such supplies onboard and in the cargo hold could prevent other passengers from taking the luggage and bags they are entitled to. Supplies are best shipped through relief agencies with cargo planes or through one of the normal shipping services. This relief organization is not the only one which we have been unable to accommodate under the policy I described above. We are also working with the Department of Defense to provide possible charter flights directly into Haiti in the coming days – and while there are likely to be emergency supplies onboard those flights, there will not be regularly scheduled passengers and the DoD will control what goes onto the flights they have chartered.'

High demand with everyone carrying plenty of luggage. There is only so much room on a flight, and I have to believe that AA is enforcing a uniform policy.

 

Now, if they are picking and choosing who gets to buy some extra space, that's a different situation.

[paul929207]

I assume that Southwest is offerring special flights to Haiti with no limit on the amount of luggage.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Wow. Southwest, who generate no revenue from Haiti has a link to donate money to American Red Cross for Haiti Relief

http://www.southwest.com/

 

Now that's an airline with heart.

 

There's none on Delta (big surprise)

http://www.delta.com/

[paul929207]

Wow. Southwest, who generate no revenue from Haiti has a link to donate money to American Red Cross for Haiti Relief

http://www.southwest.com/

 

Now that's an airline with heart.

 

There's none on Delta (big surprise)

http://www.delta.com/

So, in other words,South West is doing nothing. Do they have a single flight to brig people or supplies to Haiti? Putting something on their website pointing to a way to give, that costs them NOTHING.

[Sargent_Schultz]

So, in other words,South West is doing nothing. Do they have a single flight to brig people or supplies to Haiti? Putting something on their website pointing to a way to give, that costs them NOTHING.

 

Southwest (one word) is doing more than JAL and BA are doing.

 

I expect Southwest to report profits tomorrow - all from an airline with no elitist seating, and free luggage. Amazing!

[kenish]

I posted my AA / DL comment during a quick lunch today. The story seemed like important pieces might be missing. Thanks FlyerTalker for providing more of the pieces in the case of AA.

[Globaliser]

Southwest (one word) is doing more than JAL and BA are doing.

Incorrect, as far as BA is concerned.

 

Seeing as you obviously don't know what BA is doing, I am just going to leave you in your unenlightened ignorance.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Incorrect, as far as BA is concerned.

 

Seeing as you obviously don't know what BA is doing, I am just going to leave you in your unenlightened ignorance.

 

BA wasn't the best choice and I doubt it.

 

It is now 37 years. Without elitist seats, without lucrative international routes, and without greedy luggage fees, Southwest has been profitable for 37 consecutive years!

 

DALLAS (AP) — Flying against the headwinds of a recession and volatile fuel prices, Southwest Airlines Co. made money in the fourth quarter and extended its string of annual profits to 37 years

 

......

 

Traffic on the nation's largest discount carrier has been rising in recent months while it's been falling on many competitors.

[frugaltravel]

If the "full story" includes this part from the cited webpage, then I have to agree with AA:

High demand with everyone carrying plenty of luggage. There is only so much room on a flight, and I have to believe that AA is enforcing a uniform policy.

 

Now, if they are picking and choosing who gets to buy some extra space, that's a different situation.

 

Obviously there was room, on both the AA and the DL planes. Otherwise the airlines would not have caved into media pressure and allowed the extra luggage. Either there is room or there isn't, and since it was transported of course there in fact was room. The "ship by cargo planes" response was a smokescreen because the airlines didn't WANT to ship the stuff for free, but ended up doing so after the media attention.

[fbgd]

BA wasn't the best choice and I doubt it.

 

It is now 37 years. Without elitist seats, without lucrative international routes, and without greedy luggage fees, Southwest has been profitable for 37 consecutive years!

 

DALLAS (AP) — Flying against the headwinds of a recession and volatile fuel prices, Southwest Airlines Co. made money in the fourth quarter and extended its string of annual profits to 37 years

 

......

 

Traffic on the nation's largest discount carrier has been rising in recent months while it's been falling on many competitors.

 

:confused:

 

So the greedy airlines are the ones that aren't making profits year after year? Sounds like you've got that backwards. Surely in the world of Sargent Schultz those profits could be used returned back to the customers in the form of lower fares, sounds closer to the non-elitist, communist ideals you strive for.

 

Despite what you say I think the fact that JAL went into bankruptcy suggests they weren't greedy enough!

 

I think you're stubborn, uninformed and aren't willing to actually debate in a reasonable manner.

[paul929207]

:confused:

 

So the greedy airlines are the ones that aren't making profits year after year? Sounds like you've got that backwards. Surely in the world of Sargent Schultz those profits could be used returned back to the customers in the form of lower fares, sounds closer to the non-elitist, communist ideals you strive for.

 

Despite what you say I think the fact that JAL went into bankruptcy suggests they weren't greedy enough!

 

I think you're stubborn, uninformed and aren't willing to actually debate in a reasonable manner.

Profits go to the elitist shareholders.