Oh the irony!

lawingr

lawingr

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
164
Location
Grand Rapids, Mi
Display Name
Display name:
LegalEagle
In light of the huge push by the airlines and the FAA for user fees, I found it incredibly ironic that there was an article in our local paper yesterday (city of about 300,000) stating that it is possible that this year will be the year the airlines break their previous profit record :dunno:
 
lawingr said:
In light of the huge push by the airlines and the FAA for user fees, I found it incredibly ironic that there was an article in our local paper yesterday (city of about 300,000) stating that it is possible that this year will be the year the airlines break their previous profit record :dunno:
Click to expand...


What was their previous record: - (negative) $1mil? :D
 
Believe it or not, it was a serious article. Apparently back in the late 90's the airlines were VERY profitable. They were surmising that at the rate they are going right now, the airlines could possibly break those late-90's profit records. I wouldn't have been terribly surprised if it had been a revenue record, but profit record surprised me.
 
Lets be fair to the airlines, They do make a profit, but with the CEOs salary sometimes they don't end up in the black.
 
I saw the tail end of a speech by David Neeleman yesterday. He was saying airlines traditionally draw a profit in the 7, 8 and 9 years of a decade. They have a loss in the 1, 3 and 5 years. There's a bankruptcy, debt is wiped out and they return to profitability until costs are overrun again.

He didn't cite a source for this but it would be an interesting study. For one who had the time, the SEC filings and published annual reports would be the ideal sources.
 
Hard to believe that the airlines are not a profitable business. I mean with the economy doing so well and all aren't all business just swimming in profit and workers getting huge raises?

Oh yeah that is only for a couple of business and certain types of workers.

But really how many empty seats on the last flight you had? How many flights were there were no empty seats? the only reason that airlines are not profitable is because the people who run them are IDOITS who do not charge what their air seats are worth and somehow feel that having all the seats filled at a loss is a good thing.
 
smigaldi said:
Hard to believe that the airlines are not a profitable business. I mean with the economy doing so well and all aren't all business just swimming in profit and workers getting huge raises?

Oh yeah that is only for a couple of business and certain types of workers.

But really how many empty seats on the last flight you had? How many flights were there were no empty seats? the only reason that airlines are not profitable is because the people who run them are IDOITS who do not charge what their air seats are worth and somehow feel that having all the seats filled at a loss is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I flew BOS->DFW on a flight that was full in first, but basically empty up back.

We had 46 people - I counted while bored - sitting in the back of a 757. We all had rows to ourselves, and room to spare...

Granted, I was flying on a 5:30pm flight on Easter Sunday.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
I flew to Detroit on an Airbus and there were 9 people on the plane. granted it was 6 AM. (I was changing there - not stopping).
 
smigaldi said:
But really how many empty seats on the last flight you had?
Click to expand...

zero. And there were folks left on the standby list.

How many flights were there were no empty seats?
Click to expand...

Most of them. Worst was a flight with 125 people on the standby list.

the only reason that airlines are not profitable is because the people who run them are IDOITS who do not charge what their air seats are worth and somehow feel that having all the seats filled at a loss is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If you purchase them (as opposed to upgrading), the First Class and Biz Class seats are generally not worth what you're paying for them. A fare differential of 6x is too high, IMHO.... which is part of the reason I've been flying Midwest Airlines when I can. Coach is generally determined by the competitive market... the airlines have allowed travel to become a commodity. The ONLY real differential in coach seating is the ability to change or refund a ticket (and I maintain that refunds are warranted if the air carrier fails to provide the purchased service).

The real problem is that many airlines could not make the transition from regulated to competitive market. And add to that the awful customer service that most airlines provide, especially to non-status folks.

I've come to the conclusion that a non-status flyer is far better off flying Southwest than one of the major carriers.... and it's soon getting to the point where the same might be said for status travelers.
 
astanley said:
I flew BOS->DFW on a flight that was full in first, but basically empty up back.

Granted, I was flying on a 5:30pm flight on Easter Sunday.
Click to expand...

You were lucky. Both the 5:20 out of SAT and the 7 PM out of DFW were overbooked.
 
wsuffa said:
Not exactly. If you purchase them (as opposed to upgrading), the First Class and Biz Class seats are generally not worth what you're paying for them. A fare differential of 6x is too high, IMHO.... which is part of the reason I've been flying Midwest Airlines when I can. Coach is generally determined by the competitive market... the airlines have allowed travel to become a commodity. The ONLY real differential in coach seating is the ability to change or refund a ticket (and I maintain that refunds are warranted if the air carrier fails to provide the purchased service).
Click to expand...

Two notes -

Delta's stranglehold on CVG is a prime example of what happens when an airline takes over a large airport. Holy crap fares are expensive!

Secondly, a 6'2" and <mumblemumble>240#, the seats in First are different enough to make the experience at least somewhat less painful.

The real problem is that many airlines could not make the transition from regulated to competitive market. And add to that the awful customer service that most airlines provide, especially to non-status folks.

I've come to the conclusion that a non-status flyer is far better off flying Southwest than one of the major carriers.... and it's soon getting to the point where the same might be said for status travelers.
Click to expand...

I hate Southwest and I don't trust JetBlue, but, well, they are so attractive from a pricing perspective I don't know why I wouldn't fly them on my own dime.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
Two notes -

Delta's stranglehold on CVG is a prime example of what happens when an airline takes over a large airport. Holy crap fares are expensive!

Secondly, a 6'2" and <mumblemumble>240#, the seats in First are different enough to make the experience at least somewhat less painful.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I used to drive to Lexington, Louisville, Dayton, or Columbus when I lived in Cincy. Couldn't justify paying 4x the price for the same seat.

Competition works.

And I agree about the size of the first class seat - that's why I try and fly Midwest's Signature Service when I can.

I hate Southwest and I don't trust JetBlue, but, well, they are so attractive from a pricing perspective I don't know why I wouldn't fly them on my own dime.
Click to expand...

As one who did a "non-status" challenge run on AA, my perspective on Southwest is this: if you have non-status (e.g. can't choose the 'blocked' seats, can't board early, get shunted to a third-world call center, get lowest priority, no chance of upgrades at all) you'll be sitting in coach anyway and may not have room for your carry-on.... with Southwest, you can check-in exactly 24 hours in advance, and virtually be guaranteed a Group A (at worst, group 'B') boarding. In group A, you are virtually guaranteed an aisle seat - or if there are a lot of through passengers, you will get nothing worse than a window seat), and you will get on the plane before 2/3 of the passengers, meaning that you will get overhead bin space. It's almost totally in your control - check in early, you get better group choice.

Thus, you have more control over your experience with the open seating policy on Southwest, whereas on the legacies - you're stuck.

Again, if you have status, it's different on a legacy.

And, it's rare that you get an agent or flight crew on Southwest that's nasty or less than helpful. They do enjoy the job.

Further, if you buy a late, full-fare ticket on a legacy, you have a reasonable chance of ending up in a middle seat because the others are assigned. With Southwest, as long as you're 24 hours out, you stand a pretty good chance of avoiding the dreaded middle seat.

The whole 'challenge' experience with AA led me to change my views... I've had status on various airlines so long that I forgot what the experience was like for a non-FF.
 
Oh, yeah, no stupid fees on Southwest, either. Change the flight? You don't get dinged for a change fee.
 
No, but Southwest has that irritating thing where its cheaper to go direct than to go with a stopover because they charge fees per stop.

Seriously, why would you do that?
 
SkyHog said:
No, but Southwest has that irritating thing where its cheaper to go direct than to go with a stopover because they charge fees per stop.

Seriously, why would you do that?
Click to expand...

Why would you do what? Go direct? I'd rather go direct.

As for the fees, you pay more for a stop regardless of WN. Airport inprovement fees, etc.

Frankly, I have no problem with it... beats the other airlines that charge more - sometimes a LOT more - for going direct.
 
A lot of the emptier commercial flights are actually positioning flights that the plane would have to fly anyway - their bonus that they have revenue generating passengers (and sometimes cargo) on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top