Low cost airlines = bad idea

Everskyward said:
There's usually the choice of upgrading to business or first, if you don't mind paying more, only usually it's a lot more.
Click to expand...
It's a lot more complicated than that.

First, many airlines, including AAL, DAL, and UAL, have a premium economy product which offers more legroom. You can buy up to those seats or members of the frequent flyer program who have reached a level of status can get those seats for no additional charge.

Second, many flights offer an economy fare class that come with an immediate upgrade to first class if it is available. It is an economy fare but it is not a deeply discounted economy fare.

Third, many of the people who travel in first class have upgrade from economy fares either complimentary due to their FF program status or by using miles or earned upgrade instruments.

Relatively few passengers pay the published first class fares.

Bottom line is that additional legroom is available for a reasonable cost and upgrades and/or additional legroom is available for those who fly the airline regularly and have earned status and/or miles/upgrade instruments. The quoted first class fares are there for infrequent flyers with the means and willingness to pay for the seats.
 
jordane93 said:
This is why I only fly first class so I don't have to deal with the peasants.:rolleyes::)
Click to expand...
I have to be in Dallas this weekend, from ATL to DFW first class on Delta, $360 each for the wife and I!! I couldn't fly one way in the Conquest for that price. :D It's great when Southwest has the same flights as Delta, prices are great, where they don't compete it gets expensive quickly!! :eek:
 
jordane93 said:
This is why I only fly first class so I don't have to deal with the peasants.:rolleyes::)
Click to expand...
Larry in TN said:
It's a lot more complicated than that.

First, many airlines, including AAL, DAL, and UAL, have a premium economy product which offers more legroom. You can buy up to those seats or members of the frequent flyer program who have reached a level of status can get those seats for no additional charge.
Click to expand...
In the old days, before every aspect of commercial aviation was monetized, we called those seats "standard".
 
paflyer said:
In the old days, before every aspect of commercial aviation was monetized, we called those seats "standard".
Click to expand...

Seriously. California now requires larger cages for egg hens, but it's still ok to cram a human into tiny space for hours.
:rolleyes:
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Seriously. California now requires larger cages for egg hens, but it's still ok to cram a human into tiny space for hours.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's what they are willing to pay for. Unintended consequence of deregulation, maybe?
 
I don't think the cost of running an airline has decreased in the last 40 years, but if you look at just airfares, they sure have. All the extra fees and add-ons are how the airlines actually make money.
 
Lindberg said:
I don't think the cost of running an airline has decreased in the last 40 years, .
Click to expand...

Maybe not in total, but payroll certainly has and I have the W-2s to prove it. Plenty of pay cuts, benefit cuts, automation, start-ups with new low pay scales, B-scale, proliferation of "regional carriers" taking over mainline routes, maintenance subcontracted, customer service subcontracted, offshore overhaul facilities...the list goes on.

Since deregulation, cheap fares have come on the backs of airline employees. But that is how the free market works and nobody promised a rose garden.
 
So the thesis here is what? Is it that since the flight is cheap it makes people behave badly? Wal-Mart could raise its prices and make poor people find decency and manners?
 
Mason said:
Maybe not in total, but payroll certainly has and I have the W-2s to prove it. Plenty of pay cuts, benefit cuts, automation, start-ups with new low pay scales, B-scale, proliferation of "regional carriers" taking over mainline routes, maintenance subcontracted, customer service subcontracted, offshore overhaul facilities...the list goes on.

Since deregulation, cheap fares have come on the backs of airline employees. But that is how the free market works and nobody promised a rose garden.
Click to expand...

While not disputing your point...This is corporate America as a whole, wages that have not kept pace, reduced benefits, and offshoring. It just seems that the Airlines are late to the game.
 
Matthew said:
Some of us watch "It's a Wonderful Life", some of us watch the Walmart fight club videos.
Click to expand...
20 years ago that would be a night time "infomercial" !
"Walmart fight club brings you 90 action packed minutes from all over the country! thrills, spills and wild hard core fights from the worst store in America! Yous for only one low low price of $15.95....but wait theres more!....if you buy now you will also receive a second VHS of wild caught on tape action from walgreens parking lots!"
 
It is a sad commentary on our society.

There was a news report (Tulsa, OK - I think) that started a change in Walmart several months ago. The local PD was dedicating so many resources to Walmart calls that they began billing Walmart as a nuisance. Their claim was that the PD was being used by Walmart as their own store security so they could offer "low prices" without the additional overhead of providing security.

This year will be interesting to watch to see if there is any escalation.
 
Matthew said:
It is a sad commentary on our society.

There was a news report (Tulsa, OK - I think) that started a change in Walmart several months ago. The local PD was dedicating so many resources to Walmart calls that they began billing Walmart as a nuisance. Their claim was that the PD was being used by Walmart as their own store security so they could offer "low prices" without the additional overhead of providing security.

This year will be interesting to watch to see if there is any escalation.
Click to expand...

It's not a baseless claim, WM has indeed strategically decimated their loss prevention payroll with the intent to have local law enforcement handle the gap. Is it really that unbelievable to the gallery that the same company that uses welfare benefits to cover the compensation gap of their lowest paid employees, would behave in similar corporate welfare behavior when it comes to their loss prevention?

By percentage of the shrinkage, the company recognizes it can absorb the opportunity cost. Literally no different than the cartels using regression analysis to flood the border control points to push drugs pretty much without a hiccup. Moral equivalents. This Country is such a walking dichotomy.
 
So back to low cost airlines...

Priced out next year's vacation tickets. $350 round trip well over halfway across the country in cattle car or $900 in something upgraded. And I'm sorely tempted not to run the risk of the fiasco with the basketball wannabe hitting on the flight attended as he takes up half of my seat again.

Of course being an Avgeek I had to see if I could find a 787 leg since most stuff with upgraded seats was interestingly multi-stop out of cowtown.

I could but it'd be $1200 round trip. Nah. ;)

Might split the difference. Cattle car on the way there (on the way to happy vacation) upgrades on the way home (don't ruin happy with basketball moron again).
 
Just flew back from Europe on WOW airlines which hubs through Iceland. It is as inexpensive as it gets, $350 r/t from Baltimore to Gatwick. The seats were fine, they did not recline and were skinny, but plenty of room for me (6'2" and 200#). I like the business about paying for any service drinks/food--until you experience a flight without it, you don't realize what a fuss is made by flight attendants rolling though the aisles with a cart for what seems like ages. So I like cheap airlines, overseas anyway--never fly commercial in the states, use my own plane or drive or take a train. Would be quite happy to see them all go out of business in fact. And I know this sounds sexist but WOW airlines lives up to its name with the stewardesses they are like supermodels. Makes you actually pay attention to the safely brief.
 
hindsight2020 said:
... the same company that uses welfare benefits to cover the compensation gap of their lowest paid employees...
Click to expand...

I see this often repeated; what the hell does it mean?

Last I checked, neither Walmart, nor any other like employer, had the benefit of government money with which to operate.
 
SCCutler said:
I see this often repeated; what the hell does it mean?

Last I checked, neither Walmart, nor any other like employer, had the benefit of government money with which to operate.
Click to expand...

WM usually employs mostly part time workers so they don't have to provide benefits, like health insurance. Those employees then use government programs to make up the shortfall. WM and other big companies take advantage of it IMO.
 
mscard88 said:
WM usually employs mostly part time workers so they don't have to provide benefits, like health insurance. Those employees then use government programs to make up the shortfall. WM and other big companies take advantage of it IMO.
Click to expand...

Correct. And as I stated earlier, similar dynamics exist for their loss prevention payroll, in this case, strategic under-staffing in order to subrogate the loss prevention costs to the community. It's not a conspiracy, "privatize profits,socialize losses" is now a legitimate corporate operating strategy, post 2008-bank bailout. Same can be said for the airline industry and the use of bankruptcy courts to act as bargaining tools in the interest of management. None of this is new.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Same can be said for the airline industry and the use of bankruptcy courts to act as bargaining tools in the interest of management.
Click to expand...

Yup, major airline pilots still trying to get back where they were years ago. 40-50% pay cuts back then while management departed with millions (in Delta's case, Leo Mullins $25mil).
 
mscard88 said:
WM usually employs mostly part time workers so they don't have to provide benefits, like health insurance. Those employees then use government programs to make up the shortfall. WM and other big companies take advantage of it IMO.
Click to expand...

I'd urge people not to work there or shop there, then, if the employment policies offend.

But there is no "subsidy" from government, and that oft-repeated claim is nonsensical.

Also, might add: around here, every able-bodied person who wants to work, is working, and (2) "minimum wage" is the rate of pay for those whose labors and efforts are worth less than the amount being paid (not "worthless," just worth less). Unskilled labor in construction is starting around $14.00/hour, plus benefits.
 
SCCutler said:
I'd urge people not to work there or shop there, then, if the employment policies offend.

But there is no "subsidy" from government, and that oft-repeated claim is nonsensical.

Also, might add: around here, every able-bodied person who wants to work, is working, and (2) "minimum wage" is the rate of pay for those whose labors and efforts are worth less than the amount being paid (not "worthless," just worth less). Unskilled labor in construction is starting around $14.00/hour, plus benefits.
Click to expand...

That's the point right there. WM doesn't give their employees enough hours to be eligable for benefits, and they don't pay enough to allow their employees to afford benefits on their own. The employees are available to work more hours for the benefits, but that's not in WM interest. Its costs them more, so they don't. They offload that on the rest of us to cover through welfare. The police being responsible for WM loss prevention is another example of that.
 
I don't get the mindset that says the local mom and pop can use the police to do police stuff, but Walmart can't. In most jurisdictions a store employee touches anyone to stop them from stealing they open themselves up to big liability. Cops get immunity from liability and if they get totally out of hand the city just charges the taxpayers for their multimillion dollar excessive force settlements.
 
UngaWunga said:
That's the point right there. WM doesn't give their employees enough hours to be eligable for benefits, and they don't pay enough to allow their employees to afford benefits on their own. The employees are available to work more hours for the benefits, but that's not in WM interest. Its costs them more, so they don't. They offload that on the rest of us to cover through welfare. The police being responsible for WM loss prevention is another example of that.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "offloaded"- if folks don't get what they need (in hours or hourly rate) from Walmart, they can work elsewhere. Nothing "offloaded" there. Folks being on welfare is hardly the fault of employers, unless you'd contend that employers should hire more people than they need, but that is and will always be a losing doctrine.
 
The thing is, even if these people find another job, it will be a part time job at another employer that does the same thing, so they will be working "full time" without benefits. Anecdotally, almost every place I walk into has a "help wanted" sign these days, and it's been that way for a while. I couldn't tell you if these are full time or part time jobs, though.
 
Larry in TN said:
It's a lot more complicated than that.

First, many airlines, including AAL, DAL, and UAL, have a premium economy product which offers more legroom. You can buy up to those seats or members of the frequent flyer program who have reached a level of status can get those seats for no additional charge.

Second, many flights offer an economy fare class that come with an immediate upgrade to first class if it is available. It is an economy fare but it is not a deeply discounted economy fare.

Third, many of the people who travel in first class have upgrade from economy fares either complimentary due to their FF program status or by using miles or earned upgrade instruments.

Relatively few passengers pay the published first class fares.

Bottom line is that additional legroom is available for a reasonable cost and upgrades and/or additional legroom is available for those who fly the airline regularly and have earned status and/or miles/upgrade instruments. The quoted first class fares are there for infrequent flyers with the means and willingness to pay for the seats.
Click to expand...

i like that I can pay 30-50 for more legroom, but i'm broad shouldered and would rather pay for WIDTH. it hurts like h3ll to hold my shoulder pinned into my chest so I don't bother the person next to me. i'm 6'3", 225, so not skinny, but it's my shoulders that are the problem.

I wish there was a $100 option for more width to get a row 5 wide 737 instead of 6 wide (I mostly fly Alaska, with some DLT and SWA). i'd buy that upgrade every damn time. i won't pay $1,000 for first class ona 5 hour flight, but i'd pay 100-150 for a little more width.
 
The health insurance market may be a little better if employers weren't in the game at all. By that, I mean simply pay the portion of healthcare premiums they are currently providing directly to the employee (either as compensation or into an HSA). Then, each person would be able to go to a giant market to find a health care plan that suits their needs. Much similar to what the ACA was trying to do, but just don't mandate that everyone must participate. It would eliminate the problem of part-time work without benefits, if that money was just paid as wages instead.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The health insurance market may be a little better if employers weren't in the game at all. By that, I mean simply pay the portion of healthcare premiums they are currently providing directly to the employee (either as compensation or into an HSA). Then, each person would be able to go to a giant market to find a health care plan that suits their needs. Much similar to what the ACA was trying to do, but just don't mandate that everyone must participate. It would eliminate the problem of part-time work without benefits, if that money was just paid as wages instead.
Click to expand...

But you need to mandate that everyone is covered, or only sick people will buy coverage and it'll be crazy expensive.
Or you could just magically make the insurance companies do away, and health costs will drop immediately by 30-40% without their overhead...
 
UngaWunga said:
But you need to mandate that everyone is covered, or only sick people will buy coverage and it'll be crazy expensive.
Or you could just magically make the insurance companies do away, and health costs will drop immediately by 30-40% without their overhead...
Click to expand...

You don't have to mandate that everyone is covered. The people who wish to purchase insurance coverage are covered, not everyone. I do think that the pre-existing condition should be mandated, because otherwise anyone with aggressive cancer who lost their job would never be picked up by an insurance company if we left it up to them as it's an extremely high-risk category. I don't believe for a minute that health costs would drop with a single-payer system, because the government has proven many times over that they can add more overhead and expense that the worst of the private companies.
 
Medicare has much lower overhead costs than private health insurance.

But we should get back to airlines and how cheap flights = lack of decency... :)
 
mscard88 said:
WM usually employs mostly part time workers so they don't have to provide benefits, like health insurance. Those employees then use government programs to make up the shortfall. WM and other big companies take advantage of it IMO.
Click to expand...
Unless you're contending that these people would not be on government assistance if they were unemployed by Wal-Mart, I don't see how you can attribute their being on public assistance to Wal-Mart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top