9 ms·

Southwest has a fundamentally different business model involving standardized fleet sizes & limited routing. Plus, if he's complaining about stopovers + layover

Southwest has a fundamentally different business model involving standardized fleet sizes & limited routing. Plus, if he's complaining about stopovers + layovers, Southwest has these on almost every flight. He's stating a lot of things that would be nice, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people still fly Spirit Airlines - despite their constant low ratings - because it's costs $50 bucks. The real discussion should be about fare transparency as a bunch of airlines are rolling out basic economy fares that don't include food, limit space even further and don't accrue points, etc. Instead of making a new, nicer tier class, they're taking away items from the basic economy fares and maintaining the same pricing.[1][2] The fact that none of these pieces are talking about this makes me think these are outrage opinion articles by talking heads rather than people who regularly fly [1] https://thepointsguy.com/2017/03/is-basic-economy-really-a-deal/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/03/is-basic-economy-really-a-d... [2] https://thepointsguy.com/2017/02/united-selling-basic-economy/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/02/united-selling-basic-econom...

mikeash 10y ago
As usual, people don't know their own desires. Ask people what makes them choose an airline and they'll probably tell you a tale about reputation, service, legroom, amenities, what have you. Now stick them in front of a computer and tell them to buy a ticket with their own money and watch them pick the cheapest option regardless of the rest. It's a race to the bottom because that's what people really want. When the rubber meets the road, most people want a horrible, cheap experience. Why do airlines overbook flights? Because people would rather save $5 with a chance of being bumped than pay a little extra. Obviously, we'd all love direct flights with sixteen feet of legroom, a hundred free checked bags, gourmet meals, free access to a library of every movie and TV show ever made, and for a price of $3.50. But that's not going to happen, because amenities cost money. When we're faced with the tradeoff, we favor low prices. Once I truly realized this, I became a lot less annoyed with many airline shenanigans. Yeah, it's pretty annoying that as a tall guy I barely fit into the seat. But it's what I paid for. If it was that important to me, I could pay extra for more space. I don't, because, like most people, I prefer cheapness above all else. You can get a much nicer experience if you pay for it. If you don't feel like paying for it, then what are you complaining about? Not particularly related, but this line from the article caught my eye: "It makes no sense to allow airlines to charge an astronomical fare just because a flight is nearly full, and a dirt-cheap fare for an advance booking." What planet is this guy from? Of course it makes sense to charge high fares for a scarce product in high demand, and low fares for an abundant product in low demand.
- rconti 10y ago
  The irony of the last line is, if the airline DIDN'T jack up the fares just before the flight sold out, it would be even more oversold than the airline that jacks up prices but fails to sell those last couple of seats at high cost. In fact, that high price is one way they keep a flight from being overbooked (or TOO overbooked). (though, on further reflection, if they overbook 5 seats on extremely expensive fares, then 'bump' the lowest-utility (==poorest) passengers for $200 in flight credit, they've managed to raise the fare for already-paid-for-seats)
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Regarding your parenthetical, if the bumping is voluntary then, at least in theory, everyone comes out ahead. The airline makes more money, the person in a hurry who is willing to pay more money gets to his destination more quickly, and the person who isn't in much of a hurry gets to pay even less for their flight than they originally thought. It's like an auction for the seat after the fact. Of course, this is only a good thing if the airlines are transparent about it, and offer enough compensation to bumped passengers for them to take it voluntarily.
- closeparen 10y ago
  But we aren't given the option to pay a proportionally higher fare for proportionally higher quality. Higher fare classes aren't +20%, +30%, they're 3x, 4x, 10x. There are "I only shop on price" seats and "money is no object" seats. I wish we had more of a middle, beyond the usual +$150 for an exit row or +$100 for a regular economy seat, but in the forward half of the plane.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What would you want that would be beyond the premium for a nicer seat, but less than business class?
  - ashark 10y ago
    Seriously, show me where I can pay an almost-reasonable (say, 10-15%) upgrade fee for 3-4" more legroom over whatever the lowest is they can get away with (so, what they actually use in economy ordinarily) and I'll pay it every single time I fly, and I'm not even that tall. AFAIK leg room and other space considerations aren't even presented to me when shopping for tickets, but too little of it is my #1 complaint about flying, which is saying something because most things about flying are complaint-worthy.
rconti 10y ago
Yeah, it's a really confusing piece. He holds up Southwest in that one example as a shining star that proves all of his theories, when in reality, it only proves that airlines can get by without change fees and bag fees. But Southwest is as "bad" as anyone when it comes to jacking up prices when a flight is near sold out, and, in my experience, are more likely to have stopovers than other airlines. As someone who actually flies, the existing system works amazingly well, and delivers a service at a surprisingly low cost. Undersold aircraft and regulated fares are great for business travelers who are price-insensitive, but virtually every "fix" he cites will cost people money. Personally, I just wish some airline would test "the market" for a premium level of services (few more inches of elbow room is "premium", apparently) that doesn't cost 5x the money for 10% more space.
- tyingq 10y ago
  There was Midwest Express. All seats were leather, business class, and they baked fresh cookies on every flight. Flew them more than once, it was the best US airline experience I ever had. Was priced the same a non-discounted coach fare on a normal airline. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-11-08/travel/9811080292_1_chicago-and-milwaukee-air-traffic-coach-prices http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-11-08/travel/9811080... Sadly, they were merged into Frontier in 2011.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  There's a valid reason for "jacking up the fares" when the flight is almost sold out -- airline seats are a limited commodify so demand pricing ensures that the customer that really needs to get somewhere can find a seat, even if he has to pay more for it. When I had to fly cross-country due to a parent's sudden serious hospitalization, I paid an arm and a leg to book a fare for a same day departure, but I sure am glad I had that option, I'd rather pay $1300 when I really need to be somewhere than having no options at all because all of the seats sold out at $400.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    Why does "I have more money" automatically correlate with "really needs to get somewhere"? What if, in your example, you didn't have $1300 to spend, but could have afforded a $400 ticket? Do we, collectively as customers, really want to say "too bad, if you're poor you don't get to have your needs fulfilled in emergencies"? People won't book a flight -- especially on short notice -- just because it's cheap. They book because they actually want to go somewhere. Sure, there are people who occasionally want to make a trip on a whim, and a higher price is a disincentive and deterrent to making that decision last-minute... but it doesn't automatically follow that low prices mean that they'll always be snatched up and there won't be available tickets for people who "need" one more.
atourgates 10y ago
I love and support the New Yorker, but this article is significantly below their typical standard of research and evidence for even opinion pieces. Southwest is a great example that the current model is working. Don't want to pay baggage fees, and get nickeled and dimed for everything? Fly Southwest. I frequently recommend them as the best domestic airline for people who don't fly enough to get airline status, and aren't willing to pay for first/business class travel. They've got a pretty good route network, and the difference between the highest tier passenger on a Southwest flight and the lowest tier passenger on a Southwest flight is far less than traditional carriers. I hope the free market punishes the ultra-economy fares that traditional carriers are offering. Flying a traditional carrier on an economy ticket without status is already such a degrading experience. Hopefully passengers won't be willing to suffer further degradation, and will just switch their business to Southwest, Alaska or another carrier that doesn't offer ultra-economy fares. There is also real competition occurring at many airports throughout the country. For example, Delta and Alaska Air are waging an all-out war in Seattle right now, with both airlines aggressively pursuing flyers in that market. Now, I do think some additional regulation is necessary. The fact that airlines aren't responsible to take care of stranded passengers during weather delays is inexcusable, and increased fare transparency would help the competitive side of the marketplace. And I agree with the article that regulators should also be much more skeptical of mergers that decrease competition and establish de facto monopolies.
- joelrunyon 10y ago
  Do you love and support the New York Times too? Because that's where this story was published...
  - atourgates 10y ago
    Ha! Yes and yes, but I clearly need some more coffee this morning. This piece fits much better as a NYT article. Maybe one day soon I'll learn to read properly.
- akinalci 10y ago
  > Southwest is a great example that the current model is working. Southwest is called out in the article as an example of an airline doing things right. I fly Southwest and prefer it to other domestic airlines, but are they actually beating the other airlines? I just looked up their Q4 earnings out of curiosity, and they seem to be doing well compared to their competitors: Southwest Q4 2016: $522M net profit on $5.1B revenue United Q4 2016: $397M net profit on $9.1B revenue American Q4 2016: $289M net profit on $9.7B revenue
rhizome 10y ago
a lot of people still fly Spirit Airlines - despite their constant low ratings - because it's costs $50 bucks. "If [Spirit] asked people what they wanted they would have said 'more legroom'." --apologies to Henry Ford

mikeash 10y ago

As usual, people don't know their own desires. Ask people what makes them choose an airline and they'll probably tell you a tale about reputation, service, legroom, amenities, what have you. Now stick them in front of a computer and tell them to buy a ticket with their own money and watch them pick the cheapest option regardless of the rest. It's a race to the bottom because that's what people really want. When the rubber meets the road, most people want a horrible, cheap experience. Why do airlines overbook flights? Because people would rather save $5 with a chance of being bumped than pay a little extra. Obviously, we'd all love direct flights with sixteen feet of legroom, a hundred free checked bags, gourmet meals, free access to a library of every movie and TV show ever made, and for a price of $3.50. But that's not going to happen, because amenities cost money. When we're faced with the tradeoff, we favor low prices. Once I truly realized this, I became a lot less annoyed with many airline shenanigans. Yeah, it's pretty annoying that as a tall guy I barely fit into the seat. But it's what I paid for. If it was that important to me, I could pay extra for more space. I don't, because, like most people, I prefer cheapness above all else. You can get a much nicer experience if you pay for it. If you don't feel like paying for it, then what are you complaining about? Not particularly related, but this line from the article caught my eye: "It makes no sense to allow airlines to charge an astronomical fare just because a flight is nearly full, and a dirt-cheap fare for an advance booking." What planet is this guy from? Of course it makes sense to charge high fares for a scarce product in high demand, and low fares for an abundant product in low demand.

rconti 10y ago
The irony of the last line is, if the airline DIDN'T jack up the fares just before the flight sold out, it would be even more oversold than the airline that jacks up prices but fails to sell those last couple of seats at high cost. In fact, that high price is one way they keep a flight from being overbooked (or TOO overbooked). (though, on further reflection, if they overbook 5 seats on extremely expensive fares, then 'bump' the lowest-utility (==poorest) passengers for $200 in flight credit, they've managed to raise the fare for already-paid-for-seats)
- mikeash 10y ago
  Regarding your parenthetical, if the bumping is voluntary then, at least in theory, everyone comes out ahead. The airline makes more money, the person in a hurry who is willing to pay more money gets to his destination more quickly, and the person who isn't in much of a hurry gets to pay even less for their flight than they originally thought. It's like an auction for the seat after the fact. Of course, this is only a good thing if the airlines are transparent about it, and offer enough compensation to bumped passengers for them to take it voluntarily.
closeparen 10y ago
But we aren't given the option to pay a proportionally higher fare for proportionally higher quality. Higher fare classes aren't +20%, +30%, they're 3x, 4x, 10x. There are "I only shop on price" seats and "money is no object" seats. I wish we had more of a middle, beyond the usual +$150 for an exit row or +$100 for a regular economy seat, but in the forward half of the plane.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What would you want that would be beyond the premium for a nicer seat, but less than business class?
- ashark 10y ago
  Seriously, show me where I can pay an almost-reasonable (say, 10-15%) upgrade fee for 3-4" more legroom over whatever the lowest is they can get away with (so, what they actually use in economy ordinarily) and I'll pay it every single time I fly, and I'm not even that tall. AFAIK leg room and other space considerations aren't even presented to me when shopping for tickets, but too little of it is my #1 complaint about flying, which is saying something because most things about flying are complaint-worthy.

rconti 10y ago

Yeah, it's a really confusing piece. He holds up Southwest in that one example as a shining star that proves all of his theories, when in reality, it only proves that airlines can get by without change fees and bag fees. But Southwest is as "bad" as anyone when it comes to jacking up prices when a flight is near sold out, and, in my experience, are more likely to have stopovers than other airlines. As someone who actually flies, the existing system works amazingly well, and delivers a service at a surprisingly low cost. Undersold aircraft and regulated fares are great for business travelers who are price-insensitive, but virtually every "fix" he cites will cost people money. Personally, I just wish some airline would test "the market" for a premium level of services (few more inches of elbow room is "premium", apparently) that doesn't cost 5x the money for 10% more space.

tyingq 10y ago
There was Midwest Express. All seats were leather, business class, and they baked fresh cookies on every flight. Flew them more than once, it was the best US airline experience I ever had. Was priced the same a non-discounted coach fare on a normal airline. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-11-08/travel/9811080292_1_chicago-and-milwaukee-air-traffic-coach-prices http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-11-08/travel/9811080... Sadly, they were merged into Frontier in 2011.
Johnny555 10y ago
There's a valid reason for "jacking up the fares" when the flight is almost sold out -- airline seats are a limited commodify so demand pricing ensures that the customer that really needs to get somewhere can find a seat, even if he has to pay more for it. When I had to fly cross-country due to a parent's sudden serious hospitalization, I paid an arm and a leg to book a fare for a same day departure, but I sure am glad I had that option, I'd rather pay $1300 when I really need to be somewhere than having no options at all because all of the seats sold out at $400.
- kelnos 10y ago
  Why does "I have more money" automatically correlate with "really needs to get somewhere"? What if, in your example, you didn't have $1300 to spend, but could have afforded a $400 ticket? Do we, collectively as customers, really want to say "too bad, if you're poor you don't get to have your needs fulfilled in emergencies"? People won't book a flight -- especially on short notice -- just because it's cheap. They book because they actually want to go somewhere. Sure, there are people who occasionally want to make a trip on a whim, and a higher price is a disincentive and deterrent to making that decision last-minute... but it doesn't automatically follow that low prices mean that they'll always be snatched up and there won't be available tickets for people who "need" one more.

atourgates 10y ago

I love and support the New Yorker, but this article is significantly below their typical standard of research and evidence for even opinion pieces. Southwest is a great example that the current model is working. Don't want to pay baggage fees, and get nickeled and dimed for everything? Fly Southwest. I frequently recommend them as the best domestic airline for people who don't fly enough to get airline status, and aren't willing to pay for first/business class travel. They've got a pretty good route network, and the difference between the highest tier passenger on a Southwest flight and the lowest tier passenger on a Southwest flight is far less than traditional carriers. I hope the free market punishes the ultra-economy fares that traditional carriers are offering. Flying a traditional carrier on an economy ticket without status is already such a degrading experience. Hopefully passengers won't be willing to suffer further degradation, and will just switch their business to Southwest, Alaska or another carrier that doesn't offer ultra-economy fares. There is also real competition occurring at many airports throughout the country. For example, Delta and Alaska Air are waging an all-out war in Seattle right now, with both airlines aggressively pursuing flyers in that market. Now, I do think some additional regulation is necessary. The fact that airlines aren't responsible to take care of stranded passengers during weather delays is inexcusable, and increased fare transparency would help the competitive side of the marketplace. And I agree with the article that regulators should also be much more skeptical of mergers that decrease competition and establish de facto monopolies.

joelrunyon 10y ago
Do you love and support the New York Times too? Because that's where this story was published...
- atourgates 10y ago
  Ha! Yes and yes, but I clearly need some more coffee this morning. This piece fits much better as a NYT article. Maybe one day soon I'll learn to read properly.
akinalci 10y ago
> Southwest is a great example that the current model is working. Southwest is called out in the article as an example of an airline doing things right. I fly Southwest and prefer it to other domestic airlines, but are they actually beating the other airlines? I just looked up their Q4 earnings out of curiosity, and they seem to be doing well compared to their competitors: Southwest Q4 2016: $522M net profit on $5.1B revenue United Q4 2016: $397M net profit on $9.1B revenue American Q4 2016: $289M net profit on $9.7B revenue

rhizome 10y ago

a lot of people still fly Spirit Airlines - despite their constant low ratings - because it's costs $50 bucks. "If [Spirit] asked people what they wanted they would have said 'more legroom'." --apologies to Henry Ford