Carl,

I see where you think Hawaii is painting things with a broad brush with his "shrinking and growing" comment, but you are doing the same thing. This is now water under the bridge, but the fact remains that a sizable number of fnwa jets are being retired, most of the -9's, all the freighters and probably some of the 55 series 75's. On the fdal side, only the similar series 75's I think are being contemplated. As for growth, fdal has firm purchases of MD-90's, 777 and 737-700's. fnwa growth appears to be only possible 747 or A330. I think that was his ancillary point in his post, not the salient one. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Again, water under the bridge.


Frats,

Cog

I seem to recall a discussion about "focus cities" during indoc. Basically, it's code for an airport monopoly where we can charge the bejezus out of anyone who goes through there. Airline monopolies = money in the bank.

So bag fees, cool or uncool? Cool . . . for now.

Mike Boyd, the internet's biggest self promoting aviation "expert" has a good piece up this week saying that at some point, Southwest's no-fee bag commercials and policy are going to start hitting home. He hastens to add that it's perfectly reasonable for airlines to go with a la carte fees, but they're not doing a very good job of educating the customer as to why it's necessary and why Southwest can get away without charging them up front.


IMHO. Frankly, if pilots start getting paid $250k/yr again, the peeps are going to be cheesed off about paying bag fees.

If they would be cheesed off about pay, they need to realize that the bag fees just about cover total executive compensation for each airline.
They already think we all make 300K a year and only work 75 hrs a month.

They would be cheesed off about paying bag fees if we were robotic pilots and only required a drop of oil every other leg.

My best friend is a radiation therapist. He makes over $200K per year and is home every night. He dropped out of college after his first year.

I think air traffic controllers make over $150K, they are home every night, and they have pensions.

We deserve $250K and if need be, passengers should be educated on why.

I think passengers know very little about what we make anyway.

Another often wrong spelling is loose instead of lose, as in "Haven't you ever lost anything Doctor Bronx, your purse, your car keys, well its rather like that, now you have it now you don't. Sorry, I slipped into movie speak from one of my favorites. Any guesses?

Can I give you the answer if I cheated and googled the quote? :D

Except for one thing. they know.. well a big majority of them anyway.. that we make more than they do. And that is all they NEED to know, because anybody that makes more than you do, makes too much. Just ask nanci pelosi..

I couldn't agree more. The public's general perception of the profession is skewed. Management's perception of our value is skewed.

Moreover, the public's perception of what is appropriate to pay for intercontinental and international travel is INCREDIBLY skewed.

Baggage fees are a brilliant move in a business sense. I know for a fact that departure times have not really been altered by the first round of baggage fees being instituted. The price hike may cause a blip, but I really doubt it.

It allows airlines to firm up some leaky RASM, while not effecting demand because the price-sensitive consumer does not see the costs in online shopping for tickets. Fuel surcharges are similar as well, plus it keeps corporate clients from not paying the increased carrying costs associated with fuel because they buy miles in bulk...and if not for the surcharge would be getting a discount on average ticket prices during extremely high fuel price cycles.

Ugh, not that road, I do not want a political infraction! :D

Actually, over 1800 of them make over $170k/yr, but that's a poor argument to make. They're vastly overpaid, particularly when they're compared to their equivalent counterparts in any other western nation. Paid more than US military generals, more than US government doctors, government lawyers, etc. It's madness, but certainly a testament to how a broken union can reconstitute itself and hold the US taxpayer and their deep pockets hostage. Good for them, I suppose. Nice to see one union group kick butt, I guess.

Unfortunately, while I certainly think that pilots should make more, the marketplace sure doesn't seem to think so. Decades of "education" campaigns haven't had any effect, nor is it a matter of "getting the message out". With a median US household income of only about $50,000, pilots who make $75-$120k/year seem pretty well off to most.

Doubly so with an unemployment rate of at least 10%, probably significantly higher.

Anyway, the airlines have to start making money in a big way again first, because until they're profitable, it's kind of a moot discussion.