|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 877928)
It's a vicious cycle for price-conscious consumers, but a virtuous one for airlines intent on hiking fares and boosting profits.
The truth? All airlines (including SWA) are for profit companies NOT public utilities. I just don't get why they are always making us out as the bad guys when we have been subsidizing the traveling public for over a decade. Capacity needs to come down (through fleet reductions or the more recent merger mania) and fares will naturally come up. Airlines need to make money for the economy overall to be healthy. If that means that it will no longer be possible to fly from OAK-FLL for $69 then so be it. :eek: Not picking on you ftb, this just always grinds my gears. |
Originally Posted by caddis
(Post 877937)
Sorry to break away from SWA/Airtran topic but I have an AE question.
According to the category list for Dec 10 based on the previous AE, i.e. not the Sept one, I should be much higher on the category list then it appears I will be, to the tune of 30 to 40 numbers. My question is are these projected category lists even close to reality? Will they really convert 30 to 40 guys in one month? Part of the reason I did not bid out of my current seat is it looked like I was getting much senior, but that does not seem to be the case. Thanks I hear ya. There were plenty of guys that had a % qualifier in that didn't seem to be reflected at all in the actual category list. I'm not sure where they get the numbers when they make that calculation. Hopefully someone will have the answer. If not, call the contract admin folks tomorrow. Maybe they will have an answer for you. They've been very good with any questions I've called with. |
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 877938)
The tone of these articles always cracks me up. They make the airlines out to be big bad corporations that are trying to rob the public of their hard earned dime.
The truth? All airlines (including SWA) are for profit companies NOT public utilities. I just don't get why they are always making us out as the bad guys when we have been subsidizing the traveling public for over a decade. Capacity needs to come down (through fleet reductions or the more recent merger mania) and fares will naturally come up. Airlines need to make money for the economy overall to be healthy. If that means that it will no longer be possible to fly from OAK-FLL for $69 then so be it. :eek: Not picking on you ftb, this just always grinds my gears. |
Originally Posted by LuvJockey
(Post 877919)
OMG, I just posted on the Delta thread. I am sorry, will never happen again - probably.
|
I learned in Latin class once that when the crowd in Rome wanted you to kill someone they actually used a thumbs up signal, not down.
Why that sticks in my head, I do not know. Because don't ask me to make the genders match, to decline or whatever you were supposed to do. Its just a random factoid for the night. Speaking of down for the count: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/assets...2340399400.jpg ^^^ thats FTB lying on the mat. Trying to keep Clamp Show hours and toddler hours is too much even for me day after day. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 877955)
I learned in Latin class once that when the crowd in Rome wanted you to kill someone they actually used a thumbs up signal, not down.
Why that sticks in my head, I do not know. Because don't ask me to make the genders match, to decline or whatever you were supposed to do. Its just a random factoid for the night. Speaking of down for the count: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/assets...2340399400.jpg ^^^ thats FTB lying on the mat. Trying to keep Clamp Show hours and toddler hours is too much even for me day after day. I won't be up particularly late tonight either. Got a 10ish AM show time for a dhd in the morning to SNA. Buzz... flying an LAX based trip- what's the matter, can't cover it? :D Nothing like a 27 credit hour 3 day due to two coast to coast deadheads. That being said, I posted this picture in the other thread. But a little sesame street never hurt anyone: http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/20...elmo-shirt.jpg |
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 877943)
I hear ya. There were plenty of guys that had a % qualifier in that didn't seem to be reflected at all in the actual category list. I'm not sure where they get the numbers when they make that calculation. Hopefully someone will have the answer. If not, call the contract admin folks tomorrow. Maybe they will have an answer for you. They've been very good with any questions I've called with.
Unfortunately those numbers change from report to report... That's why there is always an updated 22D3 report posted along a new AE/MD bid The April 2011 22D3 report shows a smaller MSP M88 category than the previous report (MSP M88 -14 seats) that would change your percentage... In addition the MSP M88 category is being built up so you can figure 30% reserve coverage easily... Don't read too much into that number as it's just a snapshot in time of a projected number... Cheers George |
Deleted...........
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 877897)
Gotta say that's pretty sad. Wonder if his wife has read that.
|
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 877938)
The tone of these articles always cracks me up. They make the airlines out to be big bad corporations that are trying to rob the public of their hard earned dime.
The truth? All airlines (including SWA) are for profit companies NOT public utilities. I just don't get why they are always making us out as the bad guys when we have been subsidizing the traveling public for over a decade. Capacity needs to come down (through fleet reductions or the more recent merger mania) and fares will naturally come up. Airlines need to make money for the economy overall to be healthy. If that means that it will no longer be possible to fly from OAK-FLL for $69 then so be it. :eek: Not picking on you ftb, this just always grinds my gears. http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...s-my-gears.jpg |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:05 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands