Finally!!
03-14-2008, 04:48 PM
#1
First Rule of Fight Club
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: My seat smells like cat pee
Posts: 1,536
Finally!!
http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/s...0/daily87.html
IMHO Every airline just needs to raise its ticket prices across the board. I hope and I mean I REALLY hope other majors ie. Alaska,AA,and NW follow suit and match these increases. It took someone with some peanuts to do it. Im just sick of pilots being stuck with the cost of an airline losing money.
ANyone else?
IMHO Every airline just needs to raise its ticket prices across the board. I hope and I mean I REALLY hope other majors ie. Alaska,AA,and NW follow suit and match these increases. It took someone with some peanuts to do it. Im just sick of pilots being stuck with the cost of an airline losing money.
ANyone else?
03-14-2008, 05:52 PM
#3
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Ok here,s a novel idea .
Base the airfares on cost per mile or make it to where the carriers cannot charge less than what It cost for the pax to run that particular rte.
Example LAX - SFO if it cost said carrier 600 dollars to run that pax to their destination then they schould not be allowed to charge less than what the carriage is period !Which means that another carrier can not charge less than another carrier for the same route .
If it cost you 2.00 for a widget why on earth would you then charge 1.50 for same widget?
I,m probably going to get flamed for this but the fare structure nowadays is just outright nuts.
Night landings are fun!
Base the airfares on cost per mile or make it to where the carriers cannot charge less than what It cost for the pax to run that particular rte.
Example LAX - SFO if it cost said carrier 600 dollars to run that pax to their destination then they schould not be allowed to charge less than what the carriage is period !Which means that another carrier can not charge less than another carrier for the same route .
If it cost you 2.00 for a widget why on earth would you then charge 1.50 for same widget?
I,m probably going to get flamed for this but the fare structure nowadays is just outright nuts.
Night landings are fun!
03-14-2008, 05:57 PM
#4
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by DYNASTY HVY
Ok here,s a novel idea .
Base the airfares on cost per mile or make it to where the carriers cannot charge less than what It cost for the pax to run that particular rte.
Example LAX - SFO if it cost said carrier 600 dollars to run that pax to their destination then they schould not be allowed to charge less than what the carriage is period !Which means that another carrier can not charge less than another carrier for the same route .
If it cost you 2.00 for a widget why on earth would you then charge 1.50 for same widget?
I,m probably going to get flamed for this but the fare structure nowadays is just outright nuts.
Night landings are fun!
Base the airfares on cost per mile or make it to where the carriers cannot charge less than what It cost for the pax to run that particular rte.
Example LAX - SFO if it cost said carrier 600 dollars to run that pax to their destination then they schould not be allowed to charge less than what the carriage is period !Which means that another carrier can not charge less than another carrier for the same route .
If it cost you 2.00 for a widget why on earth would you then charge 1.50 for same widget?
I,m probably going to get flamed for this but the fare structure nowadays is just outright nuts.
Night landings are fun!
03-14-2008, 06:11 PM
#6
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
Fine and dandy, but how do you factor in holding, de-icing, ATC delays, diverts, etc? Their comes a point where it's just not feasible to fly anymore and I have a feeling we're getting close to that point.
Just had to rant on this ,apologies .
03-14-2008, 06:54 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by DYNASTY HVY
Ok here,s a novel idea .
Base the airfares on cost per mile or make it to where the carriers cannot charge less than what It cost for the pax to run that particular rte.
Example LAX - SFO if it cost said carrier 600 dollars to run that pax to their destination then they schould not be allowed to charge less than what the carriage is period !Which means that another carrier can not charge less than another carrier for the same route .
If it cost you 2.00 for a widget why on earth would you then charge 1.50 for same widget?
I,m probably going to get flamed for this but the fare structure nowadays is just outright nuts.
Night landings are fun!
Base the airfares on cost per mile or make it to where the carriers cannot charge less than what It cost for the pax to run that particular rte.
Example LAX - SFO if it cost said carrier 600 dollars to run that pax to their destination then they schould not be allowed to charge less than what the carriage is period !Which means that another carrier can not charge less than another carrier for the same route .
If it cost you 2.00 for a widget why on earth would you then charge 1.50 for same widget?
I,m probably going to get flamed for this but the fare structure nowadays is just outright nuts.
Night landings are fun!
Night landings onboard ship were rarely fun
maybe satisfying 
Now they are routine flying freight
03-15-2008, 06:30 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by SaltyDog
No flames, but it is called "price fixing" and is illegal <g>
03-15-2008, 06:45 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right hemisphere of DCFranken9's brain
Posts: 238
I have an idea that I have written congress about. Re-regulation. Have set prices from major city to major city,eg. ORD to JFK. Then have the prices not fixed to and from larger cities to smaller cities, eg ORD to DSM. The price and size of airport would be determined by volume, so ATL would have the same weight as LGA. I know it is somewhat socialistic, but look how our industry has faired with 30 yrs of de-regulation. Does anyone have a PANAM or TWA pay scale from before regulation. I bet it may be more or close to todays rates...
03-15-2008, 07:02 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
I'd recommend a book call "Hard Landing" if you think reregulation would be a good thing. Long story short, under regulation, prices were so high that hardly anyone could afford to fly.
Some would suggest that you shouldn't fly anywhere unless that route, stand alone, makes money, i.e., MSP-FAR four times a day. Stand alone, that route might never make money. But 5 or 6 times a month you get a full-fare paying passenger that's going FAR-NRT, and that makes it worth while.
That being said, something has to give. Obviously fares have to go up, but how much can you raise fares before people stop flying? I think the thing that everyone is afraid to admit is that if the airlines charged prices high enough to make money with oil over 100 bucks, travel demand will see a huge drop, and we will see a huge number of furloughs, or paycuts, or both.
Some would suggest that you shouldn't fly anywhere unless that route, stand alone, makes money, i.e., MSP-FAR four times a day. Stand alone, that route might never make money. But 5 or 6 times a month you get a full-fare paying passenger that's going FAR-NRT, and that makes it worth while.
That being said, something has to give. Obviously fares have to go up, but how much can you raise fares before people stop flying? I think the thing that everyone is afraid to admit is that if the airlines charged prices high enough to make money with oil over 100 bucks, travel demand will see a huge drop, and we will see a huge number of furloughs, or paycuts, or both.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
