Airlines Ponder How Far To Push Customers

Reply Subscribe

Page 3 of 4

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

05-24-2008 | 09:48 AM

#21

ryguy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2006

Posts: 416

Likes: 0

From: B777 FO

Just amazing that people in this country will pay $5 for coffee foo foo drinks but won't fork over $15 for someone else to carry their 50lb. bag from MIA to LAX.

05-24-2008 | 09:54 AM

#22

FlyJSH

Day puke

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,865

Likes: 0

From: Out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltabound

I just read a story where Frontier raised the cost of transporting ANTLERS (you know, deer and elk headpieces) from $75 to $100 bucks. And no, this is not a joke.

That's just going too far!

A nice rack is worth 100 bucks

05-24-2008 | 05:16 PM

#23

Chris

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Nov 2005

Posts: 128

Likes: 0

From: GA7

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot

They also limit your carryon to a whopping 7 kilos (approx 15 lbs). Usually their overheads are almost completely empty.

Yeah, imagine if we did that... we might as well cut our latin america routes since our customers wouldn't be able to cram their 80 lb bags of goat cheese in the overheads (half of the time not even being charged for excess weight!)

05-25-2008 | 02:06 PM

#24

FliFast

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 1,784

Likes: 0

From: I was acquired, Not Hired

Quote:

Originally Posted by saabguy493

Piedmont obvioulsy by the tail number... Who knows, maybe there was a Piedmont guy out there drunk as well......

A former Allegheny Airplane, based on the "EX" tail number. Yes ?

FF

05-25-2008 | 05:17 PM

#25

Spaceman Spliff

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2008

Posts: 847

Likes: 0

From: 757/767 FO

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryguy

Just amazing that people in this country will pay $5 for coffee foo foo drinks but won't fork over $15 for someone else to carry their 50lb. bag from MIA to LAX.

Just goes to show that the LCCs have absolutely ruined any sense of rationality regarding the cost of air travel. There is a reason why the LCCs are going out of business and going bankrupt first. They lived by ridiculously out-of-whack ticket prices. Now they will die by those fares. Adios.

How can I be sympathetic when these pilots, by accepting ridiculous wages, help undercut the true cost of air travel? I'm not.

SWA is the obvious exception due to very shrewd hedging.

Last edited by Spaceman Spliff; 05-25-2008 at 05:25 PM.

05-25-2008 | 09:06 PM

#26

Mink

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 945

Likes: 0

Ticket prices should be based on the weight of the passenger. Given the disgustingly overweight US population, that should get all the airlines out of financial trouble.

05-25-2008 | 09:30 PM

#27

ChinsFive

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2007

Posts: 181

Likes: 0

What is it with this thread?

05-25-2008 | 10:48 PM

#28

meeko031

alchemist

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 1,089

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mink

Ticket prices should be based on the weight of the passenger. Given the disgustingly overweight US population, that should get all the airlines out of financial trouble.

umm...maybe not...in this world of "im going to file a suit" mentality... All the money saved will be handed back to the pax and "scum" lawyers!..(sorry vagabond

)

05-26-2008 | 09:06 AM

#29

bravo24

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Nov 2006

Posts: 168

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mink

Ticket prices should be based on the weight of the passenger. Given the disgustingly overweight US population, that should get all the airlines out of financial trouble.

Does that include "disgustingly overweight" pilots? Or are they special?

05-26-2008 | 09:27 AM

#30

ryguy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2006

Posts: 416

Likes: 0

From: B777 FO

Ah if only we could wear our lungs on the outside. As soon as we charge based on weight of the passenger we will have to charge smokers for everyone's increased insurance costs.