Thats just what the airlines thought back in the 60s-80s. In fact, a lot of overseas airlines still do this. Most major hotel chains were at one point owned, at least partially by an airline. But as times get tough, airlines (and most other businesses for that matter) sell off their "extra curriculars" to focus on their core business. When/if the airline industry in this country returns to profitability, I'm sure you will see at least a partial return to this system. As an airline, owning a hotel chain is great as long as people are traveling for business and pleasure. The problem is that by being so heavily invested in the travel industry the airlines take a double hit whenever there is a downturn (they lose money because of fewer butts in seats and then again when those same butts don't use hotel rooms).

 

NWA owns one in Narita. 95% of the rooms are for crewmembers. The others are for stranded pax.

 

My bet is that these idiots couldn't run a hotel chain, either. We would then find ourselves flying for a shaky carrier and laying over in a crummy hotel. I can picture the newsline release on the company website: "Our studies indicate that most guests prefer hard mattresses, thin pillows, and loud air condtioners."

 

Does it really matter if flight crews have to give up staying at a good-quality hotel and start staying at a Motel 6? After all, what they need is a bed, right?

 

Generally speaking the higher price of a hotel room, the better quality the entire facility is. Motel 6s and the likes of them are not known for high quality and this almost always leads to uncomfortable beds, pillows, and noisy rooms meaning less of a good night's rest.

Of course, some don't mind the fact that a flight crew is fatigued just to save a few pennies on their airline ticket.

 

Well, it's all a matter of degrees. I'm satisfied that a Motel 6 is sufficient. I don't buy for a second the argument that flight crews "can't get any sleep" at a Motel 6. That's baloney. Staying at a Motel 6 does involve giving up certain amenities, but so what? The crews shouldn't be at the hotel to enjoy themselves -- they're there to get their mandatory crew rest. Cutting out higher-priced hotels is simply part of the necessary right-sizing exercise to enable airlines to offer cheap fares while still making a profit. Same for right-sizing pilot salaries. Airlines that can offer cheap fares while still making a profit will survive; airlines that can't, won't.

 

I would bet that if the crew had to buy their own rooms they would all be at Motel 6. It is probably part of the natural progression to the bottom. Sooner or later those truckers are going to have to give up their rooms for airline crews. Meet you at the lounge ---- I mean vending machine in the parking lot.

Leave the light on.


SkyHigh

 

" I'm satisfied that a Motel 6 is sufficient."

We have some trips that fly all night from the west coast, leaving at 11pm, and arriving at various east coast airports at 6am, for a layover until 9pm, for a flight back to the west coast. Would you be okay putting your family on that airplane if you knew that the crew spent those 15 hours at a Motel 6?

I'm not sure what your frame of reference is, but I've been spending about 100 nights a year in hotels fot the last 18 years. IF lower level hotel could promise cleanliness, a decent bed, a quiet room, and a good air conditioner/heater, I would be okay with it. In 18 years, I've seen only a handful of these.

Sacrifice is easy, when somebody else is doing it.

 

CV,
Don't even waste your time answering these two. It's not the keystrokes.

 

CVG767A, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy that Motel 6s are noisy and uncomfortable. If you truly couldn't get any sleep at a Motel 6, that chain would have closed down long ago. Is a Motel 6 a step (well, several steps) down from a Marriott or a Hyatt? Yes, without doubt. Is that something flight crews aren't happy about? Ditto. But does that downgrade actually threaten the "mission" of the hotel/motel for the flight crews? (i.e., providing a usable crew rest period)? No. I don't think anyone can make a persuasive case that a Motel 6 cannot fulfill the mission.

I have no personal animus against flight crews -- just the opposite, in fact. If crews could stay in upscale hotels and their airline could still make a decent profit, that would be fine with me. I'm simply pointing out that cost-cutting in both salaries and benefits will continue to be comprehensive and unrelenting in the airline industry, for the simple reason that the "cheap fare" is part of the fabric of the travel industry now. The cheap fare is a constant expectation by the travelling public. I'll say it again: airlines that can deliver cheap fares and still make a profit will survive; airlines that can't, won't.