How much is that seat in the exit row?

April 14, 2006 2:09 AM

Get 'em while they're hot. Northwest Air Lines figures it's gotta pay the bills somehow, starts charging $15 for aisle and exit row seats.
posted by anjamu (75 comments total)

Class war! Riot!
posted by Wolof at 3:12 AM on April 14, 2006

Until they start charging by the pound, they just aren't being realistic.
posted by pracowity at 3:40 AM on April 14, 2006

Set the plane on fire. Then charge for easy-exit seats.
posted by jfuller at 3:59 AM on April 14, 2006

I was on a United flight the other day that had 'Economy Plus', which were seats as wide as the regular ones, but with a few inches more leg room. As I sat there, looking at the people stuck in the middle of groups of three or five, I thought to myself 'I'd rather have an aisle seat in Economy sucky than a middle seat in Economy Plus, I wonder why they don't charge more for that?' And now they do. Spooky.

I'm a bit surprised they're allowed to charge more for emergency exit rows, though. Those are supposed to go to able bodied people who can help in the event of emergency, not whoever coughed up $15.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:02 AM on April 14, 2006

Here are some more ideas that would help airlines cut costs:

1. Charge for armrest usage. When you get to your seat, the armrests are locked in the upright position. Want to use them? That'll be $5 a pop.

2. Charge for the oxygen. Remove all the air from the cabin, and give everyone a mask, which gets an independent oxygen feed. Want to keep breathing? Gotta swipe your credit card every five minutes.

3. Make everyone stand. Put posts in the cabin that people can strap themselves to during takeoff and landing. This way you could increase cabin capacity by at least 50 percent.

4. Better yet, sedate everyone. Then you can stack 'em like sardines.

Or, um, just do what JetBlue does.
posted by epimorph at 4:08 AM on April 14, 2006

Um, the wording of the FPP is a little misleading. Northwest is charging $15 more for the more desirable seats. They don't cost $15, folks.
posted by emelenjr at 4:27 AM on April 14, 2006

Virgin tried to charge me £15 for an exit-row seat on a transatlantic flight eighteen months ago. I told them where to get off, and they gave it to me anyway. Recommended tactic: be very tall.
posted by Hogshead at 4:32 AM on April 14, 2006

I don't see the problem with this.

Almost every business charges for products based on the value and/or demand. Why should an airline be any different.

Sporting and entertainment venues have always charged different amounts for different seats.

Why are we surprised, and why should we complain?
posted by HuronBob at 4:32 AM on April 14, 2006

Is this charge applied to seats that are automatically assigned and not specifically requested?
Also...why don't airlines just charge what it really costs to fly? I know...a naive question. Still, I'm getting pretty fucking tired of hearing about the economic problems in an industry where none of the players will price their product to cover costs. Another example of the "Wal-Mart" mentality of this country? Low, low prices, no matter what?
(Is invoking Wal-Mart the Godwin of economic discussions?)
posted by Thorzdad at 4:38 AM on April 14, 2006

Give airlines a few more years, and passengers will be able to fly cargo. Economy cargo container: 10 passengers, 1 bottle of water, 10 holes, no air-conditioning, n. Business cargo container: 1 passenger, 2 bottles, 4 holes, air-conditioning.
posted by elgilito at 4:42 AM on April 14, 2006

I recently paid good money for two round-trip tickets from Providence to Belize, and USAirways had the gall to ask me to pay five bucks to watch some steaming turd featuring Uma Thurman and Meryl Streep. On a 13-inch screen mounted several rows from where I was sitting.

They only way I'm paying five bucks to watch something with Meryl Streep is if it's a snuff film. So I scrawled penises, added mustaches and blacked out teeth in the inflight magazine instead. Then I found a full page shot of a model's face (that dutch woman in the Aveeno ads), turned it into a mask with a slit for my tongue and made sexual overtures to my wife on the model's behalf. I saved five bucks and I think I had more fun than the people who shelled out.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:46 AM on April 14, 2006

Is this charge applied to seats that are automatically assigned and not specifically requested?

Kind of. You'll probably have the option to pay more when the flight is relatively open. Then when you price seats after the flight is rather full and the more expensive seats are the only ones left, you'll see the surcharge reflected in the price but no mention that it costs more than your neighbor's seat.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:49 AM on April 14, 2006

I flew Northwest recently and it was miserable. Also, they charge $1 for a "trail-mix-type snack" or $3 for a "snack-like meal." At least half of the emergency exit seats were empty.
posted by trey at 4:55 AM on April 14, 2006

If they had half a brain, they would have quietly raised prices on all seats and sent out a press release that said they were lowering prices on the middle seats, and they would have been heroes.
posted by lovejones at 5:07 AM on April 14, 2006

So if we all band together and refuse to pony up extra for these, they will hand them out for the regular price anyway.
posted by mygoditsbob at 5:29 AM on April 14, 2006

Is this a new thing in the US? In the UK and Europe every last 'extra' carries a surcharge on cheapo airlines: baggage in the hold, food and drink at a massive premium, etc. They're just turning flying into a complex array of cost options, and I don't actually mind too much - if I want to get to Paris in an hour and a half for a quid, it seems reasonable that I won't get a foot massage from a supermodel hostess as I recline on a divan sipping free champagne. (It's just like taking the train instead of a £1 return to London on a hellish coach - gets what you pays for.) Ryanair even proposed making the flights themselves completely free, and making all their money from extras, duty-free shopping and, rather bizarrely, on-plane gambling operations.

What's the surcharge for snakes on these motherfucking planes, anyway? Sorry, couldn't resist.
posted by jack_mo at 6:28 AM on April 14, 2006

I unfortunately have to fly NorthWorst regularly to get to certain places in the middle of this Great Nation, and I can attest to the annoyance of this. What's weird is that on my last few flights, the exit rows on one side of the plane are free, the ones on the other side aren't.

So I could PAY for a middle exit row, or get the exit row aisle for free. Who designs these things?
posted by petrilli at 6:30 AM on April 14, 2006

Is this a new thing in the US? In the UK and Europe every last 'extra' carries a surcharge on cheapo airlines:

This isn't a cheapo airline though. When you're paying $200-300 for the initial ticket, surcharges are just money-grubbing.
posted by smackfu at 6:49 AM on April 14, 2006

4. Better yet, sedate everyone. Then you can stack 'em like sardines.

Well not the sedating part but I've always wondered why airlines couldn't use bunk beds instead of seats. Is it the legacy "cargo" thing?
posted by junesix at 7:00 AM on April 14, 2006

Is this charge applied to seats that are automatically assigned and not specifically requested?

I don't know if you can specifically request them anymore. I used miles to purchase a flight before the surcharge went into effect and selected a bulkhead seat. Then, when they started charging a few days before my flight, they kicked me out. Not that they let me know or anything - when I went to check online a few days before the flight, I saw that I had no assigned seat.
posted by bibliowench at 7:02 AM on April 14, 2006

As a tall guy that hates to fly, I would happily pay the nominal charge to secure an exit seat. I rarely get them when I ask on other airlines.
posted by mathowie at 7:13 AM on April 14, 2006

This isn't a cheapo airline though. When you're paying $200-300 for the initial ticket, surcharges are just money-grubbing.

I coined what I think would be an effective slogan for USAirways after my plane landed (and I was paying substantially more for my tickets $300):

"Not a discount airline, you'd swear that it was."

Did I mention that they didn't give me a whole can of Coke? They gave me a cup of soda that was mostly big cubes of ice. I flew American in September, and they still had a lavish "keep the whole can of soda" policy.

I hope someone flying back to Charlotte looked through the magazine, saw the big cock I drew on a gondolier and flipped out.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:15 AM on April 14, 2006

for my tickets $300

for my tickets than $300
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:16 AM on April 14, 2006

Seems fair to me. I think we've all seen the little seat choice diagrams, and realized that absolutely nobody prefers the middle. As such, migth as well make the others a bit more expensive.

And as for money-grubbing... it's not like NorthWest is flush with cash. They're a money losing pink sheet, and have been for years.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:19 AM on April 14, 2006

I flew NWA once and it was a most miserable experience. They couldn't pay me to fly with them.
posted by furtive at 7:32 AM on April 14, 2006

I don't understand why all airlines that are losing money don't just attempt to copy what the Greatness of Southwest Airlines does. It is pretty easy business model to make money. The airlines that have copied it have done well, too.
posted by dios at 7:34 AM on April 14, 2006

I booked flights with KLM in early March, for a mid-March trip to the US from Europe. The flights over US soil were carried out by Northwest.

My return flight from SFO to Amsterdam with a stop somewhere on the east coast (I don't even remember where) was with Northwest. I didn't have a reserved seat for that 4-hour flight leaving San Francisco; and they wanted to slap on that aisle seat surcharge. (And I'm almost 6"3, so I really want an aisle seat.)

I didn't like the idea, since obviously I had booked with KLM who had not informed me in the slightest that such a fee would be asked. Fortunately for me, the guy behind the counter assigned me an aisle seat somewhere else in the plane without making me pay.

But if I can help it in any way, I'll use a different carrier than KLM/NW next time I fly to the US; and I'm sure others will feel the same.
posted by ckemp at 7:38 AM on April 14, 2006

Fucking Northwest. They go out of their way to make your flying experience as shitty as possible to remind you that you could be paying for first class. And as a tall guy, I want to punch every short person I see in an exit row.
posted by klangklangston at 7:46 AM on April 14, 2006

Also...why don't airlines just charge what it really costs to fly? I know...a naive question. Still, I'm getting pretty fucking tired of hearing about the economic problems in an industry where none of the players will price their product to cover costs.

Uh, because that's not something that's easy to calculate unless they know how many people are on the plane. A full plane costs moderately more to fly than an empty one - they need more grounds crew to load everyone in, more baggage handler time to load the bags, more fuel to fly the plane, more drinks to hand out, etc - which is one small factor, but the huge factor is, 'what it costs to fly' is basically 'cost of flying an airplane from A to B divided by how many people are on the airplane'. But they can't wait until after the flight and divide up the cost amongst the people who actually showed up and got on the flight, or no one would know what it might cost them.

So, if you need say $100K to cover the flight, will you get it by charging each of 200 people $500? Will 200 people actually pay that much? Because if only 150 sign up, you're screwed. Or can you charge 10 people $2000 for first class, and 20 people $1000 for business class, and then sell 170 seats for $360? Will that actually fill all those seats for you?

I don't understand why all airlines that are losing money don't just attempt to copy what the Greatness of Southwest Airlines does. It is pretty easy business model to make money. The airlines that have copied it have done well, too.

You mean, start from scratch without unions? I'm sure all the majors would love to lose their unions and the contracts that go with them.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:47 AM on April 14, 2006

Enough with the nickel and diming. I would very happily forgoe any perks (movies, meals, drink carts, etc.) if it meant more efficient travel. People don't expect any of those things when they take a bus. Why should they when they fly?

All I ask is that the airlines just perform their basic service and get me from point A to B on time, and for a reasonable price. And just about every time I fly, which is often, they can't even manage that. Flights are overbooked, late (and not because of weather), and ticket prices vary wildly for the same flight.

Here's a suggestion: Try being upfront about your pricing structure instead of playing all the games to squeeze people. I've never had to worry about the price of a train or bus fare varying wildly depending on the time and day I try to purchase them.
posted by Gamblor at 7:48 AM on April 14, 2006

I'd pay an extra $15 for uncrappy customer service for Northwest. They're like the unpleasant roommate that eats all your foot and scowls at your girlfriend of the airline industry.
posted by VulcanMike at 7:50 AM on April 14, 2006

dios, it's impossible to copy what the other airlines are doing. First, they're locked in with their unions to existing contracts. Trying to purge the overhead of benefits for retired members or restructure existing contracts would lead to a walk out and shut their company down. Secondly, Southwest locked in gas prices by purchasing futures several years ago (although I think they expire this year). Other airlines can't just go back in time and do the same. Sure, there's other reasons airlines lose money, but it's not as simple as saying "just copy southwest/JetBlue".
posted by Crash at 7:51 AM on April 14, 2006

...because that's not something that's easy to calculate unless they know how many people are on the plane.
Sorry, I don't buy that reasoning. They aren't new to the business. They know the average passenger loads on any given route. It's a simple matter of averaging the costs. Attempting to jigger the ticket prices on a flight-by-flight basis obviously doesn't work.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:57 AM on April 14, 2006

jacquilynee and Crash: good points. I hadn't thought about the union issue. More proof that unions are lame. Oh well. I will continue to give my business to Southwest, JetBlue (which was built on the Southwest model, but with some improvements vis-a-vis amenities), and similar carriers when I can. I try to only use the major carriers for international travel. Hopefully the airlines that are managed and structured in inefficient just go ahead and fade away.
posted by dios at 7:58 AM on April 14, 2006

Uh, because that's not something that's easy to calculate unless they know how many people are on the plane.

That may be the theory behind their rationale, but I fly pretty regularly, and I can't remember the last time I was on a plane that wasn't completely full (or overbooked). And just about every flight I've been on in the last five years has left later than scheduled, usually because of a backup on the runway with so many planes waiting to take off or land. I keep reading how airports can't keep up with all the increases in air traffic, so the idea that the poor airlines are flying all these lonely ghost flights through the skies just doesn't square with my personal experience.
posted by Gamblor at 8:00 AM on April 14, 2006

They're a money losing pink sheet

And they deserve it. Worst fucking airline in the world.

But don't worry. I'm sure we tax-payers will foot the bill again to keep them out of bankruptcy.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:05 AM on April 14, 2006

Low-cost, low-fare aviation has driven this trend and we should all be grateful that air travel is now available to more people. The marketing of an airplane seat is devilishly complicated and we haven't seen the end of the complexity.

As many above have suggested, communicate with the airline to make your travel needs explicit. It doesn't matter if this is in the form of bitching. Maybe, once in a while, one can penetrate beyond the airline zombie level and achieve some meaningful change.
posted by impuls at 8:09 AM on April 14, 2006

Also, Salon's Ask the Pilot feature talks about this today. (Circumvent the ad-watching business with this link.
posted by trey at 8:14 AM on April 14, 2006

I don't understand why all airlines that are losing money don't just attempt to copy what the Greatness of Southwest Airlines does.

To some extent, I think Northwest's trying to. In the past year, they absolutely horsewhipped their Mechanics' Union in the least succesful strike I've ever seen. They still have a lot of unionized workers to deal with, but they've succesfully jettisoned one.

A lot of their planes take off and land directly over my house, so I'm hoping that the replacement mechanics are good at keeping things bolted on tightly and all that.
posted by COBRA! at 8:15 AM on April 14, 2006

Until they start charging by the pound, they just aren't being realistic.
posted by pracowity at 3:40 AM PST on April 14 [!]


Exactly. I'm a normal-sized 150lb guy. If someone who's pushin' 300lbs (effectively 2x me) is only paying for one ticket, how is that helping anyone? Essentially they're letting a whole passenger fly for free.
posted by ninjew at 8:31 AM on April 14, 2006

For a good example of how airlines can work, Delta Shuttle runs an hourly, open-seating service along the east coast (Boston-NYC-DC). The prices are reasonable (~$200), and you can buy tickets at the counter immediately before a flight without getting completely gouged (fares are capped at $600). If a flight is too full, you can just wait and take the next one. It's basically a flying Amtrak. Unsurprisingly, it's extrememly popular with business travellers.
posted by Gamblor at 8:35 AM on April 14, 2006

Being tall + a genetic freak when it comes to clotting ability usually nets me an exit row seat. The fear of DVT litigation is strong amongst the airlines. Then again, I haven't tried this since the incredible cluster fuck that was my flying experience with NW (quelle surprise) during the 2001 holiday season. Since then I've decided that if I can't make the trip by bus / train / rental car / ship then I won't be making it at all. Of course, I have the luxury of not having to fly for work, etc.

I am curious if they have a medical exception for the surcharge though. All things considered, I can't see a huge problem with charging more for better accommodations. The problem I have is that the baseline is so uncomfortable—and in my case anway, dangerous.
posted by Fezboy! at 8:38 AM on April 14, 2006

For a good example of how airlines can work, Delta Shuttle runs an hourly, open-seating service along the east coast (Boston-NYC-DC). The prices are reasonable (~$200), and you can buy tickets at the counter immediately before a flight without getting completely gouged (fares are capped at $600). If a flight is too full, you can just wait and take the next one. It's basically a flying Amtrak. Unsurprisingly, it's extrememly popular with business travellers.

Actually, its just a copy of the Southwest model that I was talking about earlier. That is exactly what Southwest has been doing for over 20 years.
posted by dios at 8:45 AM on April 14, 2006

I read that Northwest will soon be charging for an oxygen mask in the event of loss of cabin pressure.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 8:59 AM on April 14, 2006

I don't understand North American airlines at all. In Asian airlines (not the budget ones, the "higher-priced" ones like Malaysian Airlines or Singapore Airlines), you get proper meals, individual entertainment (your own TV/radio/gameset) even in economy, and occasionally other perks - and none of these costs any extra.

My midnight snack on MAS from KL to LA last year? Ice cream. Midnight snack on Air Canada from HK to Vancouver? Pot noodles, still IN the "pot".

I doubt the Asian airlines have a higher budget than the NA airlines but they seem to be offering more for the money. Why is US Airways charging me US$3 for headphones for a SHARED movie, when I can watch my own movie on MAS on economy for free?
posted by divabat at 9:00 AM on April 14, 2006

I don't understand why all airlines that are losing money don't just attempt to copy what the Greatness of Southwest Airlines does.

Make idiots race each other for seats and fly to inconvenient airports? Seriously, I don't care for Southwest, and not just because some of the passengers are barefoot and carrying live chickens.

Also I hate them because the fares they advertise are never quite available. Like the heavily advertised Manchester, NH to Philadelphia $49 each way fare that costs a shitload more when you actually go to book it?

And even AirTran lets you pick your seats ahead of time to keep mouthbreathers from standing right on top of the gangway and then throwing elbows like it was the "running of the brides" at Filene's Basement.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:09 AM on April 14, 2006

Used to be a WorldPerks elite but am now a United MilePlus Elite (1P): I'd much rather pay an extra $100 base-fare to book on United in Economy Plus than pay NWA $30 (roundtrip) for an aisle seat. I've actually done exactly that: I've been doing a lot of flights from Minneapolis to Bismarck, ND. NWA has a direct flight for around $190, United will route me through Denver for about $280. I've been flying United.

Then again I'm one of those people who think that flight attendants should enforce carry-on rules by gate checking excess carry-ons and that zubaz pants are not acceptable cabin dress.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:12 AM on April 14, 2006

ninjew said: Exactly. I'm a normal-sized 150lb guy. If someone who's pushin' 300lbs (effectively 2x me) is only paying for one ticket, how is that helping anyone? Essentially they're letting a whole passenger fly for free.

That's assuming the only factor in the price is the weight involved. But what about the square footage you take up? Unless the 300 lb guy is taking two seats, it's not a fair comparison. It makes sense to charge the 300 lb guy extra, but I doubt it's the equivalent of an extra seat. And if you want to go this route, what do you base your average weight on? Do you go by sex or race? If you use the average human weight, you're going to need to charge a surcharge for the 75% of all men. [Source]
If I fly with my wife, can we use our average?

A while back, I booked two tickets, one being an aisle seat and one a window. When we went to board, we were informed we were switched to a the aisle and the center seat, "since we were travelling together". I assumed they did this b/c it's easier to sell a window seat. In the future, since I'm paying for an upgraded seat, can they just downgrade me and hand me $15? If not, this may actually hurt the airlines, since they run the risk of having more empty seats per plane.
posted by Crash at 9:33 AM on April 14, 2006

I like United's Economy Plus, basically cuz I can use a laptop in relative comfort, although it seems to be increasingly hard to get a seat there these days. I guess I'd pay (or rather work would pay) for Economy Plus if that became necessary.
posted by carter at 9:37 AM on April 14, 2006

JetBlue is the only airline that does it right. I've flown them solo and with infant twins and, seriously, it was the easiest and best airline experience I've ever had.

Know how many people they've bumped from flights in their history? ZERO. Yeah, zero. What a concept. Stop selling tickets when the plane is full.

The minute they start flying to Chicago, I'll never have to fly domestic on another airline again.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 9:47 AM on April 14, 2006

I'm always amazed that Horizon Air (the regional carrier of Alaska Air) still gives free Northwest microbrews and wines on flights. Alaska does pretty well too - often their prices are as low as SouthWest, but no free beer.
posted by Staggering Jack at 9:51 AM on April 14, 2006

I can't understand why airlines won't do more "demand" based pricing.

Early on -- keep seats more expensive and let people pay more and get the seats they want. Later, closer to the flight, DROP the prices and let people take the risk of a flight filling up or not.

Many flyers or their agents are savvy enough to see how much a plane is full and, if the airlines show you this information, you can make a more informed decision and risk.

I'd even let people come to the airport the day of the flight and, provided they check in no luggage, let them get on a plane for very, very cheap.

In this way, a plane will almost always be full, it will help more people by not having to pay $1200 for a last minute ticket and, I think, make them more money.

There must be a problem in that model becuase a lot of people much smarter than I probably want to make money in that industry.

Then again, it took a good long while for JetBlue to come along and give us TVs and decent snacks and good prices and that makes a popular airline.
posted by skepticallypleased at 9:56 AM on April 14, 2006

You mean, start from scratch without unions? I'm sure all the majors would love to lose their unions and the contracts that go with them.

Lovely theory, except Southwest is the *most* unionized airline flying.

The trick is Southwest treats the unions as partners, not as serfs.
posted by eriko at 10:05 AM on April 14, 2006

Or, um, just do what JetBlue does.

This, apparently, is to not pay most of their employees more than $32k, according to an acquaintance of mine who works there.
posted by weston at 10:16 AM on April 14, 2006

I've always wondered why airlines couldn't use bunk beds instead of seats. Is it the legacy "cargo" thing?

Well, for one you can't take the brace position in case of an emergency landing.
IMO, the cargo thing does not apply, otherwise overnight trains wouldn't have it. They have a worse reputation shipping humans as cargo (think WWII). But strapping people in seat-belts in a bed, so they don't move to much in case of turbulence and crash landings is not very comfortable for those people. They do it regularly in psychiatric wards.
posted by kika at 10:21 AM on April 14, 2006

Reaction one: Woot! Who wants asile seats anyway? It'd mean I'd nolonger even need to ask for window seats.

Reaction two: All those cute backpaker chicks are going to be in windows seats & never next to me.

Reaction three: I've only ever met women on those sit anyplace bugget airlines.

Now I just wish they'd also charge by baggage plus passenger weight. Its good news if it reduces the number of fat Americans on transatlantic flights.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:55 AM on April 14, 2006

Why oh why won't Matt implement a "Mouth-breathing Moron" flag?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 11:15 AM on April 14, 2006

Then again I'm one of those people who think that flight attendants should enforce carry-on rules by gate checking excess carry-ons and that zubaz pants are not acceptable cabin dress.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:12 AM PST on April 14

*nods*

Not only that, I think they should check row numbers so that people who board before their row is called can be kicked to the back of the line. There's a reason that they do it in order, people.

Also, I've never flown Southwest - being that I only travel frequently between New York, Milwaukee, and Atlanta - but the fact that they don't assign seats makes me scared of them.

Finally, my two cents: window >>>>> aisle.
posted by anjamu at 11:46 AM on April 14, 2006

Not sure it's been mentioned on the blue, but if you're dealing with an airline that doesn't yet charge, or are willing to pay, you may be interested in seat guru. (and there are better seats than standard window or aisle)
posted by dreamsign at 12:52 PM on April 14, 2006

Sorry, obviously the discussion is about non-standard seats. But check out some common airline types. Sometimes there's a seat missing from the exit row, making the one immediately behind the one to go for.
posted by dreamsign at 12:56 PM on April 14, 2006

I just really don't want the fellow with the biggest feelings of entitlement to be the one guarding the exit row, 'kay?
posted by Skwirl at 2:09 PM on April 14, 2006

anjamu - I've seen United gate agents at three different airports (O'Hare, Denver, and Hong Kong) enforce seating area. If it's not yet your turn to board, they will tell you to sit down.
posted by nathan_teske at 2:31 PM on April 14, 2006

Can anyone recommend an online article or site that explains just how airlines got themselves in this mess?
posted by DieHipsterDie at 2:48 PM on April 14, 2006

Can anyone recommend an online article or site that explains just how airlines got themselves in this mess?

One place to start is by reading the archives of the Ask the Pilot column at Salon that trey linked to above. Not sure how many you can read if you're not a subscriber - maybe you just have to watch an ad for each one...

Just above every other column he's written recently was about US airlines' troubles (especially compared to the rest of the world).
posted by pitchblende at 3:19 PM on April 14, 2006

err, that should read "Just about..."
posted by pitchblende at 3:19 PM on April 14, 2006

Now I just wish they'd also charge by baggage plus passenger weight. Its good news if it reduces the number of fat Americans on transatlantic flights.

Weight of carryons should cost triple, I think. Fat people are one thing, people who have another whole freaking suitcase+giant purse+huge coat.... talk about leaving literally no room!
posted by dagnyscott at 5:58 PM on April 14, 2006

Is there an analogy that can be drawn between the failing big airlines industry and the failing auto industry? Beyond the difficulties with pensions and unionized labor...
posted by junesix at 5:59 PM on April 14, 2006

You people who think you're so smart should try working in the pricing department at a major airline.

As has already been pointed out, the airlines can't just "charge what it costs to fly," because they don't know how much your seat is going to cost them when they sell you the ticket. That's because it is far more costly, per-passenger, to fly an empty plane than a full one. Yet they know that if they just refuse to fly planes that are, say, less than 50% sold - which would cut their costs tremendously - they would lose customers to competing airlines that didn't behave that way and instead actually transported passengers to their destination most of the time.

Someone else smugly posts:

They aren't new to the business. They know the average passenger loads on any given route. It's a simple matter of averaging the costs.

Yeah, they know the average passenger loads. They also have competitors on those routes. They know that a lot of travelers shop by price. Worse, they know that a certain subset of frequent travelers will pay a small premium to keep their frequent flier miles all on a single airline; they're incentivized to do what they need to do to keep these passengers. It's more than just a single plane flight; they still need to have customers a year from now.

I fly pretty regularly, and I can't remember the last time I was on a plane that wasn't completely full (or overbooked)

Lucky you; you live near a hub or fly easy-to-predict routes. Airlines, to keep customers, also have to fly some unprofitable routes; these can be more difficult to predict. Any yo-yo can fill up a flight from JFK to LAX at $300 a RT pop; it is more difficult, yet profitable, to appeal to the customer who has to make a 19-stop sales trip throughout the Midwest and South.

Still, airline deregulation was a disaster; free-market rules run the market out of business when the costs of supply are so demand-dependent.
posted by ikkyu2 at 6:32 PM on April 14, 2006

Was it a disaster? I'm inclined to think that it was airline deregulation that eventually allowed cheap air travel to exist. Opening up air travel and the terminals to free-market competition forced the airlines to become more cost-efficient.

And it hasn't run the market out of business - Southwest, JetBlue, and the other low-cost domestic carriers are doing just fine. It's running the big carriers out of the domestic business because their cost and operating structures don't work anymore. Domestic air travel is a cheap commodity now and people just want to get from point A to point B quickly and safely without any frills. Southwest, JetBlue, and Ryanair have done that (though Ryanair has taken it a bit extreme).

The first-class and international travelers want to be pillowed and pampered and that's a high-maintenance service industry. And they're willing to pay for it. Asian and European airlines have done well selling luxurious flying experiences and limiting cheap, short air routes. At the same time "mini-airlines" have cropped up in the US to provide high-class air travel on small planes for a premium.

At some point, I think the big carriers need to realize that they can't handle 2 very distinct customer groups in a schizophrenic way. High-paying customers are getting poor service for their money and subsidizing the airline's debts. Bargain customers are paying higher-than-discount prices and wondering why the plane took so long to load and take off. Frankly, I think these big carriers need to split themselves into separate companies to handle these two customer groups.

Take United: United should spin-off a low-cost JetBlue-style subsidiary to handle domestic flights exclusively. The domestic subsidiary does away with reserved seating, perks, pensions, high salaries, and locates itself to smaller terminals. The United parent pulls out of basic domestic travel, files only international travel out of major terminals, and concentrates on building its reputation and service quality. At the same time it builds a fleet of small business jets to compete in the first-class domestic travel market. The idea is to match costs with customer expectations. Think an airline with the Toyota/Lexus-type duality.
posted by junesix at 10:37 PM on April 14, 2006

Take United: United should spin-off a low-cost JetBlue-style subsidiary to handle domestic flights exclusively.

That's not a half-bad idea. Unfortunately, they're still hemorrhaging money.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:40 PM on April 14, 2006

>>Take United: United should spin-off a low-cost JetBlue-style subsidiary to handle domestic flights exclusively.

That's not a half-bad idea. Unfortunately, they're still hemorrhaging money.

Note to self: Don't start an airline that doesn't service even the metro areas of Philadelphia, New York and Boston.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:56 AM on April 15, 2006

Right, Ted and Song (Delta) but the execution is flawed. Different name - same airline. It's not enough to simply lump together a few high-traffic, low-cost air routes together under a new logo because there's so many fundamental differences in the big carriers vs the low-cost carriers. It'd really have to be a true split where "United" operates like BA or Singapore Airlines and "Not United" operates like Southwest/JetBlue. Ted is doomed if they think they can compete as a low-cost carrier while maintaining a big carrier labor and cost structure. And Song is going to be rolled back into Delta at the end of this month.
posted by junesix at 7:55 AM on April 15, 2006

Pretty much the flight business in the US is designed by morons. Planes that are cramped, not fuel efficent, horrible routes, delays, layovers, price hikes, long waits in lines.

Then top if off with americans only get 2 weeks vacation a year, flights are required if you go across country. If you had a couple days to drive somewhere or take a bus, travel costs are around 99-150 dollars. Much cheaper than flying.
posted by IronWolve at 9:47 PM on April 15, 2006

If you had a couple days to drive somewhere or take a bus, travel costs are around 99-150 dollars. Much cheaper than flying.

Flying is a comparative bargain.

I want to get from Chicago to LA (2015 miles).

If I include depreciation, maintainance and gas by using the latest GSA mileage reimbursement rates, (44.5 cents per mile), then that one-way trip has a real long-term cost of about $896.

That ignores the fact that 2015 mile drive is sufficiently long that you'll spend two days doing NOTHING but driving, racking up at least one night's hotel, and two full days of food.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:02 PM on April 17, 2006

jacquilynne writes "I'm sure all the majors would love to lose their unions and the contracts that go with them."

And get down to a single plane type which would make employee scheduling and training much easier.

Gamblor writes "Try being upfront about your pricing structure instead of playing all the games to squeeze people. I've never had to worry about the price of a train or bus fare varying wildly depending on the time and day I try to purchase them"

Amen. Pisses me off to no end that the Airport improvement Fee, Fuel Surcharge, Terminal Surcharge, Security Fee, yadda, yadda, adds up more than the advertised price of the ticket.

dagnyscott writes "Weight of carryons should cost triple, I think. Fat people are one thing, people who have another whole freaking suitcase+giant purse+huge coat.... talk about leaving literally no room!"

Carry ons are only a problem because a) the airlines have squeezed passengers like cattle, and b) you can't trust checked baggage to even arrive let alone arrive unmolested. What the heck is some one traveling with say $10,000 in camera equipment supposed to do. You can't even book a second seat for your camera bag.
posted by Mitheral at 1:06 PM on April 18, 2006