If it looks too good to be true...
April 5, 2008 3:05 PM Subscribe
After just eleven months of operation, Skybus has ceased operations and declared bankruptcy. It's the third American airline to do so in the past week. That, plus the fact that the FAA is coming under fire for its failure to spot missed inspections, makes this a pretty ugly week in American aviation.
Good. After the abuse heaped on customers by airlines (not to mention the TSA, airport authorities, rental car companies, and everyone else connected with the air travel industry) in recent years, I can only wish utter economic collapse on the lot of them.
At least then I'll have an excuse to stay home instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on business travel only to be treated like a criminal by everyone from the flight attendants to the screeners to idiot at the Alamo counter and the power-drunk airport rent-a-thug who threatens to arrest you for smoking on the median strip 100 feet from the terminal door while cars and planes spew exhaust all around you -- gotta keep that air safe for the good people, now. Not to mention paying $5 for a can of fucking Pringles on most flights. And don't even get me going on the canceled and delayed flights, the attitude copped by gate agents and phone CS reps, the outrageous ticket prices in captive markets, and the inability ever to use my hundreds of thousands of frequent flier miles because the only day not blacked out is the fifth Tuesday of February in leap years.
ATA was always a despicable airline, one of the worst. Never flew Skybus, but at least they were honest about the level of service one can expect these days. Now if only American and United would finally go under too. We need to rethink this system from scratch.
Symptomatic, I know, of every American business these days. They just don't really care if their customers like them or not, and they squeeze you for every nickel they can while spitting in your face. But watch, another federal taxpayer-funded bailout (lest we forget they got a giant one after "nine eleven," which has become an excuse for almost anything they do) is just around the corner.
/frequent traveler rage, on the road as we speak
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:26 PM on April 5, 2008 [29 favorites]
At least then I'll have an excuse to stay home instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on business travel only to be treated like a criminal by everyone from the flight attendants to the screeners to idiot at the Alamo counter and the power-drunk airport rent-a-thug who threatens to arrest you for smoking on the median strip 100 feet from the terminal door while cars and planes spew exhaust all around you -- gotta keep that air safe for the good people, now. Not to mention paying $5 for a can of fucking Pringles on most flights. And don't even get me going on the canceled and delayed flights, the attitude copped by gate agents and phone CS reps, the outrageous ticket prices in captive markets, and the inability ever to use my hundreds of thousands of frequent flier miles because the only day not blacked out is the fifth Tuesday of February in leap years.
ATA was always a despicable airline, one of the worst. Never flew Skybus, but at least they were honest about the level of service one can expect these days. Now if only American and United would finally go under too. We need to rethink this system from scratch.
Symptomatic, I know, of every American business these days. They just don't really care if their customers like them or not, and they squeeze you for every nickel they can while spitting in your face. But watch, another federal taxpayer-funded bailout (lest we forget they got a giant one after "nine eleven," which has become an excuse for almost anything they do) is just around the corner.
/frequent traveler rage, on the road as we speak
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:26 PM on April 5, 2008 [29 favorites]
Fourcheesemac -- great rant! And you are 100 percent correct. However, just to put things in perspective, the airlines really have been doing an excellent job of keeping their planes in the air over the past seven years. A really ugly week in American aviation would include a crash.
posted by Faze at 3:37 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by Faze at 3:37 PM on April 5, 2008
I'm no fan of big government, but it's not hard to see that what deregulation has done to the airlines isn't a good thing.
I'm flying to Amsterdam tomorrow on United - if the flight isn't cancelled/grounded/oversold/etc. and I'm not looking forward to it. At least the company is paying for it.
posted by tommasz at 3:39 PM on April 5, 2008
I'm flying to Amsterdam tomorrow on United - if the flight isn't cancelled/grounded/oversold/etc. and I'm not looking forward to it. At least the company is paying for it.
posted by tommasz at 3:39 PM on April 5, 2008
Good. Let the industry burn. I've never in my life encountered a sector that was so universally customer-hostile, and so frequently apt to crap all over the people who keep it in business.
I spend far, far more time on commercial flights each year than I'd really prefer to, and if the whole thing collapsed tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. The companies that run it are mostly dinosaurs, many of whom are so deeply in bed with state and local governments that they've bought themselves no end of protective legislation. I'd love to see them all collapse, and rebuild the air-travel infrastructure in this country from scratch. Short of actually having to strip naked and be rectal probed, it could not possibly result in anything worse than what we have now.
(What I'd really like to see is an option that would let the market determine what level of security they'd like to fly with; if you want the full-on TSA experience you can get it, but I think a lot of people would be comfortable with a walk-on flight that just gets shot out of the sky by the Air Force if anyone hijacks it. After wasting far too much of my life in security checkpoint lines, I know I'd be all for it.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:43 PM on April 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
I spend far, far more time on commercial flights each year than I'd really prefer to, and if the whole thing collapsed tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. The companies that run it are mostly dinosaurs, many of whom are so deeply in bed with state and local governments that they've bought themselves no end of protective legislation. I'd love to see them all collapse, and rebuild the air-travel infrastructure in this country from scratch. Short of actually having to strip naked and be rectal probed, it could not possibly result in anything worse than what we have now.
(What I'd really like to see is an option that would let the market determine what level of security they'd like to fly with; if you want the full-on TSA experience you can get it, but I think a lot of people would be comfortable with a walk-on flight that just gets shot out of the sky by the Air Force if anyone hijacks it. After wasting far too much of my life in security checkpoint lines, I know I'd be all for it.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:43 PM on April 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
It really does seem that the US airlines with help from the TSA and FAA are trying to put themselves out of business. I used to love to fly. I used to take last-minute trips almost every weekend. Now it has become such a pain in the ass. I travel on American Airlines mostly and it is unbearable. The flight attendants treat the customers with contempt unless you're flying in Business Class or First Class and then you're treated the same way you were treated in coach a few years ago. After being stuck at DFW two weeks ago due to weather I hit my breaking point with AA. Fuck them. The weather wasn't their fault, but the shitty service at the airport was too much thought. That was in complete control of AA and its employees. I have enough miles left for one international (they aren't as evil in coach on longer flights) or two N. American destination and I've over them. At least I won't be paying them. I used to pay extra sometimes to fly on AA since I was such a slut for AA miles, but it isn't worth it any more.
I'm just stunned when I fly on non-US airlines just how much better the service is in economy. Mexicana, Lufthansa, Air France, BA, JAL and littler guys like BMI and Bangkok Air provide a better experience and at prices that aren't that much different for the same distance as in the US. Southwest is probably the only airline in the US where you're not treated with complete contempt by the employees and some of the people look like they truly enjoy their work. SWA sets expections at a minimum and exceeds them. The big US carriers try to pass themselves off as being full service but are failing. I really wish the "open skies" agreement allows non-US carriers to fly within the US. Some competition on service would be good. But right now the US airlines are competing to see just how much they can take away before customers bolt.
The discount carriers that folded this week aren't that surprising. If you don't have fuel contracts like AA and SWA and a few others, the higher costs hurt. The slowing economy means fewer tourists are making trips on these airlines. These failing airlines -- and most of the people who bought tickets -- are shit out of luck. But when AA, United, Delta or NWA sneeze, I'm sure the government will be there with another handout.
posted by birdherder at 3:55 PM on April 5, 2008
I'm just stunned when I fly on non-US airlines just how much better the service is in economy. Mexicana, Lufthansa, Air France, BA, JAL and littler guys like BMI and Bangkok Air provide a better experience and at prices that aren't that much different for the same distance as in the US. Southwest is probably the only airline in the US where you're not treated with complete contempt by the employees and some of the people look like they truly enjoy their work. SWA sets expections at a minimum and exceeds them. The big US carriers try to pass themselves off as being full service but are failing. I really wish the "open skies" agreement allows non-US carriers to fly within the US. Some competition on service would be good. But right now the US airlines are competing to see just how much they can take away before customers bolt.
The discount carriers that folded this week aren't that surprising. If you don't have fuel contracts like AA and SWA and a few others, the higher costs hurt. The slowing economy means fewer tourists are making trips on these airlines. These failing airlines -- and most of the people who bought tickets -- are shit out of luck. But when AA, United, Delta or NWA sneeze, I'm sure the government will be there with another handout.
posted by birdherder at 3:55 PM on April 5, 2008
As long as Midwest doesn't go under (they've always treated me well, and I do like their gimmicky cookies), I'll be happy.
But I have a hard time convincing myself that other airline companies going under is a good thing-especially with airline ticket prices going up more and more every year due to fuel prices. I mostly fly to visit friends and family and I'd like to continue to do that. Say what you will about flying, but they're still more reliable than amtrak and a lot more comfortable than taking a bus.
posted by dinty_moore at 3:55 PM on April 5, 2008
But I have a hard time convincing myself that other airline companies going under is a good thing-especially with airline ticket prices going up more and more every year due to fuel prices. I mostly fly to visit friends and family and I'd like to continue to do that. Say what you will about flying, but they're still more reliable than amtrak and a lot more comfortable than taking a bus.
posted by dinty_moore at 3:55 PM on April 5, 2008
I disagree. Deregulation brought us cheaper air travel. I think that's a good thing. As far as I am concerned, it is a shame that rising oil prices are making air travel less accessible for consumers, and that some of the less expensive airlines are going out of business as a result. I travel primarily for business, but I won't begrudge anyone a cheap flight.
So you don't get a hot meal in a little plastic tray anymore. I don't think the hot meal was worth the extra $200 or so that transcontinental flights cost fifteen years ago. I'd prefer to keep the $200, spend $10 on a hot meal to eat on the plane, and then pocket the $190.
There are ways to make air travel more civilized, if you are willing to shell out for it. Sign up for CLEAR, and you can cut to the front of the security line. Work on getting frequent flier status, and then you can wait in nice lounges at the airport. If you pay for first class, you will get a meal and cocktails on your longer trips.
posted by Slap Factory at 3:59 PM on April 5, 2008
So you don't get a hot meal in a little plastic tray anymore. I don't think the hot meal was worth the extra $200 or so that transcontinental flights cost fifteen years ago. I'd prefer to keep the $200, spend $10 on a hot meal to eat on the plane, and then pocket the $190.
There are ways to make air travel more civilized, if you are willing to shell out for it. Sign up for CLEAR, and you can cut to the front of the security line. Work on getting frequent flier status, and then you can wait in nice lounges at the airport. If you pay for first class, you will get a meal and cocktails on your longer trips.
posted by Slap Factory at 3:59 PM on April 5, 2008
Deregulation brought us cheaper air travel. I think that's a good thing.
As much as we're spending in bailouts over the last several years, I question your notion of economy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:13 PM on April 5, 2008 [9 favorites]
As much as we're spending in bailouts over the last several years, I question your notion of economy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:13 PM on April 5, 2008 [9 favorites]
Slap Factory, air travel was only cheaper briefly after deregulation. I believe that, adjusted for inflation, it's as expensive now as it was before dereg. I don't have the stats handy, but I've seen it in reliable sources a few times.
tommasz has it right about AA, the worst of the worst. I have like 100K miles in the bank with AA but never fly them anymore unless I have to or someone else is doing the booking (even then, I beg them to put me on any other airline, because I have not been on an AA flight in the last 5 years that was less than a hassle).
My breaking point was reached last year when I spent 4 hours in a plane on the tarmac only to have the flight canceled after all of that shit.
I really hate the two or three class system too. I could easily afford 1st class upgrades with miles on most of the flights I take, but the anger I feel as I pass the fat slobs in first class on my way back to coach is real, and I don't want to feel it from other passengers.
My favorite peeve is the announcement that "for security reasons" coach class passengers (even those in the first few rows behind 1st class) must only use the coach class lavatories in the back of the plane. Be honest and tell us it's because you hate your customers unless they can pay double. Don't bullshit us that you give a flying fuck (so to speak) about "security."
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:21 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
tommasz has it right about AA, the worst of the worst. I have like 100K miles in the bank with AA but never fly them anymore unless I have to or someone else is doing the booking (even then, I beg them to put me on any other airline, because I have not been on an AA flight in the last 5 years that was less than a hassle).
My breaking point was reached last year when I spent 4 hours in a plane on the tarmac only to have the flight canceled after all of that shit.
I really hate the two or three class system too. I could easily afford 1st class upgrades with miles on most of the flights I take, but the anger I feel as I pass the fat slobs in first class on my way back to coach is real, and I don't want to feel it from other passengers.
My favorite peeve is the announcement that "for security reasons" coach class passengers (even those in the first few rows behind 1st class) must only use the coach class lavatories in the back of the plane. Be honest and tell us it's because you hate your customers unless they can pay double. Don't bullshit us that you give a flying fuck (so to speak) about "security."
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:21 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Open it up to foreign competition. EasyJet will save us all with their $1 flights!
posted by blue_beetle at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't think the government ever regulated service levels, did they?
posted by delmoi at 4:43 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by delmoi at 4:43 PM on April 5, 2008
I love WestJet. They're an example of a small carrier that's doing almost everything right.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:44 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by five fresh fish at 4:44 PM on April 5, 2008
I've never in my life encountered a sector that was so universally customer-hostile, and so frequently apt to crap all over the people who keep it in business.
The music & entertainment industries?
posted by mike3k at 5:03 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
The music & entertainment industries?
posted by mike3k at 5:03 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Damn, damn, damn. There go my cheap flights to see my sister in NC. I flew Skybus last month, and while it was odd to have the flight attendants try to sell me duty-free perfume midflight, the rest of the experience was pleasant enough.
And now I guess there's one less reason to ever go to Chicopee.
posted by Biblio at 5:30 PM on April 5, 2008
And now I guess there's one less reason to ever go to Chicopee.
posted by Biblio at 5:30 PM on April 5, 2008
There are a bunch of studies I saw in a brief google search that seem to indicate that as of 2002 the academic research on airfares showed a 40% nominal reduction in prices post deregulation.
posted by JPD at 5:38 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by JPD at 5:38 PM on April 5, 2008
After the abuse heaped on customers by airlines (not to mention the TSA, airport authorities, rental car companies, and everyone else connected with the air travel industry) in recent years, I can only wish utter economic collapse on the lot of them.
Since you mention rental car companies, damn are they scammy. I've rented from Hertz twice in the last couple of weeks. They give you a three-page summary of rates, terms, and conditions and ask you to sign, after putting the summary in a bezel that obscures these terms and conditions. If you do not sign within 15 seconds or so (way less time than would actually be needed to check all of the rates, let alone read the referenced terms and conditions), the computer beeps and the attendant will act all annoyed and say that the transaction has timed out now (why?). I figured this was just a local practice in Boston until it happened in Oakland too. Can I complain about this to someone who cares? Ugh.
posted by grouse at 5:53 PM on April 5, 2008
Since you mention rental car companies, damn are they scammy. I've rented from Hertz twice in the last couple of weeks. They give you a three-page summary of rates, terms, and conditions and ask you to sign, after putting the summary in a bezel that obscures these terms and conditions. If you do not sign within 15 seconds or so (way less time than would actually be needed to check all of the rates, let alone read the referenced terms and conditions), the computer beeps and the attendant will act all annoyed and say that the transaction has timed out now (why?). I figured this was just a local practice in Boston until it happened in Oakland too. Can I complain about this to someone who cares? Ugh.
posted by grouse at 5:53 PM on April 5, 2008
As long as Midwest doesn't go under
I hear ya! They're flying my ass to NYC in May!
posted by c:\awesome at 6:04 PM on April 5, 2008
I hear ya! They're flying my ass to NYC in May!
posted by c:\awesome at 6:04 PM on April 5, 2008
On a brighter note, at the end of last week, Lancair announced it's new Evolution kit plane had done first flight (YouTube video available from that page). 750 hp turboprop single, 4 seat composite airframe with emergency chute, 385 MPH max speed, 28,000 foot service ceiling, 4000 ft/min rate of climb. At 310 MPH cruise, you burn 23 GPH of JetA, at $5/gal (currently), or about $115 per hour fuel cost, and have 1484 statute mile range. Take-off and landing strip needed: only 1000' (same as small Cessnas), due to high power to weight ratio.
FastBuild Kit: $250,000
Lancair Builder Assist can get you airborne in weeks, if the FAA doesn't stop them from calling it a "kit" plane under FAR Part 23 rules, for offering this assistance.
Pretty damn close to a real world "flying car." If I were traveling as much as I did in my 30s, I could pay for one, easily. In fact, I'd make money owning one, versus buying hateful seats on commercial torture tubes, and putting up with TSA.
And traveling would be fun again! 4000 ft/min rate of climb!
posted by paulsc at 6:18 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
FastBuild Kit: $250,000
Lancair Builder Assist can get you airborne in weeks, if the FAA doesn't stop them from calling it a "kit" plane under FAR Part 23 rules, for offering this assistance.
Pretty damn close to a real world "flying car." If I were traveling as much as I did in my 30s, I could pay for one, easily. In fact, I'd make money owning one, versus buying hateful seats on commercial torture tubes, and putting up with TSA.
And traveling would be fun again! 4000 ft/min rate of climb!
posted by paulsc at 6:18 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I've never in my life encountered a sector that was so universally customer-hostile, and so frequently apt to crap all over the people who keep it in business.
Cable and cellular companies come to mind. But yes, the airlines are just as bad. This is why I am fully supportive of the airlines passenger's bill of rights.
posted by ryanhealy at 6:22 PM on April 5, 2008
Cable and cellular companies come to mind. But yes, the airlines are just as bad. This is why I am fully supportive of the airlines passenger's bill of rights.
posted by ryanhealy at 6:22 PM on April 5, 2008
Years ago I basically said to myself "Fuck it, I'm driving!" This was probably in about 2003. Since then I have flown twice, and logged over 200,000 driving miles. I don't travel for work more than regionally, so I basically don't ever 'need' to fly except abroad. Unlike a lot of people (I feel for you), I am in a position to say "I don't want to be treated like a criminal, so I decline to fly."
Driving gives one much more freedom to take side trips and stuff along the way, which enhances the travel experience a whole lot. Economically, as long as you own your own car, it costs about the same to drive if you stay in motels along the way as it does to fly. My wife and I both have cars that get 25mpg or so on the highway, so you could do better. If you like to camp like I do, you can cut your cost to half what airplane tickets do. My wife and I travel together, so you may want to adjust your cost calculations if you are alone or in a larger group.
At this point I am against any further welfare for the old airlines. Let them collapse and hopefully some more agile businesses will step up to the plate. They have such contempt for their customers that it amazes me that more people haven't quit flying.
posted by Sukiari at 6:49 PM on April 5, 2008
Driving gives one much more freedom to take side trips and stuff along the way, which enhances the travel experience a whole lot. Economically, as long as you own your own car, it costs about the same to drive if you stay in motels along the way as it does to fly. My wife and I both have cars that get 25mpg or so on the highway, so you could do better. If you like to camp like I do, you can cut your cost to half what airplane tickets do. My wife and I travel together, so you may want to adjust your cost calculations if you are alone or in a larger group.
At this point I am against any further welfare for the old airlines. Let them collapse and hopefully some more agile businesses will step up to the plate. They have such contempt for their customers that it amazes me that more people haven't quit flying.
posted by Sukiari at 6:49 PM on April 5, 2008
As much as we're spending in bailouts over the last several years, I question your notion of economy.
How much are we spending in bailouts? Is more than the prices have been reduced? Do you think that the bailouts would not have occurred but for deregulation?
Oh. You were just snarking. I get it now. Ha-ha. Somebody favorite that comment, please.
posted by Slap Factory at 7:03 PM on April 5, 2008
How much are we spending in bailouts? Is more than the prices have been reduced? Do you think that the bailouts would not have occurred but for deregulation?
Oh. You were just snarking. I get it now. Ha-ha. Somebody favorite that comment, please.
posted by Slap Factory at 7:03 PM on April 5, 2008
Depending your travel needs, location and price range, it's also worth looking into VLJ (Very Light Jet) air taxi operators like DayJet. They are rapidly expanding, along with mid-west operator North American Jet, and northeast operator LinearAir, and the VLJ operator's business model is pretty easy to understand, if somewhat iffy, depending on future fuel prices. But unless oil goes to over $250 a barrel in the next couple of years, VLJ operators stand to do pretty well, thanks to the relatively low costs of such aircraft, the reasonable cost of crews, and the built-in convenience factors, compared to commercial flying.
posted by paulsc at 7:05 PM on April 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by paulsc at 7:05 PM on April 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
Slap Factory, air travel was only cheaper briefly after deregulation. I believe that, adjusted for inflation, it's as expensive now as it was before dereg. I don't have the stats handy, but I've seen it in reliable sources a few times.
That would be surprising to me. I'll admit that I don't have stats right now, and I'm just too lazy to hunt for them at the moment, but I remember reading in legal and economic literature about how airline deregulation worked, that is led to lower prices and greater geographic availability. I dislike the Southwest cattle call, but their $49 fun saver fares must be better than the inflation-adjusted discounted fares pre-dereg, no?
posted by Slap Factory at 7:07 PM on April 5, 2008
That would be surprising to me. I'll admit that I don't have stats right now, and I'm just too lazy to hunt for them at the moment, but I remember reading in legal and economic literature about how airline deregulation worked, that is led to lower prices and greater geographic availability. I dislike the Southwest cattle call, but their $49 fun saver fares must be better than the inflation-adjusted discounted fares pre-dereg, no?
posted by Slap Factory at 7:07 PM on April 5, 2008
"How much are we spending in bailouts? Is more than the prices have been reduced? Do you think that the bailouts would not have occurred but for deregulation?"
Well, just counting since 2000, there was the 911 bailout of $15 billion, and a whole rash of smaller bailouts in the several hundred to several thousand million range. The total must be $35+ billion by now.
Before 2000, I know that many of the big carriers had suckled at Uncle Sam's hairy nipples. Can anybody name any major domestic carrier that doesn't enjoy protectionism?
I agree with Pope Guilty. When you add the bailouts to the cost of flying, it is not trivial.
posted by Sukiari at 7:16 PM on April 5, 2008
Well, just counting since 2000, there was the 911 bailout of $15 billion, and a whole rash of smaller bailouts in the several hundred to several thousand million range. The total must be $35+ billion by now.
Before 2000, I know that many of the big carriers had suckled at Uncle Sam's hairy nipples. Can anybody name any major domestic carrier that doesn't enjoy protectionism?
I agree with Pope Guilty. When you add the bailouts to the cost of flying, it is not trivial.
posted by Sukiari at 7:16 PM on April 5, 2008
Another reason driving is better: I can take a firearm and nobody complains about it.
posted by Sukiari at 7:17 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by Sukiari at 7:17 PM on April 5, 2008
A lot of the complaints about the Aloha collapse were that the Arizona based Go! airlines was here operating at a loss in order to drive the local airlines to the breaking point. Hawaiian operations are pretty small scale, but I wonder to what extent this is occurring elsewhere.
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 7:36 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 7:36 PM on April 5, 2008
A couple of years ago (long before oil was $100+/barrel), I heard an aviation analyst on NPR make the statement to the effect that if you took added up all of the the airline industry's profits and losses for every year since they began, you would basically end up with zero. Can't verify that or provide a link, but for whatever reason, that little equation has stuck with me.
An airline "economy" ticket is the steerage class passage of the 21st century.
P.S. If you google "steerage", the result will include United Airlines pages:
United Airlines - United Economy
Domestic amenities. Snack boxes are available for purchase on flights more than three hours. Sandwiches and salads are available for purchase on flights ...
www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1134,00.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Go figure.
posted by webhund at 7:53 PM on April 5, 2008
An airline "economy" ticket is the steerage class passage of the 21st century.
P.S. If you google "steerage", the result will include United Airlines pages:
United Airlines - United Economy
Domestic amenities. Snack boxes are available for purchase on flights more than three hours. Sandwiches and salads are available for purchase on flights ...
www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1134,00.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Go figure.
posted by webhund at 7:53 PM on April 5, 2008
I like being able to travel internationally and have it take me less than a few weeks to get to my destination.
And somehow I don't believe that customer service has anything to do with airlines going under or not. For most people, customer service is barely thought about, and ticket prices are the only thing worth considering. This is why things like kayak and orbitz exist.
So, for the millions or gallons of fuel the flights are using, and the remarkable rate at which fuel costs are rising, I can see why low-cost is not cutting it. Also, since cost is the primary factor for most, I can see why service is being cut for the sake of keeping prices down.
posted by that girl at 8:52 PM on April 5, 2008
And somehow I don't believe that customer service has anything to do with airlines going under or not. For most people, customer service is barely thought about, and ticket prices are the only thing worth considering. This is why things like kayak and orbitz exist.
So, for the millions or gallons of fuel the flights are using, and the remarkable rate at which fuel costs are rising, I can see why low-cost is not cutting it. Also, since cost is the primary factor for most, I can see why service is being cut for the sake of keeping prices down.
posted by that girl at 8:52 PM on April 5, 2008
I don't think the government ever regulated service levels, did they?
Before the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board regulated every detail of the airline industry. Most importantly, it determined what routes each airline could fly and what air fares each could charge. It even determined whether a new airline could enter the industry. It also regulated levels of service, employment policies, finances, business structure, cargo and other factors. -- Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), but fundamentally correct
Deregulation brought us cheaper air travel. I think that's a good thing.
It's certainly the widely-shared conventional wisdom that it did. An interesting secondary feature of deregulation, though, was the widespread adoption of the hub-and-spoke system, which increased competition in many smaller cities. Prior to deregulation, the airports were hobbled by federal rules about what they could spend money on, and beholden often to just one or two airlines leasing space.
On the other hand, it's often noted that after deregulation, many very small airports lost passenger service altogether -- my county's, for instance. We're just too close to major airports like O'Hare. But I can't imagine what it's like to be, say, Bozeman.
Other benefits of deregulation (remember, we're 25+ years on now) include the regional jet.
When you add the bailouts to the cost of flying, it is not trivial.
This is true. I'd be more cautious about blaming the bailouts on deregulation in the first place, though.
posted by dhartung at 8:57 PM on April 5, 2008
Before the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board regulated every detail of the airline industry. Most importantly, it determined what routes each airline could fly and what air fares each could charge. It even determined whether a new airline could enter the industry. It also regulated levels of service, employment policies, finances, business structure, cargo and other factors. -- Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), but fundamentally correct
Deregulation brought us cheaper air travel. I think that's a good thing.
It's certainly the widely-shared conventional wisdom that it did. An interesting secondary feature of deregulation, though, was the widespread adoption of the hub-and-spoke system, which increased competition in many smaller cities. Prior to deregulation, the airports were hobbled by federal rules about what they could spend money on, and beholden often to just one or two airlines leasing space.
On the other hand, it's often noted that after deregulation, many very small airports lost passenger service altogether -- my county's, for instance. We're just too close to major airports like O'Hare. But I can't imagine what it's like to be, say, Bozeman.
Other benefits of deregulation (remember, we're 25+ years on now) include the regional jet.
When you add the bailouts to the cost of flying, it is not trivial.
This is true. I'd be more cautious about blaming the bailouts on deregulation in the first place, though.
posted by dhartung at 8:57 PM on April 5, 2008
Slap Factory, air travel was only cheaper briefly after deregulation. I believe that, adjusted for inflation, it's as expensive now as it was before dereg. I don't have the stats handy, but I've seen it in reliable sources a few times.
Surprisingly, I still remember about how much our plane tickets cost first time I ever flew -- Christmas, 1978. ~$300 per person RT on Pioneer. I remember it because Grandmother paid for it, and my parents were talking how it cost $1200 to fly the four of us.
Currently, I can get a 28-day advance RT ticket from Tulsa to Denver for $166, $192 with taxes.
According to this inflation calculator, $300 in 1978 is $1015 in 2007. $192 in 2007 is $57 in 1978 dollars.
So, yes, deregulation really did cut the cost of tickets. And I'm willing to bet that even after you add in the three rounds of government intervention we've seen in the 80s, 90s, and post-2001 that ticket would still be cheaper.
Am I'm using a notoriously expensive city to fly to in Tulsa, which is pretty much served by Southwest, AA, and a bunch of Canadair flying subsidiaries of the big carriers. And even though you're flying a "real" jet to Tulsa, chances are it's just in transit to AA's maintenance base in Tulsa.
posted by dw at 8:59 PM on April 5, 2008
Surprisingly, I still remember about how much our plane tickets cost first time I ever flew -- Christmas, 1978. ~$300 per person RT on Pioneer. I remember it because Grandmother paid for it, and my parents were talking how it cost $1200 to fly the four of us.
Currently, I can get a 28-day advance RT ticket from Tulsa to Denver for $166, $192 with taxes.
According to this inflation calculator, $300 in 1978 is $1015 in 2007. $192 in 2007 is $57 in 1978 dollars.
So, yes, deregulation really did cut the cost of tickets. And I'm willing to bet that even after you add in the three rounds of government intervention we've seen in the 80s, 90s, and post-2001 that ticket would still be cheaper.
Am I'm using a notoriously expensive city to fly to in Tulsa, which is pretty much served by Southwest, AA, and a bunch of Canadair flying subsidiaries of the big carriers. And even though you're flying a "real" jet to Tulsa, chances are it's just in transit to AA's maintenance base in Tulsa.
posted by dw at 8:59 PM on April 5, 2008
And I used to like Southwest. And then they went to this new seating policy that's just a pain in the ass to work with.
Plus, they used to let families with small children on first. Now, they board between groups A and B. And that was the main reason we flew them -- they were the last airline that still had that policy.
posted by dw at 9:04 PM on April 5, 2008
Plus, they used to let families with small children on first. Now, they board between groups A and B. And that was the main reason we flew them -- they were the last airline that still had that policy.
posted by dw at 9:04 PM on April 5, 2008
"I like being able to travel internationally and have it take me less than a few weeks to get to my destination."
Me too. Iceland Air is an absolute treat. International carriers don't treat you like garbage like the domestic ones do. Our carriers have it honed to a science.
But I can drive cross country in 3 days if I have to, and it is actually less stressful and exhausting than flying on most carriers. Even if you fly on a pleasant smaller carrier, you still have to deal with the TSA goonery and the general bullshit at the airport, such as not being able to get a fucking steak knife at the steak house in the DFW 'secure zone'.
posted by Sukiari at 9:07 PM on April 5, 2008
Me too. Iceland Air is an absolute treat. International carriers don't treat you like garbage like the domestic ones do. Our carriers have it honed to a science.
But I can drive cross country in 3 days if I have to, and it is actually less stressful and exhausting than flying on most carriers. Even if you fly on a pleasant smaller carrier, you still have to deal with the TSA goonery and the general bullshit at the airport, such as not being able to get a fucking steak knife at the steak house in the DFW 'secure zone'.
posted by Sukiari at 9:07 PM on April 5, 2008
I'd love to take Amtrak but they don't freaking go anywhere.
I mean they do, but every trip I consider taking with them ends up with long bus transfers, multihour stops, and the rest of it. It's a shame, I'd be perfectly happy taking a roomy train with a compartment for a lot of trips but the system just isn't set up for people who want to get somewhere as opposed to taking a rolling cruise.
I'm a pilot and I hate airline travel.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:08 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I mean they do, but every trip I consider taking with them ends up with long bus transfers, multihour stops, and the rest of it. It's a shame, I'd be perfectly happy taking a roomy train with a compartment for a lot of trips but the system just isn't set up for people who want to get somewhere as opposed to taking a rolling cruise.
I'm a pilot and I hate airline travel.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:08 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
You know, this just goes to show that we really need reasonable regional rail. It's probably too late now, though, since we've ripped up half the tracks that could have been used to build such a system.
posted by sonic meat machine at 9:20 PM on April 5, 2008
posted by sonic meat machine at 9:20 PM on April 5, 2008
In the last four months, at least 6 U.S. airlines have ceased flying. Besides Skybus, ATA and Aloha (mentioned in the article linked), we've lost Champion Air, Skyway Airlines and MaxJet.
I'm in the sorry position of being a career airline employee. I'm one of the lucky ones to "only" be looking at pay & benefit cuts and job insecurity; thousands of others are out of work with little or no notice.
GooseOnTheLoose, scorched-earth competitive tactics are part of the game in this business. A good recent example (other than Mesa Airlines' "go!" thing in Hawaii, which you referenced) would be Delta vs. JetBlue at New York JFK, JetBlue's largest hub:
A couple years ago, Delta hired a regional airline to fly dozens of turboprop aircraft as "Delta Connection" on the exact same routes and times as many JetBlue flights between JFK and other cities in the Northeast. The reason was not so much to steal business from JetBlue -- these flights often were virtually empty -- but rather to cause a disruption. The sudden addition of a couple hundred flights to the schedule at JFK (on s-l-o-w turboprop aircraft, no less) was a big factor in the summer of historically bad air traffic control delays, and JetBlue took a big hit in the public eye as one of the most-delayed airlines in the U.S.
Delta lost tens if not hundreds of millions on that plan, yet I have little doubt their management considered it a good investment because of the damage it did to their competitor (JetBlue since has gone from uber-profitable to barely-breaking-even-if-that.)
As much as I love my job and career, this business is a brutal place to work. The public hates you, the pay is terrible and there is no job security. The competition is ruthless and fights dirty, and a $1 fluctuation in the price of a barrel of oil can change a small profit into a large loss, and that $1 fluctuation has gone the wrong way many, many times over this year alone.
posted by gazole at 9:22 PM on April 5, 2008 [4 favorites]
I'm in the sorry position of being a career airline employee. I'm one of the lucky ones to "only" be looking at pay & benefit cuts and job insecurity; thousands of others are out of work with little or no notice.
GooseOnTheLoose, scorched-earth competitive tactics are part of the game in this business. A good recent example (other than Mesa Airlines' "go!" thing in Hawaii, which you referenced) would be Delta vs. JetBlue at New York JFK, JetBlue's largest hub:
A couple years ago, Delta hired a regional airline to fly dozens of turboprop aircraft as "Delta Connection" on the exact same routes and times as many JetBlue flights between JFK and other cities in the Northeast. The reason was not so much to steal business from JetBlue -- these flights often were virtually empty -- but rather to cause a disruption. The sudden addition of a couple hundred flights to the schedule at JFK (on s-l-o-w turboprop aircraft, no less) was a big factor in the summer of historically bad air traffic control delays, and JetBlue took a big hit in the public eye as one of the most-delayed airlines in the U.S.
Delta lost tens if not hundreds of millions on that plan, yet I have little doubt their management considered it a good investment because of the damage it did to their competitor (JetBlue since has gone from uber-profitable to barely-breaking-even-if-that.)
As much as I love my job and career, this business is a brutal place to work. The public hates you, the pay is terrible and there is no job security. The competition is ruthless and fights dirty, and a $1 fluctuation in the price of a barrel of oil can change a small profit into a large loss, and that $1 fluctuation has gone the wrong way many, many times over this year alone.
posted by gazole at 9:22 PM on April 5, 2008 [4 favorites]
Citing a few low fares, or Southwest fares in general, doesn't make the case for a lower cost since deregulation. I was specific about "captive markets" above for a reason. Yes, you can pay $49 on some routes. Or you can pay $500 for a coach ticket for a flight of less than 800 miles, easily. And that will involve flying 400 miles out of your way and boarding a second flight that is sure to be delayed.
Or maybe it costs less overall to fly, but a much larger number of people are now dependent on air travel to do business.
We're not discussing the awful environmental issues here, either, which need to be added to the "cost" of air travel. The failure of the US air travel system has yet to inspire a massive change in business culture, but it's got to be coming as video conferencing becomes as easy as Skyping someone. As an academic, I give a talk somewhere in the US on average every 2-3 weeks, and my line of work fetishizes the face-to-face encounter and the in-person talk. I feel plenty guilty about it, but it would be impossible to build a career or fulfill my professional obligations without frequent travel. (To make matters worse, I have to fly to the Arctic on a regular basis now, where I get to see the effects of all this carbon burning at the bleeding edge of global catastrophe. I feel plenty guilty about that.)
A lot of good would come from a collapse of the system, really. We have to slow the fuck down. Maybe the economy is telling us something. I for one would be happy to have an excuse not to travel so much. I recognize that we are all part of the problem. But sometimes it takes an asskicking to make a change.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:25 PM on April 5, 2008
Or maybe it costs less overall to fly, but a much larger number of people are now dependent on air travel to do business.
We're not discussing the awful environmental issues here, either, which need to be added to the "cost" of air travel. The failure of the US air travel system has yet to inspire a massive change in business culture, but it's got to be coming as video conferencing becomes as easy as Skyping someone. As an academic, I give a talk somewhere in the US on average every 2-3 weeks, and my line of work fetishizes the face-to-face encounter and the in-person talk. I feel plenty guilty about it, but it would be impossible to build a career or fulfill my professional obligations without frequent travel. (To make matters worse, I have to fly to the Arctic on a regular basis now, where I get to see the effects of all this carbon burning at the bleeding edge of global catastrophe. I feel plenty guilty about that.)
A lot of good would come from a collapse of the system, really. We have to slow the fuck down. Maybe the economy is telling us something. I for one would be happy to have an excuse not to travel so much. I recognize that we are all part of the problem. But sometimes it takes an asskicking to make a change.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:25 PM on April 5, 2008
The flight attendants treat the customers with contempt unless you're flying in Business Class or First Class and then you're treated the same way you were treated in coach a few years ago.
Air flight attendants should never be more than thirty years old. The work is too demanding, and too demeaning. I fly JAL and ANA, and the median age of the staff is about 25. On a recent trip to Japan they were actually offering me cans of beer! "You're empty. You want another one?" All across the Pacific.
Of course, on the way home the flight was staffed by a contract crew out of Hong Kong. The service was, of course, shitty.
Still, waaaaaaaaaay better than Air Canada, whose flight crews are usually in their late forties. Cranky old (sorry) cows and (sorry) flamers, the lot.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:29 PM on April 5, 2008
Air flight attendants should never be more than thirty years old. The work is too demanding, and too demeaning. I fly JAL and ANA, and the median age of the staff is about 25. On a recent trip to Japan they were actually offering me cans of beer! "You're empty. You want another one?" All across the Pacific.
Of course, on the way home the flight was staffed by a contract crew out of Hong Kong. The service was, of course, shitty.
Still, waaaaaaaaaay better than Air Canada, whose flight crews are usually in their late forties. Cranky old (sorry) cows and (sorry) flamers, the lot.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:29 PM on April 5, 2008
Citing a few low fares, or Southwest fares in general, doesn't make the case for a lower cost since deregulation.
Tulsa-Denver is only served non-stop by two airlines: United and Frontier. And who has the lower fare right now?
United. By about a buck.
A lot of good would come from a collapse of the system, really.
You all keep saying this, but none of you have ever set foot on Greyhound, I bet. You think flying coach is bad? Try taking the bus sometime.
And if the system does collapse, what you'll have is Southwest charging $500 RT Dallas-Houston because they zero competition and they can, and what are you going to do about it, drive your SUV in bumper-to-bumper traffic down I-45 paying for $5/gallon gas all the way?
And oh, I hate to tell you this, but our highway infrastructure makes our air transit infrastructure look modern.
posted by dw at 9:54 PM on April 5, 2008
Tulsa-Denver is only served non-stop by two airlines: United and Frontier. And who has the lower fare right now?
United. By about a buck.
A lot of good would come from a collapse of the system, really.
You all keep saying this, but none of you have ever set foot on Greyhound, I bet. You think flying coach is bad? Try taking the bus sometime.
And if the system does collapse, what you'll have is Southwest charging $500 RT Dallas-Houston because they zero competition and they can, and what are you going to do about it, drive your SUV in bumper-to-bumper traffic down I-45 paying for $5/gallon gas all the way?
And oh, I hate to tell you this, but our highway infrastructure makes our air transit infrastructure look modern.
posted by dw at 9:54 PM on April 5, 2008
GooseOnTheLoose, scorched-earth competitive tactics are part of the game in this business.
I remember a story that when United launched its West Coast shuttle service they bought 1-800-SOUTHWEST and had it forward to Shuttle By United's ticket sales desk.
posted by dw at 9:57 PM on April 5, 2008
I remember a story that when United launched its West Coast shuttle service they bought 1-800-SOUTHWEST and had it forward to Shuttle By United's ticket sales desk.
posted by dw at 9:57 PM on April 5, 2008
Pretty damn close to a real world "flying car." If I were traveling as much as I did in my 30s, I could pay for one, easily. In fact, I'd make money owning one, versus buying hateful seats on commercial torture tubes, and putting up with TSA.
No, this is your flying car - the canard-style aircraft.
Seriously, folks, it's this (obviously with some pretty suped-up scheduling/routing over a separate, secure network that will make sure we don't kill each other more than we do in cars and with greater and more gruesome consequences) or go for the collective pull to get Amtrak's head out of it's ass. Yeah, the track and rolling stock situation is laughable, but that could be easily remedied in about five years time if we all just exhibit the appropriate will.
Right; nevermind.
posted by eclectist at 10:21 PM on April 5, 2008
No, this is your flying car - the canard-style aircraft.
Seriously, folks, it's this (obviously with some pretty suped-up scheduling/routing over a separate, secure network that will make sure we don't kill each other more than we do in cars and with greater and more gruesome consequences) or go for the collective pull to get Amtrak's head out of it's ass. Yeah, the track and rolling stock situation is laughable, but that could be easily remedied in about five years time if we all just exhibit the appropriate will.
Right; nevermind.
posted by eclectist at 10:21 PM on April 5, 2008
> You know, this just goes to show that we really need reasonable regional rail. It's probably too late now, though, since we've ripped up half the tracks that could have been used to build such a system.
I don't want to derail (heh) this too badly, but I don't think this is totally true. Yeah, a lot of rail lines running into downtown areas have sadly been ripped up, but the long-haul routes are still mostly there. They have to be, because American railroading is actually at an all-time peak right now: it's just all freight. The overall network is actually in better shape than I think most people assume it is, at least when you're talking about inter-city service and not local milk runs.
You'd have to do a lot of work on the rails, because although they're superficially the same, high-speed passenger service and low-speed high-weight freight actually have some different requirements. (E.g.: If you're hauling thousands of tons of coal at 45MPH, clickety-clacking over bolted-together rail is just ducky; if you want to go 120MPH, not so much.) One of the reason Amtrak sucks so much once you get off the NE Corridor -- which was all upgraded for the Acela -- is that you're essentially running on a freight railroad's idea of what track ought to be.
What's lacking isn't the infrastructure or the technology, it's the political will and the consumer interest. If we wanted to build a high-speed point-to-point intercity rail transportation network, it's certainly doable. It would be expensive, and I'm not sure I'd want Amtrak to be the ones to do it, but I don't think it would require a huge amount of buildout, just lots of basic, unsexy refurbishment.
Although I'm kind of doubtful that it's going to happen very soon, there are obvious efficiency advantages to rail transportation, and obvious disadvantages to air. Given that petroleum is only going to become more and more expensive, I think it's inevitable that eventually people will start to take a harder look at it. Equally, I think air travel can only become more and more of a luxury.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:45 PM on April 5, 2008
I don't want to derail (heh) this too badly, but I don't think this is totally true. Yeah, a lot of rail lines running into downtown areas have sadly been ripped up, but the long-haul routes are still mostly there. They have to be, because American railroading is actually at an all-time peak right now: it's just all freight. The overall network is actually in better shape than I think most people assume it is, at least when you're talking about inter-city service and not local milk runs.
You'd have to do a lot of work on the rails, because although they're superficially the same, high-speed passenger service and low-speed high-weight freight actually have some different requirements. (E.g.: If you're hauling thousands of tons of coal at 45MPH, clickety-clacking over bolted-together rail is just ducky; if you want to go 120MPH, not so much.) One of the reason Amtrak sucks so much once you get off the NE Corridor -- which was all upgraded for the Acela -- is that you're essentially running on a freight railroad's idea of what track ought to be.
What's lacking isn't the infrastructure or the technology, it's the political will and the consumer interest. If we wanted to build a high-speed point-to-point intercity rail transportation network, it's certainly doable. It would be expensive, and I'm not sure I'd want Amtrak to be the ones to do it, but I don't think it would require a huge amount of buildout, just lots of basic, unsexy refurbishment.
Although I'm kind of doubtful that it's going to happen very soon, there are obvious efficiency advantages to rail transportation, and obvious disadvantages to air. Given that petroleum is only going to become more and more expensive, I think it's inevitable that eventually people will start to take a harder look at it. Equally, I think air travel can only become more and more of a luxury.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:45 PM on April 5, 2008
Yeah, the track and rolling stock situation is laughable, but that could be easily remedied in about five years time if we all just exhibit the appropriate will.
And an immense amount of money. You're probably going to have to pull up every single track and tie on the West Coast and straighten all those curves just to get trains to Acela speeds -- on top of electrifying the track.
A TGV line from SEA-PDX would get you downtown to downtown in an hour, less than what it'd take to get through even the expedited security at the airports. And we've all wanted one out here for a while. It's just that we'd rather spend those billions on Sound Transit and the MAX.
posted by dw at 10:48 PM on April 5, 2008
And an immense amount of money. You're probably going to have to pull up every single track and tie on the West Coast and straighten all those curves just to get trains to Acela speeds -- on top of electrifying the track.
A TGV line from SEA-PDX would get you downtown to downtown in an hour, less than what it'd take to get through even the expedited security at the airports. And we've all wanted one out here for a while. It's just that we'd rather spend those billions on Sound Transit and the MAX.
posted by dw at 10:48 PM on April 5, 2008
"No, this is your flying car - the canard-style aircraft."
Years ago, I had a 250 mile flight in a Beechcraft Starship, with some Raytheon guys, from Logan (BOS) down to Teeterboro (TEB). I remember it was noisier than our corporate Turbo Commander, which surprised me. But mostly, on that windy late winter day, I remember the Starship's apparent tendency to medium period phugoid oscillation. It never seemed happy holding altitude. I kind of wrote off canards, mentally, thereafter, but that was 20 years ago.
posted by paulsc at 10:58 PM on April 5, 2008
Years ago, I had a 250 mile flight in a Beechcraft Starship, with some Raytheon guys, from Logan (BOS) down to Teeterboro (TEB). I remember it was noisier than our corporate Turbo Commander, which surprised me. But mostly, on that windy late winter day, I remember the Starship's apparent tendency to medium period phugoid oscillation. It never seemed happy holding altitude. I kind of wrote off canards, mentally, thereafter, but that was 20 years ago.
posted by paulsc at 10:58 PM on April 5, 2008
A TGV line from SEA-PDX would get you downtown to downtown in an hour, less than what it'd take to get through even the expedited security at the airports.
Of course, the security theater people would demand that any new high-speed train line have the same kind of security as planes.
posted by grouse at 11:09 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Of course, the security theater people would demand that any new high-speed train line have the same kind of security as planes.
posted by grouse at 11:09 PM on April 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
A really ugly week in American aviation would include a crash.
This attitude is why I try never to fly anymore. The airplane doesn't have to crash for it to be a perfectly miserable experience, and this is totally needless and pretty much the rule any more.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:49 PM on April 5, 2008
This attitude is why I try never to fly anymore. The airplane doesn't have to crash for it to be a perfectly miserable experience, and this is totally needless and pretty much the rule any more.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:49 PM on April 5, 2008
Living in the Midwest, it should be simple as hell to take a train to either coast quickly, cheaply, and cleanly. Unfortunately, it's none of those.
I hate flying, so a few years back when I looked into taking a long ass train trip from the far reaches of Minneapolis to the faraway land of Chicago to participate in a friends' wedding I was faced with three stark unrealities.
First, the trip was scheduled to take twenty-four hours. Are you kidding me? It's maybe an eight hour drive, I'd bet that people (re:not me) could easily bike the 350 or so miles in less than 24 hours.
Second, they wanted somewhere in the range of $250. Are you fucking kidding me? The Greyhound ticket was going for ~$50 and it was only 16 hours. A little urine smell is worth $200.
Third, they made it abundantly clear that in no terms could I expect to get to my destination anywhere close to on time.
Spell it out, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? I pay an exorbitant sum to take your shitty-assed nineteenth century mode of travel, and you have the unmitigated gall, the audacity to say that after all the fucking hoops you made me jump through, that I may or may not arrive on time?
There's a reason Amtrak is failing. It should.
That being said, there is a reason "unregulated" air travel is failing. It should.
posted by Sphinx at 12:12 AM on April 6, 2008
I hate flying, so a few years back when I looked into taking a long ass train trip from the far reaches of Minneapolis to the faraway land of Chicago to participate in a friends' wedding I was faced with three stark unrealities.
First, the trip was scheduled to take twenty-four hours. Are you kidding me? It's maybe an eight hour drive, I'd bet that people (re:not me) could easily bike the 350 or so miles in less than 24 hours.
Second, they wanted somewhere in the range of $250. Are you fucking kidding me? The Greyhound ticket was going for ~$50 and it was only 16 hours. A little urine smell is worth $200.
Third, they made it abundantly clear that in no terms could I expect to get to my destination anywhere close to on time.
Spell it out, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? I pay an exorbitant sum to take your shitty-assed nineteenth century mode of travel, and you have the unmitigated gall, the audacity to say that after all the fucking hoops you made me jump through, that I may or may not arrive on time?
There's a reason Amtrak is failing. It should.
That being said, there is a reason "unregulated" air travel is failing. It should.
posted by Sphinx at 12:12 AM on April 6, 2008
"International carriers don't treat you like garbage"
You obviously haven't had the pleasure of Iberia.
posted by adamvasco at 12:25 AM on April 6, 2008
You obviously haven't had the pleasure of Iberia.
posted by adamvasco at 12:25 AM on April 6, 2008
Still, waaaaaaaaaay better than Air Canada, whose flight crews are usually in their late forties. Cranky old (sorry) cows and (sorry) flamers, the lot.
Wow. You're a (sorry) asshole. I suspect you get the service you deserve.
posted by srboisvert at 1:47 AM on April 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
Wow. You're a (sorry) asshole. I suspect you get the service you deserve.
posted by srboisvert at 1:47 AM on April 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
and pretty much the rule any more.
POSITIVE ANYMORE! (sorry, I had to)
posted by blacklite at 3:33 AM on April 6, 2008
POSITIVE ANYMORE! (sorry, I had to)
posted by blacklite at 3:33 AM on April 6, 2008
if you took added up all of the the airline industry's profits and losses for every year since they began, you would basically end up with zero.
For the most part true. I worked as an analyst in the transportation group for a major investment bank some years back. If an airline cannot manage to produce an overall average load factor of at least 85% (85% full, each flight), they do not break even. With fuel costs being what they are, I would imagine the current figure is above 90.
Only a scarce few ingenious companies make money in the airline business, everyone else takes a bath or gets bailed out.
posted by psmealey at 3:45 AM on April 6, 2008
For the most part true. I worked as an analyst in the transportation group for a major investment bank some years back. If an airline cannot manage to produce an overall average load factor of at least 85% (85% full, each flight), they do not break even. With fuel costs being what they are, I would imagine the current figure is above 90.
Only a scarce few ingenious companies make money in the airline business, everyone else takes a bath or gets bailed out.
posted by psmealey at 3:45 AM on April 6, 2008
There's an emotional account of Aloha's last flight over on airliners.net.
posted by jontyjago at 4:03 AM on April 6, 2008
posted by jontyjago at 4:03 AM on April 6, 2008
I was headed home to Seattle from Hawaii once. The flight ahead of mine, bound for LAX, had been canceled. They put the LAX bound people onto the plan I was supposed to take, plus about half of the Seattle people. After a three hour wait, we were off to LAX. We arrived at LAX where we faces a layover of indeterminate length. The airline, Hawaiian, would not let us off the plan. We sat at the gate, stuck on the plane, for another three hours. Between the two delays and the flight from LAX to Seattle, I was about eleven hours late getting home.
On another trip, I was flying from Seattle to Raleigh with a layover in Charlotte. The Charlotte-Raleigh flight was canceled.
My sister in law flew from Greensboro to Burbank on Skybus. She was supposed to fly home yesterday, but we know what happened to Skybus. She had to buy a new one-way ticket to get home.
These are just a few examples. Everyone has a flying horror story to tell. We are long overdue for a comprehensive passenger bill of rights.
posted by eratus at 4:48 AM on April 6, 2008
On another trip, I was flying from Seattle to Raleigh with a layover in Charlotte. The Charlotte-Raleigh flight was canceled.
My sister in law flew from Greensboro to Burbank on Skybus. She was supposed to fly home yesterday, but we know what happened to Skybus. She had to buy a new one-way ticket to get home.
These are just a few examples. Everyone has a flying horror story to tell. We are long overdue for a comprehensive passenger bill of rights.
posted by eratus at 4:48 AM on April 6, 2008
I guess I'm the only one who has had good luck flying. Just a couple of months ago I was flying NWA, and my flight was delayed because of bad weather up north even though I was flying in the south (the plane was stuck in Chicago or some place), and I'd never make it to my destination that day. They bought me a ticket on USAir, and I made it home no problem.
And, I used to fly Air Canada to Toronto pretty regular, and the staff was always quite pleasant.
I am amazed at how nice most of the people who work for the airlines remain considering the number of dickheads they have to deal with from the public, and their own company. They're folks that are caught in the middle, and take abuse from all sides.
posted by Eekacat at 5:31 AM on April 6, 2008
And, I used to fly Air Canada to Toronto pretty regular, and the staff was always quite pleasant.
I am amazed at how nice most of the people who work for the airlines remain considering the number of dickheads they have to deal with from the public, and their own company. They're folks that are caught in the middle, and take abuse from all sides.
posted by Eekacat at 5:31 AM on April 6, 2008
I live near Columbus so Skybus failing sucks for me. No more $10 or $50 tickets to Seattle or LA or Boston (or their satellite airports). What REALLY sucked about them closing shop was that they announced around 9PM on Friday night that the company was going under, and that they were stopping all flights at MIDNIGHT! Can you imagine! Get up in the morning, go to the airport, and there are no women at the Skybus counters, no credit card kiosks, maybe only a piece of paper held up by tape saying "Sory We R Closed."
Now that is some shitty business right there.
And I also feel that as long as gas prices go up, there will be increased interest in rail transportation. Both for passenger and freight travel.
posted by billysumday at 6:09 AM on April 6, 2008
Now that is some shitty business right there.
And I also feel that as long as gas prices go up, there will be increased interest in rail transportation. Both for passenger and freight travel.
posted by billysumday at 6:09 AM on April 6, 2008
Man, I love the East Coast. I did Boston-NYC last week (same day) and am doing Boston-NYC this week (for a weekend), both on Acela. Totally civilized and stress-free. Whenever my company suggests we fly down instead I throw a fit.
posted by nev at 7:45 AM on April 6, 2008
posted by nev at 7:45 AM on April 6, 2008
Since you mention rental car companies, damn are they scammy. [...] Can I complain about this to someone who cares? Ugh.
posted by grouse at 5:53 PM on April 5
Eponysterical.
posted by xbonesgt at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2008
posted by grouse at 5:53 PM on April 5
Eponysterical.
posted by xbonesgt at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2008
It's the third American airline to do so in the past week.
I wonder if the fact that I've never heard of any of them might have something to do with it.
posted by neuron at 10:18 AM on April 6, 2008
I wonder if the fact that I've never heard of any of them might have something to do with it.
posted by neuron at 10:18 AM on April 6, 2008
Wow. You're a (sorry) asshole. I suspect you get the service you deserve.
Heh, I probably am. But try flying Air Canada on an international flight with kids. It ain't nice.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:32 AM on April 6, 2008
Heh, I probably am. But try flying Air Canada on an international flight with kids. It ain't nice.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:32 AM on April 6, 2008
Flying Air Canada is hell regardless. One of the real shames is that Canada's various unions continue to support AC, because it's a union shop and WestJet is not. This despite Air Canada's management being the among biggest douchebags to ever run a company in Canada; and despite most everyone agreeing that we'd all be a lot better off with Air Canada being destroyed so that some other, better company can take its place.
This isn't to say good or bad about the air crew of Air Canada flights: this is about the management and corporate attitudes.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:26 AM on April 6, 2008
This isn't to say good or bad about the air crew of Air Canada flights: this is about the management and corporate attitudes.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:26 AM on April 6, 2008
grouse: I just rented with Hertz in Boston a few months ago (and got a double upgrade to an Avalon..nice car..got me a speeding ticket. I guess I should have taken the Crown Vic instead), and didn't have any issues with having a chance to read the entirety of the terms. Of course, i was renting at 9 or 10 in the morning, before all the air travelers had gotten in, so there was no line. Not like the last time when I rented in Buffalo during peak time and the entire rental counter area was packed to the rafters. Damn summer Niagara Falls visiting. Got the Crown Vic that time, once they finally got some cars in. (again as a double upgrade)
My only issue was that I had to wait for them to wash the Avalon. They had at least 20 of every other type of car on the lot, but not that one. :p
Now others have rented me cars that ought not to have been rented, like the time Thrifty (in Colorado Springs) rented me some Saturn that had completely worn out windshield wipers when an ice storm was forecast.
posted by wierdo at 11:35 AM on April 6, 2008
My only issue was that I had to wait for them to wash the Avalon. They had at least 20 of every other type of car on the lot, but not that one. :p
Now others have rented me cars that ought not to have been rented, like the time Thrifty (in Colorado Springs) rented me some Saturn that had completely worn out windshield wipers when an ice storm was forecast.
posted by wierdo at 11:35 AM on April 6, 2008
I wasn't even trying to read the entirety of the terms. There wasn't even enough time to read the little summary they had produced, or check things like the rate. And yeah, the first car they tried to give me reeked of cigarette smoke. Yuck.
posted by grouse at 11:38 AM on April 6, 2008
posted by grouse at 11:38 AM on April 6, 2008
I haven't flown since March 2001, when the wife and I went from TN to MD for our honeymoon. All our flights (Southwest) were great, and when the attendants found out we were newlyweds, they announced it on the intercom and everyone applauded and a guy bought us drinks.
Now, I won't step foot on a plane because of all the security hassles and generally bad treatment of the customers by the airlines.
Amtrak would be an option if the trains didn't get pre-empted by freight traffic all the time. We took the train from Houston to Biloxi back in early 2005, and got there more than 12 hours late (forcing me to pay for a night's stay in a hotel that I didn't get to use). It was a great trip (and I love trains) but the schedule of "you'll get there eventually" just doesn't work in most cases.
posted by mrbill at 1:00 PM on April 6, 2008
Now, I won't step foot on a plane because of all the security hassles and generally bad treatment of the customers by the airlines.
Amtrak would be an option if the trains didn't get pre-empted by freight traffic all the time. We took the train from Houston to Biloxi back in early 2005, and got there more than 12 hours late (forcing me to pay for a night's stay in a hotel that I didn't get to use). It was a great trip (and I love trains) but the schedule of "you'll get there eventually" just doesn't work in most cases.
posted by mrbill at 1:00 PM on April 6, 2008
It's a tube. A tube that weighs hundreds of tons. It only flies because we burn a super-precious-dwindling-non-recoverable fuel to propel it in the air.
This ain't for everybody. This shit should be expensive. Like, wicked expensive. It's been free rides way to long (and customer service should not even enter into this--did I mention this shit should be expensive?).
Sorry. The way things are going, flight is destined to become a boutique industry--as it should.
posted by sourwookie at 8:58 PM on April 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
This ain't for everybody. This shit should be expensive. Like, wicked expensive. It's been free rides way to long (and customer service should not even enter into this--did I mention this shit should be expensive?).
Sorry. The way things are going, flight is destined to become a boutique industry--as it should.
posted by sourwookie at 8:58 PM on April 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
dhartung, Bozeman is well served by Frontier Airlines, which I recommend. They remind me of a regional Pan Am - quiet, competent, friendly - and the crew look as though they really live in Montana and ride horses when they're not on the airplane.
My vacation travel is mostly to France and I make a point of going on Air France. The crew on Air France are especially welcoming and pleasant. Delta and American compete on this route and I cannot bear to board either because I've seen crews on both airlines treat customers with contempt. I don't bother writing letters of complaint any more; I just take my money elsewhere. The major US carriers are a write-off. It's not necessary to re-hash a lot of the comments above, but many US crew members are surly, to the point I question their ability to inspire trust and be effective leaders in an emergency.
posted by jet_silver at 5:28 AM on April 7, 2008
My vacation travel is mostly to France and I make a point of going on Air France. The crew on Air France are especially welcoming and pleasant. Delta and American compete on this route and I cannot bear to board either because I've seen crews on both airlines treat customers with contempt. I don't bother writing letters of complaint any more; I just take my money elsewhere. The major US carriers are a write-off. It's not necessary to re-hash a lot of the comments above, but many US crew members are surly, to the point I question their ability to inspire trust and be effective leaders in an emergency.
posted by jet_silver at 5:28 AM on April 7, 2008
Why doesn't the US have EasyJet/RyanAir equivalents yet? $79 for a one-way is cheap, relatively, but not the same as $10.
posted by smackfu at 6:41 AM on April 7, 2008
posted by smackfu at 6:41 AM on April 7, 2008
Why doesn't the US have EasyJet/RyanAir equivalents yet?
That was the business model of Skybus, whose closure this entire FPP is about.
posted by dw at 7:51 AM on April 7, 2008
That was the business model of Skybus, whose closure this entire FPP is about.
posted by dw at 7:51 AM on April 7, 2008
Then my question is why it was not an enormous hit, like those European ones are?
posted by smackfu at 8:07 AM on April 7, 2008
posted by smackfu at 8:07 AM on April 7, 2008
Because EasyJet and RyanAir debuted into what was a much more regulated European market, and it was an instant, stark alternative to the other airlines flying in Europe. People were more than willing to pile onto 10 quid flights because the alternative was 20-30 times that.
After deregulation in the US, two models emerged for discount travel -- the Southwest model and the People Express model.
The Southwest model eschewed the luxuries and focused on providing good customer service, all while not charging extras for what people expected, e.g. charging for checking an extra bag. They decided against hub-and-spoke and focused on mid-level non-stops the other airlines couldn't provide (though they do have hubs, but they're not like the mammoth single airlines hubs in Atlanta or DFW).
The People Express model focused on barebones air travel and charging for everything else. That model worked for a while, but eventually the airline was forced by the pressure of rising debts to add first class, which messed with the model. Eventually, they tried to buy the original Frontier Airlines and pretty much took down a gaggle of other airlines in the process.
After People Express failed, every other attempt to start a no-frills airline was based on Southwest, from Western Pacific to ValueJet. Skybus was the first to really try the People Express model since it failed over 20 years ago. Unfortunately for them, they chose a lousy hub city (Columbus) that wasn't really a "hub," and then they spent a lot of time and money on some "suburban" airports that were anything but (I mean, Bellingham as the "Seattle" airport? Bellingham is a two hour drive in NO traffic from Seattle. That's like putting in service to Modesto and calling it your "Bay Area airport.") Of course, they ended up flying to these little airports because the large airports charge exorbitant landing fees to pay for their new 17 level parking garages.
I think the RyanAir/EasyJet model might still catch on here, once Americans are used to the idea that air travel is going to be more expensive than it used to be.
posted by dw at 8:56 AM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
After deregulation in the US, two models emerged for discount travel -- the Southwest model and the People Express model.
The Southwest model eschewed the luxuries and focused on providing good customer service, all while not charging extras for what people expected, e.g. charging for checking an extra bag. They decided against hub-and-spoke and focused on mid-level non-stops the other airlines couldn't provide (though they do have hubs, but they're not like the mammoth single airlines hubs in Atlanta or DFW).
The People Express model focused on barebones air travel and charging for everything else. That model worked for a while, but eventually the airline was forced by the pressure of rising debts to add first class, which messed with the model. Eventually, they tried to buy the original Frontier Airlines and pretty much took down a gaggle of other airlines in the process.
After People Express failed, every other attempt to start a no-frills airline was based on Southwest, from Western Pacific to ValueJet. Skybus was the first to really try the People Express model since it failed over 20 years ago. Unfortunately for them, they chose a lousy hub city (Columbus) that wasn't really a "hub," and then they spent a lot of time and money on some "suburban" airports that were anything but (I mean, Bellingham as the "Seattle" airport? Bellingham is a two hour drive in NO traffic from Seattle. That's like putting in service to Modesto and calling it your "Bay Area airport.") Of course, they ended up flying to these little airports because the large airports charge exorbitant landing fees to pay for their new 17 level parking garages.
I think the RyanAir/EasyJet model might still catch on here, once Americans are used to the idea that air travel is going to be more expensive than it used to be.
posted by dw at 8:56 AM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
The 2008 Airline Quality Ratings came out today, measuring 16 US airlines' on-time performance, baggage mishandling, denied boardings and customer complaints. The interesting stuff is in the charts towards the end.
AirTran scored best overall, Atlantic Southeast worst.
posted by pummelo at 10:43 AM on April 7, 2008
AirTran scored best overall, Atlantic Southeast worst.
posted by pummelo at 10:43 AM on April 7, 2008
« Older Database of free speculative fiction online | Maybe James Brown was TOO funky Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by puke & cry at 3:14 PM on April 5, 2008