Programs: AS MVP, HA Pualani Platinum, HHonors Diamond VIP, Starwood Gold
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by amorsell
Anyway, don't give me that crap about needing to be tough and suck it up when it comes to an airlines inefficiency. They need to learn from their mistakes and make adjustments. Having to deal with weather and cancellations is a semi-predictable (in that you can predict that it WILL happen several times a year) occurrence that can be better handled during those times. THAT's where operations can learn a lesson or two about how to improve things.
You fly more than enough to realize the airline can not and will not do what you are specifically asking.
The weather is out of the airlines' control.
What you can do is always kindly ask for considerations when things do get out of the airlines control.
You fly more than enough to realize the airline can not and will not do what you are specifically asking.
The weather is out of the airlines' control.
What you can do is always kindly ask for considerations when things do get out of the airlines control.
I think it's more like the airlines CAN do what I want but WILL NOT. I remember the good old days when most planes to and from AK were 3/4 full, everybody could stretch out, etc. Now, airlines are operating on a low margin, shoe-string budget with every plane already filled to or near capacity. So when things like weather delays do occur, they have very little fail-over tolerance and ability to deal with the sudden large volume of passengers now needing to get to their original destination with no seats available. I'm only asking for better contingencies when those issues do arise. And we all know, they WILL arise. It's just a matter of when, how often, and how long the issue will last.
Since cost is not a factor to your clients. I would suggest the next time you experience operational irregularities on Alaska, lease a private jet.
Smarta$$. Maybe I should qualify that statement a little: I could easily pass through a 25% increase in fares to my clients without them batting an eyelash or accounting even paying attention. I suspect most people who travel for business could as well since we have to travel for business no matter what, so of course they're going to pay for it. And, I for one, if traveling not on business, would pay that fare increase for some guaranteed peace of mind instead of getting stuck for hours or days waiting for an available seat. Much like how many of you are willing to pay $50 to upgrade to first for some guaranteed creature comforts.
Programs: HH Silver, US Silver, CO Nonepass, AS Non-MVP
Posts: 4,790
As a former airline employee, let me chime in here. Some of the largerst carriers do, in fact, have operational spares (spare aircraft) at their primary hubs -- e.g. AA has a couple of spares at DFW -- but they have something like 500 flights per day there.
The problem is that airlines must have very high load factors in order to stay alive these days. When average load factors were 60%, it was a lot easier to reaccomodate stranded travelers. When average load factors are 80%, there are far more full flights. If everyone were willing to pay 25% higher fares, then the airlines could operate at 60% load factors.
Smarta$$. Maybe I should qualify that statement a little: I could easily pass through a 25% increase in fares to my clients without them batting an eyelash or accounting even paying attention. I suspect most people who travel for business could as well since we have to travel for business no matter what, so of course they're going to pay for it. And, I for one, if traveling not on business, would pay that fare increase for some guaranteed peace of mind instead of getting stuck for hours or days waiting for an available seat. Much like how many of you are willing to pay $50 to upgrade to first for some guaranteed creature comforts.
So let me get this straight.
You don't care how much money other people have to spend, or how much you inconvenience other people as long as you get where you want to be when you want to be.
If I was one of your clients and I read that little tidbit, I would drop you in a heartbeat.
You don't care how much money other people have to spend, or how much you inconvenience other people as long as you get where you want to be when you want to be.
If I was one of your clients and I read that little tidbit, I would drop you in a heartbeat.
No, you don't have it straight.
My above statement was just a fact of doing business, whether you like it or not. There is nothing unscrupulous about it and your statement about dropping in a heartbeat has no merit. I'm saying that if an airline charged me 25% more, my clients would still have to pay for the airline tickets. It works this way with most business travel in a client->contractor relationship. I invoice my clients for my direct travel expenses and they reimburse me for it. (I don't even add an "administrative" markup like many companies do.) What I am saying is that if fares were 25% higher, my clients aren't suddenly going to stop flying me to them.
Further, I'm saying that if everyone had to pay a little more and this allowed the airlines to operate more flights with more available seats, it would benefit EVERYBODY, not just me. Not sure how I would single-handedly be inconveniencing others if things were done this way. I would be happy to pay the additional amount if airlines could guarantee this is what the money was being used for. Obviously you would not.
You remind me of the used car salesmen that tried to convince me that the extra $3500 they were trying to charge me was "normal" and that's just how "business works."
If I had an agreement with you that I would pay x amount for your traveling expenses and you came back the next day and arbitrarily want 25% more than that, I'll go find somebody that will be willing to keep to their word. Why, just the other day we had a vendor that tried to do exactly what you just proposed. Took us about an hour to find a new vendor.
And yes, in the 20 years that my husband and I have been running a business successfully, I would say that we know how business work.
I don't expect anything more from an airline than getting me from point A to point B. I don't expect them to operate in such a way that will inconvenience me the least. Especially in winter. I'm sorry if you disagree with me. I've just learned a long time ago that getting upset over delays at an airport is not worth the time or the effort.
You remind me of the used car salesmen that tried to convince me that the extra $3500 they were trying to charge me was "normal" and that's just how "business works."
If I had an agreement with you that I would pay x amount for your traveling expenses and you came back the next day and arbitrarily want 25% more than that, I'll go find somebody that will be willing to keep to their word. Why, just the other day we had a vendor that tried to do exactly what you just proposed. Took us about an hour to find a new vendor.
And yes, in the 20 years that my husband and I have been running a business successfully, I would say that we know how business work.
I don't expect anything more from an airline than getting me from point A to point B. I don't expect them to operate in such a way that will inconvenience me the least. Especially in winter. I'm sorry if you disagree with me. I've just learned a long time ago that getting upset over delays at an airport is not worth the time or the effort.
You are obviously not understanding anything I'm saying. I am not proposing to charge my clients anymore than what my direct expenses actually are. Nothing more. On a time and materials contract (which all mine are), they pay the ACTUAL expenses that I've incurred. I'm saying that if the airlines were charging me more, I would charge my clients exactly what the airlines charged me. And, if the airfare were 25% more than what it is now, they would still be paying it. It's not like I'm pocketing the extra 25% - the airline is!!! Airlines are constantly (sometimes appearing arbitrary to the consumer) raising or lowering rates and people have to pay it - there is no choice if they want to travel from point A to point B.
You are obviously not understanding anything I'm saying. I am not proposing to charge my clients anymore than what my direct expenses actually are. Nothing more. On a time and materials contract (which all mine are), they pay the ACTUAL expenses that I've incurred. I'm saying that if the airlines were charging me more, I would charge my clients exactly what the airlines charged me. And, if the airfare were 25% more than what it is now, they would still be paying it. It's not like I'm pocketing the extra 25% - the airline is!!! Airlines are constantly (sometimes appearing arbitrary to the consumer) raising or lowering rates and people have to pay it - there is no choice if they want to travel from point A to point B.
I see what you're saying and I don't think what you do is necessarily unfair to your clients.
However, if AS announces that they're going to raise fares 25% across the board, as your client paying for your travel, I would not appreciate you charging me to fly AS for your convenience. I would prefer you to fly UA, DL, or whoever else is charging 25% less, even if AS's increased fare will mean there will be more capacity to handle irrops in the off-chance that they do happen. I'd rather chance having to pay you for a day or two of delayed travel every couple of years than 25% more on airfare expenses. Charging the 25% premium when cheaper alternative fares exist would be unfair to your clients.
And you can't ask all airlines to unilaterally raise prices 25% and operate on lower load factors for this type of convenience, because the majority of the market is price sensitive and there will always be pressure on them to increase load factors and lower prices, meaning someone will cave and it will happen. I highly, highly doubt there is enough of a market that is more convenience sensitive than price sensitive to make anything other than a small boutique airline catering to this market profitable--witness the failure of most of the all-business class TATL carriers.
Programs: Mileage Plus 1P, HHonors Silver, lots of others
Posts: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by amorsell
You are obviously not understanding anything I'm saying. I am not proposing to charge my clients anymore than what my direct expenses actually are. Nothing more. On a time and materials contract (which all mine are), they pay the ACTUAL expenses that I've incurred. I'm saying that if the airlines were charging me more, I would charge my clients exactly what the airlines charged me. And, if the airfare were 25% more than what it is now, they would still be paying it. It's not like I'm pocketing the extra 25% - the airline is!!! Airlines are constantly (sometimes appearing arbitrary to the consumer) raising or lowering rates and people have to pay it - there is no choice if they want to travel from point A to point B.
The fact, though, is that most individuals -- and a large number of businesses -- will not arbitrarily pay more without question. Although the airlines oversimplify by saying that everyone looks only for the cheapest fares (implying that I'm no one, since I don't work that way), it is true that a large enough number do to make a difference. When businesses start paying too much, they cut back on travel or set limits on their contractors (if I were running a business, I'd allow some leeway, but there's no way in Hades I'd ever reimburse you for a first class ticket, unless it were a last-minute emergency and nothing else was available).
Both sides of the argument have merit. Unfortunately, the reality is that the side arguing for lower fares is going to win, whether you or I like it or not.
Of course, you're all right. Regardless of whether I would be willing to pay more for delay contingencies, I'm sure I'm in the minority and the airlines will never do it. I'm just saying that I would be willing to do it and if airlines did unilaterally raise rates, businesses would generally just have to suck it up and pay it. There are certainly limits on that, as you've pointed out, and businesses would only be able to absorb so much of that. General consumers, not so much.
And, for the record, I am quite fair to my customers when booking airfare. I book the lowest possible fair that is practical - meaning that I try to travel at reasonable times. I avoid redeyes if possible and refuse to arrive so late at night that I don't get enough sleep prior to an early morning meeting. The worst delays I've experienced as a business traveler, like the one that prompted this thread, are the ones where I end up getting in very late but have to be at a customer location at 7:00 or 8:00 am. And, that meeting time is never negotiable because I arrived late the night before.
And I have never, not even once, purchased a first class ticket on a customers dime. That's one the benefits (albeit becoming more difficult) of being a frequent flyer - I do get upgraded about 75% of the time.
Of course, you're all right. Regardless of whether I would be willing to pay more for delay contingencies, I'm sure I'm in the minority and the airlines will never do it. I'm just saying that I would be willing to do it and if airlines did unilaterally raise rates, businesses would generally just have to suck it up and pay it. There are certainly limits on that, as you've pointed out, and businesses would only be able to absorb so much of that. General consumers, not so much.
I think the reason some have their panties in a bunch about your comments is that you call a price hike for better reliability something that everyone benefits from. The "EVERYBODY" benefits part.
That's a subjective opinion on your part because yes, while reliability increases that is only one part of the problem. Cost obviously for one... now "greenness"... congestion (same number of people flying but more planes)... and who knows what else - but all things that you discount while others do not.
I think the reason some have their panties in a bunch about your comments is that you call a price hike for better reliability something that everyone benefits from. The "EVERYBODY" benefits part.
That's a subjective opinion on your part because yes, while reliability increases that is only one part of the problem. Cost obviously for one... now "greenness"... congestion (same number of people flying but more planes)... and who knows what else - but all things that you discount while others do not.
As for the everybody benefits part, I guess it's more like the potential to benefit everyone. Of course, frequent flyers would benefit more because they experience issues more often.
You make all good points and they are worth considering. Particularly the "greenness" aspect.
On a side note, I have found that more and more businesses are willing to consider technological solutions in lieu of frequent travel. I actually have many clients that I've never even seen in person because I can work on their systems over the internet via VPN connections. And, virtual meetings and online collaboration are getting better and better everyday. I have no doubt that this hurts the airline industry leading to even less flights and fuller airplanes. Maybe someday we'll get to a point where some forms of business travel simply aren't necessary anymore and I'll be traveling primarily for pleasure.
I think it's more like the airlines CAN do what I want but WILL NOT. I remember the good old days when most planes to and from AK were 3/4 full, everybody could stretch out, etc. Now, airlines are operating on a low margin, shoe-string budget with every plane already filled to or near capacity. So when things like weather delays do occur, they have very little fail-over tolerance and ability to deal with the sudden large volume of passengers now needing to get to their original destination with no seats available. I'm only asking for better contingencies when those issues do arise. And we all know, they WILL arise. It's just a matter of when, how often, and how long the issue will last.
C'est la vie, I suppose.
Hello
Oh my I remember those days!! Those days when people only travelled every few years because they had to save up for those years to be able to afford to take their families somewhere "on vacation". Those days when going "on the airplane" meant "party outfits" (read: party dresses, handbags, stockings or party suits, shirt and ties) and "party manners" only. And I remember those days when people didnt push and shove and had the demeanor and courtesy towards Flight Attendants (Stewards and Stewardesses) and Gate Agents to be ultra respectful and gracious, because FLYING somewhere was a PRIVELEGE and the passenger was so excited and thankful to be able to afford such a luxury.
Now, (fast forward) everyone and his cousin can afford to buy tickets from hither to yon. We get passengers wearing nose rings and torn dirty jeans who glare and pronounce "... you disrespectin' me, B****?????" when told they need to show ID. And we have people expecting the best amenities for the least amount of cash layout, and the fastest routing possible without any hitches whatsoever or they are up in arms. I had a passenger literally THROW his carry on bag at me because the Inbound flight was running 10 min late, which would result in a 5 min late boarding start but resulted in NO delay in arrival at his destination city. (He was a Gold).
I remember those more pricey and leisurely days well, with fondness
