Ironically, WN crews enjoy industry leading compensation: WN -vs- UA
That is true, but aggregate labor costs at legacies are still higher given that the labor force skews more senior due to the longer history of the airline.
__________________
The thing I miss about Air Force One is they don't lose my luggage. - President George Bush Sr.
Clearly it's possible to take an argument to an absurd extreme. Sigh...
Cheers.
True, however two people can validly disagree on the line where pragmatism ends and absurdity takes over because it is very subjective. People who think they know exactly where that line is at all times usually turn out to be wrong.
The suggestion of reducing the FC seat pricing to a level where they can just sell the seats and reduce the upgrade program to just occasional ones is no less or more absurd than charging for bathrooms. It all depends on where one is coming from. Most elites would consider it absurd. Just as most leisure travelers that have to pay $15 because they are not allowed to take their favorite shampoo with them on their trip otherwise will think it absurd.
From an airline's perspective, there is no need to judge absurdity, just whether the decision will impact consumer behavior, so if they can market charging for bathroom per use, then it is implemented regardless of some people thinking it absurd.
Location: DFW; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA GLD 1.1MM, Marriott Gld; OMNIPat
Posts: 6,202
Everyone here is assumingthat check-in will be a mess due to the extra time to process all the checked bag charges. But won't a lot of that be offset by folks who used to check a bag now deciding not to check one at all?
I never thought I'd be saying this, but I'm suddenly very glad about the TSA's idiotic 3-1-1 liquid rules. That may be the only thing that minimizes the upcoming surge in carry-ons.
__________________
This space intentionally left blank.
That is true, but aggregate labor costs at legacies are still higher given that the labor force skews more senior due to the longer history of the airline.
You want to look at the productivity per worker. The less stringent work rules at WN make the employees themselves more porductive. That is where you gain cost savings.
__________________
"Knowledge is good" - Emil Faber
I understand everything you posted and you may be right. Oil prices might never fall.
But "never" is a very strong word, and those who lived thru asset price bubbles and busts tend not to speak in such absolutes. The poorhouse is filled with fools who bet the wrong way on commodity prices.
That said, you're probably right. Oil probably won't fall in price.
Unless I bet real money on that view. Collapse would be just around the corner.
True, however two people can validly disagree on the line where pragmatism ends and absurdity takes over because it is very subjective. People who think they know exactly where that line is at all times usually turn out to be wrong.
Oh, I don't claim to be an expert on that particular line
I think that the bathroom scenario is absurd, though, as one cannot provision themselves for that, but they can take care of their food and packing to avoid charges. But I do agree that different people draw their lines in different parts of the sand.
I also think that the leisure traveler may be less sensitive to the $15 than the frequent travel as the former just considers it "part of the vacation charges."
I do pay for it. 200+ days on the road every year.
From a practical perspective, unless those 200+ days of travel were on high-margin tickets plus not providing you the perks for that kind of travel would significantly reduce your travel (not everyone has a choice) posturing notwithstanding, then the airline could care less about your 200+ days on the road.
At some point, the airlines will have to call the bluff by frequent travelers. I suspect that the value of a frequent traveler to an airline (especially with a few long distance international travel on upgraded cheap tickets to make 100k) and frequent MRs at below cost tickets will soon be re-evaluated and re-adjusted as to their value. I have been there and done that as an EXP for a couple of years and have to admit that AA really got very little value from me while I benefited a lot from the program by optimizing from my perspective. The biggest value of this site is precisely for that reason.
I do pay for it. 200+ days on the road every year.
This will be the loudest crash of them all in the current airline financial crisis:
When the various flocks of elite flyers recognize that frequency of flying no longer means that they will receive the perks that their entitlement mentality believes that they "deserve".
I'm not opposed to this fee in theory but I think it is going to make it very difficult to fly AA for the initial period of implementation. The non-elite line for checking luggage at SFO isn't exactly a pleasant experience as it is. The new policy will add quite a bit of time to process additional payment for everyone in the line. I'd like to be optimistic and say that the added revenue will go to hire more agents to speed the process but we all know that isn't true.
Also, everyone is going to try to carry as much as possible on board, which is going to slow both the security checkpoints and boarding. Assuming people do bring on luggage that doesn't fit, how will AA process payment?
Sounds like flying AA will be pretty chaotic over the next few months.
Exactly. This could have easily been handled by just raising ticket prices $10 or $15. Would had been the best way to go. Now it's going to be disaster.
I also think that the leisure traveler may be less sensitive to the $15 than the frequent travel as the former just considers it "part of the vacation charges."
Including that as part of the ticket price would have led to that but from a consumer psychology perspective, these type of charges lead to a consumer backlash because it will be seen as extortion.
Of particular problem will be all the people forced to check their baggage because TSA does not allow so many things to be carried onboard and then asked to pay extra even though they may have very little luggage. The free first bag avoided that (even if it has already annoyed them), now they will be pissing off every one of such people leisure traveler or not.
It is more consumer psychology than actual numbers. But that is real.
Technically, when you buy a fare, you are paying for the transportation. After Amerikan has levied the 1st bag fee, there should be an overhead bin fee, and then of course, since they provide seats in the plane, there should be a fee for that too.
In other words, if costs rise, do a fare increase, instead of these continuous pathetic fee increases. The government is not stupid, (or maybe they are), they will soon realize these bogus fees are nothing but fare increases, and thus tax them as fares.
Maybe this isn't about passengers directly...what if AA realized that by providing a disincentive for passengers to check in luggage, they'd be creating more room for cargo, which might provide increased marginal revenue? After all, when Aloha Airlines went out of business, wasn't its cargo operations profitable? Maybe there's more profit in carrying cargo than passengers. Just a thought...
