Originally Posted by
WidgetKid
Southwest, in my mind, is garbage. The boarding process which you so lovingly describe is, at best, controlled chaos. The customer experience is on par with Delta on a good day. The service leaves much to be desired and the experience is not professional in any sense of the term - the flight attendants seem like they are trying to be your buddy and not there to serve you and keep you safe.
It's pretty darn well controlled. And that "chaos" as you call allows them to turn the planes around faster and run a 5th flight a day on average, which allows them to offer lower cost fares. The service is far better than Delta. Faster, more efficient boarding, you can sit anywhere you want, or anywhere there's overhead space, better aircraft, less time taxiing around doing nothing, it's just better.
Originally Posted by
WidgetKid
But maybe that's what you are looking for, but for those of us who want an experienced and professional crew with a professional attitude towards their job (not saying WN crews aren't experienced and professional - some of them seem to be even a little too experienced, but that's not a WN specific issue), we'll be sticking with Delta and the other "dinosaurs" thank you very much.
Southwest is just as professional or more so than Delta. They are professionals at efficiently operating the plane, right down to getting the drinks out.
Originally Posted by
MS02113
Does anyone else find it funny that the OP, a midst all this talk of "toy planes," drives a Honda Civic?
But then, I'm sure he would ban the bigger Audis mentioned up-thread, since it's a mathematical certainty that luxury cars are a huge waste. And inefficient, to boot.
Why is that funny? Airplanes get more efficient as they get bigger. Cars, in general, get less efficient.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and know utterly nothing about the congestion and transportation logistics of the region. What you are suggesting is patently absurd.
What I am suggesting would drastically reduce congestion at JFK and other major airports. It would allow airlines to serve the same purpose, but by flying significantly fewer flights with fewer planes and fewer airports. That's systemic efficiency.
Originally Posted by
HongKonger
This is such an obvious troll. I bet this is mbwmbw. Hey mbwmbw, if this is you, FYI your original personality is more entertaining.
I'm not trolling. I am also not mbwmbw, whoever he is.
Originally Posted by
SCEflyer
Are you familiar with the Federal subsidies provided to airlines by the terms of the Essential Air Service statute? Although service to Pellston is not presently subsidized, the Alpena service which you mentioned previously is subsidized. Excluding Alaska, EAS subsidizes air service to roughly 150 + cities.
I did not know that. That's just ridiculous. The market should decide who gets service. I can see subsidizing capital investment in something forward looking and requiring massive capital, like a national high-speed rail system, but subsidizing the airlines is just ridiculous. Let the market figure it out. If an airport is too small, take it off the map. That's disgusting that the government is subsidizing Delta to provide service that no one needs.
Originally Posted by
javabytes
You're completely ignoring the revenue side of the equation. Airlines aren't seeking to move the most passengers they possibly can. They are trying to maximize the profit they can get out of their planned capacity. There's a difference. If airlines create an FC cabin because they can sell the FC seats for a higher profit than they could sell the coach seats they replaced, that's a win for the airline, and is why premium cabins exist at all.
The more pax you can move for less $, the lower the fare you can offer. The problem with premium is that a lot of the time they don't sell, as the result is giving people free upgrades, which is a money loser.
Originally Posted by
telloh
Why should the thread be locked?
Clearly people want to comment and nobody is breaking any forum rules.
Exactly.
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
Good for you. I hate driving. To me, flying is a convenience (even if it's on a toy plane); driving is an inconvenience. I can relax on the plane or in the terminal or at the SkyClub.
Flying is one of two things:
1. An absolute necessity because you are going somewhere really far away that's not practical or possible to get to by car or boat.
2. A necessity because of our wholly inadequate (read: non-existant) high-speed train system. I.e. CT to MI. If we had the train system we should, I could go from the shoreline to NHV to SPG to TOL to DTW, with 225mph service on the BOS-CHI route, and 125mph feeder service elsewhere. That would make flying totally unnecessary if you were staying within anywhere east of the Mississippi, or staying on the west coast. The only places that rail now services a route that might otherwise be served by air is something like BOS-BWI, BOS-WAS, NYP-WAS, etc.
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
Personally I'm glad you're not in my family because two things are clear:
1) You value a few bucks more than the time you get to spend with them
2) You'd make your family drive 200 miles each way so you could save a few bucks on the airfare and avoid a "toy plane". I'd tell you to either deal with the toy plane or find your own way from your preferred airport to my place.
I can figure out how to get places. Sometimes just driving. Sometimes a combination of flying and driving. Like going to the Traverse City area. Drive to PVD. PVD-BWI, BWI-GRR, rent a car. Drive to Traverse City. Not that hard. In many cases, my low-cost philosophy and strategy allows me to travel places that I otherwise wouldn't be able to go, and see people I otherwise wouldn't be able to see.
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
Exactly. You're motivated strictly by price, which is why the airlines care the LEAST about passengers like you. You get what you pay for. Please stick with WN and Spirit so we don't have to deal with you on our preferred airlines.
Southwest built their model on people like me. And I like that. Except that I get more on Southwest for less money, and on Delta I get less for more money. And which one is a better deal?
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
What's hillarious is with all things factored in, you're spending just as much money as the rest of us. You're just spreading out the cost over other areas where we aren't.
No. That's not true at all.
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
Sorry, winter is a fact of life here in the upper Midwest. I don't have a crystal ball to predict whether it will be snowing on the day I need to fly when I book my ticket a month or two in advance. Stop being dumb.
We have bad weather. It's a fact of life. Deal with it.
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
I like planes with first class. Maybe the only reason you hate planes with first class is because you can't afford to sit up there or don't fly enough to have status and get complimentary upgrades? Probably some jealousy on your part. Oh well, not my problem. I enjoy sitting up front on many of my flights and often get to do it for the same price that you're paying on WN.
I suppose I could afford it, but it's a total waste of money. You get nothing in return for paying more money. The same plane, the same destination. I don't want to fly on an airline that's so inefficient that it gives out upgrades to it's 75k members or whatever. Southwest cuts that entire inefficiency out of the business model, and I like that a lot.
Originally Posted by
FlyDeltaJets87
LOL. If you think the planes today are "toy planes", I can't imagine how you'd feel flying in a DC-3 or some other plane from that era.
Well, I don't fly on toy planes. I don't really care what was what 20 years ago.
Originally Posted by
beachmouse
Only a communist would propose the kind of one-size fits a few scenario you're trying to mandate, and that system was known as a failure in the early 1980s.
(hoping the mods let the thread for a while longer because I'm having fun here)
Or the free market, which has recognized the efficiency of Southwest's model.