Originally Posted by
Yoshi212
If you compare the market and the conditions to 10 years ago there are some big differences. We now have the big 3 (AA, DL & UA) The Medium 3 (AS, B6 & WN) and the LCC-regionalish few (G4, F9, NK...) compared to AA, CO, DL, UA & US with AS, B6, VX & WN. AS merged with VX and WN took over FL. F9 was in its infancy and regional competition was up. As the market gets consolidated the ability for individual companies making changes that lead to large whole market changes becomes more evident and have a fuller impact. Charging for bags, the BE movement, removal of meals started with one airline and the larger airlines saw it as a way to cut costs as they tend to have more legacy costs whereas the medium market companies like B6 used things like Direct TV & free wifi as a way to standout instead of generate revenue. I don't mind paying for flexibility in tickets and perks as wifi is not a "right" nor a need really but rather a want for most people but cramming people into smaller spaces to generate revenue via more seat sales or having a low class/economy minus default that few people would willingly sit in is a potential problem as airlines continue looking for revenue streams. A minimum standard of comfort could/work makes sure airlines don't go too far which could cause an average person difficulty to generate revenue by selling more economy plus style seats.
Yoshi212, I fail to see the logic in your statement, "but cramming people into smaller spaces to generate revenue via more seat sales or having a low class/economy minus default that few people would willingly sit in is a potential problem as airlines continue looking for revenue streams."
You are in fact assuming something that is completely contrary to what is in reality the case. People ARE willingly sitting in those seats. There are a lot, not 'a few' people who are willing to put up with almost anything as long as the price is low enough. I sometimes even wonder if people would not buy a 'standing room only' ticket if an airline offered to sell them one.
So from my perspective, the airlines are simply providing a product that the public is willing to buy. If you want to limit the airlines markets to those who can afford to pay for a relatively comfortable experience as was the case back in the 70s, that would mean you limit travel to roughly 1/3 of the population. In the 70s, roughly 80% of all people in the USA never got on a plane in their lifetime. Are you aware of that? Nowadays, I am sure it is the reverse. That means that people of less means are flying and are now part of the airlines market.
If you are a business and you want to provide a product to a larger market that includes people with less money to spend, then you have to sell only a cheap product to everyone OR you have to have several products at several different price points obviously. That's where we are today. A cheap seat, a medium priced seat, a higher priced seat. From the viewpoint of the person who can only afford the cheap seat, that is a good thing, they get to fly. Anyone who looks at it from the viewpoint of wanting the cheap price but a superior product however, is simply deluding themselves.
I can personally recall back to when there was only First Class and Economy. You had only those two choices. Now you have about 5 or 6 choices depending on the airline. Those choices exist to meet the need of different segments of the overall market. What's so hard to understand about that? People want cheap seats and are willing to buy them. No one is forcing you to buy them, you can pay more and get more.
The whole issue is about wanting to pay less but not get less than someone else who pays more. In other words, we want to 'have our cake and eat it too.'