Originally Posted by rjque
I think most people have had experience on more than one airline and, with the exception of Southwest, realize that each offers a nearly identical (and unpredictable) inflight experience. Why pay more to fly AA instead of UA when AA is unwilling to guarantee that the $100 buys anthing more than what UA is offering (a seat on the flight)? Everone knows that the person who paid $1000 for their coach seat is going to get exactly the same service as the person who paid $99. Why would anyone want to be that $1000 chump?
It's kind of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" question, isn't it? What came first, the decrease in amenities and service an airline provides, or rock bottom fares. I think, if you look back, you have to agree that the airlines started reducing services and amenities
after the fares started falling to unsustainable levels. Just three or four years ago, Alaska was still serving a full hot meal from Seattle to Los Angeles and meals on flights where meals were appropriate. United was still serving full hot meals from Seattle to Chicago. Amenities and services started decreasing when fares had already fallen to basement levels. So, as opposed to the chicken/egg question, I think that this question is easily answered. My point to all this is that people were demanding low fares when airlines were still offering many amenities (magazines, pillows/blankets, meals, snacks, etc.) and services (paper ticketing, city ticket offices, etc.). Low fares definetely came first.
We can debate whether people would pay more for more service but ask any industry expert and they will tell you that the majority of people are not willing to pay for more amenities, nor were they when they were offered. I can tell you that studies we did at Alaska showed that people were willing to forego most amenities in favor of lower fares.