In light of further discussion of legacy consolidation it ought to give us all pause.

To paraphrase Bob Crandall, ex-CEO of AMR, success in the deregulated environment would be assured if we had one major carrier.

$200 would be make or break unless the schedule doesn't meet my needs.

I can't help but think there are going to be a few weather events in the near future leading to some very bad publicity when the airlines who have, to quote Bubbashow, "Finally got capacity close to right" are left unable to recover in any reasonable way.

Benefits!
 

Aren't we all lovin' the benefits of consolidation? :(

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnat...html?ana=yfcpc

From a financial perspective I never understood why airlines wanted to ferry people around on $200 transcons.

Isn't it fairly obvious that decreasing/maintaining capacity to where most of your seats are filled with people willing to pay high fares and will mostly fly regardless of the cost would increase profitability?

You are correct in a flat market. As soon as growth starts to show they WILL add capacity or they will lose share. The $200 transcon is not the way the airline (or anyone) would look at it financially. The entire aircraft is a mix of fares. Only a small percentage (even at $600) actually make them any money...it is the 5% that pay a premium that make up the profitability of any particular flight. So, knowing that, if the business is there (growth) they add planes and fill them with cheap tix and make their money on the 5 expensive seats. It is all about having the opportunity to sell the expensive fares and they can only do that when they have full airplanes.

The airplane has to be profitable not the individual seat. You will NEVER find enough people willing to pay for F or J (real F or J not A/P) to exclusively serve the high end business or they would have long ago. Cheap seats are here for the long run trust me. We are just in an odd place where they cannot justify adding flights and that is constricting inventory. That fact alone is the signal that soon there will be more capacity added and much cheaper prices will follow.

Add to this the fact that both Airbus and Boeing are cranking out aircraft at record numbers, and will be for the next several years. I know DL will be parking some DC9s/MD88s, and AA with be parking some MD80s, but these aircraft are not all going to the desert. There is going to be a glut of used NB aircraft, which has folks like Allegiant licking their chops. Leasing companies, etc will want to place these, and probably at low prices.

And look at it another way... if you thought you'd have five empty seats, wouldn't you rather dump em for $200 rather than have them go empty?

It all depends on where you're going. Reserved through the DM line on Monday a flight 3 weeks from now to SYD from ATL. When I initially priced it out on expedia, DL was $200 more than the competition. I was told they could hold the flights and seat assignments for me until last night at midnight. Called to book it and the price had dropped $400 since Monday making it now $200 cheaper (per Expedia) than the competition.

Take home message...with any airline, it pays to shop around and price check frequently, sometimes you get lucky and DL is the cheapest rather than most expensive!

Not soon enough!!!

Hey -- some of us love the DC-9s. you'e welcome to the MDs though.

Not to turn this into an esoteric debate, but dumping seats is evidence of poor revenue management earlier on in the booking period.

If an airline is priced higher than their competition when most of the potential customers decide to book their tickets, then it is likely that business policies or a desire to save money will drive most of them to book the cheapest fare at that time rather than gamble that it may drop (or could skyrocket) closer in to the travel date.

So when the plane isn't full just before the day of departure, there are far less potential customers because they have already made alternative travel arrangements. This means the fare has to be so low that almost anyone searching for this particular route will decide to buy.

Selling most of the inventory at a moderate price (determined by the market) would result in few available seats remaining as the day of departure approaches, which is when the fares can be raised to take advantage of last-minute travel that is often unavoidable.

The people who book a ticket just before the departure are probably the most willing to (over)pay for a high-priced seat because the opportunity cost of not buying is quite possibly higher (lost client, sale, etc). If an airline is trying to dump unsold inventory at this point, they are likely giving up thousands of dollars in potential revenue in the process.

So much for not turning this into an esoteric debate... :rolleyes:
(I have an economics degree--sometimes I just can't help it!)

All the carriers have orders on hand for new jets. The problem is Boeing and Airbus the two major manufacturers have huge backlogs.

Bombardier is now going to be competing which has only started to get orders from major carriers for new jets. The largest model Bombardier has now is the CSeries which holds either 110 or 130 passengers depending on which one was ordered.

So yes, the older equipment is going the way of the dinosaur which unfortunately some legacy carriers in the USA still have in their fleets.

DC9-50's are going to go this year. But MD88's will likely be around for awhile yet with Delta.

I know the F/Y ratio is good on these, but the downside is that only one side can hold rollaboards wheels/handle in first.

In my experience a full flight on any of these 3/2 configuration planes will almost always result in flight attendents playing "overhead bin Tetris" while the pax play leapfrog to try and get their bags back to the jetway while zone 4 is still boarding.