The airlines wonder why their fares are going down, even in F/B. Well the less service they provide, the less they seem to make. At this point of time I am surprised free drinks are still included. The way things are going whoes to say. The way airlines are going it seems as though they will become like Spirit's "Big Front Seat" and provide no service at all for First.

It's amazing that service is not a priority on US airlines. I guess we would not know the difference if it wasn't for international travels that took us to other global airlines so we can realize the difference.

If people wanted to pay for service and make decisions based on this, then there would be more service.

Ding, we have a winner! Over time, the vast majority of domestic travelers have proven that their priorities are, in no particular order, price, price and price. The airlines have adapted according to customer demands. Most simply aren't as sophisticated about travel as FTers.

Look, I'm no apologist for lousy customer service. It can be pretty bad at times although, for all of the complaining that we do around here, 90% of my flights go off without a hitch. But air travel is a relative bargain in the US because we want it that way. Transcon flights with outstanding service, fine dining, huge seats and all the amenities of Singapore F are simply impossible economically. On the other hand, try getting a cheap flight in a country with a flag carrier and no competition. Like it or not, we have today's current situation because that's what the majority of consumers have demanded.

Oh, thanks for the thread, but this is probably more appropriate in TravelBuzz.

Mike

Gosh, I don't remember asking for bad service and no drinks or meals on even transcon flights.

I suggest the real problem is that passengers have no legal recourse to horrible acts by the airlines. Maybe if the there were more lawsuits over things or if the government acted responsibly to enforce certain requirements ... @:-) Is there no limit to how little knee space is left between seats? But, the gov neither enforces any rules and has given the airlines a variety of immunities from legal action by passengers.

Maybe if there were some real competition. Good start might be to limit gate monoplies at the airports.

I don't think that if you review the Federal Aviation Regulations there is a minimum requirement for knee space. Therefore, there is nothing to be enforced. What rules--or "certain requirements" are the government not enforcing?

Frankly, I'd like to see airlines enforce more of their own policies that impact customer service,

Well, airline pricing isn't always driven by costs. It can cost more to fly on DL from ATL to BHM than from ATL to LAX, for example, due to where the competition is and isn't. But the Birmingham passenger isn't likely to get any better service.

Some of it is a game of expectations, too. Southwest has always set the bar low and been cheery and all that, and gets rewarded for it in satisfaction surveys while legacy passengers complain about botched features that WN doesn't even offer (Food used to be the real no-win situation, until they effectively cut it out). I have no axe to grind against WN, but I think their open seating and boarding is a major liability and am glad to see that Spirit and others have learned from that.

Finally, a particular pet peeve of mine is mainland-Hawaii service. I remember back in the day when the airlines tried to make it something a little special, with different FA outfits and special food menus, etc. Passengers were excited and it was a big chance for the airline to make an impression.

Those days may be gone, but today you've still mostly got the high fares (sometimes as high as Asia), packed planes and long flights that are domestic in service level but international in upgradeability. The worst of both worlds. Airlines are really milking it as a cash cow. I'm usually there as a stopover in going to Asia, but if I were paying the $500-$700 regular fares I'd feel a bit taken.

Exactly.

(Bold lettering word is mine.)

If this is true, then why does it not seem to effect other travel industries. Hotels do not all try to be a Motel 6 operation. The brands mean something; Hilton, Marriot, Hyatt, Best Western, Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton, etc. In the rental car business, people pay more for Hertz, National, and Avis rather then their lower cost competitors. Why are these not commodity business and the airlines are? Its like in the airline business The Brand means nothing. I can't think of another example of this other than basic farm products. Even with credit cards people will pay for the Amex Platnum and yet the only reason I can see many of you staying with a airline, is the travel program. This really is a strange business, like nothing else out there.

The requirement that passengers not be tortured. Isn't there something about prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments in the Constitution? @:-) I know Ben Franklin never had to endure a transcon in Delta coach.

I sure don't need to review any stinkin' FAA reqs to know that the seats are too close together.

The government prohibits the sale of adulterated milk--and sale of a 29 inch seat pitch should be probibited, too.

I'm getting this ugly feeling that those might be a thing of the past in the not too distant future for NA carriers. Especially with the way things are going.