The future of travel
 

Will the fun end? Will the US see Ryan air like airlines?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/travel...l?c=homepage-t

Don't we already?

Spirit, for example?

Maybe in terms of nickel and dimming but in fares?

Air travel is fun now?

Whatever you're smoking, I'd like to share it! :)

I read that article yesterday.

The article paints a picture of the Ryanair model becoming the dominant one in the skies - not a niche airline like Spirit doing it alone. I honestly don't think we'll get quite that far - not into some of the rather meanspirited fees like charging to reprint a boarding pass or charging to use all forms of payment besides one obscure form.

But in terms of the fee culture, that already is the dominant model with 4 of our 5 largest carriers doing it that way. Figure they will keep tightening the screws little by little - free soft drinks may eventually go away, as may all free preassigned seats.

I think the biggest difference is that the big players seem to be moving to the 50,000 mile level as their first "real" elite tier. The 25,000 mile level is quasi-elite and may continue to get pulled into more and more fees over time.

The article kind of hinted at that without being specific. They used the term "super-elite", which we tend to think as 1K/EXP. (I'm guessing the article wasn't addressing things like Concierge Key and Global Services.) By 2022, you may need to at the 100,000 mile tier to receive humane treatment.

What the article missed is that there's a growing market for the middle-ground in terms of Economy Plus/Premium Economy products. I forget which airline (CX? BA?) recently said that their PE cabin was their most profitable overall.

Not everyone is going to settle for park benches in the back, nor find value in paying for a super-premium product up front, and that middle-ground option is becoming more widely available on airlines the world over.

With domestic U.S. fares in First coming down dramatically of late, I think the next big change will be that First will be renamed Business on most domestic routes, with First reserved solely for 3-class aircraft flying on transcon routes. It would be a fairer representation of the product offered.

I never get the hatred for fee based airline service. Virtually every other business runs this way. You get a base product for $X and then every add-on costs $Y. Yet when an airline offers a flight from point A to B for $X and then you have to pay $Y for a drink or checked bags or a blanket everyone freaks out.

When was the last time you walked into the world's largest restaurant chain and didn't see a meal deal, or a portion size upgrade priced at a discount? The problem with the way airlines have unbundled pricing is that there are few fully bundled deals left. You usually have to pay full whack for everything you order (with some discounts available if you order ahead online).

And that's something that will most likely start happening more.

1 checked bag - $25
Exit row seat upgrade $35
Or get both for $50

I would prefer this. I've run into problems due to the American carriers not following this fairly global standard. Simple example: trying to redeem Avios for a simple narrowbody short-haul AA flight in domestic first prices out as if it's a three-cabin F plane (e.g., 13,500 Avios instead of the 9,000 Avios it should cost).

Agree with you on the middle-ground: I'm happy to see the concept of E+ holding fast with U.S. majors. Whether I get it included as an elite or can choose to buy it at a modest upcharge, I'm glad it's there.

I think it has to do with what we all perceive as the "base product".

I perceive the base product to be as follows:
- The airplane can safely operate from point A to point B. (e.g., The fuel in the plane is not an add-on cost. It's bought with my base tariff.)
- I have at least one reasonable method to buy and pay for the ticket. (e.g., The airline's own website using at least an MC or Visa. Obviously preferably Amex or Diner's as well.)
- There are no deceptive tricks or intentional obstacles solely intended to trip me up into paying a junk fee. (e.g., Simple things like using a kiosk to print a boarding pass should be allowed.)
- Here's where there may be some disagreement: I consider the ability to bring at least one standard carryon to be part of the base product.
- A standard coach seat of, say, 31" pitch.
- Ability to assign a seat in standard coach. (*Or* if any assigned seat at all is considered an extra, then a formal published IDB protocol that is independent of seat assignment.)
- Access to the lav. Access to potable water.
- Phone/airport bookings when the Internet can't support the booking.

Things that I perceive as "extras". Some I think airlines should maybe offer for free as a competitive advantage, but if they charged for them I'd understand it:
- E+ type seats...35-36" pitch.
- I'm begrudgingly accepting that checked bags will fully move into the "extra" category.
- Preassigned other "good" coach seats, such as exit row or the first few rows of Y.
- Food/bev. I could honestly care less if they decide to start charging for Cokes.
- Wifi.
- Phone/airport bookings when a web booking could have been done.

Maybe there are other products to be offered in there somewhere, but this is where I feel like the base product is. If enough people feel similarly, then the industry will have a lot of work to do to move people to a new norm. I find it interesting that they went there en masse with bag fees, but most (all?) have stepped back a bit by offering at least one easy backdoor to a single free checked bag.

I still think for us FT'ers the more interesting industry battle is what happens to the 25,000-mile and 50,000-mile elite tiers.

One other tidbit that we haven't discussed much here: Ryanair got a lot of global publicity with those 1-euro fares. That may have helped "grease" their fee culture along. It's sort of like a game, pay a euro and then try to dodge the fees. Here, outside of a few routes operated by Spirit, nobody's really tried this. Our general take is that fees come on top of the existing fare structure. The feeling is that we just paid more for something we used to get for less. The Ryanair feeling is frequently "this system sort of sucks, but my total bill is lower than Lingus so I can live with it."

I think that's true, but Ryanair was able to do what it did due to subsidies offered by secondary airports looking for traffic.

I look back on PeoplExpress, and remember that no one really had a problem paying for each individual item, since they were all reasonably priced. Checking a bag was $3, for instance. Where I believe the backlash against unbundled fees comes from mainly is the opportunistic pricing that can reach punitive levels. I generally don't believe that the traveling public has a problem paying a fair price for an item received.

It would seem to me that instead of Ryanair's huge price for reprinting a boarding pass at the airport, for example, they could generate far more income by pricing it low and make it up in volume as a small nuisance fee. When a company views me as an adversary, or host for their parasitic behavior, is the time when I make up my mind to move on and find someone else to do business with. That's why I'll never even consider buying a ticket on Spirit, no matter how low the base fare may be.

Fair point.

I think there are 3 things going on here.

1. People's entitlement mentality (see recent election results as Exhibit A). Everyone wants their free stuff. Don't bother me with the details of who pays for it or if it's sustainable in the long run, I DEMAND my free stuff now. And if you don't give it to me I'll throw a tantrum.

2. Consumers acting irrationally. Give someone 2 options of $300 for a fare with no checked bags and $20/bag fee or $320 for a fare with a checked bag and even people who know they will check a bag will choose $300. People want the better deal, they don't want to be bothered with what will happen tomorrow. And tomorrow they show up and have a heart attack when told it will be $20 to check a bag.

3. The media loves this stuff. Nothing more a travel "journalist" loves more than to tell his/her viewers how awful airlines are. When's the last time you saw a positive story about travel? It's nothing but negativity which feeds on itself in a never ending loop. I had a discussion about this with my sister over Thanksgiving. I showed her that the cost of her flight to my parents' house was cheaper that what it would have cost her to drive. Plus it got here there in 2.5 hours as opposed to a 15 hour drive she would have had each way. So she saved 20 hours of her time, saved the wear and tear on her car and came out ahead money wise. But still she wasn't happy because last year she also flew home for TG and it was $50 cheaper and damn those greedy airlines. No matter what an airline does, my sister won't be happy. And she is representative of the general flying public.

I see some more "unbundling" or "fees" but for the most part I think its nearing its end of what will be accepted. I don't see most airlines becoming extreme like charging $5 for a kiosk printed BP. However, $150 oil might change that.

Certainly the glory days of flying are for the most over with. Airlines will continue to focus on keeping airplanes packed to the gills. I also see regular air travel probably becoming more out of reach for certain people as fares will probably also continue a more upwards track.

At this point, a trail of bankruptcies, erractic oil prices, limited consumer income growth and in some cases lack of airtravel infrastructure seems to have kept the Juan Trippe types away. Spirit and Allegiant have been able to capitalize on niches. Flyers of Spirit either are willing to accept the limitations or know how to avoid the pethora of fees. Of course, they also attract the once or twice in a lifetime "low information" flyer that will be in for a real surprise when they get to the airport. So far, the business model works but can it go beyond niche markets when WN and B6 offer a much better product (I'd also say VX but I'm not sure if VX will be around long term.)

Oh yeah, this is certainly gone from basic Coach forever! :)

True but the airline has a captive audience. If I buy a printer from, lets say, Amazon I am not obliged to buy my paper and ink from them too. Whereas once on a plane my options for buying drinks, blankets etc are distinctly limited. What's more if I have a problem with my computer I can phone Amazon at no cost. If I can't print my boarding pass for a Ryanair flight i'm stuffed.

What I object to is that airlines take advantage of their customer's lack of alternatives to gouge them for as much money as possible.

As much as we want to whine how air travel has been lately with all the fees that they tack on and may tack on, we have to remember that the airlines are in the business of making money...... Anybody who does not want to pay luggage fees have the option to ship their luggage, but we all know that it will cost more than $25 to ship it, or take the bus or train or drive to your destination. So its your choice. If you ask the airline, they probably does not want you to have any luggage to check in because a lighter aircraft is cheaper to operate. So if we don't check in any luggage, we don't pay any fees. Less luggage, the aircraft is lighter and if the aircraft is lighter, they spend less fuel which means cheaper to operate. Who knows, they might lower the price of the ticket. I recently flew to the Philippines. When I bought the domestic flight tickets, it states on the ticket how much weight in luggage you are entitled for free, lets say 10 kilos, anything above it, you pay.

A lot of the flying public have the attitude of being entitled, but we have to remember that everything around us is about business and in business, its all about turning a profit. And a lot of the flying public already knows about the baggage fees before they go to the airport. So if you don't want to pay baggage fees, pack light or don't check in any luggage, or fly Southwest airlines, or get a United card, or Delta card or the card of your favorite airline because the credit card of that airline will allow free baggage. Hope this helps.:):):):)

Yes, that helped. We've never had the "you're overentitled" or the "airlines are in the business of making money" post on Flyertalk before. I think this one is the first. :rolleyes:

And, and fat people should pay more too. Why haven't we ever discussed that yet? :confused:

And so is Juan Trippe. He turned into Alec Baldwin.

What worries me is what will happen to business fliers who (like me) are forced to travel coach, for any duration of flight, via the cheapest carrier? Our travel system gives me very little if any flexibility apart from cheapest, so I will be dragged down into the cesspool. This is when I personally start flying a desk full time, or find a more flexible employer.

We're already dragged down into the cesspool. :eek: Our corp system today nudges you to the cheapest coach flight, with pretty limited ability to resist the "nudge" and book something else.

Perhaps the good news is this: businesses are smart enough to realize that at the end of the day, negotiating a good systemwide contract discount with majors like UA, DL, or AA is a smarter solution than forcing all of their employees to go out and price every no-frills airline for every individual trip. So "the system" won't be nudging you to Spirit or some sort of "Ryanair America". Of course, all of the majors tend to head into the same cesspools in unison, so that won't help you escape industry trends. But I have to think that the big carriers will at least have some better options and *some* perks for the 50,000-100,000 mile fliers.

In my experience today, I have the hardest time getting a ticket when I *want* the non-alliance carrier. e.g., A short cheap Southwest nonstop for a trip to downtown Dallas... I have to get a human involved and explain why I don't want the "system" options.

I think this comment is emblematic of why some people think the 1K DYKWIA business travelers have the entitlement attitude. timfountain, I don't know you and you may not fall into that category but this comment brings that to mind.

It took the post to be more of a concern that an airline with the Spirit/Ryanair model could establish a national footprint and a big enough presence in reservation systems that some people would have no choice but to book it.

Say two or three carriers go to an extreme fee model. Spirit grows over the course of a decade, Ryanair America arrives and gets huge, and a carrier like US, being the 4th legacy, decides to break from the pricing model of the big three and shoot for something in the middle. Assume for this argument that these carriers all decide to list fares in a reservation system that your company can access.

Then you go to query, say, CHI-WAS for your business trip.

You corporate system returns the following, all nonstop and in your time range:
- Spirit, $20
- Ryanair, $30
- US Airways, $100
- United, $150

Assume the reality of your travel is that you'd be hit with a mix of fees that effectively made all four of them $150.

I interpreted what timfountain was saying is that if they're all the same at the end of the day, he should be allowed to pick United...but the system would only see the base fare and force him into the Spirit cesspool.

I point out a hope (whether founded or not) that big firms will still strike corporate discounts with big airlines like United that can extend some level of discounting throughout a huge alliance, so maybe the system would still allow the "preferred" carrier to be booked.

I didn't take it as a 1K/DYKWIA thing.

That would be fine if there was enough space for everyone to bring a full size carry-on. There isn't. So charging for checked bags causes too much carry-on, and you end up checking bags for free. So why not just check them for free anyway.

It might be because gate checked bags are limited-release, but I find that immoral unless the bag is being checked because of the wrongdoing of the passenger, not the wrongdoing of the airline.

Neil

I didn't interpret it that way but, assuming that in this hypothetical example, if the business traveler had to buy up to the $150 ticket anyway, wouldn't the travel experience be similar since you'd be getting bells and whistles on Cheap-O-Air?

need more scheduled charters...

$3 in 1980, after adjusting for inflation, would probably be more than what most airlines are charging now for a checked bag.

Do you consider charging $25 for a checked bag to be "punitive levels"? It's probably still less than the marginal cost of providing the service, as can be seen by checking shipping charges on FedEx, etc.

Which fees exactly do you think are opportunistic and have reached punitive levels?