Originally Posted by spacecadet

Not entirely true, or at least not entirely true a bit later in this "golden age". While fares were generally higher when adjusted for inflation, the difference between a first class ticket and a coach ticket was not the massive gulf that often exists now. Flying first class was not out of bounds for average people. My family was certainly not rich and yet throughout the 1970's, we flew first class about every other flight (for a family of four). I recall fares something like $700 per person for coach for a transcon flight, or around $1,000 for first class.

At the same time, coach was not the 31" seat pitch, fee-laden, food-less nightmare it is now. On flights longer than about 2 hours, you got a hot meal, as many drinks and snacks as you wanted, and seat pitch was more like 35" (I still remember United's DC-8's at that time with 38" - whenever we flew coach, we always tried to book United and hoped we'd get a DC-8). And back then, you'd actually be considered unlucky if you ended up seated next to someone you hadn't booked your trip with - middle seats were almost always empty. So to answer another argument in this thread, you can say that even flying coach was more expensive then, but you also got more for your money.

Don't forget that there also weren't extra charges like bag fees, booking fees, telephone service fees or even fuel surcharges. The price of the ticket was how much your trip cost, period. If you were to try to book a trip today exactly equivalent in terms of services and comfort as you would have had in the 1970's or before, I'm not convinced it wouldn't cost you pretty much the same amount in the end. (I'm also not convinced you could actually even do it on a domestic flight, because of so many services that have been cut. No way to get a hot meal on board most domestic flights now, for example.) You'd probably actually have to book business class.

I think that certainly on international routes, especially for foreign airlines, it's not impossible to have an experience as good or better than what you'd have gotten up to the 1970's... if you pay for it. And you'll probably pay *more* now than you would have then, because first and even business class have gotten so ridiculous on some airlines. But there's not much that's comparable to the service level of international coach in those days anymore, even if you wanted to pay for it. Maybe something like JAL's Premium Economy, but that kind of thing isn't very common among modern airlines and it's also quite expensive (it's a true fourth class between economy and business, not just a few extra inches of legroom like Delta's Economy Comfort or other E+ offerings). The modern international economy level of service didn't really exist in the old days. If prices are lower now, it's because the airlines have essentially invented a new, lower class of service than what used to be officially called coach.

Originally Posted by 8rulos (Post 20340552)

You used to be able to visit the cockpit.

Originally Posted by nerd (Post 20339706)

What is this guy smoking? :confused:

A $700 ticket in 1975 is equivalent to $2,900 today

Median household income was something around $12,000

Originally Posted by NFeldberg (Post 20341407)

Here is what every article pertaining to the "crappy airline experience" of today should say.

The Flying Public's Constant Addiction and Demand for $200 Flights has Completely Screwed the Airline Industry

Originally Posted by pinniped (Post 20341524)

:confused:

That doesn't make any sense. The demand side alone can't force airlines to offer cheap tickets. We didn't screw them.



No? Trick question? Why do I care, unless I'm an institutional investor in airlines? If I'm just a retail investor, I don't care because I'd always stay the hell away from these stocks! @:-)

I don't care about their operational costs: I only assess whether the transportation service provided is valuable to me. On some level, I do hope they can remain in business because I want the service to exist, but I also realize that they control their own pricing models - not me. They can offer me a $200 ticket and I might buy it. If they raise that price 50% to $300, I'll decide whether the trip is still worth it.

This discussion seems silly in 2013, because at this point the airlines have actually done a good job of taking back pricing power by controlling supply. The cheap leisure fares are scarce, and they are filling the planes with business travelers to fairly high loads and yields.

This time at least, they seem to have changed their ways. IMHO, for the domestic U.S. market it's in large part because Southwest has decided to become a premium product, pricing well above the legacies instead of leading fare wars. If somebody wants to start a fare war, it's Virgin or Frontier, and those don't turn into nationwide fare wars. Southwest occasionally lobs in a systemwide sale but they are no longer insane fares - just "decent" fares with lots of blackouts and exclusions.



Meh. Technobabble for aviation nerds. For everyone else, it's just a bus ticket. Get me from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by pinniped (Post 20341524)

:confused:

That doesn't make any sense. The demand side alone can't force airlines to offer cheap tickets. We didn't screw them.



-- SNIP --

Originally Posted by NFeldberg (Post 20341916)

When an airline like Southwest becomes the Ben Bernanke of the U.S airline industry, Id say we most certainly have a problem with cheap fare demand.

Originally Posted by pinniped (Post 20340081)

We still have the itinerary receipt from a flight from 1977: MCI-FCO R/T. $550 on TWA, via JFK.

That's $2,090 in today's dollars. I'm sure the chicken dinner was spectacular. I mean, people used to rave about airfood being Michelin star-rated cuisine, didn't they? ;)

At the time, I'm sure we thought that was a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Thankfully, it wasn't, and I've flown to Europe numerous times for less than $500 R/T in 2013 dollars. (e.g., $340-370 all in pretty much every winter in the late 90's / early 00's.)