Why actually the 3 legacy have bad reputation?
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ORD
Posts: 14,200
The state of US domestic airlines is squarely a market result. People have shown time and again that 95% of their purchase decision is based on price, and airlines have been trying to take prices lower and lower. This is what gives us Basic Economy fares.
Fees for bags are here because AA realized that people would pay them - and the other airlines quickly piled on. This is why we should be encouraging competition and breaking up the mega-three oligopoly.
Fees for bags are here because AA realized that people would pay them - and the other airlines quickly piled on. This is why we should be encouraging competition and breaking up the mega-three oligopoly.
#17
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, Avis, Enterprise, National, IHG, HH, SPG/MR
Posts: 1,852
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Programs: Frontier Gold, DL estranged 1MMer, Spirit VIP, CO/NW/UA/AA once gold/plat/comped gold now dust.
Posts: 37,910
They acknowledge that it's unrealistic to expect people to travel without any luggage, and with no extra cost for the checked bags there's less pressure on the carry-ons and that mad scramble.
They also don't view change fees as a huge gouge opportunity and profit center, though "difference in fare" can still bite you (but you get that AND the fee with the legacies).
The cabin air is also very dry, typically, and they offer some drinks without charging.
The one exception is IMO how the open seating has devolved. Thirty years ago that was a well-known no-frills feature (PeopleExpress, etc.). It lent itself to an uncivilized boarding process, though, so WN has come up with the boarding groups and the pecking order and a chance to buy your way to the front and all that. But given that NK and F9 (and others) have reserved seats (albeit usually as an opportunity to charge another fee), I think WN's process looks a bit outdated.
With the legacies it's just been one unfavorable thing after another for passengers, especially if you look at the longer view.
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,501
Southwest generally plays it straight, much more so than the Big 3 and in ways that SHOULD be common sense but aren't at many carriers.
They acknowledge that it's unrealistic to expect people to travel without any luggage, and with no extra cost for the checked bags there's less pressure on the carry-ons and that mad scramble.
They also don't view change fees as a huge gouge opportunity and profit center, though "difference in fare" can still bite you (but you get that AND the fee with the legacies).
The cabin air is also very dry, typically, and they offer some drinks without charging.
The one exception is IMO how the open seating has devolved. Thirty years ago that was a well-known no-frills feature (PeopleExpress, etc.). It lent itself to an uncivilized boarding process, though, so WN has come up with the boarding groups and the pecking order and a chance to buy your way to the front and all that. But given that NK and F9 (and others) have reserved seats (albeit usually as an opportunity to charge another fee), I think WN's process looks a bit outdated.
With the legacies it's just been one unfavorable thing after another for passengers, especially if you look at the longer view.
They acknowledge that it's unrealistic to expect people to travel without any luggage, and with no extra cost for the checked bags there's less pressure on the carry-ons and that mad scramble.
They also don't view change fees as a huge gouge opportunity and profit center, though "difference in fare" can still bite you (but you get that AND the fee with the legacies).
The cabin air is also very dry, typically, and they offer some drinks without charging.
The one exception is IMO how the open seating has devolved. Thirty years ago that was a well-known no-frills feature (PeopleExpress, etc.). It lent itself to an uncivilized boarding process, though, so WN has come up with the boarding groups and the pecking order and a chance to buy your way to the front and all that. But given that NK and F9 (and others) have reserved seats (albeit usually as an opportunity to charge another fee), I think WN's process looks a bit outdated.
With the legacies it's just been one unfavorable thing after another for passengers, especially if you look at the longer view.
I had a business trip 2 years ago where a few of us were flying WN. At T-24, I was able to successfully OLCI...but my colleagues waited an hour or so and by then the website had gone down. They were never able to check in, and we arrived at the airport to find a huge queue for the airport kiosks. They had to buy walk-up AA tickets and fight for their WN refunds later, while I flew home on WN on a flight with 50 empty seats - probably because so many people couldn't get boarding passes or buy last-minute tickets. This was ex-LGA and (I think) corresponded to one of their systemwide sales. I remember reading about it on FT that night and people all over the U.S. and in many airports were having similar problems.
I'm still (generally) a WN fan - mainly because they fly a bunch of ex-MCI nonstops that would otherwise be a connection on a legacy - but I don't fully trust them as I once did. 10 years ago, they were a unique brand that I viewed differently from other airlines. Over the years they had attained that unique space where brands emotionally connect with their users. (Apple, Nordstrom, Starbucks, etc.) That's no longer the case: they're just another airline, albeit one that's a bit more user-friendly than others. When the systems are working...
#20
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: California
Programs: AS,WN,UA,B6,hotels
Posts: 4,239
The one exception is IMO how the open seating has devolved. Thirty years ago that was a well-known no-frills feature (PeopleExpress, etc.). It lent itself to an uncivilized boarding process, though, so WN has come up with the boarding groups and the pecking order and a chance to buy your way to the front and all that. But given that NK and F9 (and others) have reserved seats (albeit usually as an opportunity to charge another fee), I think WN's process looks a bit outdated.
Also, given how many times the frequent flyer elites here complain about losing their pre-assigned seats for various reasons or no obvious reason, that situation is probably worse for non-elite passengers. This can be more problematic for non-elite families trying to sit together on UA/AA/DL.
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,501
WN's boarding process itself is the most civilized of any U.S. carrier. The numbered BP's completely eliminate the gate lice problem.
We can disagree on whether the process is good or bad for elites, whether EBCI is worth it, what type of specific policy Southwest should provide re: seat saving, etc.
But the boarding process itself works marvelously. They often don't even start loading a plane until 20 minutes prior to departure, yet they have everybody seated to push back on time.
After a few WN flights, I find it jarring to fly a legacy carrier with their crush of people at the gates, many trying to board early and GA's (sometimes) trying to control the mob.
Even on Emirates - an otherwise awesome airline - a few days ago, the boarding process was chaos because passengers did not have explicit instructions, a clearly-marked place to queue, and a well-defined sequence for boarding. (ex-HYD. ex-DXB from the J lounge was markedly better, although it could have been a mess for Y pax and I didn't see it.)
Other airlines could learn something from Southwest's numeric BPs, even those that have assigned seats and multiple cabins.
We can disagree on whether the process is good or bad for elites, whether EBCI is worth it, what type of specific policy Southwest should provide re: seat saving, etc.
But the boarding process itself works marvelously. They often don't even start loading a plane until 20 minutes prior to departure, yet they have everybody seated to push back on time.
After a few WN flights, I find it jarring to fly a legacy carrier with their crush of people at the gates, many trying to board early and GA's (sometimes) trying to control the mob.
Even on Emirates - an otherwise awesome airline - a few days ago, the boarding process was chaos because passengers did not have explicit instructions, a clearly-marked place to queue, and a well-defined sequence for boarding. (ex-HYD. ex-DXB from the J lounge was markedly better, although it could have been a mess for Y pax and I didn't see it.)
Other airlines could learn something from Southwest's numeric BPs, even those that have assigned seats and multiple cabins.
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,714
Whereas a boarding process with nine discrete zones, plus preboards... all based on inscrutable, indecipherable status lines either earned or purchased... is virtually designed to make people mad. You're told you have "priority boarding," yet you're in BG 4 or 5? Behind 100+ others? You're a last-minute flyer and you're in BG7? The system has got to be screwing with people. So the crowd thinks.
The US3 have (for the most part) wrecked their reputations by failing to meet expectations -- for honesty, humanity, reasonableness, competence in irrops, transactional fairness, you name it. It's not that the snacks are inedible; it's that you always feel forced to play chess against the airline, and that the deck appears stacked against most mortals. That is not the story on Southwest, when it comes to boarding and a lot of other stuff.
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ORD
Posts: 14,200
#25
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, Avis, Enterprise, National, IHG, HH, SPG/MR
Posts: 1,852
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,501
As for supersonic, my comment was kind of in jest...but only kind of. I was saying if we're going to stay on a stable, proven platform such as, say, a 737, then YES I expect it to continually get cheaper and better.
If, however, new aircraft were coming out every 3 or 4 years that were progressively faster than previous ones, I'd expect trade offs in other areas. Either higher costs, or yielding on some other feature like space, ability to bring X weight on board with me, etc.
(We have other threads about the economics or aerodynamics of flying supersonic. Those issues are why I say "kind of" in jest...it was more of a simplistic observation, akin to my current laptop being "supersonic" compared to the one I owned 5 years ago.)
#27
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,859
theres only so much that can be done to defeat physics
what they have done is made planes lighter and engines more efficient which helps with fuel consumption...on top of reliability, smoothness, etc
#28
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, Avis, Enterprise, National, IHG, HH, SPG/MR
Posts: 1,852
well the speed of landcraft havent changed much either. its governed by basically engine power vs aero resistance and theres not a magical but practical hull shape they havent discovered.
theres only so much that can be done to defeat physics
what they have done is made planes lighter and engines more efficient which helps with fuel consumption...on top of reliability, smoothness, etc
theres only so much that can be done to defeat physics
what they have done is made planes lighter and engines more efficient which helps with fuel consumption...on top of reliability, smoothness, etc
On the other hand, as pinniped points out above, aircraft have gotten slower!
#29
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,859
The veyron is an outlier. Almost all other hypercars (laferrari, p1, 918) and other ultra exotics (f12tdf, Aventador, etc) don't move too far off the speeds established by the 959...sustained by the xj220,
Formula one hit 200 in-race in 1980s and haven't gone much higher since.
Obviously there are tons of factors (regulations, purpose, etc) that affect these, but did you expect some constant , linear increase?
My point wasn't that speeds haven't increased. In fact the opposite - they do increase, but at slower pace as they've been hovering around the practical ceiling , as opposed to the theoretical /no-holds-barred ceiling.
Jet fuel costs a lot more and per/pax revenue is a lot less. There's no point in designing or operating a commercial plane at faster speeds.
Just like there is no point in designing an f1 car to reach 300 when tires and fuel capacity won't sustain that speed
#30
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, Avis, Enterprise, National, IHG, HH, SPG/MR
Posts: 1,852
Its nonsense to interpret "change much" as "at all".
The veyron is an outlier. Almost all other hypercars (laferrari, p1, 918) and other ultra exotics (f12tdf, Aventador, etc) don't move too far off the speeds established by the 959...sustained by the xj220,
Formula one hit 200 in-race in 1980s and haven't gone much higher since.
Obviously there are tons of factors (regulations, purpose, etc) that affect these, but did you expect some constant , linear increase?
My point wasn't that speeds haven't increased. In fact the opposite - they do increase, but at slower pace as they've been hovering around the practical ceiling , as opposed to the theoretical /no-holds-barred ceiling.
Jet fuel costs a lot more and per/pax revenue is a lot less. There's no point in designing or operating a commercial plane at faster speeds.
Just like there is no point in designing an f1 car to reach 300 when tires and fuel capacity won't sustain that speed
The veyron is an outlier. Almost all other hypercars (laferrari, p1, 918) and other ultra exotics (f12tdf, Aventador, etc) don't move too far off the speeds established by the 959...sustained by the xj220,
Formula one hit 200 in-race in 1980s and haven't gone much higher since.
Obviously there are tons of factors (regulations, purpose, etc) that affect these, but did you expect some constant , linear increase?
My point wasn't that speeds haven't increased. In fact the opposite - they do increase, but at slower pace as they've been hovering around the practical ceiling , as opposed to the theoretical /no-holds-barred ceiling.
Jet fuel costs a lot more and per/pax revenue is a lot less. There's no point in designing or operating a commercial plane at faster speeds.
Just like there is no point in designing an f1 car to reach 300 when tires and fuel capacity won't sustain that speed