Race to the bottom
 

More entrants to driving prices down from Canada. Norwegian Air plans to fly between Canada and Europe this summer - Business - CBC News

Trouble is, they drive down service at the same time and if not enough people will pay for a better level of service, the better level of service starts to be removed from the market. Thus the rise of Rouge flights and the reduction of mainline Air Canada flights.

This race to the bottom is everywhere. https://www.google.ca/search?q=airli...hrome&ie=UTF-8

At what point are the customers likely to realize that lower prices have a cost that they are ignoring. I remember when the term 'Low Cost Carrier' began to be used. Of course everyone knew back then that they were inferior in service but provided a way for those with less money to afford air travel. Not a bad thing in and of itself obviously. However, now the LCCs are becoming 'mainline' in terms of number of passengers flown and they have now started referring to 'Ultra Low Cost Carriers' coming into the market.

This continuing reduction in comfort, service, health and safety applies everywhere (so don't move this to the Air Canada forum please). How low are you willing to go?

If/when this happens, the reductions on price/service will stop. the fact that a flurry of low cost, low service providers are entering the market means the market is supporting them (or, at least, the providers think they will.)

Their success/failure will determine whether the market continues to evolve in that direction. Commoditization isn't a new thing - air travel is just the latest in a long line.

How low I'm willing to go isn't really relevant. Markets respond to aggregate demand.

I would challenge your bundling of health and safety in with comfort and service. What data do you have to show safety is being reduced? Certainly not air traffic accidents'fatalities.

The market demands more low cost options, and mainline airlines are responding to this by cutting down costs in every way.

I'd say for the majority of the flying public, most people just want to get from A to B the cheapest way possible. There's a HUGE demand for this - especially over the Atlantic. If your preferred carrier (Air Canada) continues to devalue its product and/or subs in trash Air Canada Rouge planes to compete with the LCC's, switch to a better, all-inclusive airline such as Lufthansa, Swiss, Aer Lingus, etc.

Regarding health and safety, there are already rumblings about health and safety issues as seat size and space continues to get smaller CPRich.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...a-safety-issue

That a plane doesn't crash doesn't mean that flight conditions didn't kill anyone or cause any physical, mental or emotional problems. Air traffic/accident, fatatlies numbers show only one aspect of the health and safety of the passenger experience. I mean, do you really want to say, 'well any flight that didn't kill you was a good flight.'

Bolding mine

There are a lot of rumblings in the world about a lot of things. doesn't mean they're true. If you could provide some evidence I'm sure the regulatory bodies would love to see it.

Your campaign to bring back 70's style economy seating isn't going to work with todays market.

If my "rumbling" about things makes it true, then there are a lot of new facts in the world. And the earth is flat. And Obama is a Kenyan. And Mr. Rogers was a sniper.

And yes, flight safety is in fact measured in terms of accidents and deaths. If you consider "emotional damage" as a factor in the safety of our airline system, then further discussion is rather pointless. Feel free to protest low-cost providers because people feel bad.

Better yet - don't fly them. And let others make their own choices. And see how the market sorts out. After all, high cost/quality has won out over low price in mass markets goods in other places like, ummm.....

If only there were a super high speed train across the oceans.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...trak/18471389/

It used to be people took the bus because they couldn't afford to fly. Now flying is no better than taking the bus. :rolleyes:

Norwegian has been flying to the US for a few years now. I took them from LAX to CPH a few years back and yes, it certainly illustrates just how low a lcc can get. They subcontract everything to cheap companies, including gate agents and cabin crew. The food is terrible enough to be poison. The service spotty. The crews are annoyed. All you get is from point A to point B, and I guess that's what you have to be prepared to put up with. Buy cheap, GET cheap.

As someone who can afford more, I have no problem parting with more money not to get what legacies offer, but to AVOID lcc service. My hope is that legacies will get more competitive to survive against the lcc's and drop their own prices, but the reality is that in order to do that, THEY have been dropping services and benefits in order to afford it. And this is the race to the bottom.

I've flown with Norwegian, LEVEL, AC Rouge, Ryanair, Vueling, Transavia as well as more than a dozen full service airlines over the past year. My expectations for ULCCs and LCCs were more than met, while full service airlines often failed to deliver.

The only "service" to me that matters is seat size. I wish the government would mandate a minimum of 18 inches in width and 32 inches of pitch on all planes. Fares will rise slightly, but air rage incidents will drop to nothing, saving millions.

I too would be happy if some kind of regulations were put in place, but I'm not holding my breath. The only possibility seems to be the health and safety concerns that smaller seat sizes have started to raise.

It used to be if you had 'little money' you took the bus. If you had 'some money' you took the train. If you 'had money' you took the plane. Now as per the link I gave above, in terms of seat width and pitch, it is the train that comes out on top and the plane has shrunk to the size of a bus seat and pitch. :eek:

So if you 'have money' and more importantly 'have the time', you would do better to take a train where available. Which just goes to show that time is worth more than money! Maybe we should start considering those who 'don't have enough time' as the 'new poor.' :D

I am much the same in being willing to spend more but I do not want the mainline carriers to drop their prices. The formula is simple and never changes. Price minus cost equals profit. When you change one, you change them all. If you reduce price but not cost, then you reduce profit. There is no sense in doing that obviously. So if you reduce price you must reduce costs to maintain profit and that inevitably means you reduce service in "order to afford it" as you say.

The only other way to maintain profit without reducing costs is to increase sales but as the majority of travellers today focus only on price, the mainline carriers are not likely to be able to increase sales of seats as long as people keep booking the cheap seats on low cost carriers. A true 'Catch 22'.

I'd like to see mainline carriers increase the number of premium seats(what used to be a standard economy) per plane and I'll pay for one. But that's not likely to happen, it's the opposite that is more likely.

I am saddened that the general public have internalized low expectations for flying. Nowadays the average person simply expects that flying means putting up with cramped seats, crowded airports, intrusive and slow security checks, surly airline employees, and gouging surcharges for everything. Talk about expecting these to be different-- which they all were not that many years ago-- and they laugh as if you'd asked for the world on a string.

Norwegian is arguably helping to drive up service and other standards in the US legacy airlines on long-haul. If what I've heard about Air Canada recently is even partially correct, then Norwegian could well be the injection in the arm that AC needs.