Please forgive me for not going into a more complex discussion in my previous post. You are quite right that there is more to the equation than price. However, post de-regulation, it was the most important driver that they immediately had to work with. Enough consumers were driven by price that airlines were forced to lower prices to remain competitive. Also, the price differences were significant enough to overcome many peoples' concerns about low quality, especially if their alternative was to not travel. Many attempts to start or run airlines at a higher level of service (e.g. business class airlines, MRTC) failed or were rolled back.

As pinniped points out, more recently, they have recognized that by offering many of these quality enhancements on a piece by piece basis, they can differentiate the market at different price points.

However, one thing that will never return is the concept of air travel as an intrinsically 'special' method of transportation - one that you would dress up for. As a child, I remember my parents insisting I wear a blazer and grey flannels to fly. Partially, this has disappeared because plane travel is no longer special, but also because society as a whole as become more casual. When I go to the opera, I still see some people wearing evening wear, but I also see people in jeans.

How does Europe have such cheap fares?

That's a good thing! The form of transport has matured and become accessible to millions more people as technology has improved and competition has expanded. ^

When commercial hypersonic travel debuts, I'll throw on a nice dinner jacket for my first ride. :cool:

In many markets, that's probably excellent news for opera. ^

Fares are much more expensive than they were seven to 15 years ago.

In 2006 I flew my family roundtrip EWR-CGN for $260 each. In 2005 I flew my family STL-BZE for $219 each RT. In 2002 my son and I flew JAN-MCO for $80 RT. I could list other cheap fares, but I haven't seen many lately.

Yes, the seats are more crowded than they used to be. Yes, the service is lousy. But I like flying on the cheap, and don't mind paying a little extra for an Economy Comfort seat.

I agree, on both counts. While I think there is a basic minimum standard which people should wear on planes and to the opera (sleeves are preferred for gentlemen), increasing accessibility and decreasing exclusion are good things.

if i recall there were US airlines that tried to implement luxury for a premium..... those did not succeed......

Sad reality is many people and corporations are looking for bargains, regardless of whether your in the aviation sector, food / hospitality sectors, retail etc etc..... Only a limited portion of people are willing to pay extra..... Its a race to the bottom that will eventually bite back at us.....

And how many people do you think really enjoy going out for Opera. I am sure there should be decency standards, but I think one of the reasons why more people travel today is that they feel a lot less intimidated by it in the first place.

That's the problem - there is a whole big world between cattle car class and royal treatment class. A few airlines have started adding a few inches of extra legroom. But there are very few that have gone beyond that - wider seats for instance. More elbow room, even. And certainly not at a proportional price to what teh passenger can get their coach seat for. Few people are going to just hand over money for a raw deal at 3 times what their discount coach seat costs. So I really don't think they have tried much.

And to complicate the decision more, there are many fliers looking to pay cheapest coach fare for free business/first class.... and north american airlines have catered to that through unlimited domestic upgrade or upgrade certificates.

Is it that they want a full luxury product for a cheap discount price, or that they simply don't have that choice. That is my issue with the whole thing. I love to fly. I am a big guy - an economy class width seat is just plain too small. But my choices are to buy one economy seat and not only be uncomfortable myself but also get the grumbling from my seat mates and ugly looks from well, just about everyone, buy two economy seats at twice what everyone else has to spend, so I can treat the guy next to me to half a seat extra, still get the the ugly looks, and get screwed out of miles and luggage space, or I can spend 2 and a half to three times as much for a domestic first seat, which gives me the wider seat but no more useable leg room than economy comfort, free alcohol, but I don't drink, and every once in a while a small salad with half a piece of chicken on it. And still get only half again my FF miles.

So, really, does it not make more sense to go after the frequent flyer status? I know this is a bit of backwards thinking for many, but if you are really concerned about the number of people competing for you for that upgrade seat, maybe if they made upgrades more obtainable by the average public, you might not get so many people flying extra miles or longer routes and taking up those seats in the first place.

Airfares have been on the rise since 2009. They will continue to rise as the merged, three-player oligopoly consolidates pricing power. So the OP will get half his wish: more expensive air travel. He will not, however, get any better service. ;)

The same is true for opera. As opera gets less stuffy, more people are inclined to give it a chance, and find they enjoy it. Many opera companies have moved away from the stiff, static performances of monster-sized divas to active, engaging productions.

I agree that people travel more because it is less intimidating, and also because it is less costly. More power to 'em.

Aahhhh....the cheap Belize tickets. We managed to snag some of those in late 2005 as well. ^

Twofold problem there: the aforementioned capacity cuts and consolidation of air carriers that this thread is about...and the fact that Belize suddenly became a hot destination. It was much better when nobody knew where Belize was. Except you and I, of course... ;)

Sure, can't disagree with that. We already have a "bro tank while flying?" thread on OMNI. Maybe we could start a "bro tank at the opera" thread... :D

I always thought YX (the old Midwest Express) could have made it if they'd ever found a way to tie in to an alliance. They seemed to have a decent strategy of focusing on high-yield business routes where they were the only nonstop. Most corporate travel portals won't allow a traveler to pay a great deal extra for a particular carrier (not that there aren't ways to coax the system into showing you what you want), but most travel policies *do* prioritize the nonstop.

YX had good product in the air but terrible processes on the ground. A primitive website, difficult-to-access phone agents, and long queues at the airport if they had any kind of irrops.

So at the end of the day, I wonder if their basic strategy killed them or if they were just poorly run and trying to "go it alone" with minimal partnerships in a world where the global alliance is King.

Most people forget that up until the Sept. 11 attacks, Midwest was profitable. In fact they and Southwest were really the only two consistently profitable airlines at the time. But Midwest was hugely dependent on the business market and a few key clients, and so suffered pretty bad. Their demise, or at least failure to recover, had more to do with them abandoning the pure mid-tier product and trying to implement discount-like services, particularly with a route structure that was based out of the Midwest and lousy for a lot of important city pairs.

They had a code-share with North West and Delta for a while, so they were not completely on their own.

Likely US domestic, sure - But for international flights there's still tons of options.

I live in Vancouver. If I want to fly to London and I'm willing to make a stop along the way, I lose track of how many carrier options I have - At least ten, of the top of my head...?

That may be true for larger markets. But what if you lived in Kelowna and wanted to fly to Manchester? How many options would you have?

And remember that the options have to be feasible. If you have to backtrack significantly, or have a lengthy layover, then it's not really a practical option.