Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airfare Bargains

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Airfare Bargains

    Yeah, and I just heard of a study that says Oahu will see a 25% reduction of rush hour traffic when we have rail transit, even though no other U.S. city has seen even a 10% reduction. Do I believe it? Of course not and neither should you.

    If your airline wants to make a profit, I suggest they don't fly at 80% of capacity.
    Last edited by salmoned; October 31, 2008, 01:48 PM.
    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Airfare Bargains

      Originally posted by salmoned View Post
      If your airline wants to make a profit, I suggest they don't fly at 80% of capacity.
      Yes, they try to fly at 100% load. But MORE than 20% of passengers are "no shows" on average. And for good reason, people get sick, they have a change of plans, they don't allow enough time and get caught in traffic, whatever. That's why airlines "oversell" their bookings. Sometimes everyone shows up and they have have to give incentives to people to take a different flight. Now, do you Salmoned, propose that the airlines should not allow people to change plans? Great, then airlines could fly closer to 100% capacity. You book a ticket and don't show up, then tough sh1t, you pay anyway. But I think you, Salmoned, would get a big argument from most flyers and the go'mint.

      You, Salmoned, are putting airtlines in a "lose/lose" scenario. No matter what they do, you are not going to be happy. Low airfares are bad for consumers in the long term.
      Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

      People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Airfare Bargains

        Originally posted by matapule View Post
        Yes I do. If a particular route is "over serviced" the consumer benefits in the short term, but loses in the long run when no one airline can be profitable.
        So would you agree to no bailouts to GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Because the US auto market is saturated with the number of brands and models.

        Originally posted by matapule View Post
        Unfortunately yes. I do not know what Singapore Airlines business model is. But if one airline has an advantage over another because of fewer requirements within their country of incorporation (for example no labor contract, lower cost of fuel because of local supply, etc) then regulation provides for more competition, not less.
        What about within one country?


        Originally posted by matapule View Post
        You have just made the argument that got us into the Wall Street mess. If the market is allowed to regulate itself, it results in chaos and acts contrary to the best interests of the consumer.
        Negative, I think in your zest to support gov't regulation, you've overlooked what I said. I did not say the industry itself issues laws for regulation. I said the gov't role should be on making laws to keep the field level, ie. stronger laws against predatory pricing, subsidizing a subsidiary, etc. But a gov't role should not be on schedules, pricing, routes.


        Originally posted by matapule View Post
        Can you provide me with a link to that assertion? I don't know of any airline CEO that is making $25M annually like some Wall Street executives. My daughter is in mid-management and supervises about 300 to 400 employees in 10 different cities, 95% of which work on a union contract. She makes less than the top 20% of union employees that she is supervising. Something is terribly wrong when a union member forklift driver is making close to $100K per year for working about 35 hours per week. That is why most airlines are trying to eliminate the unions and contract to private vendors on the lowest cost, contract basis.
        UAL's Glenn Tilton received $39.7 million in 2006 while UAL only made a profit of $25 million for that year. At the same time, flight attendants took cuts.

        http://financialservices.house.gov/p...ACWALetter.pdf

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Airfare Bargains

          Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
          So would you agree to no bailouts to GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Because the US auto market is saturated with the number of brands and models.
          Yes,I oppose bailouts to the automakers. Not because the market is saturated with brands and models. I am opposed because of mismanagement. The automakers were producing short sighted models like the Hummer and Escalade at a time they should have been concentrating on new alternative energy models such as hybrids and electrics. I do not want to reward the auto executives with a bailout so they can continue to mismanage. Throw all the scoundrels out! America can and should be the leader in alternative energy automobiles.

          What about within one country?
          Even moreso within a country, specifically the USA.

          Negative, I think in your zest to support gov't regulation, you've overlooked what I said. I did not say the industry itself issues laws for regulation. I said the gov't role should be on making laws to keep the field level, ie. stronger laws against predatory pricing, subsidizing a subsidiary, etc. But a gov't role should not be on schedules, pricing, routes.
          I repeat, I favor regulation of schedules, pricing, and routes with oversight on executive pay and windfall profits.

          UAL's Glenn Tilton received $39.7 million in 2006 while UAL only made a profit of $25 million for that year. At the same time, flight attendants took cuts.
          Thank you for that reference, but you have merely referenced the talking points of the Union. Are you a union member? To set the record straight, I am a former shop steward in CSEA (California State Employees Association), so I can speak with familiarity from within a union. The reference you cite is selfserving by the Teamsters. Tilton did receive stock options equal to $39.7M as a result of pulling the company out of bankruptcy. I find this deplorable! However, I think he deserved a bonus, but if the company goes under, so will his $39.7M stock options. So the reward/bonus is theoretical at this time.

          In actuallity, Tilton received $1.4M in actual compenrsation in 2007. For the record, my daughter does not work for UAL.

          Unreasonable low airfares are not in the best interests of the consumer in the long term.
          Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

          People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Airfare Bargains

            Originally posted by matapule View Post
            Thank you for that reference, but you have merely referenced the talking points of the Union. Are you a union member? To set the record straight, I am a former shop steward in CSEA (California State Employees Association), so I can speak with familiarity from within a union. The reference you cite is selfserving by the Teamsters. Tilton did receive stock options equal to $39.7M as a result of pulling the company out of bankruptcy. I find this deplorable! However, I think he deserved a bonus, but if the company goes under, so will his $39.7M stock options. So the reward/bonus is theoretical at this time.
            Matapule,

            I am not a union member. Never have been. I understand the historical need for unions but I believe they are more of a hindrance than help in modern times due to selfserving union leadership.

            I provided a link as you've requested, I am not putting any pro-union spin on it. But the fact remains, UA's CEO got paid megabucks in 2006 when the company just got out of bankruptcy and the rank and file made huge concessions. I hardly agree that's a "success" worth rewarding. That is merely doing one's job as leader to guide the company out of bankruptcy. I do believe in performance pay, but the executive packages have gotten ridiculous over the years and they do have an impact on the bottom line.

            You and I believe in gov't regulation on airlines but we differ on what. I don't believe it should be on schedules, routes, prices; but more on market fundamentals, subsidizing from parent company to subsidary, limits on executive compensation, etc. International routes, I can see the need for tighter regulation due to different standards of living between countries, but not within one country. If an airline can provide $50 interisland fares and make a profit, I don't want big brother preventing that with regulation.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Airfare Bargains

              Originally posted by matapule View Post
              Yes, they try to fly at 100% load. But MORE than 20% of passengers are "no shows" on average. And for good reason, people get sick, they have a change of plans, they don't allow enough time and get caught in traffic, whatever. That's why airlines "oversell" their bookings. Sometimes everyone shows up and they have have to give incentives to people to take a different flight. Now, do you Salmoned, propose that the airlines should not allow people to change plans? Great, then airlines could fly closer to 100% capacity. You book a ticket and don't show up, then tough sh1t, you pay anyway. But I think you, Salmoned, would get a big argument from most flyers and the go'mint.

              You, Salmoned, are putting airtlines in a "lose/lose" scenario. No matter what they do, you are not going to be happy. Low airfares are bad for consumers in the long term.
              You're just talking nonsense. If I change my flight plans I either sacrifice my ticket or pay hefty rescheduling fees (usually equivalent to sacrificing the ticket) - the option to change flights is built into the ticket price via restricted vs. unrestricted fares. I clearly remember when I flew from Honolulu at less than 80% capacity - right after 9/11. Since (and before) then it's been hard to find an empty seat AT ALL, but then again, I always fly on the cheapest available fares (and they always have severe restrictions regarding rescheduling/cancellation).

              In the long run, we're all dead. So worrying about the long term viability for airlines is well beyond my concern and should be beyond your concern as well. If airlines abandon Honolulu en masse, then we might have something to worry about. Until then, worrying about airline profitability is an exercise in futility for all but the airlines themselves.
              Last edited by salmoned; November 3, 2008, 09:11 AM.
              May I always be found beneath your contempt.

              Comment

              Working...
              X