The thing that will revitalize the US airline industry is general economic recovery.
I was reading a thing, maybe from Planet Money? Anyway, this guy was saying the US airline industry has been run at a net loss since its inception. Not that individual airlines haven't turned a profit for a given year, but airline investors have basically been paying for us to fly so cheaply all this time. Just thought that was interesting.
I also forget the details, but the way airline unions negotiate contracts with the airlines also plays into that. They use some formula based on expected instead of actual revenue and the errors tend to accumulate every few years until the point where the airline can't pay, the union goes on strike, and the contract is renegotiated under the same terms but with a new starting value.
Essentially air travel is an extension of public transit now, more than before when it was closer to perhaps a limo service. So of course it's not going to be profitable and propped up as a service by gov't.
'Limo service' type flying still exists, it's just moved away from the large liners, back down to smaller biz jets and the like. Unfortunately it's probably the most expensive way to travel outside of owning your own aircraft. But the benefits: no significant TSA issues, no significant wait or delay, fly mostly on your own schedule, no crying babies you diddn't invite, no maintenance or upkeep costs for your own aircraft... it's a shame air-taxi services and more middle-class targeted private jet travel hasn't been able to take off.
Lou - if we're talking about the experience of flying in the real world, then all factors which affect the experience for the majority of participants are relevant, even if they're not "wired." I don't know how to bridge the fundamental gap in thought here, so, sorry.
Muppet, flying is a luxury. You're basically complaining that today's champagne isn't as good as yesterday's champagne despite the fact that you're paying Thunderbird prices for it whereas yesterday you paid champagne prices for it. The fact that you could afford champagne yesterday but can only afford Thunderbird today has nothing to do with why Thunderbird sucks.
Flying is on the cusp of luxury, and is much more of a luxury (in terms of access) now than it ever was in the 80s. Whether that's a problem or not will of course be subject to your politics.
No industry exists in a vacuum. It exists in the world where all factors are relevant to its perception, utility, etc.
Well there's the cost to the consumer and the cost to the operator and there's obviously a mismatch in expectations from both ends of the spectrum, combined with history, nostalgia, practicality, security, volume, politics, etc.
I gotta think flying in terms of getting from point A to point B for a given rate of dollars is cheaper than it used to be. I don't think it was possible back in the 80s-90s to get a flight from BDL or PVD to ORD or MCO for that day's equivalent of today's $150 USD a leg other than via some serious deals/discounting. (But I'm willing to see otherwise!)
So that's good.
The fact that you are getting less value from that flight is the key point. The fact it costs a lot of money to park a car, rent a car, check a bag, get more than a bare minimum of leg room, buy any kind of food/drink after the security that probes your deep tender inner-anus, get on the plane when there's still overhead space, get anything but a half-cup of ginger ale (the only acceptable non-alcoholic airplane beverage) That's the real rub. The financial and emotional costs once you add the things you used to get free ends up probably making travel cost more as a whole.
If you are a frugal flyer and able to zen your way through the experience, you can fly for mad cheap and get places without breaking the bank. But you can't expect to fly and feel luxurious at the same time without making it rain.
Flying in Europe is extremely common (due to low cost) in my understanding. On par with train travel in the US (or cheaper). Actually... "destination" train travel in the US is ridiculously expensive. I'm not sure what I'd put it on par with in the US. Shit.
Flying is on the cusp of luxury, and is much more of a luxury (in terms of access) now than it ever was in the 80s. Whether that's a problem or not will of course be subject to your politics.
Umm, where are you getting that notion that it's more of a luxury now than in the 80s? Flying was significantly more expensive then (even ignoring changes in disposable income) than it is now and far fewer people flew then than now.
Flying in Europe is extremely common (due to low cost) in my understanding. On par with train travel in the US (or cheaper). Actually... "destination" train travel in the US is ridiculously expensive. I'm not sure what I'd put it on par with in the US. Shit.
You have it totally reversed there. It's train travel that's extremely common in Europe and not flying. Flying like crazy is distinctly an American thing due to the combination of large land mass and a shitty train system. Europeans pretty much only fly if they have to cross bodies of water, otherwise the train is their preferred method of travel.
Yeah, if anything train travel (Amtrak, not commuter rail) is the luxury mass-transit of the US. It costs more to travel from point A to point B via train than an airplane in almost every case that I've looked. It takes longer as well.
You get more room on a train, don't deal with security, and can get up and walk around with relative ease. Trains have those lounge and sleeping cars too apparently, the flying equivalent of which is something you only might see on a transoceanic flight or a private jet. Hell if they are doing what I've been hearing about where you can drive your car onto the train so it comes with you, you don't even have to rent a vehicle once you arrive.
It certainly is priced the luxury mode of transit here...I mean I've never really done it.
Guys, in Europe neither train travel nor air travel is a luxury. If anything, budget airline travel is waaaaay less of a luxury than train travel, but where there are good train connections, budget airlines have no need to operate.
Guys, in Europe neither train travel nor air travel is a luxury. If anything, budget airline travel is waaaaay less of a luxury than train travel, but where there are good train connections, budget airlines have no need to operate.
Like everything, it all kinda depends on what parts of Europe you're in. I'm talking mostly from my own personal experiences and those of various friends. For example, I had some friends visit Scandinavia a few years ago and they pretty much cruised the entire area by train instead of by plane. France also seems to be very train-centric (it helps to have the TGV though), although I have never really traveled far outside of Paris. Portugal seems to vary, but it seems like planes tend to be mostly used for connecting the Portuguese mainland with its islands like the Azores (which are also all connected by planes) and Madeira.
>Umm, where are you getting that notion that it's more of a luxury now than in the 80s? Flying was significantly more expensive then (even ignoring changes in disposable income) than it is now and far fewer people flew then than now.
Umm.. why are you still ignoring that prices relative to median salaries (adjusted for inflation) matters?
Within countries or close countries, trains are easy and not too expensive. For similar distances, buses are slower but cheaper.
Between countries where there aren't good train connections, budget airlines provide easy and not too expensive routes. Long distance train rides for these trips may takes days or nights, and cost more money.
Air travel within countries is usually for business travelers. If your work isn't paying for the flight, then it is pure luxury.
>Umm, where are you getting that notion that it's more of a luxury now than in the 80s? Flying was significantly more expensive then (even ignoring changes in disposable income) than it is now and far fewer people flew then than now.
Umm.. why are you still ignoring that prices relative to median salaries (adjusted for inflation) matters?
Okay, so let's do some math, using this article as reference for airfares.
In 1980, the average round trip airfare without fees in the US was $600 in 2011 dollars, as compared to $300 in 2010. That means that flying has become 50% cheaper since the 80s.
Now let's look at median salaries, using this article as reference. Both articles were chosen just because they were near the top of a quick Googling and were from respectable news sources.
Unfortunately, the salary article only goes back to 1987 instead of 1980, but I think that's close enough for this discussion. This article shows that, relatively to 1987 at least, median salaries have actually gone up albeit only a tiny amount (and they have gone down since 1989, but again, only a smidge). The peak appears to be at around 1999 or so, but even if we compare the peak ($56,000) to the present ($51,017), the difference was only about a 9% decrease in median salary.
Therefore, your claim is faulty because while median salaries have fallen, they have not fallen by as much as airfare has. Even if we include other factors, such as cost of living increases, and such, my gut tells me that the average American isn't 50% poorer now than they were in the 1980s, although if you can provide me with hard numbers to make that claim, I'll listen.
The fact is the declining quality of service on airlines has nothing to do with the decline in the median income of America. It purely comes from the vicious race to the bottom of the modern, deregulated airline environment resulting in insanely cheap airfares relative to the past "golden era" where service was good, but you actually had to pay for it.
Hotels are seeing a similar race to the bottom. They used to make their money with amenities and customer loyalty.
Nowadays, people book the cheapest hotel closest to whatever they're doing. They have cell phones and ipads, so they don't really care about any of the old-school amenities (entertainment, phonecalls, concierge, messages, package receipt, business center, etc...). If you don't care about the services offered, then all hotels are the same except for literally two factors:
1. Price 2. Nearness to whatever it is that's causing you to need a hotel
Within countries or close countries, trains are easy and not too expensive. For similar distances, buses are slower but cheaper.
Between countries where there aren't good train connections, budget airlines provide easy and not too expensive routes. Long distance train rides for these trips may takes days or nights, and cost more money.
Air travel within countries is usually for business travelers. If your work isn't paying for the flight, then it is pure luxury.
That sounds about like what I thought it was in Europe, though I couldn't express it clearly. Thanks!
Hotels are seeing a similar race to the bottom. They used to make their money with amenities and customer loyalty.
Nowadays, people book the cheapest hotel closest to whatever they're doing. They have cell phones and ipads, so they don't really care about any of the old-school amenities (entertainment, phonecalls, concierge, messages, package receipt, business center, etc...). If you don't care about the services offered, then all hotels are the same except for literally two factors:
1. Price 2. Nearness to whatever it is that's causing you to need a hotel
I will say that I've stayed in some swanky-ass hotels as part of work travel, and I do appreciate a hotel with an excellent lobby/lounge and high-class bar. This makes it generally more pleasant to network with other people staying in the hotel.
But for the majority of practical purposes, you're spot-on.
Hotels are seeing a similar race to the bottom. They used to make their money with amenities and customer loyalty.
Nowadays, people book the cheapest hotel closest to whatever they're doing. They have cell phones and ipads, so they don't really care about any of the old-school amenities (entertainment, phonecalls, concierge, messages, package receipt, business center, etc...). If you don't care about the services offered, then all hotels are the same except for literally two factors:
1. Price 2. Nearness to whatever it is that's causing you to need a hotel
You are forgetting one key factor that comes up for certain reservations:
3. Quality and variety of shagging surfaces.
And personally I would even admit to living with such a boldness as to include a number...
4: generous check-in/out hours.
The value and necessity of 3 and 4 are obviously dependent on mission objective. If I'm traveling with a pack of engineers to an airshow? 3 and 4 aren't worth anything except maybe recon purposes. If I'm traveling to visit someone I met online for the weekend and need neutral ground where their roomates/parents/significant others are not... considerations 3/4 are liable to counterbalance 1 by a generous margin, and, 2 is almost always a value of "0" within a given search area that is large enough to disregard for all intents and purposes.
Most people don't even know when checkin/checkout times ARE when they check into hotels that they booked long in advance...
When we booked a room for the anime club for AB, a lot of people didn't understand what I meant when I said "Check-in time is at 3". They just thought you showed up to hotels whenever and they gave you rooms, then you checked out whenever.
Flew back to England from my holiday in Malta last week.
Kid behind me kept kicking my seat from behind. The kid's mum was sitting across the aisle from me and, fair play to her, she yelled at him. Told him not to do every time he started doing it.
Problem was the kid's name was Guy.
"Guy! Stop that!"
"Guy! Don't kick that chair."
And every time I looked up, tricked by my own brain. Which was more awkward than it needed to be.
I have flown 1st class, just once. Got upgraded coming back from California at new year. United airlines. It's really nice!
How long is the Malta flight? Seems like an annoying trip to make in that kind of situation...
And Cali to UK... that's certainly a flight you'd want to do first class if at all possible. Similar would be US to Asia. Or probably Asia from anywhere that's not Asia for that fact.
My aunt being a co-captain for United hasn't yet gotten me one of those nice No. 1 seat upgrades, but apparently if I plan to travel overseas I'm to let her know...
Agh, "apparatus." "Begs the question." Also, I've never heard someone talk so much about iterated prisoner's dilemmas without actually mentioning the phrase.
Comments
'Limo service' type flying still exists, it's just moved away from the large liners, back down to smaller biz jets and the like. Unfortunately it's probably the most expensive way to travel outside of owning your own aircraft. But the benefits: no significant TSA issues, no significant wait or delay, fly mostly on your own schedule, no crying babies you diddn't invite, no maintenance or upkeep costs for your own aircraft... it's a shame air-taxi services and more middle-class targeted private jet travel hasn't been able to take off.
No industry exists in a vacuum. It exists in the world where all factors are relevant to its perception, utility, etc.
I gotta think flying in terms of getting from point A to point B for a given rate of dollars is cheaper than it used to be. I don't think it was possible back in the 80s-90s to get a flight from BDL or PVD to ORD or MCO for that day's equivalent of today's $150 USD a leg other than via some serious deals/discounting. (But I'm willing to see otherwise!)
So that's good.
The fact that you are getting less value from that flight is the key point. The fact it costs a lot of money to park a car, rent a car, check a bag, get more than a bare minimum of leg room, buy any kind of food/drink after the security that probes your deep tender inner-anus, get on the plane when there's still overhead space, get anything but a half-cup of ginger ale (the only acceptable non-alcoholic airplane beverage) That's the real rub. The financial and emotional costs once you add the things you used to get free ends up probably making travel cost more as a whole.
If you are a frugal flyer and able to zen your way through the experience, you can fly for mad cheap and get places without breaking the bank. But you can't expect to fly and feel luxurious at the same time without making it rain.
You get more room on a train, don't deal with security, and can get up and walk around with relative ease. Trains have those lounge and sleeping cars too apparently, the flying equivalent of which is something you only might see on a transoceanic flight or a private jet. Hell if they are doing what I've been hearing about where you can drive your car onto the train so it comes with you, you don't even have to rent a vehicle once you arrive.
It certainly is priced the luxury mode of transit here...I mean I've never really done it.
Umm.. why are you still ignoring that prices relative to median salaries (adjusted for inflation) matters?
Between countries where there aren't good train connections, budget airlines provide easy and not too expensive routes. Long distance train rides for these trips may takes days or nights, and cost more money.
Air travel within countries is usually for business travelers. If your work isn't paying for the flight, then it is pure luxury.
In 1980, the average round trip airfare without fees in the US was $600 in 2011 dollars, as compared to $300 in 2010. That means that flying has become 50% cheaper since the 80s.
Now let's look at median salaries, using this article as reference. Both articles were chosen just because they were near the top of a quick Googling and were from respectable news sources.
Unfortunately, the salary article only goes back to 1987 instead of 1980, but I think that's close enough for this discussion. This article shows that, relatively to 1987 at least, median salaries have actually gone up albeit only a tiny amount (and they have gone down since 1989, but again, only a smidge). The peak appears to be at around 1999 or so, but even if we compare the peak ($56,000) to the present ($51,017), the difference was only about a 9% decrease in median salary.
Therefore, your claim is faulty because while median salaries have fallen, they have not fallen by as much as airfare has. Even if we include other factors, such as cost of living increases, and such, my gut tells me that the average American isn't 50% poorer now than they were in the 1980s, although if you can provide me with hard numbers to make that claim, I'll listen.
The fact is the declining quality of service on airlines has nothing to do with the decline in the median income of America. It purely comes from the vicious race to the bottom of the modern, deregulated airline environment resulting in insanely cheap airfares relative to the past "golden era" where service was good, but you actually had to pay for it.
Nowadays, people book the cheapest hotel closest to whatever they're doing. They have cell phones and ipads, so they don't really care about any of the old-school amenities (entertainment, phonecalls, concierge, messages, package receipt, business center, etc...). If you don't care about the services offered, then all hotels are the same except for literally two factors:
1. Price
2. Nearness to whatever it is that's causing you to need a hotel
But for the majority of practical purposes, you're spot-on.
3. Quality and variety of shagging surfaces.
And personally I would even admit to living with such a boldness as to include a number...
4: generous check-in/out hours.
The value and necessity of 3 and 4 are obviously dependent on mission objective. If I'm traveling with a pack of engineers to an airshow? 3 and 4 aren't worth anything except maybe recon purposes. If I'm traveling to visit someone I met online for the weekend and need neutral ground where their roomates/parents/significant others are not... considerations 3/4 are liable to counterbalance 1 by a generous margin, and, 2 is almost always a value of "0" within a given search area that is large enough to disregard for all intents and purposes.
Kid behind me kept kicking my seat from behind. The kid's mum was sitting across the aisle from me and, fair play to her, she yelled at him. Told him not to do every time he started doing it.
Problem was the kid's name was Guy.
"Guy! Stop that!"
"Guy! Don't kick that chair."
And every time I looked up, tricked by my own brain. Which was more awkward than it needed to be.
I have flown 1st class, just once. Got upgraded coming back from California at new year. United airlines. It's really nice!
And Cali to UK... that's certainly a flight you'd want to do first class if at all possible. Similar would be US to Asia. Or probably Asia from anywhere that's not Asia for that fact.
My aunt being a co-captain for United hasn't yet gotten me one of those nice No. 1 seat upgrades, but apparently if I plan to travel overseas I'm to let her know...