airline seat assignments

[bicker]

I was being sarcastic. Airlines and hotels suffered mightily when the lowly leisure passenger wasn't traveling and only business travelers were left to sustain them.

Okay, that explains why I didn't understand the sarcasm: Airlines and hotels suffered after 9/11 because business travelers stopped traveling, not because leisure travelers stopped traveling.

Some of the financial problems airlines are facing now is the over-reliance on business travelers willingness to pay sky high fares.

Precisely: While leisure travelers have pretty-much returned to the skies in pre-9/11 numbers, the business travel market segment has not recovered fully, and probably never will. The business traveler still pays significantly higher fares than the leisure traveler, but the difference in average fare isn't as large any more, and the number of business travelers is a lot less than before.

 

[ducklite]

Yeah, airlines did so well after 9/11 with just you business travelers flying!!! Hotels were thriving, too, i hear!

And, I am not asking for the best seats in the house. I of course, would like the ones orginally booked, but in the back next to the bathroom would be OK with me, as long as I am next to my child.

Hello....or maybe you didn't bother to pay attention to the entire tourism industry including masive layoffs at WDW after September 11. If anything on a prorated basis, business travelers returned to the skies much faster than leisure travelers did. I was back on a plan within the month. The only reason I wasn't on one sooner was that I had no place I needed to go.

And I as I've said several times, I'm a leisure traveler far more than a business traveler. I make a trip to ATL about every month or two, I fly MCO to PHL or EWR at least once a month--usually twice--and that is more or less leisure based--although I often attend to business on thsoe trips, it's not required by any company. As a leisure traveler I have complete discretion as to which carrier I fly with, and I choose the one that chooses to offer me the best rewards for loyalty. And I do want to have certain perks--including first choice of seating--due to my loyalty.

Anne

 

[Lewisc]

Precisely: While leisure travelers have pretty-much returned to the skies in pre-9/11 numbers, the business travel market segment has not recovered fully, and probably never will.

And those business travelers that are flying are now using leisure fares as an alternative to paying sky high business fares. Specifically using strategies such as back to back ticketing to circumvent Saturday stay requirements or even flying LCC airlines.

The fully refundable fare from the NE to MCO is around $1000 with a legacy airline but under $400 on SW. A few years ago the airlines actually had business flyers who'd pay those sky high fares.

 

[ducklite]

And those business travelers that are flying are now using leisure fares as an alternative to paying sky high business fares. Specifically using strategies such as back to back ticketing to circumvent Saturday stay requirements or even flying LCC airlines.

The fully refundable fare from the NE to MCO is around $1000 with a legacy airline but under $400 on SW. A few years ago the airlines actually had business flyers who'd pay those sky high fares.

Although many of the legacy carriers have gotten smart and now offer decent fares without the Saturday stay over, or have begun using a pricing scheme closer to the ones the deep discount carriers do basing fares on one-way tickets without penalties.

Anne

 

[delilah]

Trust me, leisure travelers with little kids who fly once every other year on super discounted rates don't have a measurable affect on a carriers bottom line, so your arguement is moot.


Anne

I am sure there are some people who only travel by air once every other year or so, but, most of my colleagues and associates have travel habits similar to mine. We are upper middle class health care professionals (ie, doctors). Our day to day work doesn't involve travel, so, unless a doctor is a regular speaker at continuing education conferences, we might go to maybe two or three meetings a year (I need 50 hours per year to stay board certified. The usual conference meets about 4-6 hrs or so a day, so, I need to attend probably 8-10 full days per year). Additionally, I might make one or two personal trips a year (like to WDW in June). Usually, I try to choose meetings that are in locations attractive to my whole family--we have gone to Santa Fe, Charleston, SC, Sanibel, to name a few. So, it is unrealistic to state that travelers like us would have no impact on the bottom line of airlines. I don't travel enough to be a frequent flyer, particularly since we typically don't use the same airline all the time for all trips. My hospital uniformly will pay only for the absolute cheapest airfare, and I am sure this is not unique to my hospital.

Before you poo-poo how important continuing medical education is to the entertainment and travel industry, consider that prior to 2002, pharmaceutical companies were able to pay more for dinners, meetings, etc. In our area, very nearly every nice restaurant that used to host dinners of that type, and were thriving, have gone out of business. I further wager that, if you would check, that in Orlando, I think I could choose to go very nearly any week of the year, and would be able to find a meeting that would be applicable to my specialty. As a matter of fact, the one I am attending in August is at Grand Floridian. That is how I found that meeting. I wanted one that wasn't too close to my June vacation, before school started or during fall or Christmas break, and was somewhere at Disneyworld. Bingo. I think I had two or three for the same week I am going to choose from.

 

[bicker]

True, Lewis, but that actually decreases the priority airlines would put on the business traveler's business. I believe that has actually taken place to some extent. When I was a frequent flyer, I was able to do a lot of things that I suspect I cannot do now (like get assigned to an exit row seat days before a flight, or hold three seats on three different flights for my trip home, taking the first flight that departs after I am able to arrive at the airport after my business is concluded in the city).

 

[Lewisc]

Although many of the legacy carriers have gotten smart and now offer decent fares without the Saturday stay over, or have begun using a pricing scheme closer to the ones the deep discount carriers do basing fares on one-way tickets without penalties.

Anne

That's the problem, they don't have the cost structure to compete with the LCC. Losing the sky high business fare business no longer gives the airlines the extra $$$ to compensate for the deeply discounted lesiure fares.

 

[jodifla]

Actually business travel went way down after 9-11. The great deals at Disney hotels was because the leisure passengers weren't flying.

Disney went so far as to mothball entire resorts, they found even offering deep discounts wasn't enough to fill the resorts.

Some of the financial problems airlines are facing now is the over-reliance on business travelers willingness to pay sky high fares.

Yes, this was exactly what I was saying....airlines & hotels can't rely solely on business passengers. They need the lowly leisure passenger as well.

Ducklite's whole argument that airlines don't need to care about the family traveler is totally incorrect, IMHO.

 

[ducklite]

I am sure there are some people who only travel by air once every other year or so, but, most of my colleagues and associates have travel habits similar to mine. We are upper middle class health care professionals (ie, doctors). Our day to day work doesn't involve travel, so, unless a doctor is a regular speaker at continuing education conferences, we might go to maybe two or three meetings a year (I need 50 hours per year to stay board certified. The usual conference meets about 4-6 hrs or so a day, so, I need to attend probably 8-10 full days per year). Additionally, I might make one or two personal trips a year (like to WDW in June). Usually, I try to choose meetings that are in locations attractive to my whole family--we have gone to Santa Fe, Charleston, SC, Sanibel, to name a few. So, it is unrealistic to state that travelers like us would have no impact on the bottom line of airlines. I don't travel enough to be a frequent flyer, particularly since we typically don't use the same airline all the time for all trips. My hospital uniformly will pay only for the absolute cheapest airfare, and I am sure this is not unique to my hospital.

Before you poo-poo how important continuing medical education is to the entertainment and travel industry, consider that prior to 2002, pharmaceutical companies were able to pay more for dinners, meetings, etc. In our area, very nearly every nice restaurant that used to host dinners of that type, and were thriving, have gone out of business. I further wager that, if you would check, that in Orlando, I think I could choose to go very nearly any week of the year, and would be able to find a meeting that would be applicable to my specialty. As a matter of fact, the one I am attending in August is at Grand Floridian. That is how I found that meeting. I wanted one that wasn't too close to my June vacation, before school started or during fall or Christmas break, and was somewhere at Disneyworld. Bingo. I think I had two or three for the same week I am going to choose from.

But it's also completely unrealistic to think that every person who attends one of these conferences brings their entire family four times a year. Once is probably more the norm.

Because you are not loyal to one carrier and are only traveling with the entire family a couple times a year, and probably booking a couple months or more out so booking on a liesure fare, you really aren't having a huge impact on any carriers bottom line. Someone like Safety mom who travels every single week on the same carrier is a far more important passenger as far as the bottom line goes.

Anne

 

[jodifla]

I'm lost as to what the argument is over. The poster complaining has a 4 year old and I'm pretty sure most airlines will do whatever is necessary to make sure at least one parent sits next to a passenger under age 5.

The OP has a 4-year-old slated to sit nowhere near her on the flight. She's upset. Certain business travelers here think that's just tough; I'm appalled at the attitude...to me, that's what the argument, or discussion, is about.

 

[jodifla]

But it's also completely unrealistic to think that every person who attends one of these conferences brings their entire family four times a year. Once is probably more the norm.

Because you are not loyal to one carrier and are only traveling with the entire family a couple times a year, and probably booking a couple months or more out so booking on a liesure fare, you really aren't having a huge impact on any carriers bottom line. Someone like Safety mom who travels every single week on the same carrier is a far more important passenger as far as the bottom line goes.

Anne

Individually, leisure travelers may not matter....but you lump them together, and they matter a great deal.

And you get a trashy reputation for customer service, and you don't stay around forever, either.

 

[Lewisc]

Yes, this was exactly what I was saying....airlines & hotels can't rely solely on business passengers. They need the lowly leisure passenger as well.

Ducklite's whole argument that airlines don't need to care about the family traveler is totally incorrect, IMHO.

My post must have been poorly worded, I though I was saying the exact opposite. Airlines can't continue rely on the willingness of business travelers to pay premium pricing. They need to charge the lowly leisure passenger more money. Some people in this board aren't happy unless they can book a R/T fare from the NE to MCO for not much more than $100. Maybe those passengers should be given the middle seats reserving the better seats to passengers paying more money.

The point is airlines need to figure out how to profitably price the leisure market.

Many (most?) parents don't expect other famlies to be split up, couples be split up or even a single passenger moved to a middle seat just so they can sit next to their older child.

 

[ducklite]

Yes, this was exactly what I was saying....airlines & hotels can't rely solely on business passengers. They need the lowly leisure passenger as well.

Ducklite's whole argument that airlines don't need to care about the family traveler is totally incorrect, IMHO.

But you are ALL missing the point. They don't depend on either. They depend on the LOYAL FREQUENT TRAVELER who flies for whatever reason.

I don't care WHY you fly. I fly regularly and am loyal, and THAT and ONLY THAT is what really matters. I do'nt think US Airway's bean counters give a hoot the purpose of my travel--except it might be helpful to know that I have complete autonomy over what carrier I choose, and often choose them even if they are more expensive due to the perks I get for my dollars.

Anne

 

[jodifla]

That's a red herring, because poor treatment for discount passengers has been standard practice for many years, and families haven't stopped traveling. Leisure travelers care almost exclusively about low fares.

Actually, I don't believe that's the case. I know of very few people who fly if it's under 5 hours of driving anymore. For many families, it's more like 8 or 10. Buy the time they factor in the huge wait and the airline hassle factor, they just drive instead.

The state of airline security has driven alot of families to the roads these days. Being dumped on by the airlines will only add more folks to the highways.

 

[ducklite]

Individually, leisure travelers may not matter....but you lump them together, and they matter a great deal.

And you get a trashy reputation for customer service, and you don't stay around forever, either.

But customer service is subjective. Personally I think that they need to value the business of their most regular flyers over someone who flies every now and then, regardless of the reason for the travel.

Back to the original post. I'm sure that the OP will be able to sit next to her youngest. I'm not sure that her two older children will be able to sit with a parent, it's more likely that they might be able to sit together without a parent. In other words a 2, a 2, and a 1.

She needs to be REALISTIC and educate them in what they might need to know--how and when they can use the Gameboys, put their seat back, etc. How to handle an emergency--and NO, she is not going to be able to climb over other passengers to get to them--that is unrealistic and NOT going to happen.

Anne

 

[jodifla]

But you are ALL missing the point. They don't depend on either. They depend on the LOYAL FREQUENT TRAVELER who flies for whatever reason.

I don't care WHY you fly. I fly regularly and am loyal, and THAT and ONLY THAT is what really matters. I do'nt think US Airway's bean counters give a hoot the purpose of my travel--except it might be helpful to know that I have complete autonomy over what carrier I choose, and often choose them even if they are more expensive due to the perks I get for my dollars.

Anne

Well, at least I can take solace in the fact I don't fly US Airways.

 

[delilah]

But it's also completely unrealistic to think that every person who attends one of these conferences brings their entire family four times a year. Once is probably more the norm.

Because you are not loyal to one carrier and are only traveling with the entire family a couple times a year, and probably booking a couple months or more out so booking on a liesure fare, you really aren't having a huge impact on any carriers bottom line. Someone like Safety mom who travels every single week on the same carrier is a far more important passenger as far as the bottom line goes.

Anne

In my experience, the vast majority do. Particularly at conferences at WDW or other resort areas. I do attend Pri-Med, which is held at Rosemont Conference center near Ohare. That conference lasts from about 6am to 8pm, and I usually go alone to that one. But, most of the conferences in nice locations are usually magnets for doctors with families, primary care doctors like me. Most of the conferences I've attended have special family activities planned (like a special autograph session at GF for attendees and their families with Disney characters, to name one example). It must be pretty profitable for Disney for them to have the characters come in the evening no less to our conference. I think the only people who didn't bring the kids didn't have kids.

 

[grimley1968]

But you are ALL missing the point. They don't depend on either. They depend on the LOYAL FREQUENT TRAVELER who flies for whatever reason.

I don't care WHY you fly. I fly regularly and am loyal, and THAT and ONLY THAT is what really matters. I do'nt think US Airway's bean counters give a hoot the purpose of my travel--except it might be helpful to know that I have complete autonomy over what carrier I choose, and often choose them even if they are more expensive due to the perks I get for my dollars.

Anne

Dependence on "loyal frequent travelers" at the expense of the satisfaction of new and/or infrequent travelers is a recipe for disaster. Just as many of the major carriers would go bankrupt or out of business entirely if a pilot's strike shut them down in for as little as a few days, the major carriers would also face the same fate ignoring the satisfaction of any segment of their passenger market. They operate on too tight a margin not to try their hardest to satisfy passengers of all stripes and loyalties.

Maybe this is a big part of the reason why Delta, United, etc. are in such dire financial straits as they're in now.

 

[Lewisc]

Airlines used to depend on the travelers, mainly business, that weren't price sensitive and were willing to pay a price premium for restrictions such the Saturday stay over. The traditional business traveler.

A loyal traveler that only books deeply discounted fares isn't the kind of customer an airline can depend on either.

But you are ALL missing the point. They don't depend on either. They depend on the LOYAL FREQUENT TRAVELER who flies for whatever reason.

 

[ducklite]

My post must have been poorly worded, I though I was saying the exact opposite. Airlines can't continue rely on the willingness of business travelers to pay premium pricing. They need to charge the lowly leisure passenger more money. Some people in this board aren't happy unless they can book a R/T fare from the NE to MCO for not much more than $100. Maybe those passengers should be given the middle seats reserving the better seats to passengers paying more money.

The point is airlines need to figure out how to profitably price the leisure market.

Many (most?) parents don't expect other famlies to be split up, couples be split up or even a single passenger moved to a middle seat just so they can sit next to their older child.

I agree that seating should be based on frequent flier status and cost of ticket. I would gladly pay more for a ticket to get my near the front of the plane aisle seat on carriers taht I do'nt ahve the elite status to grab one of those seats out of a reserved block to begin with.

Anne