This is a great place to start, as it actually makes any further discussion with you about this mute
However, I will continue, in case others do care about why airfare is greater than historical values, and by default, their expectations.
I assume you mean moot?
To be honest, the airlines also know that a large portion of infrequent flyers feel this way (which is why Spirit Airlines is still around), and that is why it is humorous to hear people threaten airline staff to take their business somewhere else, as these travelers are governed by the price and not service/amenities. It also means these consumers have no real foundation to lodge a service or price complaint, the reason this thread and others were started on the topic, as even if the airline makes a concession, the person will just jump to the next (perceived) lower cost ticket.
Most industry surveys would indicate "brand loyalty" to the legacy carriers is pretty much gone in the leisure sect. FF programs help, but not enough.
Price, convenience and service are pretty much king. The name on the tail fin doesn't much matter with the legacies..except with certain sects of the business traveler.
Also interesting....the discount (Southwest, Jetblue) do much better at it.
There's a nice long tangent in there about how the legacy carriers (at least a couple) should be allowed to fail so they (maybe) examine their awful management structure and are forced to stop operating like dinosaurs. But not for this (or likely any DIS) thread. Too techie, too political.
I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement. I read the word :gauge" out of context, and determined it was likely mispelled,
as the definition of gauge is to measure:
and appeared you went on to note the fluctuation in airline fees. What were you saying?
I can't tell if you've made an honest mistake or what.
That quote didn't come from me. It came from Wish upon a star (the OP). THEY are the one who talked about "gauging"/gouging. Attributing it to me, if it's not a mistake, is pretty dishonest.
I'd suggest you correct the mistake (and edit the post I'm quoting).
The entire point of my saying "I wasn't accusing them of gouging" was to differentiate my position.
This is interesting, as it was not my intention to imply this in any way. What I was hoping to do was make the argument that airlines currently operate on a very thin margin per flight. While the tickets may be increasing at a rate that causes infrequent travelers pause, it isn't simply to increase their margin; rather, it is to cover the cost of doing business. Profit margins have remained relatively the same, and in some cases, decreased.
On the other hand, it sounded to me like some argue that the airlines should set a base rate, regardless of cost, and stick with it to appease the infrequent flying public? This does seem unrealistic, as katie stated, since the cost of operating a flight fluctuates with fuel, labor, maintenance, and other forces as the day of travel approaches.
I was trying to understand what was being communicated, beyond the basic economics lesson of supply and demand. Of course, I agree with basic market forces, and really enjoy seeing them in action.
I was hoping to ask for additional clarification of these points, within the context of vacation travel to/from Orlando. Would it be best to go to pre-deregulation pricing matrices? That way most of America would be priced out of the market, and they would know it. (one of the Boarding Area blogs makes mention of bringing back high service airlines)
Thanks for your time!
Here's the problem:
You're arguing as if someone said "This is what the airlines should charge for flights".
Nobody has really done that. I've revisited the conversation to see. At least not when the conversation started, with my response to kaytieeldr (there may have been statements after the fact, and I invite you to continue that piece with those posters).
They said "This is what I'll pay" or "I won't pay that" or "I wouldn't want to pay that".
The first is a statement suggesting how the airlines should do business.
The second is a statement of what price point has to exist for a specific consumer to enter the market. You're, essentially, arguing the first point against the second.
You can't tell any consumer they
have to "adjust" their pricepoint because it's unrealistic compared to the airlines costs. Because they don't. They can just choose not to enter the market. My point from the get go.
The way consumers (as a herd) "tell" the airline how to price their fares is just that. If enough people shun the airlines due to price....THAT'S what tells the airline how much they can charge. If they can't exist within that space..they'd have to shutter.
Wish upon a star (and others) is simply exerting their small bit of control over the market.
Working as intended.
Never said I would only fly if it was like 89 . . .while that would be awesome, I'm not unrealistic.
