Aviation industry tries to undercut key change

[IBNAV8R]

Maybe so but doing that to children is still f'ing retarded. Shows no class and laziness. There are so many cool things to show children all over this country but I see these dip$hits all the time who only care about getting to the beach/disney/mountains/etc. as fast as they can.

I'm not clear on your post.

Is it the the guy who is trying to save money or is it the guy trying to get there as fast as possible who is the dip$hit?

Is it the guy who flies or drives that who is classless and lazy?

Children having to ride in a car and maybe look out the window - Oh the horror.

Or is it worse to subject them to the Theater of Security Actors?

 

[IBNAV8R]

But on topic. IMHO 1,500 hours is a bit much. A 2/3 time credit for mommy and daddy funded charm school is a bit much too. My proposal, for all it's worth:

1,000 TT, 100 Multi, 100 Inst. If they have a degree from an accredited aviation school which includes flight training from zero time to Comm, ASMEL, drop the TT requirement to 800 hours.

 

[Mamma]

Hell. This airline pilot has an 800 mile trip coming up for the holidays. Let's explore the options:

1. Non rev over the holidays (4 eligible) Zed fares + $200 "membership" fee + 2 full fare tickets ($412/ea) - approx $1500 (6 hours to several days + hotels)

2. Buy full fare tickets $412 ea X 6 = $2472+whatever #$%^ing fees they are charging by then. ( 6 hours each way including drive to airport, checking in and dealing with the Ministry of Love)

3. Train - 3 x Superliner roomettes $1868 (30 hours each way)

4. Train - 6 Economy reserved seats $847

5. Drive - (1000 highway miles, 18 hours each way/3 drivers) Approx $330

To each their own! Just where are you going that ZED fares cost $1500 for 1000 miles? And are you renting a C-182 to fly in? It should only take 2 hours to fly 1000 miles. I can get non-rev SWA tickets for $39 each way everything included. Have fun on the 36 hours of hell driving. Sounds like you have vacation time to burn. I used to do that when I was in my early 20s and we made a blast out of it but now I value my time much more and don't do that kind of thing. Plus the kids make lousy long haul passengers.

 

[likeitis]

I'm not clear on your post.

Is it the the guy who is trying to save money or is it the guy trying to get there as fast as possible who is the dip$hit?

Is it the guy who flies or drives that who is classless and lazy?

Children having to ride in a car and maybe look out the window - Oh the horror.

Or is it worse to subject them to the Theater of Security Actors?

Throwing children in a car for 15-20 hours straight just to get there and maybe save a hotel night. Wonder why we have fat, lazy children who can't remove themselves from their PSP's or IPOD's. What do you expect them to do being locked in a car for that long.

 

[IBNAV8R]

I guess my folks were just abusive when we drove cross country - without seat belts a DVD player or anything that took batteries. God forbid my folks would have expected good behavior. And no, I did NOT want him to "pull this car over."

 

[jtf]

I don't agree that the airlines can't afford to pay more. If everyone has to pay more, than the pricing power will be there to raise prices. Maybe not as many people will fly as could have, but the prices will still be low enough for most. What percentage of ticket price is labor anyway? Adding just 1 dollar to every ticket and you've got a pretty good raise for the entire cabin crew. Adding a little more would beef it up too and still keep the prices reasonable. If everyone has to pay more for labor, than everyone can charge more overall for seats (though there would still probably be some ever present price wars to try to thin out the heard).

My biggest question here is why is ALPA endorsing increased training instead of 1500 hours. I would think if they were going to actually do what is best for their members, they would endorse training plus 1500 hours. The 1500 hours will boost pay and they operate off a percentage don't they? Have they told their reasoning for this (I am gladly no longer represented by them and I am curious if this endorsement is being paid off by the airlines or schools or someone or if it just somehow benefits those in control- members be damned)? Congress passing a the law in the first place is like a gift from above to give the union members some pricing power of their own and now the same representatives who have repeatedly hosed their membership (the ALPA group I formerly worked for was hosed by ALPA National) is actively trying to take bargaining power away from themselves. If they don't have some air tight reasoning that I haven't seen, I sure hope more and more pilot groups will stand up and decertify in favor of in-house or other unions that will actually look out for them. ALPA definitely was great at one time, but their series of poor choices has brought a proud legacy down.

 

[livin'thesim]

How do you know just how many people will not buy the $99 ticket when it goes up to $105? When the airlines just made record profits do you think there might be some flexibility in ticket prices? Little Alaska just made $100 million. That is a significant premium on ticket prices and associated fees. Are you saying there is NO flexibility there? You seem to think pilot wages are the lynch-pin in ticket prices but they are not. Fuel has gone up and I don't see our planes getting less full. Why are pilots the only villains in the price of a ticket in your book?

Whether or not you agree with Yip, he is correct from an economics standpoint.

All supply/demand curves are usually smooth.

If you raise the ticket price from from 99 to 109, you will lose some passengers - that is simple fact.

The question is HOW MANY you will lose. Half a percent? Three percent?

The supply/demand curve can predict that outcome somewhat.



But that is not the whole story - since more revenue is made on the passengers that remain, total profit may increase. Or remain the same. OR decrease.


Every link in the supply/demand chain of air travel must participate in the supply/demand pricing.

There is no way to permanently insulate pilots from the variances in pricing. Right now, the US is entering a period of wage deflation. Since all pilot/company bargaining is accomplished by human beings, the pricing of the labor of those people WILL be subject to those economic laws.

You may as well get mad at the weather.

 

[kf4amu]

Whether or not you agree with Yip, he is correct from an economics standpoint.

All supply/demand curves are usually smooth.

If you raise the ticket price from from 99 to 109, you will lose some passengers - that is simple fact.

The question is HOW MANY you will lose. Half a percent? Three percent?

If all carriers do it, very little. People who pay 300 for a ticket will pay 309 without thinking.

If only one raises prices, or only one does NOT raise prices, it will not be successful...it's a commodity business, margins are thin, and most customers buy on price and schedule.

 

[pilotyip]

Whether or not you agree with Yip, he is correct from an economics standpoint.

All supply/demand curves are usually smooth.

If you raise the ticket price from from 99 to 109, you will lose some passengers - that is simple fact.

The question is HOW MANY you will lose. Half a percent? Three percent?

The supply/demand curve can predict that outcome somewhat.



But that is not the whole story - since more revenue is made on the passengers that remain, total profit may increase. Or remain the same. OR decrease.


Every link in the supply/demand chain of air travel must participate in the supply/demand pricing.

There is no way to permanently insulate pilots from the variances in pricing. Right now, the US is entering a period of wage deflation. Since all pilot/company bargaining is accomplished by human beings, the pricing of the labor of those people WILL be subject to those economic laws.

You may as well get mad at the weather.

Thank you, nicely said. As posted before I have nothing against pilots making more money, but you can not ignore the source of the money for the raise. If your company is raking in obnoxious profits, then it is time to share with all employees. I think sometimes pilots forget that other employees may also want raises if the pilot get raises. If the company is marginally profitable, then there is no room to increase costs.

 

[rigger]

Thank you, nicely said. As posted before I have nothing against pilots making more money, but you can not ignore the source of the money for the raise. If your company is raking in obnoxious profits, then it is time to share with all employees. I think sometimes pilots forget that other employees may also want raises if the pilot get raises. If the company is marginally profitable, then there is no room to increase costs.

Damn It YIP STOP IT!!!! This using common sense thing has got to stop on this forum!!! These greedy companies must be stopped they are not allowed to make any profit they must SHARE the wealth equally!

 

[pilotyip]

Damn It YIP STOP IT!!!! This using common sense thing has got to stop on this forum!!! These greedy companies must be stopped they are not allowed to make any profit they must SHARE the wealth equally!

I'm sorry, I some times get carried away and go into this reality thing, which really has no place on this site

 

[rice]

YIP,
Using your logic, loads should have plummeted when $25-$35 (each way) checked bag fee's hit the market. Now I'm no economist but it's been my experience that most every flight that I've been on in the past 3 - 5 years has been north of 90% full.
Again I doubt that a $10 fare increase would have much impact on the traveling public. However, that $10 per ticket could go a looooooong way towards a pay increase.

 

[AKMD80GUY]

Just my .02 but I went to ERAU on my own dime. I flight instructed, flew night single pilot 135, and flew night cargo in a twin. You can't put a price on experience. Because I had students try to kill me and then scare the hell out of my self flying in all kinds of weather at night etc...I'm a better pilot for it. You can train someone with no time to fly a big jet but it takes years of experience to make you safe. You can't train the big picture and common sense.

 

[pilotyip]

YIP,
Using your logic, loads should have plummeted when $25-$35 (each way) checked bag fee's hit the market. Now I'm no economist but it's been my experience that most every flight that I've been on in the past 3 - 5 years has been north of 90% full.
Again I doubt that a $10 fare increase would have much impact on the traveling public. However, that $10 per ticket could go a looooooong way towards a pay increase.

Hey then go for it, with your logic there should be no impact, no slowing of growth, no reduction in flying, however one of us might be wrong.

 

[Mamma]

Whether or not you agree with Yip, he is correct from an economics standpoint.

All supply/demand curves are usually smooth.

If you raise the ticket price from from 99 to 109, you will lose some passengers - that is simple fact.

The question is HOW MANY you will lose. Half a percent? Three percent?

The supply/demand curve can predict that outcome somewhat.



But that is not the whole story - since more revenue is made on the passengers that remain, total profit may increase. Or remain the same. OR decrease.


Every link in the supply/demand chain of air travel must participate in the supply/demand pricing.

There is no way to permanently insulate pilots from the variances in pricing. Right now, the US is entering a period of wage deflation. Since all pilot/company bargaining is accomplished by human beings, the pricing of the labor of those people WILL be subject to those economic laws.

You may as well get mad at the weather.

I never said supply and demand was not part of the equation BUT, are you stating as a fact that airline prices right now are at the break point? One more dollar and enough people are going to start dropping off to affect the bottom line? If you want to use supply and demand to prove your point take this example: If you go to a market that is served by only one carrier you will notice the prices are very high compared to markets that have multiple competitors. That higher price market is still filling the plane or the price would be much lower. So, that alone establishes that people are willing to sacrifice more money for more time. Many may choose to drive, but many choose to still fly. Those markets are far and few between as most markets have competition and in the age of internet purchasing, the carriers have to match the lowest fare....even if they lose money. Its called keeping market share. So, I say you and YIP are correct in the assumption that a $10 add-on to a ticket might chase away 4-5 people and that add-on will cover for their loss and increase profits. You are incorrect in that tickets are at a break point and the bottom line would be affected by small increases. YIP is also incorrect in believing that the consumer is setting the ticket price. The competition is and as recent add-ons have shown, the consumer is still willing to pay more.

I also contend that most leisure travelers would chose to save time vs a few bucks and fly. If I had to drive from Seattle to Dallas, I would lost a lot of precious vacation time; work time; productivity time and so forth. If I was retired and on a limited budget, I may not want to put all the wear and tear on my car. Maybe I would not want to drive during the winter or hot summer. I think YIP is in an extreme minority of people who would drive 1100 miles to save $200.

Last, I am for reasonable pay. I think we should be compensated for our skill-set appropriately. Supply and demand has a role. I notice when we are over supplied with pilots, the wages fall and vice versa. The economy plays a big roll too. It's a cyclical thing but there is a "fight" over the limited piece of pie at each company and it is the union's obligation to get a fair deal for their members and the company. Has the deal been fair lately? Maybe not so much given historical standards, but I am all for them going up some more...especially for regional pilots and gutter-ball outfits.

Anyway, at least the debate is respectful and we each have our own opinions. Now I will go get mad at the weather. Whatever that means.