USAirways has jumped the shark

[olympus593]

I'm going to disagree with you there. This $2 charge is not going to do anything other than anger the passengers. How much extra revenue is this expected to generate anyways? It's certainly not enough to even come close to making them profitable.

This reminds me of when NW decided to stop serving pretzels on their flights in order to save a whopping 2 million dollars. Doug Steenland makes that amount in a few months.

This $2 charge might get them some extra money, but I guarantee it will be a small amount, not even close to what the executives paychecks are, meanwhile it will enrage the passengers who feel even more nickel n' dimed. It's just not worth it.

If you know all the answer stop flying, get a CEO job and get you 2M/year, wish I was as smart as you so I could do it.

 

[Ocity]

I'm going to disagree with you there. This $2 charge is not going to do anything other than anger the passengers. How much extra revenue is this expected to generate anyways? It's certainly not enough to even come close to making them profitable.

This reminds me of when NW decided to stop serving pretzels on their flights in order to save a whopping 2 million dollars. Doug Steenland makes that amount in a few months.

This $2 charge might get them some extra money, but I guarantee it will be a small amount, not even close to what the executives paychecks are, meanwhile it will enrage the passengers who feel even more nickel n' dimed. It's just not worth it.

I know that this is simply embarrassing. Who would have ever thought... However, if that soda money keeps 5 more guys employed and providing for the family, then F-it. Charge the two bucks. There is always grey hound, driving or just walking. It's a different world now.

 

[BigMeat]

35% paycuts, I think I have already paid for it.

Exactly!

 

[UALjan15]

I'm going to disagree with you there. This $2 charge is not going to do anything other than anger the passengers. How much extra revenue is this expected to generate anyways? It's certainly not enough to even come close to making them profitable.

This $2 charge might get them some extra money, but I guarantee it will be a small amount, not even close to what the executives paychecks are, meanwhile it will enrage the passengers who feel even more nickel n' dimed. It's just not worth it.

You might be right....but to answer your question, the suits say $300-400m per year for all of the extra charges that have been "unbundled." It may be nickels and dimes, but that's a lot of zeroes by the end of the year! Many on this thread seem to imply that they are trying to make up for the cost of the Coke--NO! They are trying to create any and all possible revenue streams to make of for the cost of fuel.

I'm not saying that I agree with this strategy--I believe we're just playing right into Southwest's hand. They've already got the commercial airing with the flight attendant announcing all of the extra charges for Christ's sake! After most of the airlines follow this lead, SWA is going to be looked at as the "extra perks" airline where the passenger gets everything they need built into the ticket price. I'm much more in favor of the rate hike vs. the unbundling strategy, and I can't understand why any airline (besides SWA) isn't matching any and all rate hikes floated out on the market.

BTW, I just looked for the infamous $99 transcon, and I found nothing even close. A random search for mid-July gave me a R/T fare of around $500+ to go SFO/IAD, and a little more competitive at just over $400 to go SFO/JFK. SWA looked to be the price leader (big surprise), but I figured VA would be charging less than they actually are.

 

[greyskyracer]

what about the safety issue for the pax? Since no airlines run their APU for air on the ground it gets mighty hot in the cabin. Now someone with the on set of heatstroke who is very thirsty has to scrounge $2 up so they can live let alone be comfortable. Soda I can maybe, I stress Maybe, but water is ridiculous. As others have said if airlines just had the balls to raise ticket prices $5-10 and keep the fares up we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

I asked my CP about charing for water in a hot airplane. He told me if it is hot I can comp it. I expect to be doing that alot this summer since I fly a dash.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Look at Ryan Air in the EU and how they charge for everything including wheelchair service...

Look at it this way.... why should someone pay for a can of soda if they don't like soda? If I like Coca Cola and the airline serves Pepsi why should one have to pay for it....

Ala carte allows consumers to pay for only the consumables they really need (want).

 

[imacdog]

Yep, and once they learn the deal, they'll just pay for that stuff in the terminal before they board the airplane. Not even the terminal shops are charging two dollars for a can of coke. Consider this decision to sell everything on board a win for the terminal vendors.

 

[SaturnPilot]

If you know all the answer stop flying, get a CEO job and get you 2M/year, wish I was as smart as you so I could do it.

brilliant response...I was merely giving my opinion that this will probably anger more passengers than generate enough revenue to make a difference.

I realize the extra benefit that airlines are getting by charging for things in addition to the tickets (checked bags, nicer seats, etc), and I agree those will all help out. I just think $2 soda is a little much. Whether or not you think it's ok, I'm merely pointing out that it's probably going to piss off the pax a lot more that any of the other charges they have instituted.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and $2 soda is the answer to our problems.

 

[Sandstorm]

Does that soda not have the same COST to the company regardless of who consumes it?

How would you justify to a passenger why you get a free drink but they have to open their wallet?

Is this really a serious question? (sorry if im unable to detect a hint of sarcasm) I think our concessions and the legalized theft from our company has more than paid for our share of water.

This question is on the same stupidity level of a passenger asking how come we are allowed to take liquids through security and they aren't.

 

[BoilerUP]

Is this really a serious question? (sorry if im unable to detect a hint of sarcasm)

Yes, it is a serious question...think about it rhetorically. Cutting free snacks and then free beverages lowers costs, and subsequently charging for snacks and beverages opens new revenue streams. All the time, the cost of that beverage hasn't changed; in fact its probably increased.

If $2 for a drink makes the sole difference between the survival and failure of your company, then yeah I think an employee should be willing to pay it.

I think our concessions and the legalized theft from our company has more than paid for our share of water.

As a former AWACer, I don't disagree with that! Crews should NEVER have to pay for a beverage while working, or for a bottle or two of water for the RON.

This question is on the same stupidity level of a passenger asking how come we are allowed to take liquids through security and they aren't.

Apples to oranges, friend...10 year federal background checks and operational security don't have sh!t to do with charging $2 for a Coke.

I really can't believe more crewmembers aren't opposed to this new policy. I'd be horribly embarrassed to ask an FA for a cup of coffee or a soda in front of passengers. I personally couldn't look a passenger in the eye and tell them I deserve a free drink and they don't, especially when I have no idea if they paid $99 or $899 for their ticket. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a flight attendant these days...