
Bait and switch - terpua
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/07/bait-and-switch.html
======
ricree
The best way to get the fees under control would be for the major online
ticket finders to start delisting airlines that were not upfront about their
fees. It's a risky choice on their part, but as it stands the travel sites
have the most to lose. Any way you look at it, a lot of people are still going
to fly regardless of the hidden fees, so there is little incentive there for
the airlines to back down. Travel sites, on the other hand, depend on
providing consumers with convenience and value. If consumers can no longer
trust the ticket prices that they find there, then they simply won't bother
with them anymore.

In short, consumer behavior isn't going to change, and airlines have no reason
to change. Travel sites have the most to lose from these fees and the greatest
ability to cause a change. If this trend is going to reverse, it has to come
from them.

------
ckinnan
The government is a big part of the problem. The airlines can't do much to
control the ground experience in government airports. That's where the
security hassles, bag delays, long lines, and uncomfortable waits occur. The
airlines could better differentiate themselves if they had more control over
the total travel experience.

Also, did you know that the US blocks foreign ownership of airlines? That
capital and competition would help too.

~~~
ajross
Except that the example given was Air Canada, which the last time I checked
was indeed a foreign-owned airline. This is a global problem right now, and
it's based on fundamental economics. Airlines are selling a commodity product
in a competitive market at a time where operation costs are rising steeply.
You can't "compete" your way out of that. Things won't stabilize until flight
pricing comes to equilibrium again.

~~~
derefr
It seems to me that, for one reason or another, airlines that fly _to_ the US
have to adopt the US' draconian pre-flight policies in order to be allowed to
make the trips.

------
philipcristiano
I was checking flights recently and found that a one-way trip to London would
cost $950. For both flights of a round-trip it would cost $750. Both plus
taxes of course.

It is cheaper for me to book a round trip and just not take the return flight
then to fly one way. Huh?

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's an attempt at price discrimination by the airlines.

If you are moving to London for the long term, you'll pay $950 without
thinking about it. If you are going on vacation, you might be price sensitive.
It worked much better before the internet.

------
OneSeventeen
I had a pretty horrible experience with an airline recently (I won't regale
y'all) and it has had me thinking about ways to fix air travel in the US. I
had a few ideas on how an outside company might help, but I don't think
they're actually tenable. Will it take the collapse of several major airlines
for someone on the "inside" to fix stuff? The article posted here a while ago
about Alaskan was pretty heartening.

------
ilamont
One of the worst thing about airline fees is that online searches on travel
sites don't always reflect required fees, such as international fuel
surcharges. This makes price rankings suspect, is unfair to airlines which are
up-front about these costs or build them into the ticket price, and adds a
burden to ordinary people, who have to hunt through the conditions to make
sure the price is as advertised.

------
cjh
What I don't understand about the airlines is the completely arbitrary weight
limit/fee structure.

Why is it that if I have two bags, one weighing 60 lbs. and one weighing 40
lbs. do I get charged an excess weight fee; yet if both those bags weighed 50
lbs. I would incur no penalty.

One ticket agent explained the issue was related to fuel consumption, but
charging me for my bag does not make the bag weigh less (and let's not mention
my above point that the total weight of the bags -- if distributed evenly --
would cost me nothing extra).

Another has explained it as being an issue with weight distribution, but I'm
sure if they put one heavy bag on the left (or front) for two light bags on
the right (or back) that the overall weight would distribute fairly even (not
exact, but this is a jet airliner not a game of Jenga).

Truly its sad that the airlines have to resort to such penny-pinching
measures.

~~~
lutorm
The thing that drives me mad is that if my bag is over 50lbs, I have to pay.
Yet someone who weighs 200lbs (60 more than I do) can fly for the same price.
You should be charged for total weight of the stuff you put on the airplane!

~~~
maw
The thing that drives me mad is that if I want legroom, I have to pay. Yet
someone who's short (feet shorter than I am) can get legroom for the same
price. You should be charged for the total amount of legroom you get!

------
mattmaroon
It's funny that he mentions the TSA. It's true that the negative experience
with them makes you think less of the airlines, even though logically you know
it isn't their fault, in the same way that you blame Windows when an app bugs
out.

But it doesn't make you think any less of any particular airline relative to
their competition, because they all suffer from the same thing. Unless there's
some legal way for an airline to circumvent the security lines (and I have to
think there isn't or we'd already have that) there's no competitive
disadvantage there.

------
utnick
Is there any research being done into electric/hybrid airplanes?

In 20 years oil costs could make flying very unpractical.

~~~
evgen
"Hybrid" is a non-starter for an airplane. It spends 99% of its time running
in the "sweet spot" of the turbine performance envelope, there are no starts
and stops for which regenerative braking or a switch from the turbine to some
sort of electrical propulsion would help. Electrical power is problematic
because batteries and other forms of electrical energy storage still suck.
There are solar-electric planes being developed for long-term station-keeping
tasks, but they are slow and have almost no payload capacity.

Turbine jets are basically the best thing we know of for performing this
specific task. We might be able to improve the fuel they are burning, but
nothing is going to replace them for the next couple of decades at least.

~~~
ajross
The first paragraph is spot on, but the second is just wrong. Turbojets fly
much faster than needed, for the convenience of the passengers. Drag goes as
the square of speed, so per-distance fuel economy scales as the inverse of the
trip time. One certainly can do much better than a turbojet simply by swapping
the fan for a larger geared propeller and flying at half the speed.

~~~
pchristensen
Good freaking luck trying to sell half-speed flights. Maybe as part of a
national security deal - less oil used for airline fuel due to slower flights
in exchange for removing some painful, slow, ineffective security screening.

~~~
khafra
You'd never buy a half-speed flight. I'd buy a half-speed flight from Tampa to
NYC if it were 2/3 the price of the jet flight. My poorer friends would buy
the route on a 1/4 speed airship if it were cheap enough. People have
different sensitivities to time vs. money.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
I might even pay more for a trip by Zeppelin...

------
edw519
OP overlooks one critical counterexample: Southwest Airlines.

They are excellent. They pretty much blow everyone else away. I won't fly
anyone else anymore.

Why?

\- I can buy one way tickets and get full credit back anytime

\- They are very often on time

\- Customer service is excellent, they are upbeat and positive

\- The website is excellent

\- Their prices are very competitive

\- I can choose my own seat away from the children and talkers

My advice to any other airline: Figure out what Southwest is doing and do that
too. Stop complaining and looking for government bailouts. If one airline can
be successful (60+ consecutive profitable quarters, growth, and raving fans),
more than one can do it.

~~~
blogimus
Up to now, it has not hurt them in their fuel hedging:

<http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/southwest_airli.html>

~~~
bprater
Yep, enjoy it while it lasts. A good chunk of their profits comes from that
hedging, so when they have to redo their agreements, the belt will probably
tighten.

~~~
fallentimes
I wouldn't be so sure. Even after 9/11, Southwest had minimal layoffs. Source:
<http://tinyurl.com/5mbq9y>

While I certainly agree that fuel hedging has played a large role in their
current short-term profitability, there's a lot more at work than well timed
utilization of financial derivatives.

