
How we buy plane tickets and why it's ruining air travel - jaf12duke
http://blog.flightcaster.com/how-we-buy-plane-tickets-and-why-its-ruining
======
sshumaker
How do you expect consumers to view flying as anything but a commodity when I
can pay 2x more then the customer sitting next to me? The airlines, with their
byzantine and constantly shifting prices, have totally ruined any correlation
between 'price' and 'value'. It's completely arbitrary from the point of view
of the consumer. I might end up an old plane with a horrible seating
configuration, or a brand new plane with plenty of legroom and in-flight
entertainment. All on the same airline, between the same cities. My experience
has no correlation with the price I'm paying, unless I decide to pony up for
business class. Even then, among business class, there's a big difference
among airlines.

The industry is so concerned with extracting the maximum amount per customer,
they forget that it's more important to grow their customer base.

That said, I've been flying almost exclusively Virgin (America/Atlantic) for
the last year or two, and they are definitely a cut above. Virgin America has
an entire fleet of brand new planes, comfortable seats, personal in-flight
entertainment and wifi, and great staff. Virgin Atlantic has Premium Economy,
which is so worth the extra few hundred dollars (as opposed to the 2x for
business) for flights to Europe. Here, at least, I can justify the price
difference, at least vis-a-vis competing airlines.

~~~
amohr
+1 for Virgin. I've never flown (I live in Chicago and they don't hit O'Hare)
but I've heard almost exclusively good things. They are doing exactly what
needs to be done in these giant, somewhat stagnant industries - introducing a
brand with a customer-centric model, offering a "premium" service. Of course,
in the world of air travel, it takes surprisingly little to distinguish
yourself from the notoriously horrendous experience of dealing with other
major lines.

Last year, there was a Wakefield/Wi-Fi Alliance study that found 76% of
travelers would choose an airline based on wi-fi availability.
([http://www.wi-fi.org/news_articles.php?f=media_news&news...](http://www.wi-
fi.org/news_articles.php?f=media_news&news_id=847)) A number which, I can only
imagine, has been increasing over time. And, as we've seen (re: Starbucks)
there's a big difference between wi-fi and free wi-fi. As far as I can tell
skimming a couple searches, there doesn't seem to be any line that offers free
wifi... yet.

It seems like there's a coming sea-change, however. The going theory is that
free wi-fi is going to be a standard check-box item by the middle of next year
- with many assuming Virgin and SWA will likely be leading the way.

On a related note, I fly pretty much exclusively Southwest. I took my first
flight at just over a week old and have flown pretty regularly ever since.
About 6-7 years ago, I made the change to flying SWA whenever possible and
haven't looked back. Last time I flew to SF, it took two different flights
with a transfer in between - and I got a free drink on both.

~~~
mrduncan
_Last year, there was a Wakefield/Wi-Fi Alliance study that found 76% of
travelers would choose an airline based on wi-fi availability._

I'd imagine Wi-Fi Alliance might have some biases here.

Since in-flight wifi is just a satellite connection, I'm sure the overall
available bandwidth is fairly limited. Charging for wifi is a good middle
ground for airlines as a way to make a few extra dollars but also to keep
usage to a level that the uplink can handle.

Are their any airlines that currently offer free wifi? I know that SWA did
during their testing phase a while back (which only consisted of 3-4 equipped
planes) but they eventually started charging for it like everyone else.

~~~
scotje
The in-flight WiFi on Virgin America (and most domestic carriers as far as I
know) is a cellular based system, not satellite.

<http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/cms/work.do>

~~~
mrduncan
Very interesting. Even with a cellular based system, I'm sure there isn't too
much bandwidth available but much more than with a satellite connection I'd
imagine.

------
akeefer
One thing I think that this analysis misses is the fact that, for most people,
you're not going to enjoy the flight no matter what. At that point most people
shift from "maximize enjoyment" mode, where paying more for something better
is more rational, to "minimize costs mode." If I'm going to spend 5 hours
being uncomfortable whether I spend $300 or $500, what's the point in paying
more?

I think there's a certain enjoyment threshold below which something becomes
"unpleasant," and moving from one state below that threshold to another state
also below that threshold isn't as valuable as a similar state shift would be
if the initial state happened to be above that threshold.

~~~
ghshephard
"you're not going to enjoy the flight no matter what."

Why aren't there carriers that try and create a comfortable and enjoyable
flight experience? The article spent a great deal of time explaining that
people pay on two factors, price and schedule. Attempting to differentiate on
comfort doesn't win you more customers, therefore, the carriers aren't
incented to create a comfortable flight experience.

I've certainly had some really outstanding flight experiences, usually when
being upgraded.

But, I think I see what you are getting at - we're so far beyond that point
right now, that subtle increases in comfort won't register - you need a
quantum leap - something akin to moving into first class, to really capture
people's imagination.

~~~
amalcon
They could start by putting seats in the plane that do not recline. I'd easily
pay an extra $20 per ticket to not place my knees at the mercy of whatever
random person happens to sit in front of me, and it should actually be
_cheaper_ for the airline.

This is really the only significant differential I've ever had in flying
experience, on AirTran/JetBlue/Southwest/Delta/United: Whether or not the
person in front of me chooses to recline their seat.

~~~
mrduncan
Just another illustration of how vastly different flying experiences can be on
the exact same airline.

If you're not already aware, seats that have their backs to an exit row never
recline. So, your best bet (until an airline offers you your wish) would be
either an exit-row seat or a bulkhead seat.

~~~
detst
At 6'3", this is the difference between a miserable and pleasant flying
experience.

And if you don't want to pay the extra fee usually charged, immediately go to
the counter and request it. Usually there are exit-row seats that nobody paid
for and they'll give it to you.

~~~
mrduncan
I feel your pain, I'm 6'4".

A tip for flying Southwest (who doesn't assign seats): Don't be scared to hop
into one of the exit row seats, they are fair game like all other seats. I
notice that a lot of people will walk right by them (who are traveling alone
and could obviously use the extra leg room) just because there is a flight
attendant standing in the row. Just ask if you can slide in, they are just
standing there to get out of the way waiting for the rows to fill up so they
can give the exit-row speech.

------
autarch
I'm 6'7" (200 cm), so being stuck in a typical economy class seat is
_extremely_ uncomfortable for me.

On my next long trip (from Minneapolis to Italy), I chose to spend about
double for business class, because the prospect of 10 hours flying in economy
literally terrifies me.

When I fly to Taiwan I make a point of traveling on Eva (a Taiwanese airline)
which has a class between economy & business (like Virgin). It's well worth
the extra cost for a 12 hour flight.

I would gladly pay a premium for exit row or galley seats with more legroom. I
still don't understand why airlines don't consistently sell these seats in
advance.

In years when I'm flying a lot, I _always_ stick with the same airline.
Getting elite status gives you free upgrades and first crack at some of the
more comfortable seats.

All of which is to say that price & schedule are not really my #1
considerations.

~~~
detst
I haven't flown too many different airlines recently but some do sell exit-row
seats in advance and usually don't sell them all so asking as soon as you get
to the gate can get one for free.

It's one of those things where being polite and directly asking for something
can go a long way.

~~~
autarch
Delta, which has most of the gates in Minneapolis, does not sell exit row in
advance, and I wouldn't count on getting it when I'm going to be flying for 10
hours to Italy.

Northwest would sell the exit row seats in advance, but unless you had elite
status, you could only purchase them 24 hours in advance. This was great when
I had elite status, but sucked otherwise.

I would gladly pay $100+ for exit row if I could get it when I book my ticket.

------
sqrt17
One thing that always bugged me about air travel in the US is the time you
spend on the ground, standing in queues, pulling your shoes off, putting them
back on again.

You'll say that this is for better security. It's not an effective way to
achieve better security. In Europe, queues are shorter and people only have to
remove their shoes when there's a reason for it. Europe has not exploded yet -
put it down to behavioral profiling, making good use of extant security
measures and (for the most part) having enough personnel to avoid the building
up of queues.

To pick the restaurant analogy, it has the same effect on the airlines as it
would for a restaurant to have pseudo-policemen sit in front of their door and
bully everyone, building up a long queue.

~~~
mmt
_You'll say that this is for better security._

I doubt many here on HN would say that.

It makes for better _theater_ perhaps, but, really, it's just a way to bolster
that theater industry. Personally, I don't think the feds are very good at
entertaining.

It's certainly made flying between Southern California and the Bay Area take
long enough that driving doesn't seem as preposterous an alternative,
especially for a last-minute trip.

High-speed rail, with a 3-hour travel time would even be comparable, until, of
course, somebody tries to bring exploding shoes on board or realizes that
downtown LA isn't likely to host a convenient car rental facility any time
soon.

~~~
vl
This winter I took train from Seattle to Vancouver, BC. There was a security
check before boarding the train, but it was much much faster than airport.

Train was patrolled by assault rifle-armed guards in bullet-proof vests, some
had dogs. I still trying to imagine what is the threat profile they were
trying to respond to.

~~~
anigbrowl
A train bombing can be massively destructive, as has happened in London and
Madrid. You mention that you were traveling to visit the winter Olympics:
imagine the effect of a mass casualty attack close to the venue, in a town
full of foreign visitors. Besides the immediate loss of life and panic, the
resulting investigation would be difficult and almost certainly involve a
large number of mistaken arrests, to say nothing of the global publicity which
most extremists crave.

~~~
vl
I don't know if this was standard security or it was there for the Olympics, I
wouldn't be surprised if it turned out either way. It was just surprising
since they were relatively heavily armed.

As for the bombing threat: bad guys don't need to be on the train to bomb the
train. Also, unlike commuter train or subway it's a "low people-density"
train.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's not that I think this security theater is so logical or effective. I
think it's often a waste of money and resent the ubiquitous impositions it
creates, although I think this may change somewhat after next year.*

But it does attempt to address some basic realities: the most attractive place
to cause damage is at the incoming station, where a crowd will be waiting for
the train; getting a parcel onto the train will require passing armed
police/troops (and who knows what else? dogs? electronic detectors? the
uncertainty is meant to erode a terrorist's confidence); there's a reasonable
chance a bomb would be carried by a human, given a) the demonstrated
preference for suicide bombings among Islamic fundamentalists and b) the
relatively low participation by Islamic countries in winter sports, reducing
the probability of a would-be martyr inadvertently blowing up co-religionists.

In a nutshell, the sight of heavily armed guards is, sadly, meant to look
familiar and imposing to potential terrorists - because many Middle Eastern
countries have paramilitary-type law enforcement. Polite and discreet security
(eg the US secret service guys in their suits, or friendly-looking beat cops)
wouldn't make a terrorist feel especially nervous - the same way that kids
don't take mall cops very seriously because they don't have guns or tasers.

* When I go downtown, the subway station restrooms are still locked with increasingly faded stickers on them saying 'closed for security reasons due to September 11 attack'. The 10 year anniversary of that event will be a sad one, but at the same time a decade seems to be the difference between past and present for most people. So my hunch is that after it passes, there will be a lot of questioning along the lines of '10 years on, do we still need this?'

In that light, and with an election the following year, the question of
budgets will also arise. the Department of Homeland Security costs about $56
billion/year. For comparison, the Department of Justice (including the FBI,
DEA, and all the other law enforcement agencies) costs less than half that
amount. The entire Federal court system costs under $7 billion/year. So I
think a reassessment of our security strategy is on the horizon.

------
j-g-faustus
I'd add a fourth factor: The fact that we travel more frequently.

If you are flying something like once per decade flying might feel like an
adventure in its own right and you may be willing to splurge a bit.

But the more often you need to fly between A and B, the more similar it
becomes to taking the bus, subway or a taxi, all of which already are
commodities.

I expect there is room for more "exclusive" experiences at a higher price,
just like there is for groceries. Or as with limousine rental vs taxi.

But fundamentally it's just transport - I'm flying because I need to get
somewhere else quickly. If I were traveling for the experience I would
probably go by motorcycle, train or boat instead.

~~~
Sukotto

      The fact that we travel more frequently.
    

I travel _far_ less often now than a few years ago. I feel the airports today
are so flier hostile that I would rather just stay home. My last few vacations
were spent within driving distance of my home. Even though I could easily
afford the airfare.

To put that into perspective... I used to fly a lot. A weekend trip across
country would not have been an unusual thing for me. My wife and I flew to
Japan several times a year to visit family... we just don't do that anymore.

Now I'll fly on business if I _have_ to. but that's pretty much it.

~~~
j-g-faustus
> I travel far FAR less often now than a few years ago.

So do I. I never found flying particularly pleasant, whether economy or
business class, and after a decade of frequent business flying I pick other
alternatives (including staying at home) whenever I can.

But the US travel statistics
[http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_stat...](http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_37.html)
seems to say that "people" still fly more - 350 bill. passenger miles in 1990,
530 bill. in 2000, 583 in 2008. Although it's down a bit from the peak years
2006-2007.

~~~
logic
I'm a visual kind of guy, so I pulled those travel stats into Google Docs:

[https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqzimL8-eYhYdDdkcC1...](https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqzimL8-eYhYdDdkcC1fS3I1VkFsQWppUDhGWDVCM2c&hl=en)

The chart sheet has a graph of total miles traveled. Compare to US population:

[http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&ctype=l...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&tdim=true&tstart=331257600000&tunit=M&tlen=348&hl=en&dl=en)

~~~
korch
How did you pull those stats into Google Docs? It was automated, right?

If Google Docs can take an arbitrary page, figure out what the data is and
slurp it into a spreadsheet, then there are some very interesting kinds of
data mashups to make!

~~~
logic
Sadly, no: I just imported the excel spreadsheet that's on the page j-g-
faustus linked to. :)

However, you _can_ just cut-and-paste a traditional HTML table into Google
Docs, and in most cases, it works exactly as you'd expect. Automating that is
left as an exercise to the reader. :)

------
dotBen
Interesting post, but what was missed is that corporate travel accounts for a
large degree of airline ticket spend - and those values (price and schedule)
are that BigCo business cares about.

The post was written from the perspective of the flyer also being the
purchaser (either leisure or small business travel) but when tickets are
purchased for you, or you have to purchase within a financial policy all that
it comes down to is price (and to some extent, schedule).

The CFO doesn't care whether AirlineX has more comfortable seats than ArlineZ
and isn't going to authorize purchases because of it.

~~~
dartland
Very true, although most companies that have corporate contracts do so for
multiple major airlines, so there still is choice. Also, corporate contracts
have much more influence for international travel, they aren't nearly as
meaningful for domestic travel.

------
chime
> The first is price, the second is schedule. Everything else is a distant
> third.

Not in my case.

1\. Not an airline on my bad_list 2\. Price 3\. Schedule

E.g. I will not fly Air India, regardless of the price/schedule.

Keep playing around with #2 and #3 but do not screw up so much that you get on
#1 or else I will boycott you for life.

Also when #2 and #3 are same, I have #4 - Airlines I like (JetBlue, SouthWest
etc.).

Off topic but relevant: I always check out my plane through seatguru.com
before I buy the tickets. Definitely helps maximize my comfort at no
additional cost.

~~~
mey
I'd be interested to hear other people's airline bad lists. Mine is basically
United at the moment. (Largely for fleet age (in my personal experience), and
dismissive FA's)

Prefer to when possible fly, JetBlue, Southwest and Alaskan Air if the price
is drastically all over the board.

~~~
ubernostrum
Delta. The only time you'll get me in one of their planes is for a one-hop to
or from Atlanta, and even then I'll think hard about whether I can get on
another airline. The number of patently absurd things they've done to me would
fill quite a lengthy post, though.

Whenever possible (i.e., heading westward, domestic US) I fly Frontier. For
other destinations, US Airways is my preferred option, mostly because their
hub -- Charlotte -- is actually a rather nice and not-too-crowded airport.

~~~
jeebusroxors
I just flew with them this weekend. I'm pretty sure they canceled the flight I
was on due to a small amount of passengers (there were only ~10 people waiting
in the terminal). This resulted in a 4 hour initial delay, missing my
connection, an additional 2 hour delay waiting for the next connection.

There were no people to talk to at my original airport, so I had to leave the
"secure" area, go back to the ticket counter and wait in line for the one
Delta employee to assist.

------
ronnier
I've traveled to about 30 countries within Africa, Asia, Middle East, Europe,
Central America and a lot of travel within the US. Of course there have been
hiccups along the way, but overall it's been pleasant and I just don't share
the feelings with others that air travel is a horrible experience.

I believe my point of view stems from the happiness of being able to travel
around the world so cheaply (even free with airline miles). This wasn't even
possible until modern times and it is easy to take for granted.

------
jballanc
How much will I pay for SFO to NYC? Well, that depends...is it more than two
weeks out? Less than two weeks out? Is it a popular day to travel? Convenient
route? Who else is flying? So many factors that make it difficult to know when
to buy and what to expect to pay...

For example, something I've noticed recently: the SFO to NYC red-eye will be
cheaper than the evening flights up until about 3-5 weeks before the day of
travel. Then, the red-eye will suddenly jump to almost double the price of the
other tickets.

All I can figure is that more than 3-5 weeks out, most of the people buying
tickets are tourists, and tourists tend to not like taking red-eyes. Once you
get inside the 3-5 week window, that buying pattern switches to primarily
business travelers. For a business traveler, the red-eye means still getting
in a full day of work before leaving, so they tend to favor that schedule.

The fact that the price fluctuates so rapidly, and depends more on the buying
patterns of other consumers than on the product itself, makes plane tickets
look an awful lot like a futures market! And you know what else is sold on
futures markets?

...commodities.

------
jwr
It's a great article about something I've wanted to write about for a long
time. I've been wondering why the airlines worked so hard to kill any
differentiation and commoditize their business. The experience today is really
similar on all airlines, with parts of it being _exactly_ the same, outsourced
away (ground handling, gates, security, lost luggage handling, etc).

~~~
SRSimko
I agree, every bit of the airline experience is being outsourced to the lowest
bidder (from flying the planes down to fixing them). It's all too easy to
purchase a ticket and never talk to any of the parent airline's employees but
you'd never know. In some cases this is good and while in some cases, not so
much.

IMO, most of the airlines don't want employees or to control a brand they just
want to sell tickets.

~~~
ertyuiolkiujhg
Thats why the good LCC are very good (Southwestern, Virgin America, Westjet) -
they do have good employees

When the majors play at being LCC by outsourcing everything to outfits with a
single regional jet it's terrible.

------
snitko
I'm really sorry if it's a bit of an off-topic, but this thread seems like a
good place to ask: anyone remembers this long and interesting multi-pages
document (was posted on HN) about how prices on air tickets are calculated and
how all this big system works? Can't find the link.

~~~
bockris
[http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel-
com...](http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel-
complexity/img1.html)

from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1479107>

~~~
snitko
Thank you so much! I've been seeking this for months.

------
jakarta
I think air travel is destined to be a commodity for most people. Typically
when we are flying we are trying to get to another place, where we will be
away from work and spending a lot of money. Think the trip to Disney World. Or
your European vacation. By saving money on the flight we will have more money
to spend at our destination.

I remember looking between Jet Blue and Continental for a flight to NYC
recently. I had a great time with Jet Blue because they had TVs on board and I
enjoyed the free wifi in their terminal when returning. But, price-wise Jet
Blue would be $20 more than Continental. For me, the extra $20 I save could be
used to eat out a couple more times in NYC so it was easy to forgo the in
flight convenience for what I weighed as the greater use of my money.

I think that also, the capital intensive nature of the business which yields
low returns on investment, in the context of being in a highly regulated
industry with unionized employees makes risk taking pretty limited. So, most
of the players just copy each other which also helps re-enforce the
commoditized product that they produce.

------
sliverstorm
For me, price is #1, and _everything_ else is a distant third.

Then again, I'm not the target audience of this article. I fly rarely, and an
airplane ticket represents a very sizable chunk of my income. Because of that,
I will put up with a poor experience, and this is why I am not prepared to
spend $10 more for the plane that gives the better 'experience'.

~~~
GFischer
The article lacks some statistics and research.

If I wanted to understand, I'd look at what % of the travellers are frequent
flyers (with a standardized definition of "frequent flier" of course), the
level of income (differentiated between frequent flyers and other as-yet-to-
be-determined categories, maybe holiday trips, business trips, family trips,
etc.).

Not to mention there might be some irrational decisions or decisions not
directly attributable to the customer.

My "instinct" is that the airline managers have it right: price is #1, and
schedule is #2 - like for silverstorm, a flight is easily several months'
worth of income for me, and I don't have much flexibility with my holidays OR
business trips.

~~~
nandemo
> The article lacks some statistics and research.

In fact, I believe there are statistics out there that contradict the
article's suggestion that there aren't significant and consistent differences
between airlines.

<http://www.airlinequality.com/>

I don't know if this particular website is unbiased. But at least in my
limited experience, the Japanese companies (JAL and ANA) and Swiss Air are
_much_ better than American Airlines, Continental and Canadian.

~~~
notahacker
Sure, Skytrax surveys can draw conclusions about average difference between
airlines but they don't really account for the variance in flight quality,
which is one of the chief factors that discourages people from paying a
premium for a "quality" airline...there's no guarantee of even acceptable
quality by paying more and most LCCs offer a safe and tolerable environment.
Moreover, their sample is necessarily skewed away from the many people who use
price as their main or only differentiator between airlines.

A quick glance at the reviews section of the same site will show plenty of low
ratings for "top" airlines and good ratings even for the likes of Ryanair (an
airline that actively seeks negative publicity for its customer care in order
to create the perception its tickets are cheaper than they actually are).

I think its fair to say that few people fly for the intrinsic pleasure of
being strapped into a seat in a narow metal tube, so "premium" airlines are
mostly about minimising the displeasure. Other than seat comfort, arguably the
main factors that can make a journey deeply unpleasant are largely
uncorrelated with price. Unpleasant neighbours can happen anywhere, and many
LCCs are statistically more likely to depart on time than their higher priced
competition (their business model depends on it and they avoid busy hub
airports)

I considered creating an airline guide type site but shelved it because I'm
just not convinced the consumer interest is there. Now if someone could make
the process of booking _other_ aspects of a holiday more engaging and
differentiated (forget price comparisons, wildly disparate customer reviews
and grainy pictures in favour of something engaging, social and interactive) I
think they'd make a mint.

------
gyardley
This post mentions loyalty programs for frequent flyers, but it completely
underestimates their importance. The difference between business class and
coach is so stark, just a reasonable chance at an upgrade completely
decommoditizes the inventory. Because of this, the most profitable customers
certainly aren't basing their decisions solely on price.

Myself, I always fly American, not because the coach experience is any better
but because I've got about a one-in-four chance of getting upgraded to
business class. Just a couple of days ago I got upgraded on my redeye back
from SFO - well worth the $35 or so extra I paid for the seat vs. the
equivalent flight on a competing airline. Slept like a baby, and I certainly
couldn't have done that back in steerage.

------
loewenskind
You want to know what's _really_ ruining air travel? Security. With e.g. TSA
and their "exactly the wrong person for the job" approach to staffing, pricing
scams (ever notice that right after you get out of the security check line,
where they made you pour out your water, there is a store selling normal water
for 5x the normal price?), etc., etc. the price for an airline ticket is
basically asking you how much you'd be willing to pay to get gang raped. I
hate flying now, and to the US most of all.

But I have a solution to fix all the problems (well, it would still be a
commodity...): When you get to the airport, someone takes your ticket and
gasses you. You wake up in your destination (or occasionally a totally random
place, but that would still be better than what it's like now. Especially
since you slept through it). That would solve everyone's problem. Who cares
about seats, you can just make bays to stack the sleeping people in. You can
carry more people. You can have a vastly smaller staff, pretty much just a
pilot and a loading/unloading crew. For security you can do any check you need
to but most will be unnecessary since the people wont be conscious.

------
abyssknight
I'm reading this article while staring at my confirmed boarding pass that
reads, "Seat Request" right next to the shiny barcode.

------
latch
seatguru.com addresses some of this already. Although, the limited extra info
they provide doesn't often help to differentiate one flight from the other.

------
aneth
I buy Southwest always for one reason: no change fees. Every dollar I spend is
applicable toward another fare if I don't go or want to change times. I spend
more money sometimes, less money others, but always have confidence I'm not
throwing money away or being nickel and dimed. Every single other airline
focuses on profitability through obscurity and I simply can't stand that.

