davidjohnson6
13th Aug 2012, 09:25
When a commercial airlines closes down, it's rivals usually offer rescue fares (i.e. relatively cheap fare plus Govt taxes) for those who had purchased tickets for the next week or two on the now closed airline.
Often the airline that closed had been in trouble, and its reputation had been poor for some time. Premium customers, especially flying on business or through a travel agency would have been aware or at least likely warned about the risk of flying with the weaker airline and may well have chosen an alternate carrier to ensure reliability of transport. Thus, one expects that just before bankruptcy, an airline without a monopoly on a route is probably carrying mainly passengers more interested in low fares than premium service.
On a route for a city pair where there were previously 2 airlines (one strong, and one now bankrupt), why does the remaining strong airline offer rescue fares at all ? They now have a monopoly on the city pair, they are likely already carrying most of the profitable premium passengers, and their brand name is probably well known to the people with the now worthless tickets.
Further, if passengers considering booking a flight on a near-bankrupt airline use a credit card and expect the remaining strong airline to offer a rescue fare, passengers persist in booking with the cheaper and weaker airline in the full knowledge that the other strong airline will provide an effective safety net if and when bankruptcy occurs. Thus, we end up with the weaker airline's ticketing revenues being indirectly subsidised by its stronger rivals.
I don't buy the argument that it's a chance to get passengers on the weak airline to try the brand of the stronger airline - that brand is likely already well known in the market. Furthermore, commercial airlines do not claim to be charities and general consumer welfare is rarely high on their priority list. Some of the now stranded passengers will often pay handsomely for transport on the rival airline - i.e. a chance to bring in some big bucks.
In the absence of Govt / CAA intervention, particularly where the surviving airline now has a monopoly on a city pair, why offer those rescue fares at all ?
Often the airline that closed had been in trouble, and its reputation had been poor for some time. Premium customers, especially flying on business or through a travel agency would have been aware or at least likely warned about the risk of flying with the weaker airline and may well have chosen an alternate carrier to ensure reliability of transport. Thus, one expects that just before bankruptcy, an airline without a monopoly on a route is probably carrying mainly passengers more interested in low fares than premium service.
On a route for a city pair where there were previously 2 airlines (one strong, and one now bankrupt), why does the remaining strong airline offer rescue fares at all ? They now have a monopoly on the city pair, they are likely already carrying most of the profitable premium passengers, and their brand name is probably well known to the people with the now worthless tickets.
Further, if passengers considering booking a flight on a near-bankrupt airline use a credit card and expect the remaining strong airline to offer a rescue fare, passengers persist in booking with the cheaper and weaker airline in the full knowledge that the other strong airline will provide an effective safety net if and when bankruptcy occurs. Thus, we end up with the weaker airline's ticketing revenues being indirectly subsidised by its stronger rivals.
I don't buy the argument that it's a chance to get passengers on the weak airline to try the brand of the stronger airline - that brand is likely already well known in the market. Furthermore, commercial airlines do not claim to be charities and general consumer welfare is rarely high on their priority list. Some of the now stranded passengers will often pay handsomely for transport on the rival airline - i.e. a chance to bring in some big bucks.
In the absence of Govt / CAA intervention, particularly where the surviving airline now has a monopoly on a city pair, why offer those rescue fares at all ?