What would happen if air travel became expensive again?

[susier]

Interested in working through this question on the back of various threads in R&N.


I'm wondering whom it would benefit, and who would really suffer if prices went right back up to unaffordable by a lot of people.


It seems that a lot of crew feel the travelling public expect rock bottom prices and then wonder why there isn't better regulation, a better guarantee of safety, and why there is perhaps? a company culture that allows certain character traits to slip through the net, as it were, because it's become all about cheap travel and far less about (standards? / whatever)


Forgive me for having very little background knowledge on this, but as SLF (very infrequent I should say) I would be far happier to pay a reasonable fare and know the crew were being treated well, happy in their employment, and so on.

People can now get to places they could never previously afford to visit for a paltry sum, yet the pilots that fly them there are forced to 'pay for their own uniform, food, type rating and accommodation', to quote from a recent thread.


This doesn't seem like a happy situation. And then we have the pollution, the ever more crowded skies, the objections to new runways (personally I'd pay extra to live under a flight path) and so on.


So what would happen if prices went sky high, as it were - traffic would reduce but could the industry still support itself? And what has driven the current situation?


All thoughts welcome.

[ExXB]

Susier,

What if? Well without a significant increase to, for example, fuel prices I really don't see airfares rising to the equivalent levels we had in the 70s and 80s. Even then the network airlines (who all interlined with each other at fixed prices) were dogged by the less expensive 'charter' airlines.

It's not going to happen though. Point-to-point is the new model, and is the least expensive to provide.

Which is the most profitable airline in Europe*? (Probably the best business measurement). They are also one of the airlines with the best safety record.

We are just going to have to live with the lager-louts, and be happy that we can afford to travel to just about anywhere we want to go, whenever we want to. Even the longest journey is going to be over with in no more than a day, or two.

*Almost a rhetorical question. It's FR

[davidjpowell]

I personally think air travel is expensive from the UK.

On our next jaunt to US we are saving a not inconsiderable amount of money (about a third) by flying to Dublin and leaving from there and vice versa.

And it's not a 'cheaper' flight overall as we then fly back to the UK to connect in London - all Economy class.

[susier]

Thank you for your reply, much appreciated. I suppose what you are saying makes sense however the current situation doesn't seem to be seen as a good thing by many of those who work in the industry.


I'm trying to see if there could be an answer for them, I suppose, because as SLF I don't like to feel I am shouldering the blame for what they consider to be poor working conditions. If that makes sense? I'd rather pay more if I knew it was helpful.


Perhaps that isn't the answer though.

[susier]

Sorry, crossed posts. I was under the impression that you could get tickets to certain places for, well say £29 to Brussels, or so? That seems extraordinarily cheap to me.

[ExXB]

Susier, I think pricing like that is either a loss-leader, just like the supermarkets do, or a fill up price trying to get something for a seat they expect to go empty (with the hope that you will spend another £30 on bags, baguettes, and beer).

[PAXboy]

susier, I might well agree that the working conditions of the flight and cabin crew are not conducive to a happy work/life balance BUT ... No one's work/life balance is what it used to be! Leastways not 99% of people! :sad:

All my friends and family feel the exigencies of modern life and only one of them is a commercial pilot. I am self-employed and, during the recession from 2008 onwards, have seen my income decline in real terms because I work in a (now) highly competitive field. Whereas there were a smallish number of people in my area doing my job (at average rates, not excessive I can assure you) now dozens have jumped on the bandwagon. I have to compete against newcomers who undercut and yet purport to offer the same level of service as myself who has been doing the job (part and then fulltime) for nearly 24 years.

Naturally, I cannot stop the newcomers and I cannot change the regulations and yet I have to continue trying to earn a living in the most expensive part of the UK. Some of the new people into this line of work have taken early retirement and are doing this for 'pin money' and have already paid off their mortgage and have a company pension to cushion them. I do not. I could continue the airline analogy about overtime and weekends but I'll save you.

When I worked in telecommunications (27 years all told) I worked in many different fields (retail, finance, shipping etc) and I have seen every single one of those bend under the same rules of harsh commercial supply and demand. It's not pretty but the only certainty is that there is no going back.

Which is why any politician who says that we can 'go back' to some other time when things were better - is talking rubbish. Humans only go in one direction and change is brought about slowly (jet propulsion replacing prop) or suddenly (govts changing the rules to allow LCCs). It's not always fun.

[thing]

It's not that pilots are starving though is it. I know a couple of new FO's for locos and although their salary is nothing to write home about it's still better than working at Next trying to flog t shirts. Yes they probably have massive sums invested in getting into that RH seat but no one forced them to become pilots; you know the drawbacks and you make the choice whether it's for you or not. That's the way it is.

Back in the early 70's I used to make a good living playing in bands in clubland. You think it's going to go on forever, it doesn't. Things change all of the time, we are now and have been for some time in the ridiculous situation where bands pay to play at a venue. I might add that I got out of that line of business a long time ago.

[tdracer]

If airfare returned to the level of, say, 35 years ago (corrected for inflation), the short answer is a whole lot less people would be flying. And that means that a whole lot fewer people would be employed in the airline business. That means a whole lot of those grumpy, unhappy airline employees would be grumpy, unhappy, and unemployed. :sad:


Working in the airline business in the 60's and 70's was a sweet gig for those who could get it. But not many got it. Similarly those that could afford to fly got a nice experience. But not many could afford it. :eek:

[Wannabe Flyer]

Demand and supply...not all routess go cheap and not all flights go cheap...

Locos are there for a reason and will remain, legacy carriers do charge a pretty penny....

In the end you get what you pay for (service and amenities), safety is a mandatory requirement not determined by price but by govt. regulation

[Phileas Fogg]

All, it seems to me, the modern day low cost carriers introduced was one-way fares, before then one-way fares were extremely expensive so of course "we" would regularly buy return tickets that included a Saturday overnight and, if we weren't going to use it, we'd throw the other half of the ticket away.

But these low cost carriers aren't necessarily cheap, an ex boss of mine, we were mid point between LTN & BHX, she had friends in the city of Belfast and she swore blind travelling "orange" LTN/BFS/LTN even though I pointed out to her that it was actually more convenient and cheaper to travel "BACON" BHX/BHD/BHX.

I regularly had business in FCO and MXP, from BHX Jet2 did FCO and FlyBE did MXP but it was actually cheaper, and more convenient, to travel via ZRH (an hour (ish) in ZRH in each direction) and on each of the four sectors one got a complimentary snack, coffee, beer and Swiss chocolate ... and one could buy duty frees routing non EU!

So I'm not a great believer in these, supposed, low cost carriers and if it were to go back to the way it were before them, i.e. those cheap Saturday night returns, I don't think that would be such a bad nor expensive thing.

These days I own and operate a small resort, here to eat out (BBQ chicken & rice) can cost less than one GBP ... I have guests coming to me expecting to use our restaurant kitchen (free of charge) because they can't afford to eat out ... I'm sorry but these people should never have left home and I simply cannot understand their mentality that they are taking a holiday that they cannot afford to take!

The OP has hinted at less than desirable "safety" standards ... Well I'd suggest going back to the old days whereas it was aviation professionals running the airlines and not the beancounters, a beancounter understands diddly squat about safety, they only understand pounds, shillings and pence!

[eastern wiseguy]

For an example of what I believe Susier means, my first job upon leaving school was in a local Travel Agency.

It was 1977 and inflation was rife.

One of my tasks was to keep the Fare manual up to date ( no computers all paper) and the contents of this changed on a weekly basis.

I remember being amazed that the standard return fare BFS-LHR ( without the Saturday night stay,or booked as an APEX ) had leapt to £100. We were told by management that only those with deep pockets would be able to afford fares of that nature.

Leisure travel at those rates would have been difficult.

I looked at an inflation calculator before posting and in today's money £100 equates to ~£640.

I was earning £ 90 per month.

[MrSnuggles]

I know that RYR has an excellent safety record regarding pax fatalaties. But their safety record regarding incidents is not that impressive. Taxying at high speed, flapless landings, clipping wingtips and APUs from other airplanes, fuel starvation maydays.. these are small but important things that all is not well. Having an insecure workplace with a fierce opposition towards any kind of union is also one of those things that raises my eyebrows.

I know, we all have stressful days at work, blabla, but almost none of us have such an important task of keeping calm cool and collected if things goes tits up, as pilots do. Airplanes operate in such hostile environments, many thousand metres higher than Mount Everest, and I for one want to KNOW that my Capt and FO has job security, good training, proper medical supervision and a nice pension plan so ALL they need to worry about is getting their asses down on the ground to live another day. Which means I get to live another day.

When things happen on the ground, I'm not that concerned. This is, after all solid and steady and stuff goes wrong all the time but since we can breathe and move unhindered it gives a (sometimes faulty) sense of security.

While in the air I know for SURE that I just can't jump out the window/run down the escape stairs or call the fire dept. I need those pilots to be well rested, well gathered and quick thinking. Just as I would like my heart surgeon to be well rested, well gathered and quick thinking.

I try to avoid locos as much as possible. I know, they do have great safety records, (unlike, say AF..) but the company policy of mandatory get-there-itis that many locos have is not reassuring to me. Personally I'd rather wait for the weather to clear than rushing a take off and getting into serious trouble including all kinds of damage.

I also believe that I as a customer should be treated with at least some respect. It is unexplainable to me that people crowd outside locos to get their luggage measured and the cabin crew wanting them to pay for paper towels. No change accepted. Nah, to me it all screams flip-flops and sweatpants.

SAS (I'm Swedish) and its cooperators in Star Alliance has excellent prices to many destinations. Sure, I don't get to go to Malaga for £4 but I'd rather pay some extra money and look at it as the insurance fee that my pilots are treated well while we are at altitudes high above the Himalayas.

[Phileas Fogg]

Mr Snuggles,

I flew SAS a couple of times, loved the MD87 CPH/BHX but my one notable experience was LHR/ARN/LHR.

I was up at stupid o'clock for a 2 or 3 hour drive to LHR, then check-in etc. and as soon as I arrived in ARN I was straight in to a meeting in the, then, SAS Flight Academy (in fact it was my suggestion at that meeting that they took up to source a B767F to utilise for their base training).

Straight out of the meeting and back on to an MD Scud to LHR ... And I still hadn't taken breakfast. I don't know what happens now but this was in an era when one paid for food and beverages on SAS and, bearing in mind I had my car parked at LHR, fantastically they sold low alcohol beer.

Well I got well in to it, all on business expenses, seafood baguettes, low alcohol beers, the cabin crew kept coming back to me, I had a fantastic flight and have no complaint of flying SAS.

Ryan ... who did you mention? :)

[Exup]

I agree aircrew require looking after but what about the maintenance guys & girls who are working long hours outside in all weather conditions. They are just as responsible for SLF safety as the flight crew & they are not protected with any duty period limitations.

[MrSnuggles]

Phileas Fogg

Nice that you enjoyed SAS. I'm a bit proud of it, though I know it has undergone some major structural changes with Norwegian as a tough competitor. The pilots and other crew had to take some salary cuts and I can imagine that's nothing they are very enjoyed about. Still, I believe that SAS being such a global brand name, it does have some pride and standard to achieve.

The reason I mentioned the Airline Who Must Not Be Named was that it has, in fact never had fatalities. SAS has. The worst disaster was the Linate (on of the Milano airports) disaster in Oct 2001, so I believe not many have heard about it. One of the MD-80s collided with a small plane that was totally lost and ended up on the runway when the SAS plane took off. The investigation discovered that Linate was extremely very below average regarding taxiway lines, lights, naming conventions, markings and other thing that one might use to navigate an airport. Some taxiways were referred to as aprons and taxiways and one apron was referred to as the big apron, the north apron or the large apron. And on it went. So, as a little relief, the SAS pilots did nothing wrong and actually managed to fly the plane for about 10 seconds before crashing into a building after colliding with the small plane. The small plane pilots were not allowed to operate in foggy conditions, visibility below 500m, which was the case for that particular day.

The accident we had before that was Gottröra. Everyone survived but the plane broke up in three pieces.

[Phileas Fogg]

Mr Snuggles,

SAS is/was an accountant's worst nightmare.

Invariably an airline operates B737's or A320's or MD80's.

A nightmare becomes when an airline operates two of these types.

A worst nightmare is/was SAS operating all three of these types :)

[MrSnuggles]

Phileas Fogg

I laughed here when I read about the accountant! Yes, it is true. At one point a few years ago SAS had all three types in service. Now they have retired the MD-80 in favour of the Airbus.

SAS was a very faithful McDonnall-Douglas customer and once operated the world's biggest fleet of DC-9's. The merge with Boeing meant SAS could get favourable deals on the 737 although they had started to buy Airbus aircraft already in the 80's to replace even older aircrafts. The plan is to phase out the 737's in favour of Airbus, complete around 2020.

At the moment though, SAS have both 737's and 320's around. Through codeshare with Blue1, there are also B717's in operation (so you could argue that they still have all three aircrafts, LOL!). Blue1 will acquire the 737's and the SAS fleet will be harmonized around Airbus aircrafts.

In the golden days of the 1970's SAS also had DC-10's and some 747's swooshing around.

[Phileas Fogg]

Snuggles,

Just over 33 years ago I was working for the largest DC10 operator outside of USA ... which also happened to be Europe's first low cost airline and the first UK Airbus operator!

There's nothing wrong with the MD Scud (B717) except I understand they're somewhat noisy, they can get in and out of airfields and don't require steps, nice piece of kit, a shame Boeing bought out MD and stopped production.

[S.o.S.]

The topic is NOT 'Bash all the locos AGAIN'.

I have deleted a post that was a rant about LCC carriers that did not make any attempt at discussion. PPRuNe is for discussing topics NOT to just sound off without justification. Let's see if there is any more sensible mileage as to what might happen in the unlikely event of time going into reverse and we went back to the old way of doing things.

[MrSnuggles]

The B717 is noisy enough, absolutely! I had a Premium Extra Class Super Duper seat, had to buy it extra expensive as it was the only seat available on the flight when I had to hurry to cancel my planned flight. It was so totally not worth the money.

Blue1 B717 has a 2+2 configuration except for the first row that is 2+3 (this was the Mega Comfortable Paying Lots Of Money row, lol!). I got the aisle seat in the 3-seat. Poor CC had extensive problems getting their cart past me and I could look straight into the galley when they were preparing food. On take off and landing I reluctantly had to stare on their knees while they were seated. The whole thing felt very uncomfortable. Especially me being so much in their way because of that stupid 3-seat.

Trying to get back on topic, I would like to see ticket prices at reasonable levels. Prices in the 70's converted into today's prices are just stupid. But going anywhere in Europe for £4 is just as ridiculous. I would worry that any carrier that makes a profit on a price like that has to slice somewhere to get their margins. History tells us that maintenance is one of the pieces of pie that goes when costs are cut. Next thing to remove are (is?) pilot expenses.

If tickets were at levels as during the 70's I'm afraid many people would go unemployed. Not only pilots but also ground staff. Locos usually operate from remote airfields that otherwise would be forgotten. With the arrival of locos all those remote locations can still exist.

OTOH the reduced air travel that would be the result from increasing ticket prices would most probably be beneficiary for the environment.

There are too many factors to consider for me to make an informed decision. But I would never willingly book any flight on any loco. I will always try to use the established carrier, thus trying to vote with my wallet for pilot safety, proper maintenance and reasonable earnings for the carrier.

My original round trip Stockholm Arlanda-Edinburgh cost around €200 with SAS. Perfectly reasonable price. Of course I could have "saved" lots of money if I had paid a horrendous amount of money to get out to a remote airfield beyond civilisation, taken the flight at are-you-mad o'clock, having to pay my way forward to my destination since the loco doesn't land in EDI and probably got there exhausted and in dire need of a shower and sleep, just because I wanted to pay £4. It seems most people don't add the costs of transportation to/from the remote airfield when they calculate the trip money. At least here in Sweden that can pile up to a very large amount, because the distances between airfields are quite large.

Oh, I'm just ranting. Let's see if anyone else has something to say!

[ExXB]

MrSnuggles

Won't bore everyone again re airline pricing but, believe it or not, an airline can make money with £4 fares - even if the pax don't buy anything else.

Suggest you search this forum for the answer ...

(hint - not everyone pays £4)

[mixture]

PPRuNe is for discussing topics NOT to just sound off without justification.

So is Jet Blast an autonomous territory then ? Either that or the Jet Blast mods have been asleep at the wheel for donkeys years ! :cool:

[KBPsen]

PPRuNe is for discussing topics NOT to just sound off without justification. That's almost as funny as it is pompous.

[Phileas Fogg]

Snuggles,

If one can't afford to pay a reasonable fare then one shouldn't be travelling, one should stay at home.

There's a LCC down this way "Cebu Air", for guests arriving/departing I'm regularly checking if their flights are on time or not, sometimes the weather is so bad on this island it's obvious the flight is going to be cancelled but it will show as being "on time" right up until perhaps 15 minutes before STD.

In my day in Operations we would regularly be monitoring weathers and often, hours before, we, in Operations, would cancel or delay flights, keep the crew at home or whatever, whilst passenger services would notify the passengers as soon as reasonably possible.

These days, particularly Cebu Air, they just have a bunch on nobody's in their offices wearing brightly coloured tee shirts and there is nobody capable or authorised within their offices to make a weather related decision until the flight crew report for duty at STD -45 or whatever.

I'll happily pay a bit more for a better service than such operators as this are offering.

[MrSnuggles]

ExXB

Oh yes, I am aware of that fact. RYR is apparently most profitable so somewhere they obviously find the money.

What I am trying to get across is that such low fares must be accounted for somewhere else - and maintenance has, historically, been one such place.

Norwegian was kind of a decent loco alternative up here, but now they moved to Ireland, where air transport regulation seems to be non existent, and hired a bunch of guys from the Philippines to lower pilot costs. There you go, profits in your pocket by slashing pilot expenses.

No, I'd rather pay my reasonable €200-300 ARN-EDI-ARN with SAS and try and make a difference for the better.

[Phileas Fogg]

Snuggles,

You suggest that maintenance has been, historically, one place airlines cut back but then you cite Norwegian cutting back on flight crew costs, not maintenance, so you're kind of contradicting yourself.

And I think you're treading on dangerous territory mentioning RYR in one breath and dodgy maintenance in the next ... Of all the RYR haters out there this is the first I've heard suggested, or hinted, that their maintenance is lacking.

In a previous life I worked for an EU registered cargo airline, I could tell you some stories about dodgy maintenance, I was in charge of Crew Scheduling and rather than two simulator checks per year my DFO provided me with an Operations Manual, approved by our authority, that clearly defined that we could get away with putting Flight Crew thru one simulator check per 13 months.

When he realised the cost savings I was making he told me I needed to put the crews thru the simulator more often ... I told him he needed to redraft the Operations Manual in that case!

[MrSnuggles]

Phileas Fogg

Uhm, I didn't see that as contradictory, rather complementary, but thankyou for pointing that out.

I will thus clarify that I have absolutely no knowledge at all how maintenance is handled at RYR. Noone should point to me as a credible source of any such statements. I can assure you that I am very unreliable when anyone wants to come to such conclusions.

What I do know is that

a) maintenance is, historically, a place where savings are made. One appalling example of how bad maintenance can get when saving $ is the Alaska Airlines with the jackscrew coming loose.

b) reducing pilot expenses is another way of cutting costs. Here I gave Norwegian as an example. P2F is another way of reducing pilot expenses. Magenta lines, the whole glass cockpit shebang, is in fact a way to save on pilot expenses.

I'd rather pay a reasonable price and know that my pilots are well taken care of, the plane is top notch with all jackscrews correctly maintained, the fancy cupholders are perfectly polished and noone whips the flight deck with a company get-there-itis.

[evansb]

Alaska is a darn good airline. How many jackscrews have failed since 2000? Since the year 2000, how many major airline crashes in G8 countries have been attributed to poor maintenance?

[Phileas Fogg]

Snuggles,

You might not remember back to 1979 and the worldwide DC10 grounding following AA191 leaving an engine behind on take off.

It transpired that many DC10 operators were changing their engines using fork lifts, to save man hours, rather than correct equipments causing metal fatigue and/or cracks in the engine mountings.

Dodgy maintenance shouldn't be tagged solely to low cost carriers.