What would happen if air travel became expensive again?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe is for discussing topics NOT to just sound off without justification.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Phileas Fogg; 21st Apr 2015 at 13:17.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
