That's a bold assumption to make - that I am a cubicle denizen and even have a boss. Just another poor example of not really even knowing your customers. But it's obvious where you think the problem lies - It must be with those confounded customers who actually WANT value for what they pay for.
Aerospace officials see shakeup ahead
- Thread starter twaokc
- Start date
Who's making assumptions? You'll be treated as you act - in your case here, a spoiled brat.
You've made a few rather bold assumptions yourself - as far as your assumptions go, you couldn't be more wrong, but I've learned it's a waste of time to argue any point with your type. Perhaps you can find another that's willing, but I'm not.
Ok, so please explain to me in my posts where I come off as a spoiled brat. Or maybe define what a spoiled brat is in your book.
Then we can move on. Instead, you have only shown nothing but disdain for your customers in your very clear, concise remarks. I, on the other hand, have not shown any disdain or ill will towards the rank and file that I see work hard every time I fly. But maybe that's how a spoiled brat acts these days. Hmph.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Something not reflected in Bob's statistics on airfares are all the fees (food, bags, sodas, speaking to a live person) that have come up, and then there's the taxation... You'd think Mayor Daley were setting the tax rates.
When you start to add all that in, the costs being borne by the consumer are definitely higher on a year over year basis.
As the total cost of traveling goes up, more and more people are staying home, which means prices then have to go up even more to make up for the fewer butts in seats.
Only about 20% of the travelers -have- to fly. There's another 5-10% who will fly at any cost. The other 70-80% are discretionary travelers. If you keep pricing them off the airplanes, there won't be a need for as many airplanes, which then results in fewer employees.
I suspect the point where the legacy airlines reach equilibrium on raising prices and not seeing a corresponding dropoff won't be pretty. Perhaps 40% or so of the current size of the market, and that doesn't take into account the competition. Their break-even point for fuel and internal costs are all lower than AMR's. Again, not assumption, but pretty well agreed to by the Wall Street analysts who follow the industry and have absolutely nothing to gain from presenting a biased analysis...
When you start to add all that in, the costs being borne by the consumer are definitely higher on a year over year basis.
As the total cost of traveling goes up, more and more people are staying home, which means prices then have to go up even more to make up for the fewer butts in seats.
Only about 20% of the travelers -have- to fly. There's another 5-10% who will fly at any cost. The other 70-80% are discretionary travelers. If you keep pricing them off the airplanes, there won't be a need for as many airplanes, which then results in fewer employees.
I suspect the point where the legacy airlines reach equilibrium on raising prices and not seeing a corresponding dropoff won't be pretty. Perhaps 40% or so of the current size of the market, and that doesn't take into account the competition. Their break-even point for fuel and internal costs are all lower than AMR's. Again, not assumption, but pretty well agreed to by the Wall Street analysts who follow the industry and have absolutely nothing to gain from presenting a biased analysis...
"confounded customers who actually WANT value for what they pay for." - please; cut me some slack.
I understand very well the concept of delivering a fair value for any given payment and I understand all too well the consequences of not delivering the value expected to the customer.
My experience has nothing to do with the airline industry, but a totally unrelated industry, with some of the most difficult-to get-along-with people there are. Up 'til the point I decided it wasn't worth the headaches (mid 80s), I still delivered value to these devils while wishing I could strangle them and get away with it.
Perhaps you're unable to place yourself in the position of those who don't deliver the value you want. Everyone isn't wealthy enough to hire their problems solved.
Regardless of your income level, if you were "just" doing OK and your pay was reduced by 40% and there was no practical "other" employment to take, would you tend to be a bit snippy or would you be all smiles if you didn't know where the money was going to come from to pay the day-care provider for your child?
It's far too simple to say "go elsewhere if you don't like the job", but what if "elsewhere" didn't exist for you?
Not all of American's public face is in these situations, but enough are that it harms their attitude to a noticeable degree to many people on the outside.
Yet, you scream about value - it's all about you. That's my definition of spoiled. Maybe you should go elsewhere rather than coming here to take the company's side. You have a choice also, you know. Exercise it.
Perhaps you've had it too good for too long - perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to scratch for a living after doing quite well for a number of years.
Back up a bit and look around you - you're not the only "wronged" person out there.
Similar threads
