Sorry, but it is very easy to fill planes at 168.00 round trip - but you are going to lose your a$$.
My theory, put the planes where they are going to make money and save my job, not appease some whiney city. I dont' think you can get a buddy pass for 168.00!
You're absolutely right. And that's one of the points I was trying to make. If you're going to lose your kiester on a $168.00 fare to Florida,
then that fare should not be available.
The demand for flights to the warmer climes from the northeast is there. Always has been. Always will be. In fact, it's probably stronger nowadays, since people are so accustomed to flying for less than it costs to go to dinner and a Broadway show.
And if the fares are raised to at least what it costs to provide the service, plus make a buck or two, there will still be enough people wanting to go badly enough that they will pay what it costs to get there. Especially now that they are used to going every year.
Parents are still going to bring their hyperactive kids to see Mickey (and be seated in the row directly behind me). Daddy is still going to bust out the Gold Card so his little Princess can go to Cancun on Spring Break.
And as for the people who can barely afford that $168 fare, but will go anyway because they can't afford not to; well, why should the airline subsidize
their vacation to Disney World? It's a business, not a bloody charity. Let somebody else transport them for that fare, and lose
their kiester in the process.
Remember when cable TV first appeared? It cost around 15 bucks a month. Now that everybody can't live without it (and the accompanying high-speed Internet), most people's cable bills are north of a hundred bucks a month. But how many people have said to hell with that, I'm not paying, come disconnect me?
Not many. People want it, and so they will continue to begrudgingly pay for it. It's the same with air travel. Yes, there will be a learning curve because since the "Welfare Airfare" wars in the summer of '92, they've been used to getting it for next to nothing.
The other point you made brings up another thing that I don't understand.
Take the example of the $168 flight from PIT to FLL via JFK. Delta has to use two airplanes, two flight crews, and three ground stations and personnel to get your friend to Florida. That doesn't include the fuel used approaching and departing JFK at lower altitudes, and many more minutes taxiing in and out of the gate. And in the wintertime, throw in a couple of thousand bucks for de-icing at each station.
And after incurring all of that expense, they're charging 110 bucks
less to transport that passenger than the non-stop that was operated at a much lower seat-mile cost? Granted, Delta is trying to scoop a customer away from US Airways at the latter's focus city (I
almost said "hub", but caught myself); and there needs to be an incentive to entice the customer away from the more convenient non-stop; but the Delta suit who came up with that fare would be better served walking down to Peachtree Center and giving a 168 bucks to a homeless person.
And I'm willing to bet that the US non-stop to FLL goes out full, if not oversold. And loses money.
(BTW, the original subject of this thread was the
current management's decision to end non-stop flights from PIT to Florida. In the interest of fairness, it was
not the current management that decided to cut out all the non-stops from NYC and BOS to Florida. IIRC, it was Gangwal that decided that every airplane departing a northeast airport heading south must stop in PHL.
I actually had hope that the new, young management team in Tempe, who are especially attuned to the leisure market, would have seen that and thought, "Wow, these guys don't even fly from New York or Boston to Florida! What knuckleheads! No wonder Philly is a horror show in the winter!"
Alas, three years later... )