Air Travel » Air Travel Discount » Passenger statistics
Question:
> Latest statistics show that passengers are not returning to air travel in > the numbers > that were anticipated by the airline industry after 11 September. > The big question is why not. Theories are being kicked around but nobody > seems > able to home in a definitive answer..
One possible factor compounding the decline in business travellers. Death of the dot coms. Not so many of these companies flush with cash from investors now.
Response:
> – Don’t serve meals on shorter flights. Instead, provide meal vouchers for > connecting passengers to eat at the connecting hub between flights. Way > cheaper. > This sounds like a good idea to me. (So long as connections allow, of > course.) > Ken Ishiguro > Take care > Jon
You probably heard AA is going to a "rolling" or "de-peaked" hub concept. Schedules have been chaged so aircraft arrive continuously but in smaller numbers, rather than in hourly "banks" to ease ground and airspace congestion. However, connection times will be longer. Serving on-ground meals will make the perceived wait shorter. Ken Ishiguro
Response:
> Serving on-ground > meals will make the perceived wait shorter. > Ken Ishiguro
Wouldn’t it make sense that only passengers desiring meals actually pay for them, instead of the airline providing them.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Latest statistics show that passengers are not returning to air travel in > the numbers > that were anticipated by the airline industry after 11 September. > The big question is why not. Theories are being kicked around but nobody > seems > able to home in a definitive answer.. > May I ask those of you who have first hand experience of (frequent) air > travel > whether you can provide any clues ? > The sort of reasons I am hearing are: > -the 11 September effect still exists (people are more afraid of flying than > before) > -new security rules cause a lot of hassle and delays resulting in travellers > looking > for alternative means of travel or even telephone calls/conferences
It’s more than just security. Fewer direct flights means that the trip takes even longer. > -fares are too high (but they have not gone up more since 11 September than > they > did in other years) > -airlines going bankrupt or seeking Chapter 11 (advance bookings on a > carrier may > not be honoured as the airline stops operating) > Any response would be very appreciated
Travel was down even before 9/11. The reasons only got worse afterwards. Travel has become more problematic because of increased hassles in getting on/to/from the airport including baggage screening hassles. It was bad before 9/11, it got worse afterwards. No on particularly enjoyed airline travel recently because of severely declining service. I personally haven’t reduced my travel, but then I wasn’t exactly a double super gold medallion type anyway.
Response:
Hassle. Surly service. Any trip under 1000 miles gets serious consideration as a driving trip for me.
Response:
Much more of a hassle than pre 9/11. I travel from central California to San Diego several times a year, used to fly, but now, it is easier to drive the distance from my home (500 miles) when you take in the time factor of leaving the house, being at the airport at least 1 1/2 hours before flight, the hassle at the airport getting luggage, etc. and the airlines make you feel like they did you a favor by allowing you on their plane.
Response:
I think WN is a good example of what is going on…. WN always considered their competition the car, not other airlines. Until a few years ago, their routes were short-haul, and their fares were low enough to make people fly instead of driving. Post 9/11 security hassles have made short trips favorable the car. I don’t have any numbers, but I would bet WN’s short haul leisure traffic is way down. Fortunately, WN has diversified into longer haul routes and does compete with other airlines. As other posts in this thread have said, the definition of "full service" is continuing to decay, while WN just keeps their standards where they’ve always been. That makes it just a price game which WN usually wins. Also, others have identified the fact that companies are looking very hard at their travel budgets. I know my employer has greatly reduced travel and replaced it with conference calls, field reps, and consolidation of several trips into one. BTW, a few more obvious things the majors are missing: – Instead of locating hubs at already busy or poor-weather airports (DFW, ORD, SFO), airlines should build "wayports" for the sole purpose of a hub. They would be located based on route structures and weather, not proximity to a major city. Land would be cheap (there are many big, mostly unused WW2 airfields across the country), and rural areas would probably welcome the economic boost. – Don’t serve meals on shorter flights. Instead, provide meal vouchers for connecting passengers to eat at the connecting hub between flights. Way cheaper. Ken Ishiguro
Response:
> – Don’t serve meals on shorter flights. Instead, provide meal vouchers for > connecting passengers to eat at the connecting hub between flights. Way > cheaper.
This sounds like a good idea to me. (So long as connections allow, of course.) > Ken Ishiguro
Take care Jon — Jon Beasley-Murray Literature Program, Duke University Spanish and Portuguese Studies, University of Manchester
Response:
Latest statistics show that passengers are not returning to air travel in the numbers that were anticipated by the airline industry after 11 September. The big question is why not. Theories are being kicked around but nobody seems able to home in a definitive answer.. May I ask those of you who have first hand experience of (frequent) air travel whether you can provide any clues ? The sort of reasons I am hearing are: -the 11 September effect still exists (people are more afraid of flying than before) -new security rules cause a lot of hassle and delays resulting in travellers looking for alternative means of travel or even telephone calls/conferences -fares are too high (but they have not gone up more since 11 September than they did in other years) -airlines going bankrupt or seeking Chapter 11 (advance bookings on a carrier may not be honoured as the airline stops operating) Any response would be very appreciated Kind regards Tony
Response:
> Latest statistics show that passengers are not returning to air travel in > the numbers > that were anticipated by the airline industry after 11 September. > The big question is why not. Theories are being kicked around but nobody > seems > able to home in a definitive answer.. > May I ask those of you who have first hand experience of (frequent) air > travel > whether you can provide any clues ?
IMHO, the answer is so obvious, it is incredible that the airlines haven’t figured it out. The bottom line is that air travel was soft even before 9-11, because the airlines became so greedy as to eliminate the "value" equation. In other words, the service has to be worth the price. That does not mean that an airline has to offer no-frills prices with full-frills service, but it does mean that (1) the customer is ALWAYS the customer – not necessarily always right, but ALWAYS PAYING YOUR SALARY; (2) You don’t eliminate service (whether meals, luggage allowances, seat assignment, etc.) and raise fares (despite what the airlines are bitching about, the so-called "bargain fares" have so many restrictions that they are not easily secured – even Southwest’s discount fares are difficult to qualify for; (3) business fares have no business averaging 6 times the cost of leisure fares; and (4) bitching that fares are lower than they would have been under regulation is a lie – study after study has shown that fares were going down before deregulation (remember National Airlines’ no-frills fares on the east coast and Texas International’s "Peanuts" fares)? Bottom line: The airlines need to go back to what American Airlines (and I’m no fan of theirs) tried to do several years ago – reduce the number of fares to a reasonable level – a "fair" business/walk-up fare for first class, a "fair" business/walk-up fare for economy, and a couple of advance purchase (non-refundable) fares, maybe 1, 2, or 3 weeks out. Additionally, the time may be right for a third class of service on domestic flights – between first class and economy, so that travelers willing to pay a bit more than coach can still get adequate legroom, a meal (if you’re flying, say, from Salt Lake City to Miami via Dallas on American, you can be going 6 hours without anything to eat), etc. United and Pan American used to do this between Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast, with three classes of service – the "coach" passengers sat closer to the galley, and received meal service; the "economy/thrift" passengers did not. In short, if the passenger has the option of going "no-frills," and waiving seat selection, frequent flyer miles, etc., that should be an option. If a passenger is willing to pay a nominal additional cost for these features, let him. The problem today is that the airlines have forgotten the "service" aspect of their business. And because of the hub-and-spoke nature of the current business, there are many monopoly routes today so you really don’t have any choices for nonstops (although you can usually route yourself through a competitor’s own fortress hub). Personally, I blame Jimmy Carter and Alfred Kahn, but that’s another story 
Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The sort of reasons I am hearing are: > -the 11 September effect still exists (people are more afraid of flying than > before) > -new security rules cause a lot of hassle and delays resulting in travellers > looking > for alternative means of travel or even telephone calls/conferences > -fares are too high (but they have not gone up more since 11 September than > they > did in other years) > -airlines going bankrupt or seeking Chapter 11 (advance bookings on a > carrier may > not be honoured as the airline stops operating) > Any response would be very appreciated > Kind regards > Tony
no comment untill now