• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

United Airlines strikes again

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Suppose Delta takes this slightly more expensive route, and provide slightly better service. Do you suppose that customers will choose the more expensive fare required to support that choice? Or will the large majority take the $115 fare over Delta's $117.25?
My guess is that they will take cheap, 90% of the time.
Tom

You're probably right, although I have to admit that I never could understand what kind of system the airlines use for calculating their fares. And the fare itself may be deceptive if it doesn't include all the extra charges. Things that used to be complementary now come with a charge, such as snacks and soda. I'm surprised they haven't implemented pay toilets yet.

Some people might pay a slightly higher fare if they see better service in return. That's the thing; someone might try a different airline and even be willing to pay a little more, only to find the same sub-standard service. So, the customers might think "Well, if I'm going to get lousy service anyway, might as well just pay the lowest fare."

To be fair, though, I don't think customers expect that much, other than a seat on an airplane to their destination. It doesn't have to have a lot of extra frills, but at least a modicum of reasonable service should be expected. I might go into an expensive restaurant and expect top-level service, better than I might receive at a cheaper place like McDonald's. But even McDonald's personnel are reasonably friendly and try to provide decent service. Same for Walmart personnel; it's a cheap store, but they're still generally pretty nice. Just because a product or service is cheap doesn't really give its employees license to act like jerks towards their customers.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Air marshals are in place to thwart criminals. And when they do they do not assault them, they restrain them.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
ou're probably right, although I have to admit that I never could understand what kind of system the airlines use for calculating their fares.
Whatever the airlines think most profitable. That's how they determine fares in a capitalist system.
Back in the olden days, when I had to ride my dinosaur to school in the snow(uphill both ways), the airlines were heavily regulated. Fares, routes, times, everything was run by the government. Except for customer service, which was how they competed. There were TV ads with hot girls purring "Come! Fly with me....".

That went away in favor of deregulation. Service took a nosedive into the fields, but cheap fares took off in the most literal way. So, now, if you get a cheap flight and the service includes being dragged off the plane you can thank capitalism and deregulation and the government.
Who don't much care if you fly or not, or which provider you choose, as long as they can X-ray your ..... before you get inboard.
Have a nice flight. I meant "day" .
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, although isn't there a cap on the maximum amount they can offer?
Someone said there is.
But I'd be very surprised if the fed limited a voluntary airline payment to a customer.
It's not really the passengers' problem if the airlines can't move their employees without causing a lot of disruption.
Under the law & their agreement with the airline, the latter is allowed to do this.
That's something they should resolve behind the scenes, even if they have to pay another airline to fly their crew or even if they have to charter a private plane.
That would be horribly inefficient.
It would increase costs, & consequently fares.
It would increase fossil fuel usage.
Whatever they have to do, that's their problem to solve - not something the passengers should have to worry about.
EDIT: I didn't notice that you addressed the issue of the cap in subsequent posts, so you can disregard the first question.
Passengers need not worry if they gladly take payment for being bumped.
Everyone wins.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't think the issue is competition. My understanding is that the current system has airlines operating "fortress hubs" which actually inhibit competition. There are also international airlines who are trying to break in to the domestic US market, and the US carriers are fighting hard against that (because they don't want competition).

It's also tougher for those who live in smaller cities away from the large hubs. I find that I get much better deals if I drive up to Phoenix and fly out of there as opposed to flying out of Tucson.
There's an inherent problem with the limitation you mention, ie, hubs are expensive & limited.
I don't see a way to directly address that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What is it with these airlines anyway? Their employees just seem so miserable and unhappy in their jobs. It seems like it would be one of the more fun and exciting jobs to have.
Considering the number of employees per plane & the number of flights, the
frequency of such bad behavior is rather low. But as an employer, it's hard
to screen out the bad apples when hiring. I've had one serial killer, one violent
cop, several thieves, & a few other malefactors working for me.
 
Top