How to save the airlines

Shadowcat, it sounds like you didn't own any stock or sold it in 2000. But, the future is pretty bright after dumping all that debt. I sure hope it all works out.

FONDL: I was challenging your assertion that "most short flights lose money" as much, if not moreso your <500 suggestion. Higher seat/mile cost on short flights--Yes. Money losers-- not when you take Regionals, SWA, etal, track record into account. That is why fares are not directly proportional to distance// SC- You should know by now that airline business is a complex one, and no one factor is a magical "Silver Bullet" eg- low costs alone do not guarantee success or long term survival. FYI- I was just perusing some old books, and found that 1 supplemental airline (Modern Air) flew a special Fathers Day flight in 1970 from West Berlin to Paris. This 1-time "Busenvogel" flight had regular cabin crew supplemented by several German showgirls wearing transparent bodices who served champagne. Alas, Modern Air was grounded for good 5 yrs later.

Regarding paying per pound -- then most women wouldn't fly, if they had to actually let strangers know (a) how much they really weigh and (b) how much extra crap they actually put in their luggage.

Does anyone else besides Minnow really think I'm serious about eliminating all flights of less than 500 miles? OK, I'll be serious, I hate flying and I avoid it whenever possible. That's because I'm old enough to remember when flying was sometimes fun. It isn't anymore.

But it seems to me that Shadowcat, who works in the airlines industry, agreed with my point about short flights being a profit drain for some of the airlines that are in trouble. Perhaps that's because the small regionals don't have a big overhead cost structure and can therefore undercut their larger competitors.

There is also a serious problem regarding the airspace becoming too crowded in some areas, and eliminating short flights and relying on other forms of transportation for short distance travel would help solve this problem.

But the real benefit of driving instead of flying is that you can hit a lot of strip clubs along the way. Try doing that from 30,000 feet.

"Eliiminate flights of <500 miles"----- "most short flights lose money". FONDL, those statements have more holes in them than the Swiss Cheese that I bought at the deli. Firstly, you'd be cutting out the regional feed at many places. Numerous, if not most passengers change planes somewhere on their journey. Cutting a key portion of the passenger feed would be like cutting off an athletes hand or foot, whilst expecting them to be competitive. Secondly, the regional airlines, as a group have been more profitable than the major airlines. While major airlines have been reducing aircraft fleets & employee headcount, regionals have been expanding fleets, and adding employees, including Bones son. Thirdly, Southwest, and Airtran are 2 major airlines that have been profitable since 911. In particular, Southwest has a string of profitable years dating back to the early 70's. A quick perusal of "SKYGUIDE"(lists non stop & direct flights between city pairs) shows that Southwest has practically hourly flights "sunup- sundown&beyond" from LAX to LAS,OAK, &PHX, DAL to HOU, amoung others. Still has substantial daily flights from STL to MCI(Kansas City), and MDW. As for Air Tran out of ATL-- numerous flights to IND, JAX, MCO(Orlando), MEM, RIC, TPA. All aforementioned flights are under 500 miles. So, if these 2 airlines can make a profit flying those routes, eliminating such routes rings hollow.// ... "The airlines have caused their own problems with their dumb policies." Now that may have a ring of truth to it. If some "housecleaning" is to be done, a good place to start may very well be with the individuals that make such policies.

Shadowcat, I'm not saying that the fare should be directly proportional to weight, but I do think it should be a factor. Maybe they should charge a minimum per seat plus so much per pound above a certain amount. Look at Bones post where he says seats are left vacant because of excess weight, if they have fewer big passangers and more small ones they could probably fill those seats, so the big passangers are costing the airline money. How do airlines charge for freight, is it so much per pound or do all boxes cost the same regardless of size?

I actually think airlines should charge by the pound - weigh each customer and luggage and charge accordingly. Why should a 300 pound person be able to fly for the same price as a person who weighs half that? If you are shipping a 300 pound package you'd certainly expect to pay more than to ship a 150 pound one.

But let's be honest, it's the frequent flyer miles that are killing airlines. In theory it sounds reasonable - give away seats that otherwise would remain empty to encourage business travellers to take more flights than necessary. And it works, that's exactly what happens. Trouble is it has become too popular, to the point that nobody pays to fly anymore except for business travellers. But why businesses allow the marketing guys to keep airline rebates (which is what frequent flyer miles are) for personal use, when they'd prosecute their purchasing guys for theft if they pocketed rebates on other itmes purchased for the company, is beyond me. Frequent flyer miles on flights purchased by an employer are the employer's property, regardless of what some other employee like the CEO might say, and using them for personal use is theft, it's stealing from the owners of the business.

Chitown, I believe that auto dealerships do make the same prices available to everyone, you just have to ask for them. I've never had to show a copy of my income tax return to purchase a car.

STEP AWAY FROM THE TOOTHPASTE.

Fer chrissakes ...

I did an "internship" on terrorism when I was a college junior. Got a stipend to travel Europe for the summer, was the upshot. But one thing I came back understanding, was the difference between preventative and reactive measures.

The USA is still inept at prevention. Changing all the rules about liquids at the airport just after a plot with liquid bombs is foiled, is, in itself, exactly the problem. Terrorists are looking at that, and going, "Ha, so AGAIN we had the bomb before they had the prevention. Just gotta get one on the plane." They've learned that their technology will be responded to after it blows up. What caused the terrorist plot's downfall was infiltration, not prevention. (By the British, I might point out, too.)

FONDL, I agree with you. Since 9/11, security has gotten so crazy that my "driving radius" has expanded greatly. I used to fly from STL to ORD, IND, Louisville, Memphis, KC, etc. Those are all places to which I now drive. Little Rock and maybe Tulsa would be in those categories if I ever had reason to go them.

The best part about driving is on the return, since you get to leave when you are ready, not when it's time for the plane. That has particularly become an issue since American dropped St. Louis as a hub and air service into here has beome crappy. It used to be easy to fly into Midway on Southwest, but since that facility expanded, it's almost as screwed up as ORD.

By the way, in terms of all other businesses charging the same prices to their customers...what about retail auto dealerships?

Oh, I see now. I live about an hour from one of the smaller airports. I can take an hour to get there and even though they say to be safe arrive two hours early, at the small airport, it's usually safe to be just one hour early and still have plenty of time. It also depends on how busy it is and anything unusual going on. It takes about a total of 15 minutes walking from the car, checking in and walking down the runway to the terminal. Then you wait about 45 minutes for the plane to take off.

Fly for 1.5 to 2 hours or so. Hop off, rent a car. Takes me about 15 minutes. Then arrive at the destination within another 15 to 30. Perhaps around 3 hours or so for me. Perhaps my experience isn't normal though. I think the last time I flew, the plane even arrived early at the destination. That doesn't happen too often. I don't fly very often though. It's been over a year since the last time I flew. That trip was a major hassle after I arrived in Detroit for a messed up stopover.

Casualguy, I was thinking more about it from an airline profitability point of view - most short flights lose money. The reason is that the biggest cost is getting the plane off the ground and up to cruising altitude, which takes a huge amount of fuel; once they're at cruising altitude it takes far less fuel to keep the plane going. On short flights the plane never gets to an inexpensive cruising altitude, so the cost per mile for short flights is very high and often not reflected in the price.

But to answer your question, I live an hour from the nearest airport (assuming no traffic jams which is rare), it takes another half hour to get from the remote parking lot to the terminal (if I'm lucky) and I'm supposed to be there 2 hours before takeoff. So if I have to fly anywhere (which thank God I don't anymore) I have to leave my house 4 hours before the scheduled takeoff to be safe. The shortest flight you're in the plane at least 1.5 hours. Then I have to stand in line to rent a car, take a bus to pick it up, and drive another hour or so to where I'm going. All of which sounds like at least 7 hours to me. I live very close to an interstate and can usually drive almost 500 miles in 7 hours, depending on where I'm going. Anything less than 500 miles is no contest. Plus I have a really neat car which is a lot more fun to drive than sitting in an airport or on an overcrowded plane. And I get good gas mileage so it's usually cheaper than flying.

FONDL, are you serious about eliminating flights less than 500 miles? Either you're visiting some really slow airports at busy times or you drive awfully fast.

I just thought it was a kind of lame internet joke until I got to the signature line! :)

1) Eliminate all flights of less than 500 miles - it's quicker to drive anyway.

2) Require airlines to have a single fare that everyone pays for the same flight, which is what every other business in the US has to do.

3) Eliminate frequent flyer miles, which are nothing but illegal kickbacks.

The airlines have caused their own problems with their dumb policies.

Great idea but I see one or two major problems. I think strippers on planes (lol, sounds a lot better than snakes on planes) would need to be a mainstream event instead of the isolated event. It would need to be mainstream for all the political correctness within the corporate world to allow business travelers to book these flights as acceptable flights.

Then the next major problem would be if it was mainstream, how would you keep out the kiddies and mothers and wives who object? Many wives may not like it if their husband was actually having a good time and they were not. I think that is what happens when you have a bunch of women with pussy whipped husbands. Just my opinion. No one has to agree with it.

AN: I like that idea. Only drawback is, not everyone would want that type of Stew. Solution? How about DejaVu Air, Hustler Air, Larry Flint Airlines, Treasures Air, etc. Hooters tried it, although not real successful.

This concept reminds me of a recent Bob & Tom bit (yeah, I'm a "Friend of Hal") Anyhow, as a takeoff from Snakes on a Plane, it would be called Skanks on a Plane and would have strippers for stewardesses.

Hey, 'Cat, whats up with your email.?? Just sent duplicate pm's, got "delayed delivery" notifications.