[snip]
"> Zak, as for the legacies, like to monuments in the vast wastes of Nubia
seen
> by Iskander, they may be no more than deteriorating remnants of once proud
> companies that saw them selves (and were seen by their employees) as
> Immortals. After all, most every "legacy" started with one or two routes
> across the dusty plains of America - or the Florida Straights, and WN had
> three, HOU/SAT/DAL, a golden triangle for $19.95 a leg after 5PM on
> Friday... Throw in Austin and El Paso, and all of a sudden, you have a
> major airline, the highest pax number carrier in Califormnia these days,
> is it not?
>
> TMO
>
I agree with you on this, BUT, there is a bigger problem. That is stability
in the industry. In the "old days," you could count on pretty regular
schedules and what the cost was. Today, you can't. Fares vary by the
minute and on an airplane with 150 seats, there are 150 (or more) fare
possibilities, as the airlines try to maximize revenue.
In the old regulated environment, the idea was that airline service was a
public service and the airlines had to be able to provide it. Yes, part of
that required service to various cities that the legacies probably wouldn't
have otherwise wanted to serve, and the majors cross subsidized that service
with their longer haul revenues.
there has got to be a happy medium where the airlines are permitted to
compete, but the competition isn't so deadly that more than half of the U.S.
majors are operating in bankrutpcy. And the same is beginning to show
elsewhere as well (in Europe, with the failures of Swissair and Sabena, the
perilous situations of Alitalia and Olympic, etc.; in Australia /New Zealand
with the failure of Ansett and the troubles at Air New Zealand). When so
many carriers are in such dire straits, something is wrong with the
industry.
Today, people will desert one carrier to save $5 a ticket, even if that
extra $5 buys better service (i.e., larger baggage allowance, service to
primary airports, better inflight service, etc.) And yet even this is
largely bait-and-switch (Ryanair, for example, probably generates more
revenue selling inflight service items (drinks, food, etc.) than they make
on the tickets, and you essentially end up on a flying bus (no reclining
seats, no window shades, etc.)
Southwest has been successful because they stick to a simple formula. Their
fares are not always the cheapest; their web site is not the best if you're
looking at a connection scenario, but people know they can count on two
things, consistent schedules and consistent fares. And not least, tolerable
legroom.
|