Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Aug 28th 2010 9:08AM The flying public has brought this onto themselves by insisting on ever lower fares even when the airlines were losing billions annually. As long as one carrier had a fare that was a dollar cheaper than the others, that's where the passengers would go. The overhead costs to own and maintain the aircraft of the legacy carriers is dramatically different than the costs at say Southwest or JetBlue. Yet the passengers want tickets to cost the same or lower. So, the legacy carriers are forced to consolidate in order to make a profit. No profit, no business, no jobs and so on. Try driving your SUV across country with your family of four and figure the total cost. Hotels, meals, entertainment etc. over the 3-31/2 days it takes to get there and then back again. Maybe then you'll have a better idea as to just how inexpensive flying actually is. Someone mentioned having to change flight plans to a sooner date because of a death in the family and the fares were higher. How often do think that excuse will get used by passengers just to get a lower fare once they realize that they can work the scam and save some cash?
Apr 30th 2010 5:11PM To you constant complainers of the airlines treatment of it's passengers...by all means feel free to stop flying and drive your fuel sipping Prius to Hong Kong or Frankfurt. Better yet fly Southwest (they have the friendliest crews and cheapest fares...apparently). Oh wait, they only fly in the CONUS. Pay what it actually cost for the airline to move your sorry ___ from point A to point B and perhaps the fees would go away. Why do you insist on finding the cheapest way to fly when your at 35,000 ft. Do you buy the cheapest car made? or eat the cheapest meals?
Apr 14th 2010 2:34PM If the flying public would be willing to pay for a ticket what it actually costs the airline to fly from point A to point B, there would not be the need to have bag fees and removing other amenities that used to be included. However, the flying public would much prefer to put their (and their loved ones) lives in the air at an altitude of 33,000 feet in the cheapest seat available. Many thousands of experienced airline employees are out of work and the maintenance sent to third world countries with little to no oversight. All this to ensure a cheap seat.
Feb 2nd 2009 4:14PM Pay what it costs to actually fly from point A to point B, and the airlines wouldn't have to tack on the additional fees. The flying public wants to travel on the cheap ticket or with their mileage points and that doesn't generate the revenue to keep the planes in the air. Pilots, flight crews and mechanics have had to take drastic cuts in pay and benefits to supplement the cheap tickets. Now pay up! Take a train across the country or drive your own suv. Three days each way plus hotels and meals. I'm guessing the passengers on the US Air flight that ditched in the Hudson would have paid a whole lot more to keep that plane from going down. Why you'd want to put your life on the line at 30k feet for a cheap seat is beyond me.