Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently travelled on Ryan Air to France and was ticked off because my hand luggage was 2lbs over weight ...unreal, airlines are getting very greedy.
I am beginning to think that there is a sort of corporate psychosis that starts to germinate in the minds of high-ranking suits when their companies suddenly aren't doing so well. Broadly speaking, one could choose one of two paths:
1) Try and make our product/service as appealing as possible, so that people will want to do business with us even if our price is a bit higher. Hope people understand, and treat them really nice. Let them know we're glad to see them. Pay employees enough to make that a reality.
2) Start playing a shell game with money, maintaining ostensible cheapness but adding so many little fiscal dings and gotchas that everyone hates us and our product, and begins to say passionate prayers that we die in a fire. Cut employee pay so that they'll hate the client as much as the client hates us.
#2 seems to be the universal choice of banks, credit card outfits, airlines and so on--and I cannot comprehend why. I've run a business that's had hard times. The very last thing I would have considered was, by definition, anything that would alienate the clients that liked me. They were my bread and butter and my salvation. On the contrary: I would make very sure that they felt they got good value.
Maybe it's not just high-level suits. We hire a lady to pick up after our dogs. She's a significant pain in the rear end, frankly, and if there were anyone else locally doing this I'd sack her, but there is not, and I gave my wife a commitment (they are her dogs, not mine; I hate dogs and don't do dog poo at all), therefore I have to get along with the dog poo lady. So the dog poo lady is going off on her most recent sermon as to all the ways I should remodel my back yard entirely for her poo-scooping convenience, and one of the issues is that she has whined that she can't clean up the kennel if the dogs are in it, so I have made a special effort to have them out for her afternoon visits, and then she begins coming in the morning and so now I should bring them in earlier, because after all the only thing that matters is her convenience. And she says: "I'm losing customers due to the economy, and sometimes I have to come early or it's not efficient for me." Well, as long as it's efficient for you, all is right with my world, lady. How did you get an advanced degree in biology while remaining this dense? I return with the obvious rejoinder: "Well, then perhaps you should be very conscious of not annoying the customers who can afford your service, who pay you promptly and therefore are not going to be lost. Perhaps you should understand that I have made all the adjustments and changes I plan to make in order to meet your needs and requirements, and that you should as a dog-friendly person be able to enter a kennel containing friendly dogs in order to pick up their leavings if your own schedule change puts you in that position. Fair enough?"
Now, if she had four ounces of business sense, she'd understand partly why she is losing customers. She's annoying. She even alienates people who make an effort to help her out. So when the economy gets tight, and people trim costs, guess which luxury goes? Dog poo pickup. Because they never liked her anyway. When people start laying off staff, or cutting costs, the first things to go are always the ones they always hated. We're going to SF in September. It would be convenient and cheap to fly, but we don't want to. We hate flying too much. We'd rather drive if it's within a day's travel. At least if we drive, no one will misplace our luggage or confine us in a plane on the tarmac for eight hours or paddle-search us or seat us next to a whiny baby that somehow gets to fly free even though in my opinion they should not only not fly free but cost double to discourage anyone from flying with a whiny baby. At least if we drive, we won't arrive hating humanity (just truck drivers).
I rejoice in the delicious irony of likening airlines and banks and credit card companies to something involving the bodily wastes of the canine. Although these days, that's arguably inhumane to the animals. While I freely admit I greatly dislike dogs, I draw the line at inhumane treatment.
I am beginning to think that there is a sort of corporate psychosis that starts to germinate in the minds of high-ranking suits when their companies suddenly aren't doing so well. Broadly speaking, one could choose one of two paths:
1) Try and make our product/service as appealing as possible, so that people will want to do business with us even if our price is a bit higher. Hope people understand, and treat them really nice. Let them know we're glad to see them. Pay employees enough to make that a reality.
2) Start playing a shell game with money, maintaining ostensible cheapness but adding so many little fiscal dings and gotchas that everyone hates us and our product, and begins to say passionate prayers that we die in a fire. Cut employee pay so that they'll hate the client as much as the client hates us.
#2 seems to be the universal choice of banks, credit card outfits, airlines and so on--and I cannot comprehend why. I've run a business that's had hard times. The very last thing I would have considered was, by definition, anything that would alienate the clients that liked me. They were my bread and butter and my salvation. On the contrary: I would make very sure that they felt they got good value.
Maybe it's not just high-level suits. We hire a lady to pick up after our dogs. She's a significant pain in the rear end, frankly, and if there were anyone else locally doing this I'd sack her, but there is not, and I gave my wife a commitment (they are her dogs, not mine; I hate dogs and don't do dog poo at all), therefore I have to get along with the dog poo lady. So the dog poo lady is going off on her most recent sermon as to all the ways I should remodel my back yard entirely for her poo-scooping convenience, and one of the issues is that she has whined that she can't clean up the kennel if the dogs are in it, so I have made a special effort to have them out for her afternoon visits, and then she begins coming in the morning and so now I should bring them in earlier, because after all the only thing that matters is her convenience. And she says: "I'm losing customers due to the economy, and sometimes I have to come early or it's not efficient for me." Well, as long as it's efficient for you, all is right with my world, lady. How did you get an advanced degree in biology while remaining this dense? I return with the obvious rejoinder: "Well, then perhaps you should be very conscious of not annoying the customers who can afford your service, who pay you promptly and therefore are not going to be lost. Perhaps you should understand that I have made all the adjustments and changes I plan to make in order to meet your needs and requirements, and that you should as a dog-friendly person be able to enter a kennel containing friendly dogs in order to pick up their leavings if your own schedule change puts you in that position. Fair enough?"
Now, if she had four ounces of business sense, she'd understand partly why she is losing customers. She's annoying. She even alienates people who make an effort to help her out. So when the economy gets tight, and people trim costs, guess which luxury goes? Dog poo pickup. Because they never liked her anyway. When people start laying off staff, or cutting costs, the first things to go are always the ones they always hated. We're going to SF in September. It would be convenient and cheap to fly, but we don't want to. We hate flying too much. We'd rather drive if it's within a day's travel. At least if we drive, no one will misplace our luggage or confine us in a plane on the tarmac for eight hours or paddle-search us or seat us next to a whiny baby that somehow gets to fly free even though in my opinion they should not only not fly free but cost double to discourage anyone from flying with a whiny baby. At least if we drive, we won't arrive hating humanity (just truck drivers).
I rejoice in the delicious irony of likening airlines and banks and credit card companies to something involving the bodily wastes of the canine. Although these days, that's arguably inhumane to the animals. While I freely admit I greatly dislike dogs, I draw the line at inhumane treatment.
a very witty,well composed thought out post that is probably THE Best one I've read in awhile!!!!
The new policy basically at airlines is you pay for what you use.
This is just the new policy. Americans wanted the cheapest ticket possible and the airlines have given it to them. You could have less service for less money or more service for more money. Americans seems to want the cheapest ticket.
I tend to agree.
I also only do one carry-on backpack.
i keep all my liquids and gels (paints for my art projects) at my usual destination. do no check in. only carry on. just carry brushes and paper. its a bother to have duplicate supplies but i dont like paying them extra every time i fly.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 08-23-2009 at 09:35 AM..
The last few times I have flown I have seen real problems with the carry on. There were so many people with carry on's that there was not enough room for the amount in the overhead. The flight attendants simply could not find any space for these passengers. It held up the flights with all the wandering around the cabin looking for space. It then held it up again as their carry ons had to be removed from the cabbin and checked and they pay the baggage fee. I mean really this is ridiculos. When I do fly it is usually on Alaska. I liked them before but have now grown tired of them. I don't even want to fly anymore. I find it such a miserable experience, I honestly feel overwhelmed by what I see anymore.
It is obvious there have always been passengers bringing carry ons on the plane. What has changed now with the baggage fees, is more and more people bring their bags on the flight itself.
The cabin overheads were not made for this many people to bring all this luggage on the plane. Naturally it causes problems such as the flight delays I mentioned.
Alaska Airlines get your act together with what you allow people to bring in the cabin as carry ons. If you can't do that then stay in Alaska and don't fly into Portland anymore. I will take Southwest even if it take me 24 hours to get from Portland to Providence and make 3 or 4 stops before I get there.
For every 5 people that hate the checked baggage fees, 95 people love it because they pay less. Probably what you will see in the future is more flights cut and ticket costs going back to where they should be, $700, $800+ or more for a coach transcontinental flight vs. the standard $200-$300 now. When air travel cost less than Greyhound or Amtrak but takes 4 hours instead of 4 days you know something is wrong with the industry and its pricing structure.
For every 5 people that hate the checked baggage fees, 95 people love it because they pay less. Probably what you will see in the future is more flights cut and ticket costs going back to where they should be, $700, $800+ or more for a coach transcontinental flight vs. the standard $200-$300 now. When air travel cost less than Greyhound or Amtrak but takes 4 hours instead of 4 days you know something is wrong with the industry and its pricing structure.
the only ones who love it(I don't think the tkt prices are ANY cheaper.......but do dream on..) are the ones who bring ALL their freakin luggage ON BOARD anyway
the only ones who love it(I don't think the tkt prices are ANY cheaper.......but do dream on..) are the ones who bring ALL their freakin luggage ON BOARD anyway
I understand your frustration. But the point remains that airlines are essentially a zero sum game save for Southwest, and even they lost money 3 out of the last 4 quarters IIRC. The industry has collectively lost more than they have EVER made since deregulation and its time for a new revenue model. Perhaps this is it.
The cost pressures on the airlines have moved toward an outsourcing of mx to foreign countries, cutting labor costs by 50% or more in some cases with minimum or even less than required staff, and cutting out every conceivable luxury (NWA cut olives from its salads and saved $1 mil/year). Yet that is not enough as they continue to lose money. If you were the CEO, what would you do? History has shown the most successful air carriers are those that are cheap to fly, not that offer the best service. Example - SWA and Airtran. People shop by ticket cost, just look how Orbirtz ranks the fares.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
