The New York Times carried a piece by Patrick Smith yesterday with what’s supposed to be the ‘smart take’ on recent airline incidents. He says ‘there was no golden age of air travel’ (indeed, that the golden age of air travel in many ways is now) and makes several points:
- Airfares, including fees, are lower today than 30 years ago
- Planes can fly farther so we can go between most major cities in the world with only a single stop.
- (Some) airlines offer video on demand and seat power
- Flat beds in business class
- Safety is better than ever (and while we’re far more scared of terrorists than ever before, terrorist incidents used to be far more common than they are today)
And that’s all true. When we think back on good airline food of yesteryear it’s because the federal government set prices high, and didn’t allow airlines to lower them, so they competed for customers by offering more perks.
Before you say you’d like to return to that bear in mind that it effectively means redistributing income from those least able to afford travel to the most affluent travelers.
Louis C.K. actually makes Patrick Smith’s point even more persuasively:
Louis C.K. says ‘everything’s amazing and nobody is happy’ and to that I say thank goodness because complacency is the enemy of human progress. The implication isn’t that we shouldn’t complain, and should be more satisfied with air travel than we are. Other industries don’t rest on their laurels with complacency.
Domestic air travel, and long haul economy, have not gotten more comfortable over time. Air travel hasn’t gotten faster, indeed as government-controlled air space has gotten more congested it has taken longer on average to fly between any two given cities in the U.S.
Cell phones, computers, dishwashers, and washing machines have all innovative but for most people air travel has stagnated or gotten worse even as it’s gotten less expensive. That’s why we need more competition but the government doesn’t allow it, and airline industry lobbyists don’t allow that to change. We should end restrictions on foreign ownership of US airlines so that airlines from around the world can compete to give us better service along with low prices and safety.
“Before you say you’d like to return to that bear in mind that it effectively means redistributing income from those least able to afford travel to the most affluent travelers.”
Gary, can you explain how returning to higher prices is “redistributing income” to the affluent? Sure, higher prices will allow fewer people to afford to fly. But how does it result in income redistribution? If anything, higher airline prices would force the wealthy to spend more money (and arguably save the poor some money since many of them would no longer be able to fly at all).
Your statement sound more like a trendy talking point rather than a comment relative to ticket pricing!
I doubt Cathay, Etihad, Lufthansa, whoever will be able to provide significantly better service on my LGA-ATL, LGA-BOS, LGA-ORD, JFK-LAX, JFK-DEN, etc runs. Most of these airlines are being out-competed in their home markets on comparable routes by low cost carriers.
Virgin was doing a decent job competing on perceived quality of service. Their issue was slot expansion long term. The problem is consolidation (tough to undo now) and slot restrictions. And it’s not just the majors, look at how Southwest destroyed Airtran.
Tommyleo – Lower airfare has allowed for families to keep in tough over longer distance, in some cares allowed for remote working, etc. If ticket prices were 20% higher, some people wouldn’t fly, but others would simply see other areas of spending curtailed or save less. Higher plane ticket prices would hurt those that could afford it the least. Also, more people traveling is generally good for the economy (leisure travel, etc), so lower ticket prices are a net positive for everyone. What needs to be done is airports need to be expanded and modernized, airlines should find ways to reduce costs and reinvest savings into the flight experience.
Anthony: I agree with everything you wrote. But what you wrote is still not an example of “income redistribution.”
So the New York Times is telling all air travelers to STFU and enjoy being treated like sheep, while being overcharged for seats in the back of the bus? What a surprise, coming from the world’s largest supplier of “fake news”. How much did the “Big 3” airlines pay the Times for this “news article”?
Frank is obviously a “Trumpie”. I’m surprised he visits a website other than Fox news
@Frank —> Did you bother to actually READ the article? I’m curious because you refer to it as a “news article,” when — quite clearly — it is published as an OPINION piece and certainly NOT news. It was in the “Sunday Review” section of the NYT, not the News section, and it says “Opinion” at the very top! It was not presented as news; it was not “masquerading” as news; it was not pretending to be news. It is ONE person’s OPINION. Period.
The only sense that this piece could be considered as “fake news” is if the person reading it is dumb enough to think it is a news article rather than an opinion piece . . .or perhaps they’ve just watched Fox News so much they no longer know the difference between the two. So, just in case, from Merriam-Webster, here’s some help:
Definition of “news”
1
a : a report of recent events gave her the good news
b : previously unknown information I’ve got news for you
c : something having a specified influence or effect
the rain was good news for lawns and gardens — Garrison Keillor
the virus was bad news
2
a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast listened to the news on the radio
b : matter that is newsworthy The layoffs were big news in this part of the state.
3
: newscast We saw it on the evening news.
Definition of “opinion”
1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.
b : approval, esteem I have no great opinion of his work.
2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge a person of rigid opinions
b : a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion
3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert My doctor says that I need an operation, but I’m going to get a second opinion.
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.
Who else but an industry shill for the “Big 3″ would be smiling about all those extra seats with 28” seat pitch, less legroom, and higher ticket prices, while promoting how great things are today?
The “let them eat cake” attitude of airline CEOs directly corresponds with the size of their outlandish “compensation packages”.
I’m not drinking that Kool-Aid, although others can do so at their own expense.
I see you failed to address a single one of my points, not that I was expecting anything less . . .
Lol. US3 campaign against ME3 and subsequent electronics ban has already proven something. Stop dreaming of foreign airlines operating in US domestic….
Sometimes I wonder if YOU are a lobbyist for foreign airlines wanting to do business in the US? It’s like in your stuff everyday lately.
This is a nice idea…I’m sure some of the fancy foreign airlines want to fly C and F customers from JFK to SFO and LAX…. but will they want to serve Baton Rouge? Or will they drive legacy US airlines out of business and there is nobody left and we only have left a few dozen airports served. Or will the choices be Spirit or CX/SQ? Spirit for the 98% and CX for the 2% (and the travel/credit card blogger glitterati I guess}
Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch!
Where is the gratitude?
Have been at this for over 45 years, and it is amusing to see how everybody complains about an industry that has improved in so many ways.
Things are not better or worse. Just different.
Flying has never been more fun, and I, for one, am grateful for every chance I get to strap on to a seat in these ever evolving amazing airplanes.
Most of us were not supposed to be on the other side of the velvet rope, and now we behave like entitled, spoiled brats.
Tom, this country was built on competition. HOWEVER, there has always been a balance (aka a struggle) between [totally free and unfettered] capitalism and government regulation(s). No one is suggesting we return to the way it was before airline de-regulation. Most people would agree that those days are gone forever, and the result has meant better service (generally), more innovation (overall), and lower prices. On the other hand, it’s also meant crowded skies, crowded planes, and ever-shrinking legroom, to name but a few.
Regardless of whether foreign carriers can (or should!) fly US domestic routes or not, it often seems as though we the consumers are certainly being “devalued” (along with the loyalty miles/points) by the major airlines: less leg room, the removal of IFE systems, and simply “basic economy.” Perhaps more competition *would* make a difference. Who knows? The key question is this: will customers continue to accept diminished service in exchange for lower prices? what will happen when “enough is enough”? will consumers vote with their pocketbook and leave the three US legacy airlines? (I’ve voted; see below.)
Remember it isn’t an either/or between AA/DL/UA on the one hand and Spirit (NK), Allegiant (G4), or Frontier (F9) on the other — despite the former group seeming to, as quickly as possible, emulate the latter. Southwest (WN) is still a damned sight better than NK/G4/F9 in ALL things, plus you have Alaska/Virgin (AS/VX) and JetBlue . . . among others.
As per Wikipedia (hardly the most definite source, I admit) there are 12 “mainline” carriers based in the US, 22 “regional” carriers, and some 35 “commuter” carriers — all operating regularly scheduled flights.
As I’ve often said, I *don’t* fly the three US legacy carriers if/when I can avoid it, and I’ve been able to quite successfully for many years. From 1 June 2007-31 May 2017 — so, for the past 10 years — I’ve flown 236 times. 20 have been on one of the three legacy carriers. So out of 236 flights, only 8.5% (rounded up) were on either American, Delta, or United metal. (Note: this includes international travel as well.)
What James said.
Who cares what the NYT thinks about travel anyway.
…As seats become smaller and legroom diminishes, shorter and smaller-statured people are being hired for positions which require air travel. The average height of workers in urban Asian population centers does not differ greatly from those in the US, so employers are looking to hire more women & workers from less-developed nations…Airlines which choose to reduce seat pitch are contributing to job losses among male North American and European workers…