Originally Posted By X-san **I am tempted to call it the WalMart of the skies, but that's really not fair.** You just have this thing about comparing *everything* to walmart, don't you? ;p **SW delivers a reliable, quality (for what it is) product. But they aren't a full-service airline in terms of assigned seating, meals, entertainment systems and alliances with other carriers.** I will just go ahead and throw out "meals" (what a joke, for ALL the airlines frankly), and "entertainment systems" (another joke, and something that is next to non-existent domestically these days...sad to say). So on those two fronts, I don't see any marked improvement for these so-called "full service" airlines. As far as assigned seating, yes it is quite the issue isn't it? And yet, I wonder why it couldn't be so much simpler if all the airlines just went "cattle call". After all, it works for buses and trains, no? If you're the last in line for a greyhound bus, chances are you won't be sitting with your friend. Why is an airplane so different? Perhaps the solution would be for SW to implement an "upgrade" of sorts, where you can pay $10 for a "fastpass" to the front of the boarding line. That might work. Anyway, yes the cattle call is certainly an issue. AS IS, the issue of the alliance with other airlines. That's a weird one, since it's so bizarre how the whole thing has played out in any case. If I'm loyal to "Air America", now I get benefits on future flights with Aeroflot. How weird. And the recent news that MY "full-service" carrier of choice, Continental, is now switching out of the previous alliance with Northwest and Delta (in my small family, each member is a card carrying freeloader for one of those three), in favor of United and whoever THEIR friends are has left us feeling pretty high and dry about the whole thing. In a way, it would be cool if none of that garbage ever existed, since it only forces people to chose one GROUP over another, in comparison to one AIRLINE over another (the logical way to look at things). So anyway, that's my ramblings on the issue.
Originally Posted By dshyates My perfered carrier is the one going where I want to go, when I want to go, with the cheapest fare. Usually thats my PT Cruiser. I have gotten a favorable reponse to one of the Resumes I sent to Otown. If I'm lucky I may be headed down there for an interview. If so I will be driving down from WV. It is so expensive to get a connecting flight out of here, that I would have to drive to Charlotte to catch a flight that would make financial sense, so if I have to drive that far I'll just keep on truckin'.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> "The Republicans are always supposed to be the optimists." You've got to be kidding me. The "Terrorists are gonna git'cha" Party? The "Liberals are taking us to hell in a handbasket" party? You need a big gun because the gangs are gonna git'cha" party. The "Homos are gonna steal you husband" party? So if the liberals take over the Homos are goonna take you husband, the baby killers want YOUR baby, and the terrorists and gangs are gonna kill you and your family. Now there is some GOP opptimism. << WOW! You have a problem.
Originally Posted By SuperDry As I've said in other threads, I think this is seriously bad news for Orlando tourism. It's certainly true that it will still be relatively easy for people to get to Orlando by air if they want to - they may just have to connect instead of flying non-stop. But connecting service from secondary airports tends to be more convenient in some ways than non-stop, as you tend to have more choices as far as schedule goes. But, regardless, the issue is that as flights get cut to MCO, the number of available seats get cut. It really doesn't matter if any particular person can still get to MCO with relative ease - the issue is if the number of total seats flying there goes down 15-25%, then the number of arriving passengers is likely to decrease by the same amount.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Perhaps the solution would be for SW to implement an "upgrade" of sorts, where you can pay $10 for a "fastpass" to the front of the boarding line. That might work. Anyway, yes the cattle call is certainly an issue. >>> I think the SW "cattle call" is talked about as being much worse than it is. Especially since they revamped the boarding procedures earlier this year, it goes rather smoothly. The whole trick to the thing is to check in online 24 hours before the flight, or at least don't wait until you get to the airport. If you do this, you'll get an early boarding sequence and will get your choice of seating. But once this is done, you no longer have to get to the check-in counter, gate podium, or gate line early in order to get a good seat. As far as the fastpass, they actually started this earlier this year, but only for full-fare passengers. Basically, for $15 more on a full-fare ticket, you get front-of-the-line boarding and an adult beverage.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But, regardless, the issue is that as flights get cut to MCO, the number of available seats get cut. It really doesn't matter if any particular person can still get to MCO with relative ease - the issue is if the number of total seats flying there goes down 15-25%, then the number of arriving passengers is likely to decrease by the same amount.>> No. It is more likely that the number of empty seats will decrease by the same amount. MSP to Orlando flights are always sold out... you don't see any of that capacity being cut back do you? They are taking the seats out of service that usually go empty. This is not really bad for Orlando. The sky is not falling.
Originally Posted By X-san Sits back and waits for RT to get burned...NOONE knows as much about the intricacies of air travel than SuperDry. So I'm betting he knows exactly what he's talking about in those statements.
Originally Posted By barboy ////Sits back and waits for RT to get burned...NOONE knows as much about the intricacies of air travel than SuperDry./// Yes, why is that?...... I mean I have noticed SuperDry has a very solid command of info and facts in general but particularly in: 1) travel 2) accounting/taxation/economics/legal environment of business Hey Dry are you a political economist who travels most frequently? Maybe you are a CPA who flies quite often? How about a high level stock analyst or a vice pres. of finance for a huge multinational corp.? ..... so what gives?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Sits back and waits for RT to get burned...NOONE knows as much about the intricacies of air travel than SuperDry. So I'm betting he knows exactly what he's talking about in those statements. >>> I had a response all typed up, but thought that it could end up dragging this thread down into a heated debate, and I didn't want to do that to RT. But, due to popular demand, I must now step in and respond to what he said. <<< No. It is more likely that the number of empty seats will decrease by the same amount. MSP to Orlando flights are always sold out... you don't see any of that capacity being cut back do you? They are taking the seats out of service that usually go empty. >>> They certainly are not cutting flights that are completely empty, nor anywhere close to it, as these flights would have been cut long ago. It's not as if carriers have been trying to make money by expanding their routes in recent years by operating empty or near-empty loss leaders on point-to-point service to Orlando. Rather, the flights to Orlando being eliminated are likely to be those that had reasonable loads and were marginally profitable at some point, but no longer are because of changing economics. MSP is a ways away from Orlando, and most of the cutbacks are from locations a bit closer (for reasons I'll go into below). But for those routes with reduced or eliminated MCO service whose displaced passengers now have to connect in MSP, how are they going to do this if as you say the MSP-MCO flights are always sold out? NW will probably raise the fare on that route (for non-stop and connecting passengers) until supply and demand equalize, but you're still left with fewer passengers at the end of the day. Many of the flights being eliminated are on shorter-haul routes that have used regional jets. It used to be that fuel was the #2 cost to operate an airline, behind labor, but not anymore. One reason that regional jets have proliferated so much in the last 10 years is that they are much cheaper to operate in terms of labor. In most cases, the regional jets are operated by the commuter affiliate of a major carrier, and not the mainline carrier itself (so, American Eagle, Continental Express, etc). The ranges of these aircraft have gotten so long that they routinely operate 3+ hour flights these days. But, since they are operated by the commuter affiliate, they have a completely different labor contract with the unions. A first officer at a commuter airline may start out at around $20,000/year salary, far less than their mainline counterparts get paid. And, as long as the aircraft has less than a certain number of seats, it falls under the commuter pilots and flight attendants union contracts regardless of how far it flies. So, by putting long-range commuter jet aircraft on secondary routes, carriers were able to serve markets that previously didn't have enough demand for a mainline aircraft to operate profitably. But now that fuel has far eclipsed labor as the #1 cost in operating an airline, the labor savings of commuter jets is much less of a factor, and the economics of many of these routes has completely changed. Plus, there's another issue that affects point-to-point leisure routes in particular: price elasticity. One of the ways the large carriers can raise revenue while keeping leisure travel competitive with the low-cost carriers is by raising business fares. Many businesspeople will pay a premium to travel on a full-service carrier and/or a non-stop route, but far fewer leisure travelers will do so. But, many of these point-to-point nonstop routes to MCO were virtually all leisure travel. That is, there were almost no business travelers whose fares could be raised to make up for the higher fuel costs. One fundamental thing to note about the airline industry is that the carriers are collectively losing billions of dollars a year. And it's not as if they have hugely sloppy management practices that are letting dollars fly out the window. They simply can't operate in today's market at a profit with today's price structure. It's apparent to me that the major carriers are gearing up for substantial increases in all fares, including leisure fares. Since low-cost carriers (mostly Southwest) often are the market makers for leisure fares, this is bound to happen over the next 18 months as most of Southwest's fuel hedges expire. As SW raises fares to remain profitable, the big boys will do so in lock step, no doubt collectively breathing a sigh of relief. But, it's not just a matter of all carriers being able to charge higher rates without being undercut: there's a certain point where each traveler will choose not to travel because it's too expensive. And, I think the fare increases that are around the corner (assuming oil doesn't go down substantially) are going to have a significant affect on demand for travel, especially leisure travel, and the carriers know it. As far as whether or not "the sky is falling," I suppose it depends on your point of view. In my business, if revenue and the customer base fell 10-20% over a couple of years, it would of course not be as good as if it was increasing, but it would not be a crisis. But then again, I don't work for a publicly-traded company that is expected to Increase Shareholder Value quarter in and quarter out. The problem with a place like WDW is that it's owned by a huge public company, many of whose shareholders were sold on the concept of a 20% growth in earnings each and every year. Within the Parks & Resorts division, WDW is the clear leader as far as being the cash generator. This means that WDW must deliver the earnings growth each and every quarter in order to keep the P&R division on track, and this is true regardless of what the economy is doing and regardless of what money pits elsewhere in the division are doing when they deliver nowhere near the earnings projected when they were approved and forward projections made. Let's say you were WDW and had to deal with even a 5% pullback in arrivals, could not raise prices, yet had to deliver a substantial earnings growth? The only thing left is to cut costs. My fear is that most waste and most smart cutbacks that don't affect the guest experience have already been done at WDW, and as the years continue, the cost reductions needed in order for the bottom-line numbers to continue to grow will increasingly affect the guest experience, which over time will only serve to increase the headwind against future growth. But what do I know? <<< Hey Dry are you a political economist who travels most frequently? Maybe you are a CPA who flies quite often? How about a high level stock analyst or a vice pres. of finance for a huge multinational corp.? ..... so what gives? >>> I am a Disney (and especially a TDR) fanboy and travel freeloader (according to some), and spend far too much time on message boards. Does that answer your question?
Originally Posted By kennect Spirit, Based on something you said above...I just sold some pieces of Disney stuff I bought as an investment...This was just this past week...I got over three times what I paid for it...
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>They certainly are not cutting flights that are completely empty, nor anywhere close to it, as these flights would have been cut long ago. It's not as if carriers have been trying to make money by expanding their routes in recent years by operating empty or near-empty loss leaders on point-to-point service to Orlando. Rather, the flights to Orlando being eliminated are likely to be those that had reasonable loads and were marginally profitable at some point, but no longer are because of changing economics.<<< Well, I may not be a CEO of any airline, which some of you appear to be by your responses, but, that logic borders on, (ah, there's no easy way to say it) STUPID! If that is actually the way they think in the airline industry I am going to reconsider flying with any of them. Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that those that would have used the secondary departure locations would now find there way to the primary locations filling up those empty seats? It is obvious that the cost of fuel has totally changed the industry from a service industry to a "pay up and shut up or stay home" industry. If they want to fly to Orlando they will have to leave from a different location. One airline servicing Vermont recently instituted a non-stop from Burlington to Orlando. Imagine that, a city with a population of 55K with it's own direct flight. Why? Because we are 40 miles from the Canadian border and 70 miles from Montreal. They are certainly banking on Canadians driving that far to catch a plane when they have two huge airports just outside of Montreal. What would be the purpose of "loss leader" flights? It's not like you are going to impulsively buy another flight at the checkout. I don't claim to be the expert that some of you do, but, I will tell you this, logically, it is better to run one full plane the two half full planes. Everyone will still be able to get there, just not as conveniently.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that those that would have used the secondary departure locations would now find there way to the primary locations filling up those empty seats? It is obvious that the cost of fuel has totally changed the industry from a service industry to a "pay up and shut up or stay home" industry.*** I'd say "not necessarily". At some point the hassle of the whole thing will discourage some people from bothering with it. Personally if I had to take three connections (basically wasting an entire day in transit) or drive 150+ miles just to get to an airport for departure, I'd sure look into other vacation options (like maybe flying to some destination that IS easy to get to from my local departure zone). Some will insist on WDW, of course, but other people, I'd guess, took the trip at least partially due to the convenience of it.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost But wouldn't driving instead of flying not adversely affect O'town? They're still there regardless of how they got there. The only place affected would be MCO and it seems like it would be just the tip of the iceberg. I think that if you have your heart set on WDW, there really is no substitution. True, you might plan a different destination for convenience but if your goal is Disney, that's were you will head.
Originally Posted By X-san We'll see, I guess. It has been proven in the past that WDW is not immune to adverse economic situations, though.
Originally Posted By X-san Also, long drives are an extremely expensive proposition these days and I think a lot of people would think twice before hitting the roads. If their local airports still offered good deals on flights to, say, NYC...I could totally see people skipping Disney for a year or two.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<Some will insist on WDW, of course, but other people, I'd guess, took the trip at least partially due to the convenience of it.>> I don't think some people visit WDW just because it's there - think about how many kids say it's their dream to go to WDW (all the 5th graders in my class this year that hadn't been really wanted to go). I also don't think they'll stop visiting altogether because of the state of the current economy. Trips may become less frequent (a family who goes every year might visit every other year), but I don't think most families will stop completely. For us, our yearly trip to WDW is a must, and I'd cut back on other "frills" to ensure I could make my trip. For a family with kids, that's probably not as feasible as it is for me and my single self, but I'm sure if a family really wants to go, they'll find a way to get there.
Originally Posted By X-san ***all the 5th graders in my class this year that hadn't been really wanted to go*** Nikki, can't you leave room for the possibility that YOU, as a huge fan, might have subliminally influenced those tots? (otherwise, why did the subject even come up in the NikkiLOVESMickey classroom? ;p)
Originally Posted By X-san Agreed with the rest of your comments, by the way...sure people who like to go there will go there, if possible. And as you mentioned, even if they only go half as often, they will still try to go. BUT...half as often is still bad for WDW.
