inpd said:
Which is just what O posted earlier. There are many factors which come into play, and its impossible to compare different geographies when the markets are so different.
inpd said:
Also, competition does not necessarily equal cheap prices, old planes,
reduced baggage allowances as you suggest.
I was not trying to suggest one is a result of the other. But lower fares does require changes to the operations and those changes are often challenged by the people that will be impacted by them - often the unionised labour forces and customers expecting improvements in service rather than reductions.
inpd said:
A few American carriers forced to make a profit had a great innovation: A premier class 757/200 service b/w SFO/JFK and LAX. Half as many seats are installed as regular economy with decent meals, generous bag allowances (i.e. all the things we as travellers like). It cost twice as regular economy but I can't get a ticket on them it's that popular.
Innovation, yes. Lower fares - no. Now, I seem to remember someone trying that approach here in Oz recently
. Nice idea, but that attempt was unsuccessful (the reasons have been debated previously)
inpd said:
Surely your not suggesting that the US-Australia non-stop route cannot
do with at least two more carriers to help improve fares AND conditions?
Competition => Innovation
Not at all. I am just suggesting that the perception that more competition will always result in lower fares and better service is a little naive. Those are certainly some of the likely outcomes. But another outcome is that service levels and things that we have come to expect as "included" in the product are often reduced. Just look at the US domestic airline products as an example. Yes fare are low, but you are unlikely to be fed on a flight shorter than 3 hours, pay for your drinks, no lounge access based on status, buy/bring your own headphones for the poor quality IFE etc.
So I am saying that if we promote increased competition as a means to lowering air fares, then we cannot complain about the other affects that will likely result from the airline's need to reduce their costs to suit.
The likes of Ryanair, Southwest, Easyjet etc have most certainly reduced the cost of air travel. They have also reduced the service component and included extras. I am not judging whether that is good or bad. But I find it interesting when we are all seeking the lowest airfares on one hand, and complaining about the reduced services or use of low-cost labour (for maintenance, crew, call centres etc) on the other. Its a case of wanting our cake and eating it too.
Yes, we could see much lower trans-Pacific airfares if we invite Ryanair to operate 850 seat A380s on the route. Now I know that is a ridiculous extreme example, and the reality is somewhere in between.
Personally I think the best thing in terms of competition for the Trans_Pacific route is someone who will offer a variation to the same/same product we currently see. Perhaps DJ can do that if they are innovative enough and have the depth of pockets to make a real go of it. I hope they succeed. They have shown a willingness to find enough variation in their product domestically to be successful.
I would also like to see some of those airlines that are already permitted to operate the route to invest in it. CO and NW have the rights, have good products and have the aircraft types to do it, just not sure if they have the spare capacity or financial strength at this time.
But what I don't want to see if a degradation in the overall passenger experience for what is usually a 20+ hour total journey for me. I would prefer to pay the current airfares and have a comfortable trip, than to pay half the price and have a Ryanair experience on a 14 hour flight. However, I acknowledge that some people would rather other option.
