Business History Books » Business Plans » More on what the $50 penalty is really for; THIS IS REALLY LAME!
More on what the $50 penalty is really for; THIS IS REALLY LAME!
Question:
Are you advocating a centrally controlled economy? It is my impresion that prior trials were unsuccesful! Ergos – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Uh, flying is not your Constitutional right — if you can’t afford it, > you don’t fly. (You might consider that there are a few billion people in > the world that can’t afford to fly even at the prices you can afford.) > Please note that I’m not defending the airlines’ tacky penalties or high > fares. But I don’t see how the argument against them can be that someone > can’t afford it. > Well, Ellen, just think of it this way: there are billions of underfed > people in the world too, but if a grocery store decided to charge $100 for > a loaf of bread unless you called them to reserve it seven days in > advance, would you also use the same argument? The point is that if > everyone had to pay what the airlines want (a full business class fare, or > at least a "Y" fare) then society would colapse whether it’s anyone’s > "right" or not. Like let’s say the Middle East oil runs dry and jet feul > gets so costly even excursion fares jump to $2k. Can you imagine what > that would do to every part of our global economy? Just because some > people are REALLY badly off is no reason for the rest of us to let > ourselves be abused; instead we should be doing what we can to make it > that those destitute billions CAN fly (which, by the way, they actually > usually can for the simple reason that in countries like that they pay > lower airfares than foreigners. Check Vietnam as an example). > Later!
Response:
> Uh, flying is not your Constitutional right — if you can’t afford it, > you don’t fly. (You might consider that there are a few billion people in > the world that can’t afford to fly even at the prices you can afford.) > Please note that I’m not defending the airlines’ tacky penalties or high > fares. But I don’t see how the argument against them can be that someone > can’t afford it.
Well, Ellen, just think of it this way: there are billions of underfed people in the world too, but if a grocery store decided to charge $100 for a loaf of bread unless you called them to reserve it seven days in advance, would you also use the same argument? The point is that if everyone had to pay what the airlines want (a full business class fare, or at least a "Y" fare) then society would colapse whether it’s anyone’s "right" or not. Like let’s say the Middle East oil runs dry and jet feul gets so costly even excursion fares jump to $2k. Can you imagine what that would do to every part of our global economy? Just because some people are REALLY badly off is no reason for the rest of us to let ourselves be abused; instead we should be doing what we can to make it that those destitute billions CAN fly (which, by the way, they actually usually can for the simple reason that in countries like that they pay lower airfares than foreigners. Check Vietnam as an example). Later!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Uh, flying is not your Constitutional right — if you can’t afford it, > you don’t fly. (You might consider that there are a few billion people in > the world that can’t afford to fly even at the prices you can afford.) > Please note that I’m not defending the airlines’ tacky penalties or high > fares. But I don’t see how the argument against them can be that someone > can’t afford it. >Well, Ellen, just think of it this way: there are billions of underfed >people in the world too, but if a grocery store decided to charge $100 for >a loaf of bread unless you called them to reserve it seven days in >advance, would you also use the same argument? The point is that if >everyone had to pay what the airlines want (a full business class fare, or >at least a "Y" fare) then society would colapse whether it’s anyone’s >"right" or not. Like let’s say the Middle East oil runs dry and jet feul >gets so costly even excursion fares jump to $2k. Can you imagine what >that would do to every part of our global economy? Just because some >people are REALLY badly off is no reason for the rest of us to let >ourselves be abused; instead we should be doing what we can to make it >that those destitute billions CAN fly (which, by the way, they actually >usually can for the simple reason that in countries like that they pay >lower airfares than foreigners. Check Vietnam as an example).
Oh sorry! I hadn’t realized that society would collapse if W. Bangs couldn’t get a business class ticket at a price s/he can afford. My error. Btw, if you truly believe that the ‘destitute billions’ can fly, you really should get out a little more…
Response:
<snip> >As one posting I followed up to mentioned, airlines are in business to >make money. If they have to inconvenience and/or screw their customers, then >so be it. I guess I can understand that, from a purely capitalist >perspective. >What I don’t understand are those who say, "If you don’t like it, pay full >fare" or "fly first class!" as if that were a viable option. They don’t seem >to grasp that not everyone is as rich as they are to be able to afford to pay >$2K for a coast-to-coast flight! It just simply isn’t a reasonable answer for >most working people.
Uh, flying is not your Constitutional right — if you can’t afford it, you don’t fly. (You might consider that there are a few billion people in the world that can’t afford to fly even at the prices you can afford.) Please note that I’m not defending the airlines’ tacky penalties or high fares. But I don’t see how the argument against them can be that someone can’t afford it.
Response:
caused to appear as if it was written: > In no other industry that I know is there such scheming, such >unnecessary craftiness.
Nonsense. Consider credit card issuers, who charge various fees for assorted things, raise or lower interest rates for all sorts of reasons, offer incentives for gaining additional business, offer incentives to carry balances, offer "reward" schemes for active customers… Or even the phone company: if I want to add custom features like call forwarding or three-way calling, they charge me a "change fee" which is independant of the number of features that I add, so cannot reflect the work involved (otherwise it would be $5 per feature, not $5 per set of changes). Why do they do this? So as to prevent me from turning on and off the features as and when I want them, thereby saving me the monthly charge when I don’t want them… >Airlines and passengers are at odds for a reason: >they both suspect each other! For their part, airlines imagine all >travellers want something for nothing, and for ours, we forget that >they’ve reserved a seat for us and we owe them (and the next traveller >they sell to) the curtesy of being clear with them when our plans change.
Why is this just a courtesy? What if they could have sold one more, full-fare ticket, but because you were on board, they couldn’t, and the prospective passenger went to another airline? Now your change of plans has cost them a full-fare passenger… out of pocket! Malc.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The main reason behind these procedures is to > inconvenience people who purchase cheap tickets. Please do not > misunderstand me there. They are not being malicious, simply they need > to differentiate products in order to be able to differentiate prices. > If you do not like restrictions and checks, fly full fare… When I > travel for business, I do so most of the time, because I need the > flexibility and convenience and don’t care as much for the money. But my > willingness to accept some of these constraints increases when it’s my > checkbook… >So that’s it, huh? Actually I think you’re right. But how on EARTH can >you say that’s not malicious?? You’re obviously a true free market >diehard, which probably means you are well enough off to afford those >opinions. OF COURSE it’s malicious! Again, imagine if MacDonalds said: >"You can only special-order your burger if you reserve it seven days in >advance"! Get it straight: ANY willful inconveniencing of people by one >another constitutes — by DEFINITION — the very lowest manifestation of >the human spirit. What’s wrong with you??
As one posting I followed up to mentioned, airlines are in business to make money. If they have to inconvenience and/or screw their customers, then so be it. I guess I can understand that, from a purely capitalist perspective. What I don’t understand are those who say, "If you don’t like it, pay full fare" or "fly first class!" as if that were a viable option. They don’t seem to grasp that not everyone is as rich as they are to be able to afford to pay $2K for a coast-to-coast flight! It just simply isn’t a reasonable answer for most working people. Michael B Williams Tel: (508) 659-3734 Hewlett-Packard Company Fax: (508) 689-0134 Andover, MA http://web.an/~mikew (HP only)
Response:
> Because if they allowed free changes until 48 hours before flight time, > anyone wanting to purchase an advanced purchase fare on that flight > 7/14/21 days wouldnt be able to get the fare
Well, this is indeed a problem I’ll address shortly. But the plain fact is that no, they wouldn’t — because YOU were planning to travel at that time and DID reserve the seat. Then things changed. And isn’t life like that? > and unless the airline > could find someone who would pay business fare/ full coach for the > flight the seat would go empty and therefore lose money on the change.
No! They could offer the seat to anyone at any price; full coach is only what they WANT. > Now, comparing this McDonalds thing to an airline seat is a little > ridiculous . McDonalds has the inventory for the burgers, but doesnt > make them until you order one, so they have not lost anything by not > making one until you order. On the other hand an airline is scheduled to > go at a certain time to a certain place whether anyone is in the seat or > not. They try to offer as many seats to as many people as possible in > order to make maximum revenue of the little chances they have to do > this.
In short, they are like any business: selling what they can at rates they feel they can get away with. I don’t fault them for wanting to make a living, buu I DO take exception to their demanding extra fees by this reasoning, given that they have the option of: 1. offering your seat to someone on a waiting list, 2. offering it to some poor business schmuck stuck having to pay full fare, but able to afford it because he has an important meeting, and able to pay because of the company he’s with or 3. giving the seat to someone at a deep discount "this once" as an incentive to try their service at "full (discounted, perhaps) fare next time rather than flying empty. And, for that matter…, > About overbooking….You’d be amazed at the number of people who make a > reservation and do not show up. Without overbooking flights the planes > would go out with empty seats and the last few people who were able to > book because of the overbooking would not have been able to travel > either.
True! I always AM amazed that people have this little regard for one another. I understand it, of course: they just think it’s the big, deep-pocketed airline’s fault, so they don’t bother to cancel their reservations, and thereby make trouble for all of us. I always make it a point to cancel reservations I will not use as soon as I know I won’t use them, buu here again, if they KNOW that some percentage of reservations won’t result in a bum on a seat, they also know what else they can do to fill it. On the other hand, by turning people away on occasion who did nothing to deserve it just because of the cold, hard economics of modern travel doesn’t seem fair either. After all, you DID reserve ahead and DIDN’T let them down!!! Do you know of a doctor who would say: "Well, I know your apendix has to come out, but so does Kathy’s, and I scheduled youuboth for the same time because I thought you might not show? Do you know of a MacDonalds so unaware of how many supplies it generally needs as to have to close its grill early FREQUENTLY, buu also will not apologize profusely, but instead will just say: "Too bad!"? Of course it happens SOMETIMES, but just as the airlines want to be assured of making money, so YOU want to know youuwill see your family, make your meeting or get to spend every minute of your vacation ON vacation, and not waiting around at home because a big company with computers and average customer turnout profiles doesn’t bother to use them. > The only way to end this would be to make all tickets require > immediate ticketing with a credit card and no changes/refunds to the > ticket once the reservation was made. This would be the only way to > guarantee you and the airline that the seat you bought was yours and > yours alone.
Absolutely not! It would be nice if circumstances (and thus plans) never changed. (For that matter, it would be nice if money grew on trees…) Buu the plain fact is that life is uncertain. We do everything we can to see that we pick firm dates: check when our loved ones will be available, book hotel space in advance, announce our intent to take our vacation at a time when a local festival is going on at our destination. But grandparents die, important clients come to town, and terrorist attacks in far-off places make us change our minds about going there. I don’t buy for one second the fear on the part of airlines that they will fly empty; how many MILLION of people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to fly EVERY DAY? In no other industry that I know is there such scheming, such unnecessary craftiness. Airlines and passengers are at odds for a reason: they both suspect each other! For their part, airlines imagine all travellers want something for nothing, and for ours, we forget that they’ve reserved a seat for us and we owe them (and the next traveller they sell to) the curtesy of being clear with them when our plans change. But it’s been this way forever! Why hasn’t the airline industry learned to deal with these issues? ___
Response:
> The main reason behind these procedures is to > inconvenience people who purchase cheap tickets. Please do not > misunderstand me there. They are not being malicious, simply they need > to differentiate products in order to be able to differentiate prices. > If you do not like restrictions and checks, fly full fare… When I > travel for business, I do so most of the time, because I need the > flexibility and convenience and don’t care as much for the money. But my > willingness to accept some of these constraints increases when it’s my > checkbook…
So that’s it, huh? Actually I think you’re right. But how on EARTH can you say that’s not malicious?? You’re obviously a true free market diehard, which probably means you are well enough off to afford those opinions. OF COURSE it’s malicious! Again, imagine if MacDonalds said: "You can only special-order your burger if you reserve it seven days in advance"! Get it straight: ANY willful inconveniencing of people by one another constitutes — by DEFINITION — the very lowest manifestation of the human spirit. What’s wrong with you?? Now having said that, I think we should all remember the oft-repeated excuse given by the airlines: that your changes inconvenience THEM. In SOME cases I’d have to agree with them. So, perhaps they could start allowing free changes until forty-eight hours before flight time; then you really would have to pay a fee (maybe $100 or more) as a consequence of having exposed them to the risk of an empty seat. But then, of course, they’d have to stop intentionally overbooking… Yes, I think this attitude that all’s fare in love and ticketing ought to be scraped. Don’t you?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The main reason behind these procedures is to > inconvenience people who purchase cheap tickets. Please do not > misunderstand me there. They are not being malicious, simply they need > to differentiate products in order to be able to differentiate prices. > If you do not like restrictions and checks, fly full fare… When I > travel for business, I do so most of the time, because I need the > flexibility and convenience and don’t care as much for the money. But my > willingness to accept some of these constraints increases when it’s my > checkbook… > So that’s it, huh? Actually I think you’re right. But how on EARTH can > you say that’s not malicious?? You’re obviously a true free market > diehard, which probably means you are well enough off to afford those > opinions. OF COURSE it’s malicious! Again, imagine if MacDonalds said: > "You can only special-order your burger if you reserve it seven days in > advance"! Get it straight: ANY willful inconveniencing of people by one > another constitutes — by DEFINITION — the very lowest manifestation of > the human spirit. What’s wrong with you?? > Now having said that, I think we should all remember the oft-repeated > excuse given by the airlines: that your changes inconvenience THEM. In > SOME cases I’d have to agree with them. So, perhaps they could start > allowing free changes until forty-eight hours before flight time; then you > really would have to pay a fee (maybe $100 or more) as a consequence of > having exposed them to the risk of an empty seat. But then, of course, > they’d have to stop intentionally overbooking… > Yes, I think this attitude that all’s fare in love and ticketing ought to > be scraped. Don’t you?
Because if they allowed free changes until 48 hours before flight time, anyone wanting to purchase an advanced purchase fare on that flight 7/14/21 days wouldnt be able to get the fare and unless the airline could find someone who would pay business fare/ full coach for the flight the seat would go empty and therefore lose money on the change. Now, comparing this McDonalds thing to an airline seat is a little ridiculous . McDonalds has the inventory for the burgers, but doesnt make them until you order one, so they have not lost anything by not making one until you order. On the other hand an airline is scheduled to go at a certain time to a certain place whether anyone is in the seat or not. They try to offer as many seats to as many people as possible in order to make maximum revenue of the little chances they have to do this. About overbooking….You’d be amazed at the number of people who make a reservation and do not show up. Without overbooking flights the planes would go out with empty seats and the last few people who were able to book because of the overbooking would not have been able to travel either. The only way to end this would be to make all tickets require immediate ticketing with a credit card and no changes/refunds to the ticket once the reservation was made. This would be the only way to guarantee you and the airline that the seat you bought was yours and yours alone. As far as this being the other option to the 50.00 change fee, I dont think too many people would prefer to go this route. Even with the 50.00 change fee, many of the discounted tickets are still cheaper to buy and change than to wait and purchase a regular ticket when plans are finalized or changed later.