1. Home
  2. General Telecommunications Forum
  3. [Telecom] Re: [telecom] Demise of the Airline Industry (was: Demise of Western Union)

[Telecom] Re: [telecom] Demise of the Airline Industry (was: Demise of Western Union)

What has happened (and this is obliquely relevant to telecom) is

> that the airlines are more focused on selling every seat than on > making money. So they've priced the flights too low, and then, > oops, we're not making money, we've got to charge more for something! > > Airline travel is, in my opinion, priced too low to sustain the > necessary level of quality.

I think you would have to exclude Southwest Airlines from this generalization. It has made a profit every quarter since its start-up quarter several decades ago.

Of course Southwest's basis is that its product is trasnportation, and the "necessary level of quality" is prompt, and as much as possible on-time, transportation. Not entertainment, not food.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

Reply to
Wes Leatherock
Loading thread data ...

The also have long contracts for their fuel; when fuel was a lot cheaper, they paid a little more for it so the could get a long contract, but in a news release the other day, they said that their profits would be lower.

Reply to
Steven Lichter

Tend to agree with the philosophy of Southwest. Kind of like how I'd like cell phone providers to just provide phone service, not net service.

Of course the last time I flew was back in December. That was an experience that convinced me that next time I'll just drive. Two different airlines, two different aircraft, both needed on tarmac repairs before they could fly.

Not to meniton the delays. We were supposed to be home at 6PM, didn't end up that way. We ended up in Boston at 1:45AM. That's 7.75 hours late, and I could have driven the 580 miles at 65MPH in 8.9 hours.

And let us not forget the asinine TSA rules. No liquids over 3oz. yet a

1 lb. bag of peanut M&M's made it through without issue. Granted, chocolate and peanute aren't an effective weapon unless someone has severe peanut allergies.

But I often wonder, what other seemingly innocuous things would fly through security yet be very dangerous? Parrafin maybe? I don't know. It's just that it seems to me the people who formulated the policies weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

But then alot of policy is based on FUD so it doesn't suprise me. Simply improving cabin doors and perhaps putting an armed marshal on most flights would have been better than the bs we go through now.

Reply to
T

You're not the only one who points out Southwest as an island of sanity in a crazy industry!

Reply to
MC

There is about a 70% change there will be a Sky Marshal or law enforcement officer on board. I was a Reserve Deputy Sheriff until last year and when I traveled I carried a weapon since I had a Carry Permit, I alway hopped I would never have to use it and never did. Also the work I do requires me to have a security clearance and I carry a special passport, so I alway fly through security which is nice.

Reply to
Steven Lichter

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.