Airlines Make More Money In Fees By Making Your Flight Miserable
Tim Wu writes in The New Yorker that airlines are making big bucks from fees and that the more miserable flyers are, the more willing they are to pay them:
Does it make any difference if an airline collects its cash in fees as opposed to through ticket sales? The airlines, and some economists, argue that the rise of the fee model is good for travellers. You only pay for what you want, and you can therefore save money if you, for instance, don't mind sitting in middle seats in the back, waiting in line to board, or bringing your own food. That's why American Airlines calls its fees program "Your Choice" and suggests that it makes the "travel experience even more convenient, cost-effective, flexible and personalized."But the fee model comes with systematic costs that are not immediately obvious. Here's the thing: in order for fees to work, there needs be something worth paying to avoid. That necessitates, at some level, a strategy that can be described as "calculated misery." Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it. And that's where the suffering begins.
The necessity of degrading basic service provides a partial explanation for the fact that, in the past decade, the major airlines have done what they can to make flying basic economy, particularly on longer flights, an intolerable experience. For one thing, as the Wall Street Journal has documented, airlines have crammed more seats into the basic economy section of the airplane, even on long-haul flights. The seats, meanwhile, have gotten smaller--they are narrower and set closer together. Bill McGee, a contributing editor to Consumer Reports who worked in the airline industry for many years, studied seat sizes and summarized his findings this way: "The roomiest economy seats you can book on the nation's four largest airlines are narrower than the tightest economy seats offered in the 1990s."
The various costs described here will not appear on any bottom line but can be easily witnessed in angry families, exhausted flight attendants, and the general sense of defeat emanating from passengers exiting coach. At best, it can be said that more people are able to fly for less...
I almost always buy an "economy plus" seat, or whatever they're called on a particular airline, and I pay a fee for my luggage to go under the plane (as opposed to taking up more than my share of the overhead, which is -- of course -- rude).
I'm ok with the fee model. Misery basic doesn't bother me. But TSA theater I could do without. They are the main reason I avoid flying.
Ben at December 24, 2015 6:27 AM
I fly frequently to the south and southeast. I have found that if I start haunting airline websites early enough I can generally get business or first class for about what the tacked on baggage fees and seat upgrade charges would be. I usually have at least 2 bags to check, I want a direct flight, and I have lots of metal in my back so I want the extra leg and seat room so I don't arrive feeling like a pretzel.
I flew with my parents to West Virginia earlier this year. My 71 year old mom has some disabilities and the extra money I spent on their tickets made all the difference in our flight. I was comfy, mom was comfy, dad was in awe and I had a relaxing flight because I wasn't stressed about holding up the entire plane while getting my mom on and off the plane.
So yeah, I hate all the upgrade fees, checked bag fees and everything else they ding you for. But I will fly business or first every time I can on cross-country flights. Otherwise, short distances, i.e. Vegas, Northern Cal or Arizona...Southwest cattle cars work just fine and no crazy fees to contend with.
sara at December 24, 2015 6:29 AM
Any sensible retail business has a way of letting people on a budget buy their products for less, while taking more money from well-off customers. The classic example is the grocery store and their coupons. People on a tight budget may be willing to spend hours every month keeping track of coupons and special offers. People with more money won't spend the time - and will therefore pay more for the same products.
The airlines have always been notoriously bad at doing this. There's really not much between coach and business class. The problem is that the seats are squashed together, and are screwed to the floor. If the airlines had brains, they would mount the seats on slides, so that you could purchase as much extra room as you wanted. A little automation, and the seats could automatically reconfigure themselves for each flight, according to what tickets had been sold. That would mean that they might not know exactly how many seats they have to sell, until close to the departure date, but those last few tickets just become your discount seats, sold to budget-conscious customers.
With the time lost to TSA idiocy, plus the discomfort of the seats, you're better of taking a bus for any trip that takes less than a day. Or driving, but really, a good bus is shockingly comfortable, and you can relax or work during the trip.
a_random_guy at December 24, 2015 6:40 AM
The train is a good way to go for those shorter trips.
My wife and I took the train from Oakland to Bakersfield just to see what it would be like and it wasn't bad. It took 5 hours (4-1/2 to drive). We could sleep (try that while driving) or walk around. Each seat had electrical sockets, so we could plug in our appliances and work, play, or surf.
The only issue was that the posters in the station promised us breathtaking views and panoramic scenery. What we got was a view of every feed lot, stockyard, and dump site in California.
The train is not practical for longer trips. I looked into a train trip to Denver when I was commuting there for a consulting job and Amtrak's Web site said the trip would take 3 days. The flight took 3 hours.
Conan the Grammarian at December 24, 2015 9:09 AM
"The train is a good way to go for those shorter trips."
That is a very local phenomenon Conan. The current Amtrak train from Houston to Dallas takes ~8hrs and costs $80-$250. Driving takes ~3hrs. The bus takes ~4hrs non-express and costs
I don't know what views they promise. But there is nothing but empty fields to look at no matter how you travel.
Ben at December 24, 2015 12:31 PM
"That would mean that they might not know exactly how many seats they have to sell, until close to the departure date, but those last few tickets just become your discount seats, sold to budget-conscious customers."
Umm... for decades, at least as long as Eaasy Saabre has been operating, computers track passenger loading. The passenger load for any jet is determined first by the plane available, and then by the seats claimed along the timeline up to the departure. Computers continuously track demand for seating vs. time of year, time of day and time until flight. That's why you can spend $1000-plus for a seat today that would have cost you $200 if you bought it a month ago.
Radwaste at December 24, 2015 1:10 PM
I agree with Conan on using the train for shorter trips. Once I took the Cascade Express (I think that's what it was called) from Portland to Seattle. It took about four hours, which is about the same time it would've taken to get to the airport, check in, do the TSA dance, etc. Plus the scenery on that route is spectacular, which is a bonus.
It does chap my ass when I hear people try to blame the consumer for U.S. airlines' crappy service: "Well, people want the cheapest ticket -- what do you expect?"
Sorry -- foreign airlines manage to do it with a certain amount of grace, if not comfort. And since when has searching for the best bargain become a bad thing? Most of us look for the best deals on gasoline, groceries, and a million other things.
Kevin at December 26, 2015 10:59 AM
Leave a comment