Slashdot Mirror
United Makes Plans to Drop 'Baggage Neutrality'
theodp writes "If you need a clue as to how creative ISP execs might get in the absence of network neutrality, look no further than United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton, who is wowing Wall Street with his willingness to examine new ways to wring money out of the carrier, including making economy passengers pay a fee unless they want their luggage to come last off the plane." Now I think when i was like gold ultimate handjob elite years ago my bags had tags that usually made them come out first, but this seems just kinda crappy. I mean, remember when you got a meal on airplanes? No wonder people hate to fly.
The baggage claim is not a dump truck! You can't just keep dumping stuff on it...
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
First, the article saya the CEO of United "wants to pursue everything, from a merger to charging passengers who want their luggage to come first off the plane" (emphasis mine). That's a far cry from the article title which infers it's a done deal.
Deregulation brought about intense competition in airline fares. The flying public wants to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible. As a result, the airlines have been under continued pressure to reduce costs to stay competitive. This has resulted in charging for meals and in some cases, even pillows.
ISP's are in a similar boat with respect to intense pressure on keeping prices low. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to charge additional
fees for "extras". You get what you pay for.
Oh, and you still get "priority" tags on your bags for being an elite frequent flyer. Whether or not your bags come out first though is strictly a matter of chance.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I do. And I'd rather forget, believe me.
I just flew both American and United this past week. American gave me a mixed bag of sticky dried stuff, and United offered to sell me a "snack box" for the princely sum of five dollars ("Buy-Onboard service", they called it.) Both offered a free soft drink, so I suppose that's something.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Flying sucks because of all the security theater annoyance. I used not to check bags for more than half my trips, but now I have to check a bag every time because I don't feel like going through the annoyance of having my toiletries inspected at the security line. Fuck that shit. I now drive wherever possible.
[ home ]
If noone pays, the luggage will come out at the same time - but last. If everyone pays, it will come out at the same time - but first!
FRA: STFU GTFO
the meals on the plane used to be good?... Neither do I.
The airlines all have to be looking at the low cost European carriers, such as RyanAir or EasyJet. I haven't flown EasyJet in a while, but on RyanAir, the ticket covers carriage, everything else, baggage, excess baggage, drinks, priority seating, luggage tags, calls to customer service, etc. etc. are a premium. It's declared up front, and you take the "a la carte" items you wish.
The problem is, that taking one part of this model will not work, you have to take it all - very low cost tickets, fly only one type of plane, open seats, fast airport turn around, and so forth. The leading carriers in the US don't get this, so will nickel and dime without adding service or reducing costs/fares.
This doesn't seem like a neutrality issue to me.
Isn't this closer to a customer just paying for a lower latency connection?
Submitter has never worked in the airline industry before.
You will notice bright orange tags as they come off the converyor belt in baggage claim. Those tags are for GS, 1K, Premier Exec, Premier, *Gold, and *Silver. The idea is that you alert ground crews to the bags belonging to the best customers so that they will offload those first. This is no different from AA, Delta, USAirways, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, and every other airline that flies. All Tilton wants to do is offer this service as an add-on so if you are NOT an elite member and feel it necessary to get your bags off in a hurry (tight transfer in ORD or LHR perhaps) you can purchase that service.
*wacks subby over the head*
It is also a stupid idea. It takes more work to prioritize luggage and sort it according to a set of rules determined by the price of tickets than to put the luggage on randomly in a first come, first served basis. You don't usually have to wait that long anyway. The intelligent objective is to load and unload the plane in as little time as possible. Gate time is expensive.
If they do this, it'll just mean more and more people will try to push the limits of carry-on luggage, rather than pony up for another fee. And we all know how much fun it is to be stuck in the aisle, waiting to get off the plane, while some PHB wrestles a laptop bag and an extra-large "carry-on" from the overhead bin.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
As someone who travels quite regularly for their job, I avoid the airports whenever possible because of this type of crap. These days, if it's under 500 miles each way, I'll drive it. I used to wish for the airlines to all go out of business, hoping that they'd be forced to figure out a business model that was actually profitable, but gave up on that after we (US taxpayers) were forced to bail them out after 9/11. It's a mess with no easy fix in sight, unless someone can magically make all of the airline lobbyists disappear.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
... United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton, who is wowing Wall Street with his willingness to examine new ways to wring money out of the carrier [CC], including making economy passengers pay a fee unless they want their luggage to come last off the plane.Let's think this through for a bit. At first, only a couple of people pay the fee. No biggee, and not much impact. Then someone, whose baggage came off last, notices the "priority tag" or whatever they use to identify the "don't take me off the plane last" tag. So s/he now ponies up for the fee from now on. Repeat for a few iterations. Now, nearly everybody has paid the fee, and they all come off just as before.
EXCEPT when some poor customer has paid the fee, AND his stuff comes off AFTER someone who did NOT. Guaranteed Upset Passenger.
The real kicker: what happens when someone:
Yep, sure sounds like <sarcasm>great customer service</sarcasm> to me. With increasingly ubiquitous video cameras, all it takes is a couple of postings to YouTube, a few blog posts, and then the REAL FUN begins!
They can charge 1st class tickets more by guaranteeing their luggage gets off first thus making their travel more efficient, and they offer the same service to Economy passengers but the price is not included int eh ticket price so you have to pay more..
Way back when, flying was a rare novelty, so it was inherently fun.
Today pretty much everything about it is a hassle, so it's only worth flying when constrained by time, or when other driving just isn't practical. I've done long-haul Greyhound long ago, and to be honest that wasn't so hot, either. I've never traveled by train, just taken tourist-type train rides.
As an aside, the annoyance starts when you book a flight. My wife has checked it out, and for at least one airline, the magic interval is three-weeks-and-a-day. Booking closer than that, the rates are outrageous. That is, except for a flight with an empty seat that is so close in time that you can't even get to the airport. One thing we've realized is that it appears that they accept new bookings right up to flight time, even for full flights. For the prices they charge for a near-in booking, they can bump someone, give them a free flight at the longer-term booking rates, and still make more money on that seat.
Then there's TSA, and the overloaded ATC delays, and the overloaded airports, etc, etc, etc.
Flying is just a way to get from point A to point B when other means won't work out.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Really, there are two issues with this. First, it seems that more people are using carry on anyway. In my experience flying, more carry on reduces the already dreadful flying experience. I see this as a competitive disincentive.
Second, I wonder if the cost of implementing such a plan, which would require marking and sorting bags, would be less than the additional revenue. This is the same question I have for the ISP. Will the costs of all the additional equipment really justify the additional fees such equipment would impose on the end user. Wouldn't it be better, like the airliines, to impose a fixed limit on throughput, and allow users to pay for more?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
We've become such an instant gratification society that people bitch if they have to wait a few minutes longer for their luggage? IT'S JUST LUGGAGE! If you are so concerned about getting to your destination on time that you have to get your luggage quickly, how about, oh, I don't know, booking an earlier flight?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Ever since the increase in "security" after 9/11, I have done everything I can to avoid flying unless it's absolutely necessary. I've gotten pretty good at getting through the security gauntlet without an orifice probe -- playing dumb and cheerful seems to be the ticket -- but even then, most planes make the city bus feel like a luxury limo by comparison and airports seem to have been designed by a retired platform game designer. Add to that the bizarre security rituals, like the TSAA guard in New Jersey who banged my shoes against the floor before declaring, "Nope, no bomb in there," and if I can skip traveling, I will, and if I can't skip it, I'll drive. About the only reason I'll board a plane voluntarily now is to vacation abroad, and even then, I have to ask myself if it's worth the extra-special unlubricated scrutiny you get when returning from abroad.
So now my bags are going to be delayed a few minutes? Who gives a shit? That's like being told that in addition to being worked over for an hour by mafia goons, someone will now call you a sissy at the end of your beating.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I'm seeing a lot of anger and discussion as to why are airlines *cheapening* the flight and do all of these things like what United does with Economy Plus or Continental and Northwest charging for exit row. So let me bring you into the world of US domestic air travel.
Domestic air travel is one of the five most price elastic products avaliable for purchase today. This means when you go on to Orbitz we all charge practically the same thing. Internal tests in the airlines have proven that a $5 difference in airfare will dry up your demand. So, no people for the most part say they want everything but time again have proven through actions that they will only buy for the most part on price. International flights are a different story.
Price, Schedule, Frequency in that order is how people buy airfare. The idea now is to shrink the price as much as possible and try to recoup through the difference with ancillary revenue streams. This is why you see such things as purchase of Snacks on Board, charging for pillows, SkyBus and RyanAir charging for everything. People complain about buying a $5 meal on the plane but you can create a better product and for most part people realize they will pay $10 in airport for the same caliber of meal.
Since the industry is so price sensitive it is trying to debundle the product. It costs money to serve meals and when you make as little as $200 on a flight from JFK to LAX TOTAL, you have to find other ways. So what do we do, we try to offer things that people are willing to purchase. Economy Plus 5 additional inches of leg room on most United flights...it makes a big difference when you go cross-country or across the ocean. Purchase an Admirals Club ticket from AA for $35 for the day so you have a place to shower and change because you can't check into your hotel in London until after 4:00 PM but you got there at 10:00 AM.
Programs like giving luggage priority to the customer that flys 1 or 2 times a year is to give customers what they want (a lower flight price), but also for those folks that want something extra a place where they can purchase it.
Sometimes your money vanishes into a CEO's private yacht.
United is a prime example of an unethical company that fails to meet any of it's three primary responsibilities: customer service, job security, and investor return. It does not matter that this "plan" to screw customers is not a fact yet, because United customer service is already the pits. How could it be otherwise when the employees are demoralized by games like this:
One of the "concessions" was the elimination of employee pension plans. Bankruptcy, of course, screwed investors. It's little wonder that United is often mentioned when I hear bad travel stories. Please do not talk to me about regulation to protect such scumbags. The kinds of things United is accused of are crimes that should be punished.
The other half of TANSTAAFL is a free market. Without that, there's no such thing as a fairly priced sandwich lunch. Glenn Tilton is lucky there's air on the other side of most doors.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You don't get what you pay for, but you're required to pay anyway. As in:
1) You pay for homeowners' insurance only to find that your particular disaster isn't going to be covered. Just ask the people on the Gulf Coast.
2) You pay for a utility, like phone or cable, only to find that when you've got a problem or outage, you're without your service--not for hours, but for days or possibly even weeks. (Ever try to get a rebate from, say, your phone company when they take four days to send out a "technician" to spend twenty minutes fixing your trouble?)
3) You pay ever-increasing costs for your health insurance only to find that a catastrophic illness or accident leaves you in debt for years.
4) You pay for what is termed "unlimited" Internet services only to find that your ISP is cutting you back because they have a different idea of what constitutes "unlimited."
5) You earn your money, but you are required to pay the bank ever-increasing "fees" so that they can use it until you need it. In some cases, you even have to pay to speak with a human being (as opposed to an automated system) to receive an answer to your question.
We're all part of a vast pool of money to be tapped into at will, and the game is to return the bare minimum of value for what we're all willing (or able) to pay. Why should the airlines be any different? An interesting article appeared on CNN a couple of days ago. It seems the "working poor" are having increasing trouble making that paycheck stretch from one payday to the next--and the term "working poor" is now encroaching more and more into the "middle class." The Big Box Marts are starting to notice an impact to their bottom lines.
The airlines will find that fewer and fewer people can afford to fly, so they'll focus on ways to wring more out of the people who can still afford to fly. It's not surprising.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
Back in the 60's, EVERYBODY got a good meal. Of course, what is not mentioned is that it was the time of regs and the prices were about the same. That is tickets cost 200-300. Today, not a lot, but back then, well, that was a LOT of money.
I had it good WRT that. My father was an airline pilot so we got to fly free. And yes, even in coach the service and meals were good. Free Booze. I tend to think that Midwest airline had the right idea (leather seats; 4 across on a super 80; good service), but I believe that they are gone now.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I generally try to be the last person on each flight I take. I take a lot of flights. I generally check a bag.
Trust me, it does not make your luggage come out first. Not even an appreciable fraction of the time.
There's a perpetual argument on slashdot that goes like this:
Lin/Win: Macs are more expensive.
Mac: No they are not if you configure them Identically
Lin/Win: okay here's a Dell thats comparable and it costs $100 less
Mac: You are overlooking the value of a system that works. It's only cheaper if your time has no value.
Lin/Win: Well I get to choose with my PC, Mac forces me to pay the mac tax whether I want to or not.
So apparently there's a large number of people, larger than the max zealots, for which saving a dime at the expense of time and frustration is really a consideration. United is catering to that large segment. It's what they want.
What I don't like about this is that it is going to turn into what economists refer to as "driving the good apples out". This is when one is in a price comparison situation where one does does not have enough information ahead of time to discern on the basis of quality. It refers to why there are more bad tasting apples than good tasting ones in the super market, and it's classic application was to the Used Car industry.
So when you go to book a ticket on SABRE then you will see united has the cheap flight. It forces the other players to follow unless they can somehow differentiate their service levels. This is why luxury brands never offer a cheap version. They have to maintain a public image that when you buy the luxury brand that you never ever get a bad apple.
This happens in the cell phone market where players like qwest and verizon advertise the cost without all the fees they lard on it and others advertise the final price (e.g. any pay as you go plan). I'm looking a sunday newspaper and I see qwest is advertising that my internet connection can be just $26/mo (going rate in my rural market is $49). Then the fine print says "with Bundle". And when you add in the bundle you realized they just moved the cost over to another service (3 way calling a value at $10/mo!).
So there problem with parcelling and bundling services is it can distort the market for quality when the buyer has a hard time or lacks the time to find out if it's a bad apple before they buy.
The famed economic analysis's conclusion was not that good apples wind up costing more but that the distortion is so severe that good apples leave the market and are not available.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Yes, I'm sure this will increase the long-term profitability of Mr. Tilton's business enterprise. Imagine the happiness one must feel settling down into an industrial bank of chairs at the gate, knowing that for just a few dollars more per ticket, one has secured the incalculable benefit of a different colored baggage tag. Much like a different-colored credit card or checks with pictures on them, the knowledge that one is, in actual fact, a big shot must be splendid. Why, I'm nearly overcome with joy knowing that for just a few dollars more on my taxes, I've summoned into existence an entire army of highly trained professionals who are ensuring that rather than the coffee I've brewed at home, I am enjoying, while seated in those industrial chairs, only the finest brew, made from beans blessed by a bored TSA agent who languidly waved through a man he's met every day of his job, pushing the same cart of restaurant supplies to the same place. As a happy side-effect, I'm protected from the dangers of e. coli in my juice and cryptosporidium in my water.
This sense of serenity is surely not measurable by such pedestrian metrics as dollars and hours.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Or,
It is like offering customers a chance to save money by not even using checked luggage (which I pay for even though I don't use it).
How is tiers of service price gouging? And why can't I sacrifice decent service for cheaper prices? I do that for everything else.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Huh? I call shenangens.
I ride Acela (amtrak's NE corridor service) ALL the time between Boston-NYC-DC. I have NEVER seen bench seating in 8 years of travel. I have never seen bench style seating in any Amtrak car ever...
The cars on Acela are really nice, clean, have plenty of room, and even real electric sockets for laptops.
Cell phone use is not bad. I rarely get someone rude. AND if i don't like cell phone noise there are QUIET CARS available where cell phone use is not allowed.
Amtrak does have frequent problems with staying on schedule
So, with that said, I don't believe you travel Acela .
0. Dress properly. Leave the metal and piercings at home; you'll just make your security check worse.
1. Travel light. If you're crossing the ocean for two weeks, plan to use a laundry.
2. Avoid connections. If at all possible, drive to a hub airport.
3. Planeside check on your outward trip. This ensures the baggage monkeys don't lose your luggage. If you failed to follow tip #1, and you must check your bag, be sure you carry with you the basics for an overnight stay.
4. Check your heavy baggage on the return trip. Barcode scanners track everything in a database in Atlanta. Airlines don't actually lose your luggage, they just misroute it. On the way home that's a benefit: You don't have to carry your bags to your car! They'll deliver to your home, eventually.
5. Eat a good breakfast. You're not getting fed on the plane unless you're crossing an ocean.
6. Bring your own entertainment -- a book, videogame, etc. Unless you're crossing the ocean on one of those new 767s with the cool Linux personal entertainment system, you're going to be on your own. On most flights, even if they're showing a movie, you won't be able to see it.
7. Noise-suppression headphones really do work.
8. Book early, book online, and select an exit-row seat. Legroom and laptop space will be adequate for a change.
It was probably a question mandated by the TSA. You know, no pork or vegetarian = terrorist red flag.
I pack my underwear and toiletries, and don't bring a single stitch of clothing, other than what's on my back. I'll stop at the shop and pick up a few USED dress shirts, a few casual shirts, pants, sometimes a suit. Everything's organized, in style and well marked. It takes me far less time to pick up my clothes than it would to pack at home, check my luggage, pick up my luggage, etc.
I leave a credit card imprint for the deposit on the clothes. When I return them, I usually get my full deposit back, less the cleaning and usage fee, which is far less than a typical laundry and dry cleaning bill.
OK, I made this service up, but doesn't it sound like it would appeal to some class of traveler?
It's called "carry on" learn it, live it, love it.
Seriously--lest some idiot thinks I'm trolling: After seeing so many of my more well traveled friends dealing with lost luggage--not to mention having to put on locks rigged so that baggage people can open and paw through your stuff--I take carry on luggage and haven't had a problem stowing it. You don't need half the things you think you do on trips (and restricted to small amount of carry on liquids now saves space.) And if you forgot or need something, unless you're going to 'outer Mongolia', you can usually purchase it at your destination. I haven't lost a bag yet! And I can just grab my bag and head out of the airport instead of hanging out in baggage claim.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
The downside of this is that everyone will do what you do, which is cram as much stuff as possible into the overhead bins in order to keep from checking bags. This slows down the security lines and getting on and off the plane.
It does sound like a protection racket, tho. Maybe next will be:
"Would you like your bag to be handled extra-carefully? For a small fee we can make sure your bag doesn't get dropped or run over by a baggage cart, or maybe show up with the handles wrenched off. Heh-heh."
I started flying in 1960 when the whole US industry was regulated -- for its own good. There was no hub-and-spoke system. The whole nation was well-covered -- a ticket to Podunk, Iowa didn't cost $1000 simply because it was a low-traffic route. A ticket from A to B cost the same on ANY carrier.
Part of the reason that flights to Podunk didn't reflect the cost of service was that the longer flights subsidized them - Congress pressured airlines to keep service to their districts, in exchange for a price structure that allowed the airlines to make up for losses on other flights. Not very efficient.
Because they couldn't compete on price, they had to compete on service, and the service was damn good. Decent food, bigger seats than now, toys for the kids, free decks of cards, pens, and note-paper for the adults. A single thunderstorm in Chicago didn't screw up the whole nation. Flight attendants weren't horribly overworked on jam-packed flights.
You can get that today - fly on an air charter or fractional jet service, as long as you are willing to pay for the service. You actually have more choices today than you did under regulation; at widely different price points.
Midwest offers Signature Seating (all leather 2 abreast cabins) on many flights but is moving away from that on leisure routes - a good sign that enough people don't want to pay extra for service to make it a viable long term strategy for a scheduled domestic airline. If Midwest could keep a price differential that made up for the lower capacity I bet they would offer that service everywhere they flew.
Yeah, it cost a lot more in real dollars. Yeah, not so many people flew in those days (they took the train or the bus, duh). But look what would happen if we implemented it now. The higher prices would drive people back to ground transportation, reducing their carbon footprint.
It would also have a serious impact on our economy.
Higher prices would also mean companies in the service industry would need staff within driving distance - as opposed to having staff that live where they want and fly to the client.
Vacation destinations would become more regional since the cost of flying a family of 4 would rise significantly; and driving two days to visit Disney World would become a once in a lifetime (if that) trip for many families.
Visit families overseas? Forget about it.
Yes, I remember when you got served on real china in economy class; and the 707 had to land in Shannon before going on to the continent; but in real dollars I can fly the same route in Business Class for the same as I paid then for coach; with about the same level of service.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
TANSTAAFL might work very well for aged Science Fiction writers, but, alas, not so much in the real world.
Take an example: Say you and your family saved up to go to have an amazing vacation, including staying at a Hilton near a beach. But, when you got there, you found out that you had to pay $20/night extra to have the beds and towels changed, $30/night for air conditioning, $25/night for hot water, $5/night for each key, and $50/night for use of the elevator to go to the 22nd floor. Would you go back?
Airlines and hotels are both businesses that respond greatly to the economy. When times are good, people take planes and stay in hotels -- both for vacations and business. When times are rough, people consider vacationing nearby, or driving, and try to stay with friends and family. Businesses try phone conferences. For example, I work for one of the top 15 companies in the Fortune 500, and for six months there has been a complete freeze on all travel.
So, what are you supposed to do if you are in this kind of business? It is rather obvious: during the good times you squirrel away money for a rainy day fund, and you make your customers as happy as you can. When the bad times hit, you want them to think, "Well, we're low on cash, but we had so much fun two years ago using that airline/hotel/theme park, why don't we splurge. After all, life's short!" During the bad times, you use your rainy day fund, and keep trying to make your customers happy as possible, even with your reduced funds. There are lots of things that make customers happy that don't cost a lot, after all.
US airlines, though, have been run very poorly. Just after 9/11, the airlines were first in line to get government funding. How and why? Because it turns out that most of them were already either asking for government bailouts, or were planning to. Their stated reason was that fuel costs had risen. But, fuel costs are normal business expenses!
One of the real reasons was that during the previous economic high, the airlines had not been either saving money, or making customers happy. People had been forced to zig-zag across the country, having little or no food, unpleasant boarding procedures, and horrible service. So, when the times became bad, not only did the airlines not have any money saved away, but their customers actively hated them.
That's how the real world works in such businesses. TANSTAFL just causes those companies to go bankrupt.
That's good to know. Basically I pick up where your travels end (or vice versa). I ride Amtrak's regular train service (no Acela for us folks to the south) from Washington, DC to Raleigh, NC and back every few weeks. I don't know what it's like in the Northeast, but the route between DC and Raleigh is on tracks owned by CSX that Amtrak pays to use. Consequently they've got one more variable that can work against them. Five or six years ago when I started taking this route, delays were rampant and often hit 2 hours. Almost always it was due to CSX working on the tracks. I'm more the relaxed type though, so that never bothered me much. Besides, being on a train where you can get up any time you want and wander around, go to the cafe car, etc., makes a huge difference. A 2 hour delay on a plane would kill me. Anyway...
Within the past few months, something almost magical seems to have been happening -- the delays have started becoming fewer and shorter. One time this summer I even got to Raleigh 5 minutes early! It seems to be turning out that all those years of delays are finally starting to pay off -- CSX really does seem to have managed to upgrade the quality of their rails on that segment, and as a result, life is getting better for Amtrak and their passengers. Here's hoping this trend is for real and that it continues.
I know there are a lot of Slashdot readers in Northern Virginia, so here's my advice for anyone who needs to visit the Raleigh/Durham/RTP area at some point. If you want to give Amtrak a try, don't bother going into DC (Union Station). Instead, head to the King Street metro station on the Yellow & Blue Metro lines. The Amtrak station is on the other side of the tracks (just cross over via the underpass). Pay for the Business Class upgrade. It's typically an extra $21 and is worth ever dollar. It gets you a larger seat, more leg room, free coffee and soft drinks, and the most important thing of all -- a 120V AC power outlet. It's supposed to be about 5h 30m from the King Street station to Raleigh if everything is running on time. 6h +/- 15m is more common, but as I say, it seems to be getting better. You'll need to research your options at the NC end of things though. I have friends and family in the area, so someone always picks me up, so the best methods to reach a car rental place from the Raleigh (or Cary or Durham) Amtrak station isn't something I've looked into.
I think the best part of taking the train is the interesting people I meet. Just in the past few months I've found myself sitting next to a hot biology grad student from NC State, a psychic (that was an interesting ride!), and a judge from NYC. I don't know why -- maybe it's because all of us are taking a slower form of transit -- but I continue to find that the people I meet on the train are a lot more mellow and just generally interesting than the type of people I meet when I have to fly. It's just all-around less stressful, you know?
Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
If you're on a schedule, rail just isn't a valid option anymore, at any cost. US regulations require that cargo trains give right of way to passenger trains, so they can make their schedules. However, with more and more powerful locomotives, the cargo trains have gotten longer and longer and longer. Now, the typical cargo train is so long, it no longer fits on a siding, while passenger trains have not signifigantly grown in length, and still fit on sidings.
:-/
Therefore, even though cargo trains are required to give way to passenger trains, they cannot do so, because they do not fit on the sidings to allow a passenger train to pass. The passenger train has to take the siding and wait for the cargo train. This results in longer and longer delays on passenger trains. A typical trip from Kansas City to St. Louis should take 4 hours or less. However, the typical travel time is 6 to 8 hours because of being put on side tracks to allow for cargo trains to pass. If you're on a schedule, it's more timely to drive.
All this is an aside from the ticket prices of taking the train.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
It's not about service, it's about something more valuable -- my time. I despise that first class passengers get to deboard before everyone else. They pay for bigger seats, better meals, whatever, but they should not get to buy my time away from me.
This is just another method for separating out the classes. Have money? We'll make your life more convenient at the inconvenience of everyone else. It's one thing to give people better service in exchange for value-add, it's another to create that value by taking from someone else.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
except it's not really a free economy because when the airlines royally screwed up and let their planes be hijacked, the feds didn't let them go out of business and executives go broke like should have happened. Instead the FAA makes all sorts of "regulations" that only make up for executive incompetence (wait for th FAA to make a "rule" about this soon) instead of allowing billion dollar companies to go under when they pull this stuff.
It's the same as the sweetheart deals they have with telcos to allow spying, or how they "punish" Microsoft, but are still their biggest customer.
shareholder value (v) - 1. To reduce the value of a product or service to increase profit. The box was shareholder valued to increase profit 0.2% by reducing its size by 10%.
I'm pretty sick of people using 9-11 as an excuse for everything from having to bomb Iran to having to wiretap Americans without warrants to giving corporations special taxpayer-funded benefits (only after they make large contributions to candidates, though).
Let's see, what else is happening with 9-11 as the excuse? Um, how about creating an ex post facto law to give telcos immunity from prosecution for having broken the law (even though the illegal act took place 6 months before 9-11?
Bullshit. 3000 people die and a nation of 300 million goes belly up?
Bullshit. We are being played.
You are welcome on my lawn.
None of those examples have anything to do with the question. What was faulty with their business model exactly and why was it working before?
:P
Nothing was wrong with their business model, but like the RIAA they failed to adapt to changing markets. Sure, different markets and reasons, but their model did not keep up with the "Jack's small puddle jumper of the west" airlines that popped up.
Continual reduction in fees, continual raise in cost of fuel, plus all the other stuff of having to maintain ones fleet and replace aging aircraft caught up with them. Capitalism demands that competition evolve to survive, they did so for a long time by competing to lower prices, but one can only do that for so long. I also believe capitalism is the ultimate destruction of your competition (in the longer run). Unless the competition goes awry you are stuck competing with them at every attempt to beat you in to submission (read: out of business).
Now the new incentive to fork out more money to get your baggage a head of someone elses is something that as a business they are allowed to try; it is not immoral, nor is it unreasonable to expect more for express service (FedEx does the same, they charge differently to get your package to your destination in 24 hours as opposed to 3 days etc. Though I have to admit, they end up expending resources to make this happen). The problem I have is how do they make sure my baggage is not the last off the plane? For example, 125 passengers (total flight compliment) purchase this service, if I am lucky 125 I did not get the service I paid for, so like what the fuck? What do I do then? What are -THEY- going to do about that?
The next question is going to have to be how do they intend to counter-act lost luggage? (all those that have had stuff go missing raise your hands!). If this new "fee" implies that your luggage gets special attention, exactly what do they promise to Joe traveller that decides "Ohhh to hell with more fees!"?
Okay, I've had a few to many beers - be gentle
Tes
It never ceases to amaze me how the pernicious nature of a government bailout is completely lost on the average American. Businesses have revenue and they have expenses. Revenue minus expenses equals profit. If profit is negative, then your business model is flawed. No amount of corporate handouts can change this basic, simple fact. It doesn't matter if United is $10 or $10 billion in debt--either they are making money or they aren't. If their basic model is sound, then they should have no problem lining up private financing to bridge the gap. If they aren't, and they have to rely on the government for help, then this should raise a red flag, because the entire private banking industry took a look and said no. Who do you trust more to make sound, rational economic decisions--a bunch of self-interested, economically motivated lenders, or, omfg, the United States Congress? I almost can't even type that without laughing aloud.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I thought so too for a long time. JetBlue was my oasis in the desert that is air travel insanity. Alas, about a year ago they started to lose the one thing that made them different from the others -- that little thing called "giving a shit." They're just American or United now.
So depressing actually. My job requires me to travel 100k or more miles in an average year, and has allowed me to see all sorts of wonderful things around the US and the rest of planet (and understand the non-US perspective which is good). But I turn down most of these trips now because air travel is too depressing to contemplate.
I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
Never knew how they allocated exit-row seats, but now Northwest charges for them, either in terms of a cash surcharge or in terms flyer points or one of those "Elite" or "Gold" memberships.
One thing about exit-row seats is that each of the big exits are "manned" by a flight attendant -- that is what they are there for and anything else they do like get you a pillow or not get you anything to eat in this day and age is incidental. The exit row seats are unique in that they are "manned" by whatever passenger is seated there -- in other words, your safety depends on the conscientiousness of a fellow passenger rather than on an airline employee who at least has had some kind of training.
Mind you, this exit row thing is a kind of loophole to the safety rules that allows airlines to place revenue seats next to some exits instead of rear-facing jump seat with a flight attendant sitting there. The gummint was OK with this until a few years back that they started to "have issues" with it and issued those rules that the airline had to ask if you, as a customer, thought you were physically fit enough to lift a 40 pound exit door, and the airlines began this lameoid thing of "asking" customers if they wanted to be moved from the exit row -- apparently there are all of these 90-lb 90-year-old grannies who can lift 40 pounds from an awkward angle because no one ever volunteers to leave such a seat.
AvWeek had a discussion about passengers and exit rows, and the time it was suggested to qualify certain frequent flyers by having them demonstrate that they could operate and lift the plug doors and giving those passengers preferrential exit row seating. The current system, at least on Northwest, is that the exit row is a perk that you can pay for, never mind if you are the kind of jerk who never pays any attention to the safety demonstration or has never looked at a seat card.
Part of the thing is that 1) airlines have a "don't scare the passengers" approach to airline safety, and 2) most passengers believe that they are French toast in any kind of accident and that the safety info is pointless, and many if not most passengers make a demonstration out of pointedly not paying any attention to the safety drills.
My own personal perspective is twofold. One is that I lived in Chicago when the 727 jet was new, and pilots transitioning from prop planes lacking the high power-off sink rate of the 727 with all of the droops and flaps down were crumping 727's with alarming regularity. The Chicago Tribune told of one accident in Chicago where after one of these crumped landings, only two people got out, people seated next to exits with the presence of mind to operate them, and the rest of the people died from smoke and not from any other injuries. Secondly, I hold a private pilot certificate and have been indoctrinated in the ways of procedures and checklists. Unlike many other conveyances, airline passengers play an active role in the safe conduct of their flights. Can't be bothered to pay attention to the safety announcements and look at the seat card because you have flown the fourth leg of a trip and have flown hundreds of times? Gee, I guess the pilots can't be bothered with checklists because they have flown thousands of times and must know all of the settings by rote not, don't they?
So you got fat slobs with frequent-flier privileges who could care less about paying attention to the fact that they are in an exit row and have a role to play in an emergency, and you have the rest of us steerage passengers on the Titanic told we are last in line at the life boats.
I fly to South Africa from Europe once a year. I almost always fly Emirates. It's really out of the way and adds on much longer hours, but Emriates:
Has absolutely amazing staff. Friendly, professional, speak the languages of source and destination country, take their time with difficult passengers.
Has comfortable, cheap economy seats, with video entertainments systems in each seat back - that work.
Provides free drinks and fantastic meals. The best I've ever had on any airline.
The major hub, Dubai, is a large, roomy, comfortable airport with every and any convenience. It has friendly, professional staff. The queues are managable.
They do not treat their customers like criminals (USA take note), while providing excellent security.
They are the cheapest airline to fly the route.
They are not alone in this quality service. Singapore Airlines is just as good, if not better, and other new Arabian Gulf Carriers like Air Qatar and Al Etihad are also competing at this level.
United Airlines is going to lose any business they have on the routes these other airlines fly if they treat their passengers badly and charge them for things that have been normal part of service... on buses!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Umm... that's precisely what the government does. What the police do is make a record of their investigation in finding your car so that you can hand it to your insurance agent and they can pay you back for the car, assuming you insured your car sufficiently for such an event. That said, assuming the government actually did pay you back for your car, there's a big difference between reimbursing you for the car and reimbursing you for the car, lost wages from not being able to make it to work that day, and lost wages from the raise you're certain you would've received if only you showed up to work on time that day, which is precisely what the bailout of the airline industry turned out to be.
(Flamewar about how goto is sometimes cleaner in 5...4...3)
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."