Battle Escalates Between Airlines and Online Agents

Ponca City writes "The Epoch Times reports that online travel booking giant Expedia has removed American Airlines from its travel website over disagreements with American's fee structure in the latest incident in an escalating battle between airlines and online travel agents. Although American gets roughly two-thirds of its revenues from third-party travel agents like Expedia, American has been looking for online agents to cut their fees as one way to lower fares — something that Expedia was not prepared to do. Expedia released a statement that American's action 'will result in higher costs and reduced transparency for consumers, making it difficult to compare ticket prices and options with offerings by other airlines,' while American urged customers to book directly on American's website for the lowest prices. Meanwhile Google is waiting in the wings with its recent proposal to purchase ITA Software, the developer of the Internet's leading technology to compare flights fares. 'Though 49 percent of travelers purchase travel online, it is still time consuming and slow to search for travel options online,' says a statement from Google, defending the ITA acquisition which is being opposed by Microsoft on anti-trust grounds. 'We plan to work with ITA to create a new, easier way for users to find better flight information online.'"

Comments

Not really

[shoehornjob]

Expedia released a statement that American's action 'will result in higher costs and reduced transparency for consumers, making it difficult to compare ticket prices and options with offerings by other airlines

Southwest has been doing this for some time now. Sounds like a bunch of FUD from Expedia.

Re:Not really

[Low Ranked Craig]

I'd have to agree, and as it turns out Southwest is one of the few profitable airlines. When I have to fly I try Southwest first, then Jet Blue. If I can get their on either of those I drive or I don't go. Actually these days with all the shit going on at the airport if it's too far to drive I don't go.

Re:Not really

[MoonBuggy]

To an extent it's true. If American Airlines no longer show up on comparison sites, I'd say it's very likely that it'll be harder to compare prices - the rest of their statement follows from that fact, but it somewhat hinges on the fact that people treat airline tickets as a commodity item (within a given route and class, obviously). If all you see is a price comparison, chances are you'll pick the cheapest and doesn't matter who gets you there. It's certainly the way I used to think, but having happened to do the same long haul run on a few different carriers this year I was quite surprised at the magnitude of difference in the experience. It's hard to succeed as the "more expensive but better service" airline if all people see are numbers. On the other hand, though, it's hard to succeed as the "expensive and crap" airline if all people see are numbers.

There are definite merits to Expedia's argument. Although the airlines have multiple reasons to dislike the comparison sites, and the published reason might sound reasonable (and even beneficial to the consumer), cutting out the middle man is only a good idea if the middle man isn't providing a beneficial service. In this case, greater access to information is the service, and I think we probably do want that to be available. By taking away the commissions, you take away the possibility for comparison right across the market.

Re:Not really

[contrapunctus]

maybe airlines don't want to compete who is cheaper by 1 dollar. only one dollar decides which airline wins your money (top of the list). so i'm guessing they want to be profitable but they can't be with all these brokers pitting airlines against each other in one place.

i'm not picking sides, i just want to show the other side.

Re:Not really

[MBCook]

You're got good points, but there are so many ads about price comparison it seems like there's a great chance American is just shooting themselves in the foot with this one. I haven't flown in years, and it wouldn't occur to me to go to an airline's site unless I knew they were the only ones who served the route or I had just heard about how incredible they were from someone I trusted.

I totally understand the quality argument. Midwest Express is supposed to be quite nice in the areas they fly. On the other hand, I remember flying on some airlines in the 90s that aren't around anymore that were just horrible.

If American thinks its quality is so much better, let them show it. Why not partner with Expedia to add "Air Experience" rating next to each price, where the ratings are based on passenger and secret shopper testing. That way you could see that American is charging $200 (with a 4 star rating) and Discount-O-Jet is charging $175 (with a 1.5 star rating) and make your choice. It would also give Expedia something to promote over the competition.

Of course, that would be a 'put up or shut up' move, and if American isn't as good as they want everyone to think they are, it could really backfire.

Side note: Remember travel agents? There used to be people, in offices, that you went to to book airplane tickets. Only they could see the prices. They used to be everywhere. In the past 15 years, it's a job that has completely disappeared. I get the feeling AA wants to go back to that world, where they could schmooze the agents to get more customers.

Re:Not really

[shoehornjob]

Yeah I hear you. I'm going to Texas to see long lost family in a few days (first flight in a few years) and I looked for southwest first but they don't fly to a smaller airport that I want to go to so I had to fly with American. I would have gladly paid a bit more money for Southwest because they are much more professional. I checked Expedia, Travelocity etc and they all have the same flights and seats at the same price. I don't spend a lot of time comparing airline fares but from my perspective those sites don't provide much value added service. It would be nice if someone just plainly stated "this is your price if you book today, next week, next month etc so that everyone would know what the real price is. Also I love the "flight times and dates can not be changed and all flights are non refundable oh and would you like travel insurance in case your plans are changed" bullshit. Cmon I'm not stupid. I know this insurance crap is why you changed to a no refunds policy. That's insulting and if American wants to know why I won't fly on their airline if I can avoid it that would be a big reason right there. They're just trying to exploit every bit of that revenue stream because their business model is not as profitable as it once was.

Re:Not really

[postbigbang]

Once American disappears from Kayak or Orbitz, they're off my radar. The market differentiation among the carriers is really small, despite what their MBAs and marketing professionals think. I buy for price/destination and least hassle, and do so frequently. I fly domestically, and internationally. Southwest is a last resort, because they aren't the cheapest, aren't the most convenient, and have a lot of second-best airport slots. That they are profitable is somehow holy, and I'm glad for them, and not a stockholder, I'm a CUSTOMER.

I plan most of my own itineraries. I prefer Star Alliance, only to bank miles with one carrier. American Airlines isn't a member. Their prices, except where they have heavy gate ownership, uniformly stink. Same goes for Delta/Northwest. Like Detroit/Minneapolis/Atlanta? Or Dallas/LAX? It's the hub-and-spoke nightmare for all of them. They all went Chapter 11 (save for Continental/AA/SW) after Sept 11th. They merge, they consolidate, they code-share, and I don't care. They're faceless, nameless, living a customer service nightmare by having to charge for everything down to the very air you breathe in a pensionless vacuum. I feel for their employees. But there is no honor, nothing to love, just land me safely and don't empty my wallet. Otherwise, the distinctions are minimal, and their marketing wasted. They remind me of telcos-- no soul, nothing to love.

Re:Not really

[theNAM666]

Travel agents still exist in Europe and elsewhere-- it amazes me that they do.

I get the feeling that AA doesn't realize that that age, has passed. I think it was AA's chair, sometime past, who while contemplating a bailout for the industry, stated that AA's business was still providing luxury, not transport. SouthWest's chair shot back that this was ridiculous-- often, the difference between profitability and loss for a SWA flight was the four seats they had found a was to squeeze in the back of the plane.

All this at a time when AA was losing money on each and every PAX.

Re:Not really

[tuomoks]

Same here - when flying in US. Expedia and many other "brokers" (a broker in this case - take your share with no real service) are now suffering because trying to maximize their profits too much! Flying (almost) world round and now finding better deals and faster even straight from airlines. As an systems person, working in, out, within, etc with airlines, never will (really) understand why they don't work together? None can fly everywhere, every time, have enough routes, seats, planes, personnel, and so on - and working in bookings as well as they work together in their service, flight, whatever logistics (and it has worked well at least from 70's) would lower the cost a lot, make it easier for customers, etc, etc! Booking systems used to be medium complicated, today there is nothing complicated anymore in those systems and the needed processing power is cheap - mostly it's the problem with skills - in management, sorry! - prove me wrong, watching these systems about 40 years - LOL!

Re:Not really

[bgat]

If you are shopping for price, you probably aren't American's prime customer. Their specialty is in handling business travel, where passengers value perks like the ability to board early enough to be reasonably assured there will be overhead bin space for their carry-ons, regardless of when they actually arrive at the airport.

I'm one of those people, in fact. I often can't get to the airport until a few minutes before boarding actually begins due to external time pressures and schedule conflicts, and I usually have to carry-on my bags due to time pressures at the arrival terminal as well (like not being able to arrive earlier than 30 minutes before the rental car counter closes for the night). American knows how to deal with people like me, where the price of the ticket is less important than a reasonable assurance that you'll actually arrive when and how the ticket says you will.

Expedia is a great resource for price-conscious customers. But for a huge cross-section of airline travelers, the price of the ticket isn't the foremost concern. For us, Expedia and the like are a waste of time.

Aside, I quit traveling Southwest years ago, when they stranded me three flights in a row. The carriers might all be selling airline seat miles, but how they package them is remarkably different--- and critically important to some people.

Re:Not really

[Z00L00K]

I hope that they do have a better customer satisfaction record than Ryanair.

Re:Not really

[Nursie]

I wish they wouldn't compete for that one dollar. Mostly because of the food.

I fairly regularly fly long-haul and the food is awful on pretty much every airline these days. I have found out why - in order to keep prices low in economy class they allocate a budget of around $1 - $1.50 per passenger per meal. $1. One frickin' dollar. PLEASE put another 10 bucks on my ticket price so that when it comes to the two meals on that transatlantic flight I don't have to feel like I'm eating plastic! Please! I promise I'll choose you over your 10-dollar cheaper competitor.

The bread is like polystyrene foam, the meat in the main dish is shapeless and texture-less, the salad limp and insubstantial and the dessert... unless it's a small portion of a premium product who are providing it free to the airline for promotional reasons, it may as well be made entirely of crude-oil derived polymers. The ingredient list in a typical airline dessert is like a who's who of preservatives and bulking agents.

I hate that.

Re:Not really

[rtb61]

It's the computer age. It is all about cutting out the middle man unless they provide a real service to manufacturer and the customers. With a limited number of major airlines it would be craziness not for them to sell direct and offer the best bargains direct to the customer, including return customer bargains.

Watch for new selling points like, "We provide our own security check it for Airline Club Members, no more hostile TSA molesting". So getting customers that always book with the same airline purchasing tickets direct and even paying by direct funds transfer to save credit card fees, flight clubs, where customers are pre-identified and even own a share of the company and thus are no longer passengers but owners, all to gain that walk in, board and take off, with out strip, scan and grope (only the barefoot, harassed, radiated and molested fly Soviet style on the cheap).

Re:Not really

[contrapunctus]

recent research has found that food tastes different when your in the air because of pressure so it could be that good food tastes horrible in the plane

Re:Not really

[Tintivilus]

I totally understand the quality argument. Midwest Express is supposed to be quite nice in the areas they fly. On the other hand, I remember flying on some airlines in the 90s that aren't around anymore that were just horrible.

I used to fly Midwest exclusively -- they were a bit more expensive, but well worth it for the nicer cabin service and roomy "business class" style 2+2 seating in their DC9's instead of the more common 2+3 arrangement.

Now they're just another carrier squishing in cattle competing for bottom dollar. Between that and the airport hassles I usually just drive anywhere I would have taken Midwest in ~2002

Re:Not really

[Kjella]

I think you're throwing up a bit of a false dichotomy here, I want to see the numbers compared to other airlines but it doesn't necessarily follow that I will buy from the lowest bidder. It's not as if they drop being on price comparison sites and I stop paying attention to what the market price is. The question is more if these comparison sites are charging too much for the service since all the information is already online and easily available, to me it sounds like a rather low cost operation that apparently still charges quite a bundle for any sale they make. To me it sounds more like a service that'd should just skim a little ad revenue for putting it all on one page.

Re:Not really

[GNious]

If American thinks its quality is so much better, let them show it. Why not partner with Expedia to add "Air Experience" rating next to each price, where the ratings are based on passenger and secret shopper testing. That way you could see that American is charging $200 (with a 4 star rating) and Discount-O-Jet is charging $175 (with a 1.5 star rating) and make your choice. It would also give Expedia something to promote over the competition.

This may work for private travel, but for corporate flights it is ONLY the ticket-price, that matters for all but exec-level employees these days. If you do not take the proovably cheapest fligth, most companies/managers will get into a fit demanding you take the cheaper option. This is also part of why additional expenses (luggage-fees, toilet-fees etc), since these are not part of the ticket-price :(

Re:Not really

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

My tip for long-haul flights: phone ahead of time and book the vegetarian meal ( regardless of whether or not you are a veggie ) . Not only is it usually more extensive and of much better quality than the "standard" meals but it is often cooked first, so you can be tucking-in to some decent nosh whilst the other passengers' stomachs are still rumbling.

Re:Not really

[SanityInAnarchy]

Do people really shop that way?

If it's one or two dollars of difference, I'm going to read reviews and do a little research. It's more if it's twenty or thirty dollars of difference.

Re:Not really

[AuMatar]

And that's why I will never fly Southwest- they cram you in like sardines. They are the least comfortable carrier by a long shot. I'd pay double to any other airline on principle rather than buy from them.

Re:Not really

[Nursie]

Recent research?
Don't make me laugh!

The airlines have been feeding us this line for at least two decades now (that's just how long I've been flying reasonably regularly.

You can show it's crap by taking your own food along, it tastes fine, as does the stuff in business class. I'm not just making it up about the tiny budget, you know. That is the reason it tastes like cheap cardboard, it is cheap cardboard.

Re:Not really

[Kazymyr]

Or, better yet, ask for the kosher meal. It's better than the vegetarian one.

Re:Not really

[pedestrian crossing]

If you're flying transatlantic, avoid U.S. carriers if at all possible. I've found the food/service to be very good with Air France or Lufthansa. Plus, drinks are free!

Re:Not really

[skarphace]

this is your price if you book today, next week, next month etc so that everyone would know what the real price is

This isn't exactly possible unless they start speculating. Prices are usually adjusted and raised the closer the date gets because seats become more and more scarce. Basic supply and demand. In theory, if 0(or very little) seats have been sold the day before the flight, the seats will be sold uber-cheap or the flight will be cancelled all together.

Re:Not really

[DavidTC]

I don't fly that often.

If it's less than 10 dollars difference, I'm probably either going with people I've not had a bad experience with (Delta) or with one that's at a better time (Anytime that isn't rush hour or 4 in the morning.)

Re:Not really

[MooseTick]

"And that's why I will never fly Southwest- they cram you in like sardines. They are the least comfortable carrier by a long shot. I'd pay double to any other airline on principle rather than buy from them"

I'd rather suck it up for 2 hours and save $500-$1000. I've always wondered who exactly is out there paying $2000 for first class seats for some flights. I guess it is those people with principles who want to teach the smaller airlines a lesson.

Re:Not really

[theNAM666]

I flow over a half-million miles or so, but only flown SWA two or three times. I don't remember them being particularly bad or good. The pitch between seats can be annoying, but AA, DL, F9, to think of recent flights, all have issues.

If you're well over six feet, you notice this, but I'm not old enough (yet) to not be able to rough it for a four-hour flight.

My sense is SWA is also more creative with a seat layout.

My sense, from being a premier flyer on some airlines, is that the people paying full fair to sit next to me in First (I usually had the travel office book the cheapest fare, and upgraded) were either rich enough not to care about $1000, or flying on the corporate wallet.

For an 8-hour international flight, I'd pay a reasonable premium for the stretch seats-- my pay grade isn't high enough, for the lay downs. The idea that some airlines (AA... ) are trying to charge the same amount, for an extra inch of pitch on a short domestic flight... these guys are just burning goodwill and any remaining brand loyalty.

The people behind the counter are almost always overworked and underpaid, and my advice is always treat them like gold, and they'll treat you well in turn. If there is an available premium seat available during the last ten minutes of boarding, for instance, a gate agent will almost always give it to you if asked nicely and if she/he has the authority.

My $.02, of course.

Re:Not really

[chrismcb]

Expedia is right. It is much easier to search a single website, than to go to each airline and do a search. On the other hand, with all the stupid fees they are adding even a single search isn't good enough. Do they charge for one bag? for two? How much? Do they charge you to purchase a ticket? (Don't laugh, one European airline has a "ticket purchase fee")

Re:Not really

[AuMatar]

Your first problem is that you're claiming to save 500-1000 a flight, meaning you already paid that. I don't even pay that for Christmas flights. I just bought a round trip ticket from Seattle to Raleigh on AA for 266. I bought tickets to Rome for 1000. Where the hell are you going that you're paying 500 for domestic flights?

Re:Not really

[bkk_diesel]

There's a really good chance that that will exclude you from being upgraded, which is a huge down side to your strategy.

Great American Airlines Lost lost my luggage.

[harrytuttle777]

I am going to have to support Expedia on this one

Wasn't this already posted...

[stillnotelf]

Wasn't this already posted as Comcast versus Netflix? Maybe we'll get lucky and all the big megacorps will end up at each other's throats for once, instead of at the consumers'...

On the bright side...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I sense the emergence of some job openings for programmers and software engineers skilled in the art of swiftly building, and iterating as needed, scraper agents to aggregate numerical and geographic data from multiple multi-step forms driven websites...

Re:On the bright side...

[FormOfActionBanana]

the meta-search site www.kayak.com pretty much does this...

Re:On the bright side...

[salmonz]

No need. US Airways and Southwest seem to be the cheapest these days.

Re:On the bright side...

[gbjbaanb]

and I can see job openings for lawyers skilled in the art of claiming website copyright violations :)

Re:On the bright side...

[CohibaVancouver]

This isn't about merely presenting the fares - This is about actually booking airline tickets, including upsales and seat selections, complete with integration to inventories and loads. For that, you need more than a screen-scraping 'fare compare' application...

Re:On the bright side...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I would be perversely curious to see what tactics they would use in the attempt to evade the precedent of Feist v. Rural...

Re:On the bright side...

[CohibaVancouver]

No need. US Airways and Southwest seem to be the cheapest these days.

Let me know how that works for you the next time you want to fly to Buenos Aires or one of the many other destinations served by AA.

Re:On the bright side...

[gbjbaanb]

one thing I know is that there are lots of insurance 'supermarket' sites in the UK. They used to screenscrape but now hook into insurers systems in return for a cut. However, there's one insurer that advertises that "you will never find them on comparison websites" (its Directline) and uses this as a selling point to say they're cheaper because they cut out the middleman.

I don't know how they do it, but they're not on those comparison sites.

Similarly, there was a bit of a kerfuffle when one bank decided to let its customers handle their accounts on other bank sites by screenscraping. I'm not entirely sure what happened there, but they no longer offer it.

Re:On the bright side...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

My understanding is that(unlike the US where, in the case noted above, the Supreme Court ruled that 'creativity' was an essential quality, without which something could not fall under the scope of the constitution's authorization of copyright law), the UK is, at least to some degree, a 'sweat of one's brow' jurisdiction, where the difficulty and labor of compiling a work, even if purely mechanistic and uncreative, can make it copyright-protectable.

It could also just be that, while scraping works well on people who don't know or don't care, it is an area where the defender likely has the advantage(particularly for 'legitimate' operations, where tactics like using a cloud of compromised hosts in residential IP blocks to conceal your activity isn't really an option. All but the dullest admins can probably figure out something amusing to do with that 100Mb/s stream of requests from a single host in a known competitor's IP block... Particularly for something like banking or insurance, if you want to offer the service, you have to be right nearly all the time. If the target is fucking with you, that can be difficult.

Re:On the bright side...

[Gordonjcp]

You get what you pay for. I'd rather not fly on a plane serviced and staffed by overworked underpaid people who only work there because they're not good enough to be hired by the "real" airlines, and face all the usual unpleasant and inconvenient problems that people on low-cost airlines face. Not when it's a case of saving a couple of quid by wasting half a day in an airport, or even sitting in a plane waiting on the tarmac.

Re:On the bright side...

[CohibaVancouver]

US Airways does fly to Buenos Aires cheaper than American Airlines in some situations

US Airways doesn't service BA. They might sell you a code-share ticket on another carrier, but you will be paying that other carrier's equivalent fare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_destinations

Re:On the bright side...

[EastCoastSurfer]

I've never found SW to be cheaper. After checking SW for my last few flights and seeing it consistently more expensive I've just given up checking it. It's much easier for me to just check one of the travel sites.

Re:On the bright side...

[Pence128]

Anecdote != data, but Air Canada is outsourcing their maintenance to El Salvidor.

Re:On the bright side...

[sconeu]

Now add $50-60 for your checked baggage.

How does SW compare now?

Re:On the bright side...

[tuomoks]

No, it doesn't, I mean kayak - tried something to Havana, no go! None of the sites which doesn't give me all the flights, for example to Havana, will work - how can I trust them? Do they include all the airlines? Or - maybe I'm coming back from Australia, Europe - London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, where ever and want a nice, warm stop? Or? Same, of course, with Expedia - so - maybe I keep using international flight bookings! Besides - usually (much) cheaper than Expedia, Orbiz, etc - go figure, commission?

Re:On the bright side...

[EastCoastSurfer]

Still more expensive. Over Christmas the flights on SW were ~$100 more than equivalent Delta flights. Frontier is my first choice if they fly to where I'm headed it is usually much cheaper.

I also can't remember the last time I checked a bag so I would prefer not to pay for it.

Re:On the bright side...

[FormOfActionBanana]

Travel to Cuba is restricted for a different reason. Do I get a whoosh now?

Re:On the bright side...

[gbjbaanb]

indeed, the target can "continually improve our website services to enhance the customer experience" which means changing the textbox to come after the hidden field screws the scraper's code. And then put it back.

Re:On the bright side...

[DavidTC]

Similarly, there was a bit of a kerfuffle when one bank decided to let its customers handle their accounts on other bank sites by screenscraping. I'm not entirely sure what happened there, but they no longer offer it.

While that may or may not be a violation of copyright, it's almost certainly a violation of the other site's TOS.

Re:On the bright side...

[chrismcb]

Historically SW (for me) was general $25 or so cheaper. But I didn't really care for the boarding procedure (which is better than it used to be) So I didn't mind spending the extra $25 for another carrier. But now with the stupid baggage fees SW is even cheaper. Coupled with no fees to change the fare and SW looks pretty good. It is now worth my while to ALSO check SW's website. It is more inconvenient to do so. BUT, even if SW was more expensive, I'd rather fly them not to pay a baggage fee.

Don't take The Epoch Times too seriously

[Rix]

It's the propaganda wing of the Falun Gong cult.

Re:Don't take The Epoch Times too seriously

[dkesh]

So long as you ignore the articles that have anything to do with China or Falun Gong, I actually find their news pretty good. At least their bias is right on their sleeve and about a subject I don't really care about.

Re:Don't take The Epoch Times too seriously

[dkesh]

Not sure if English isn't your first language, but "right on their sleeve" is an idiom. It doesn't mean correct; it means "out in the open". That is to say, I wasn't saying they were correct, merely that their bias is obvious and open.

Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[Harald Paulsen]

According to a hotel manager I know expedia wanted 1/3 commision on hotel rooms.

Sure, he appreciated the extra business, but at the same time it was a major cut in their profit margin.

And expedia (and other hotel booking services) now wield so much power that it's hard for hotels to say now. More so for hotels that are not part of a chain that can afford to say no.

Re:Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[cgenman]

While I can understand the concern, what are the advertising budgets for hotels now vs operating budgets? I know that in software projects spending 2x the development budget on advertising is normal. If the hotel is spending 1/2 as much on customer acquisitions as they do on product, giving 1/3rd to Expedia to funnel customers your way might make sense.

Re:Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[outsider007]

That guy was just working you for a tip. He's booking a room when he otherwise wouldn't be so the commish is just advertising expense.

Re:Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[jelizondo]

From one who spent 25+ years on hotel management in different places (USA, Mexico, Grand Cayman, Netherland Antilles, etc.) the "normal" commission earned by a bookie, be it a Wholesaler (Tour Operator), Retailer (Travel Agency) or Booking Engine, is 30%.

Some hotels limit that to 12-15% for certain markets in order to remain competitive, but generally, one third of the rack rate is the norm. That is why you should insist in getting a discount on rack rate, no matter how you book it. As we say in the industry, no one pays rack, except the foolish or desperate.

On the other hand, if your hotel shows less than 30% of Sales as GOP, you're doing something wrong...

Re:Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[grapeape]

Umm if expedia was responsible for the "extra business" that implies that they are rooms that would otherwise have gone empty, thus any profit margin was more than they were going to have. I do think its funny that once something like expedia, hotels.com, orbitz, etc shows a moderate level of success businesses involved tend to try and dismiss them as unncessary and completely forget the empty seats and rooms that came before.

Re:Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[TooMuchToDo]

That makes sense for Expedia, but AA pulled their listings from Orbitz as well, which is a joint ownership venture between several legacy airlines. I believe American has a share too, and with that share the ability to have input on the transaction costs associated with booking a flight through Orbitz. So why did they pull their listings from there?

Re:Expedia eats up profit margins for the hotels

[DavidTC]

Indeed.

There are a few industries that basically cost the same amount to operate no matter how many people are there. For example, for a theatrical show, if they're about to start a show with an empty seat, and they can put someone in it for a quarter, they should do so, because, duh, they just made a quarter. There is no cost, the show is the same no matter what. (Hell, because of the possibility they might buy concessions, and because packed show give people better impressions of the show, they really should stick people in the seats for free.) The only 'cost' is that people might start attempting to have that happen so not buy tickets.

Now, hotels aren't quite to that point. An occupied room does cost the hotel slightly more than an empty one. They require someone to change and wash the sheets and towels, provide soap, there's a risk of damages (OTOH, they have insurance, and their insurance policy is not cheaper because a room was empty.), they're just normal wear and tear on the room, etc.

But all that is, at most, $15. Maybe $20. Ten minutes work for a min-wages person in the room, two minutes in the laundry, $3 worth of supplies. Everything else, from the internet to the check-in clerk to the room itself, was just sitting idle.

In fact, the reason hotels are the price they are is that they have to make up the cost of the stuff sitting idle. If a hotel actually was packed all the time, it could charge $25 a night. (Although that would be rather stupid of them. You don't charge less when demand is higher.)

Because they aren't packed, however, they have to pay the fixed costs, aka, taxes, bank loans for the property, cable TV, someone to sit at the desk, web site, etc, out of the people who are actually there, making their prices higher.

All businesses, obviously, have some fixed costs that aren't based on sales, but hotels have tons and tons of rooms just sucking up the profits if they aren't filled. It's not like a fast food place where less customers results in them ordering less food from their supplier so their costs go down a little.

And the thing about hotels is that they can scarcely go out into the street and find more people. People aren't 'not buying hotel rooms' because they don't want them, they're not buying hotel rooms because they aren't in town. There's not a group of people wandering around who've never considered staying at a hotel that the hotel can advertise to. They can only get more people by cannibalizing people from other hotels, which is a zero-sum game, or by having more people visit town. Hence giving kickbacks, excuse me, referrals, to people who cause other people to visit town is entirely reasonable.

Expedia vs Kayak

[salmonz]

It's Expedia. Who cares? Just use Kayak.com

Re:Expedia vs Kayak

[Anonymous Coward]

Comment brought to you by: KAYAK.COM!! Thanks for shopping SLASHDOT DOT ORG!!

Re:Expedia vs Kayak

[dogmatixpsych]

No, search all of the major travel sites. I default to Kayak but then check other sites. Sometimes they have flights that the others do not show (this happened to me recently in booking a flight). Then, when I am ready to make the purchase, I generally go to the airlines' websites because their prices are oftentimes lower.

Try your brick and motar travel agent

[Midnight Thunder]

You may be surprised, but in certain cases going to your local travel agent can get you a lower price. If they don't, compare what they are offering you and be sure to let them know you can get it cheaper online. A real-life travel agent can reduce their commission, while a web site won't.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[am 2k]

Last time I tried this, the travel agent added 20% commission to the ticket price for that ten minute phone call.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[Lulfas]

In reference to airline tickets, there really isn't any commission to talk about, for travel agents anyways. The thing with them is the extras; hotel rooms, cruises, all-inclusives, etc. It is a matter of building a relationship with you. Usually if a travel agent is finding a cheaper deal on an airline ticket it is using an odd fare class. Source: Grandmother owns a travel agency.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[OzPeter]

You may be surprised, but in certain cases going to your local travel agent can get you a lower price.

So can booking from the "right" country. I am off to Canadia for two weeks for work. Flights proposed by company from Canadian end $US350. **Same** flights booked by me from US end $US200. I have seen that sort of price discrepancy many times before on both US domestic and other foreign cariers. With that sort of raping ^h^h^h^h^h personal service I am always amazed that airlines are still in business.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[oldspewey]

It may or may not, depending on how the airline is currently trying to balance revenue, load factor, etc. IME many of the airlines run crazy seat sales every now and again, but unfortunately they're not consistent.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[ftobin]

Seriously, has this really ever worked for you? If a brick and mortar site can offer a cheaper price, how come they aren't publishing their price online via some method (perhaps not Orbitz, but something similar). When you've entered a travel agent or other brick and mortar site, you're in a world where it becomes difficult to price-compare. There is little incentive for them to have low prices once they control your environment.

It's rare, very rare, when I can find a cheaper price for anything at a brick and mortar site.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[drsmithy]

With that sort of raping ^h^h^h^h^h personal service I am always amazed that airlines are still in business.

It's pretty much a given that these sorts of discrepancies are due to taxes and fees on the local arm of the business.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[Peeteriz]

Well, it's his loss, isn't it ? The only question after that is if you just thank him and leave or publicly laugh at his failure in negotiations.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[EastCoastSurfer]

Many of the airlines now advertise that the lowest prices you can get will be found on their site. In practice the prices on the airlines site simply match whatever is shown on the travel sites.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[zyzko]

It's pretty much a given that these sorts of discrepancies are due to taxes and fees on the local arm of the business.

It is taxes and fees yes, but also marketing. Some airlines actually sell cheaper tickets to their neighbouring countries including a connecting flight to a hub than what it costs to take a direct flight from the hub. Airline ticket pricing is not about the actual costs but how much you can get - the average flight you fly in coach has usually more than 10 different prices, all depending on when you bought the ticket, from where and what was the booking situation at the time of purchase.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grandmother owns a travel agency"

Nowadays all travel agency owners are grandmothers at least.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[Just Some Guy]

Seriously, has this really ever worked for you?

Oh, about a year ago when my wife needed to travel unexpectedly. While I agree with you in principle and I usually book all travel reservations online, there's a lot to be said for having a human on your payroll. They can advise you on things you never would have thought of, like "they're having a cheese festival in Oshkosh and you can get 40% off if you have a 5 hour layover there". What good programmers do, you know: give the customers what they actually need and not only what they're asking for.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[DavidTC]

You asked him to attempt to lower the price, and he called them, hung up, and then claimed the price was higher?

You did just walk out on him, right? I mean, it's not like you even had an oral agreement at that point. (Considering you were, you know, trying to change the price, which ipso facto means you haven't agreed on the price. Not that his changing of the price wouldn't have voided any agreement anyway.)

OTOH, maybe I misunderstood. If he can call up and get 50% off the total ticket, a 20% commission on the ticket, while seeming excessive, is still cheaper than the original ticket.

It's not unreasonable for someone who can actually get the airlines to get lower prices to say 'Either you take the listed price, or I do my magic and you pay me more'.

On the third hand, that's sorta implicitly already included in the commission for a travel agent. If they're not going to somehow magically get me lower prices to start with, I have no idea what I would be paying them for at all.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[DavidTC]

Scott Adams refers to airlines a 'confusopoly', where companies don't compete on price at all, because no one knows what the hell is 'reasonable'. All markets have imperfect information, but airlines have managed to take imperfect information to an art form.

Even with comparison sites, it's always 'search for a specific trip and find specific prices now'. How much were those prices last week? Next week? How much are prices for the trips you're not seeing? How much are the prices to neighboring cities? Why is it cheaper to fly through two other cities?

What. The Hell. Is. Going. On?

You want to know how to cause a riot if you have magical powers? Go to an airport, have the price everyone paid for their ticket float over their head. Watch some people get very angry, very quickly.

In fact, that would be a rather funny airline protest movement. Everyone just wears the price of their ticket taped to their shirt. That's it. Just get 5% of fliers to do that.

Within hours, there'd be goddamn screaming fits at ticket counters.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[Midnight Thunder]

It also depends on the agent you are dealing with - they don't all work in the same way. It is also because they are sometime finding you an option that is not widely listed.

As to advertising, that would cost them money and requires they are consistently finding cheaper prices.

Things are difficult to compare, but sometimes you just need to be aware of the tricks.

Re:Try your brick and motar travel agent

[hrimhari]

Not worth the trouble for me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time explaining what I need to the travel agent, then correcting his mistakes. I have to keep polling for information.

When I find it cheaper online, I'm doubling my work. Plus I have to wait for the travel agent to come back with a counter-proposal and risk losing the online deal. It happened just too often.

Sometimes he leaves the final reservation for the last minute and I end up without the hotel I wanted to book.

Glad it works for you, though.

Re:Same old same old.

[TheUni]

You might want to read that sentence again.

And nothing of value was lost

[$RANDOMLUSER]

It's funny that this story comes out now, as I was just considering changing my sig to "Have a pleasant, comfortable flight - or fly American Airlines." I'm really considering starting a blog about how BAD american Airlines has become.

I just flew on American Friday night from Honolulu to Chicago; 45 minutes out of Hawaii, the captain turned the "Fasten Seats Belts" light back on - at the first excuse for a mild bump - and then left it on uninterrupted for the next 7.5+ HOURS - in smooth. clear air - all the way until we landed - 36 hours later, and my feet and ankles are STILL swollen. I had noticed on the way out that American seemed to have developed this policy of keeping everybody fastened in at all times, but the ride home confirmed that in spades. American CLEARLY has developed a policy to keep you seated at all times, your personal comfort and blood clots be damned. I also noticed that they've changed the "...and we suggest you keep your seat belt fastened while seated..." part of the stdrap.h to "...we REQUIRE you to keep your seat belt fastened while seated...". Fuck you, you're just cattle (who has already paid your money) at the other end of a toggle switch. And we have "federal regulations require you to obey us" on our side.

It's clear to me that they've changed the policy both as a convenience to the flight attendants and as a sop to their cowardly lawyers in case some passenger bumps their knee during a flight and decides to sue.

On they way out, it cost $25 per checked bag, and one, which was over 50lbs (52.7 to be exact), cost an ADDITIONAL $50 over that.

Of course, there's no free food anymore, but they'll SELL you a chicken sandwich for $10, or a can of Pringles for $4.50. What I found interesting was that they don't take cash anymore - just credit/debit cards - I guess that "...all debts, public and private..." printed on the money doesn't mean anything if you're an airline.

All in all, flying American recently is the worst (modulo TSA related fun, which is a different rant) in-air experience I've had in the last 35 years, and that includes the flight from Nairobi to London on Air India - which was about as bad as you would expect.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[jonwil]

The "all debts public and private" line on US currency doesn't apply since the purchase of food from American Airlines is not a debt.

If your power company refused to take cash for payment of your power bill, that would be considered a debt and the relavent law about legal tender would apply. But not in this case.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Low Ranked Craig]

I just get up and go anyway - I've never had an attendant say anything to me heading to the head when the fasten seatbelt light is on.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Compholio]

The "all debts public and private" line on US currency doesn't apply since the purchase of food from American Airlines is not a debt.

It is if they render goods or services before being paid - which they do. I've always seen them give people their items before taking the person's card.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[trampel]

Is this really specific to American Airlines?

I noticed on a recent transatlantic Delta flight that the fasten seatbelts lights were on all the time, but nobody seemed to care and the flight attendants certainly didn't enforce it. Or, are you saying that in the 7.5h on your flight nobody went to the restroom.

The baggage fees and nickling&diming for food are indefensible, but it seems they are standard practice in the airline industry these days.

I'd love to see an airline that treats their passengers better, but AFAIK all the major U.S. carriers are equally unfriendly.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[blackraven14250]

No, it doesn't apply because there's no legal requirement that a business accepts US dollars as payment. It's a legally recognized method of debt resolution, not a legally required method.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[hawguy]

I had the exact same experience -- on a flight from SFO to HNL, the fasten seatbelt light was off for less than an hour on the entire flight.

Once someone got up to use the bathroom while the flight attendants had just started serving beverages. She firmly told him "There's a reason the fasten seat belt light is on sir, return to your seat!". However, an hour later the fasten seatbelt light was still on and, someone in front of me hit the flight attendant call button to ask for a beverage. The same flight attendant said "Come on back to the galley to pick it up".

They need to have 2 fasten seatbelt lights, one that means "We think you should sit down and buckle in because there might be turbulence" and one that means "Turbulence is highly likely all passengers and flight attendants must remain seated".

I've never understood why passengers have to sit down when the fasten seat belt light is on, but often flight attendants are pushing a 200 pound cart with a couple pots of scalding hot coffee on top of it down the aisles.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[SpecBear]

Yeah, I hate American Airlines. The final straw for me was when I was checking baggage, and it took longer than getting a new car registration.

Then it struck me: I was waiting in line wishing that American Airlines could be as quick, competent, and customer friendly as my local DMV office.

I haven't flown with them since.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that "...all debts, public and private..." printed on the money doesn't mean anything if you're an airline.

To be fair, that is why they don't give you the food until you pay. It so you do not have a debt with them, and thus they have no legal obligation to accept cash.

If someone or some company claims you OWE them money, only then must they accept cash, and if they do not accept your cash for a debt, then the debt is considered settled, so you shouldn't complain anyway.

In the end, paying with a credit card is better anyway. The next day you can do a charge back on all the extra charges, both food and luggage.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[billeeto]

American is to airlines as Purina is to fine dining. And that's charitable. Go Expedia!!

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[mjwx]

we REQUIRE you to keep your seat belt fastened while seated

No shit. You're in an oversized cigar tube travelling at 900 KM/h and you don't think that's prudent? Your safety be damned.

All airlines require you to keep your seatbelt fastened whilst seated. They'd rather you didn't move about the cabin unnecessarily so that you:
1. Dont hurt yourself when the plane hits a bit of turbulence.
2. Do not interfere with the operation of the flight staff.
3. Do not be a nuisance to other passengers.

You've never flown over the equator have you? I live in Australia so that means I do it quite a bit to get to other countries and every time we cross that line separating the hemisphere there is turbulence, often quiet violent turbulence and every 4 out of 5 flights someone who is stupid enough to be sitting without their seatbelt gets hurt (normally there is an announcement on the PA asking if there is a doctor on board).

It's not some giant conspiracy to make you uncomfortable, it's for your own safety and the COMFORT OF OTHER PASSENGERS. I cant stress this enough, I absolutely hate it when some idiot lets their crotchspawn run up and down the aisle or when some smelly retard has his hairy armpit slung over my chair so he can chin wag with his equally smelly mate.

Planes are not luxury cruse liners, they do not have roomy cabins, they are designed to get me to where I want to go within a matter of hours, for that time I can compress myself (not a small person) into a seat and be fucking courteous to other passengers. So please for the sake of everyone, sit down, shut up and put your belt on.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Mashiki]

No it's not specific to AA. I've flown SW, KLM-Delta(and delta before the merger), JetBlue, AirTran all in the last 2 years and they've all done the same thing.

But if you want to experience unfriendly? Try air canada, they've managed to exceed in the "we're fucking you in the ass. AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!" method of dealing with people. No shock as to why they're losing business to WestJet.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[mjwx]

The baggage fees and nickling&diming for food are indefensible, but it seems they are standard practice in the US airline industry these days.

There, fixed that for you.

This seems to be an issue with US airlines only. Even QANTAS/BA treats people better then that (and I dont have kind things to say about QANTAS's service). From my city I can fly Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, Malaysian Air Services, Cathay Pacific or Emirates, three of those are consistently in the worlds top 5 airlines. They don't really cost more then QANTAS and have top service. Even in the Low Cost Carrier class, there's Air Asia who really are the worlds best LC airline. Food is reasonable, especially if you pre book. Seats are a little small but it's often half the price of premium carriers.

Out here in Australia's most backwards cities if you pay premium carrier prices (A$700-1000 to most of SE Asia) you get premium service, free meal, free drinks, entertainment system OR you can choose from a variety of low cost carriers (A$300-600) if you'd rather go without.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Man On Pink Corner]

I just flew on American Friday night from Honolulu to Chicago; 45 minutes out of Hawaii, the captain turned the "Fasten Seats Belts" light back on - at the first excuse for a mild bump - and then left it on uninterrupted for the next 7.5+ HOURS - in smooth. clear air - all the way until we landed - 36 hours later

Are you sure your plane didn't crash on an uncharted island with a temporal anomaly?

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[devxo]

Even in the Low Cost Carrier class, there's Air Asia who really are the worlds best LC airline. Food is reasonable, especially if you pre book. Seats are a little small but it's often half the price of premium carriers.

True, I'm currently traveling and just enjoying SE Asia and Air Asia does great job getting you around cheaply. I'm a quite tall and large guy, but I always book the emergency exit doors which plenty of space and its just US$4-5 extra. Only bad thing about Air Asia is that their both check-in lines in Bangkok are almost always full of people and you have to wait, but that's understandable.

As most of my flights are only about 1-2 hours, I also appreciate that food and all the other extra things aren't included in the price. You can just go eat at the destination and you save that on the price too. On longer trips (Europa - SE Asia) I usually book Air Berlin business class, because it's often cheaper than most airlines but you get the business class treatment, great food and free beer :)

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[theNAM666]

It has been FAA policy that all PAX must have their seatbelts fastened since an AA plane encountered sudden and heavy microturbulence out of what I believe was San Diego in 1996, leaving multiple passengers who had not worn seatbelts with permanent damage after they slammed into the overhead compartments.

I would have asked the crew to ask the pilot what was up-- for all you know, the microturbulence warning indicator was on for the entire flight. But for all you know, he forgot or was having a drink with his buddy.

I'll agree, AA is no fun, but having been on them several times in the past 18 months, I don't think your assertion about keeping the seating light on "rule" is correct :)

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[tuomoks]

Not AA and not really any specific airline, but... Last time (well, not the last but..) out of Paris to US, "new" terminal, MCD the only food place(?), plastic chairs, of course - no smoking, no drinks - except "pops", of course, etc, etc! When asked, what (the hell!) happened, the (nice) airport girls told that it was, what the "american" customers wanted?? What the XXX? Since then - only Air France and others who use the "old" terminals, leather (instead of plastic) chairs, bars with real food (instead of greasy hamburger), place to smoke a cigar if you so prefer, enjoy a good beer or even a nice whisky, brandy, whatever with your companion, meeting other travelers round the world, etc.

I think that people get what they want! Airlines don't change just for their own fun, they look profits and if most / most profit bringing part of travelers want something, they deliver! So - can't complain, if most want how it is today, so? But - still - even Chicago / O'Hare, nice bars, leather seat, having a drink, a smoke, a book to read when waiting an airplane - it was nice! Except - based on (profitability) studies, most wanted BigMac and their plastic chairs - and that's what we have today!

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[T-Bucket]

I hate to tell ya, but liability has a lot to do with this. (I am, in fact, an airline pilot). We're instructed to keep the sign on unless we're 150% sure that the air will be smooth ahead. The reason for this is if the sign is on and we hit a nice big chunk of turbulence, it's YOUR fault if you bounce off the ceiling (because you were disobeying the sign). Whereas, if the sign is off you end up with a broken leg and a concussion from that bag that fell on your head, the airline gets sued for not telling you to sit down first.

Sounds like you ran into an overly cautious captain.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[InfiniteWisdom]

What I found interesting was that they don't take cash anymore - just credit/debit cards - I guess that "...all debts, public and private..." printed on the money doesn't mean anything if you're an airline.

It means exactly the same thing it does on an airline as everywhere else... it just doesn't mean what you think it means. To quote from the FAQ on the Treasury Department's website:

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[mjwx]

Only bad thing about Air Asia is that their both check-in lines in Bangkok are almost always full of people and you have to wait, but that's understandable.

Thats not Air Asia, that's Bangkok Itnl. I've flown out on Thai and Singapore Air and both had ridiculous lines for check in and an even worse line for immigration. BKK is just a very poorly organised airport.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[TooMuchToDo]

I flew from LAX to Tokyo last year for a tour of Japan, and Singapore Air was glorious. I now try to fly them international whenever possible.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Kjella]

In the case of food, it's yours once you touch it. That is SOP for EVERY food handling service. Contamination is a no-no.

They may not be able to sell it to someone else, but I'm quite sure they can dispose of it so that you don't get it for free.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[fredmosby]

The baggage fees and nickling&diming for food are indefensible, but it seems they are standard practice in the airline industry these days.

Charging passengers fees based on the services they use is actually pretty easy to defend. Services cost money. If an airline isn't charging for a service then they are including it in the ticket price. Why should I pay for baggage handling if I'm not going to check a bag? Why should I pay for a snack when I can bring my own?

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[21mhz]

No it's not specific to AA. I've flown SW, KLM-Delta(and delta before the merger), JetBlue, AirTran all in the last 2 years and they've all done the same thing.

This must be specific to America. On all flights I've flown across Europe, they switch the seatbelt sign off and on as appropriate to the situation. My flight with KLM Cityhopper was no different.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Kashgarinn]

your personal comfort and blood clots be damned

I just wanted to tell you the bloodclot problem is because of the bad air conditioning, not from lack of movement. see here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060517084330.htm

So it is entirely the whole industrys fault for reducing the quality of air, because the risk is real, and they're not doing anything about it.

I wanted to find a link to the "quite interesting" clip with this information, but couldn't find it.. Google failed me :(

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Amlothi]

45 minutes out of Hawaii, the captain turned the "Fasten Seats Belts" light back on - at the first excuse for a mild bump - and then left it on uninterrupted for the next 7.5+ HOURS - in smooth. clear air - all the way until we landed - 36 hours later, and my feet and ankles are STILL swollen.

Did you happen to mention to the flight attendant that you were uncomfortable, or that you had a medical reason to need to stand occasionally? Perhaps the pilot simply forgot that he/she had left the light on, and a simple polite reminder from the FA

On they way out, it cost $25 per checked bag, and one, which was over 50lbs (52.7 to be exact), cost an ADDITIONAL $50 over that.

Did you check the baggage policy before you flew? I think most people by now realize that almost all carriers charge for checked bags now, due to the ad campaigns (noteably by Southwest) about how they allow free checked bags. I suggest you make informed choices before purchasing, as that information should be clearly available on each airlines' website.

Of course, there's no free food anymore, but they'll SELL you a chicken sandwich for $10, or a can of Pringles for $4.50. What I found interesting was that they don't take cash anymore - just credit/debit cards - I guess that "...all debts, public and private..." printed on the money doesn't mean anything if you're an airline.

They don't take cash at all, or they don't carry change? I know it is a burden for airline crews to make sure they had a supply of small denomination bills for each flight. On all of my flights recently, they have asked for exact change and will accept it.

Note, the American Airlines website states that food "can be purchased" with credit and debit cards. It does not state that cash is not accepted. In fact, it notes that some flights are not able to accept cards at all.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[nosferatu1001]

BA, BMI and Lufthansa, who I have flown on in the last 6 months, do NOT "require" you to have your seatbelt on, but *suggest* that you do.

Your claim is therefore false.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[kidgenius]

Um, the food items on the airlines are in a box. So no, no contamination takes place. As far as taking a plate of food from one table in a restaurant and giving it to another patron, you'd be correct, but this is different.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[mjwx]

BA, BMI and Lufthansa, who I have flown on in the last 6 months, do NOT "require" you to have your seatbelt on, but *suggest* that you do. Your claim is therefore false.

Dearest pendant,

The brilliant thing about the English language is that words have different meanings, You are using one definition of a word in order to falsify a claim, unfortunately for you I used the word in a different context which denotes a different meaning.

Require can be used as a request. On several airlines they've said "[when] the seatbelt sign has been switched off you are free to move about the cabin but we require you to have your seatbelt fastened whilst in your seat" which is for your safety.

So your claim is false.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[FormOfActionBanana]

Dude, it's just a switch on the dashboard. The pilots forgot to set it back...

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[mdielmann]

Basic logic lesson. An absolute is refuted with a single example to the contrary. The refutation of an absolute is not broken by an example to the contrary, but by a comprehensive list that disagrees.

So if you say all require you to wear seat belts, and he says some few don't, your absolute is negated. Attempting to refute that with your vague, likely incomplete, list doesn't work.

Then there's the whole worldview that some people have that they should be allowed to assess personal risks themselves and make their own decisions based on their unique needs. You may not have heard, but some people suffer major health issues being forced to remain in a certain uncomfortable position for multiple hours. Possibly more so than the people who the doctor is called on the PA for.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Frankenbuffer]

Bucking the trend in Canada at least, is little Porter Airlines which flies out of Toronto Island Airport to a handful of other key cities in Canada and the US. They serve tasty, complementary food on real china and in real glassware, offer free beer (500ml cans of the local microbrew), and in the lounge there's selve-serve espresso, drinks, cookies and a huge bank of large-screen iMacs with internet access. All free. Staff are friendly, the terminal and planes are modern and spotless, and flight service is prompt because you're not competing with the traffic at Pearson nearby (incidentally, an airport with the highest, or second highest landing fees in the world). The planes are turboprops, but they are as or more quiet than most jets I fly on. Landing at the island puts you right downtown Toronto. The lounge has an integrated ferry that takes you 100m over to the shore, and there's a free Porter bus to take you the km or so to the main train station and convention centre right downtown.

How much for all this, you may ask? The same or less than paying for Air Canada, our national carrier. Not as cheap as some US carriers, but the great service and less hassle is well worth the fee--especially if you have to do a day trip for business in downtown Toronto.

And we have WestJet for cross-country flights. Another great Canadian airline modelled on Southwest.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[potat0man]

But how are they going to get it back if you refuse and just offer them cash? Kick you in the nads and grab it?

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[DavidTC]

Of course, there's no free food anymore, but they'll SELL you a chicken sandwich for $10, or a can of Pringles for $4.50. What I found interesting was that they don't take cash anymore - just credit/debit cards - I guess that "...all debts, public and private..." printed on the money doesn't mean anything if you're an airline.

This is the thing that pisses me off because they have an idiotic justification for it.

Every pound on airplane costs money, and it does, indeed, cost to have them carry stuff back and forth, when they don't know how much they're going to sell. If they need enough sandwiches for whatever amount the plane might want, it can get costly.

The problem is there's an obvious way of handling this. Ask people beforehand. They could charge people three dollars before the flight to pack a sandwich on there, and then have just a few extras laying around which they charge $10 during the flight.

The fact they don't do this makes me think the entire 'We're having to fly extra food around so it costs a lot' is just nonsense.

Meanwhile, on Delta, I had the opposite problem. They only took cash. Luckily, I had enough.

Oh, and on a related note: What the hell is the deal with giving soda out of cans? Sure, they do all these penny pinching everywhere else, but for some reason they choose what is literally the most expensive way of distributing soda, which is to package it in cans, and then pour it half a can at a time into cups. I can't even think of how you'd make that cost more.

Has no one heard of a soda fountain? Install one in the middle of the plane, have someone run back and forth to it behind the food cart. I mean, they have plenty of people. Hell, at the very least you pour it out of two liter bottles, not cans.

A half a can of soda costs something like 10 cents at least, assuming you can buy in bulk and get cans at the rock bottom price of 20 cents a can, and that's not even including the price of flying the aluminum all over the place. 6oz of a fountain drink is immeasurable in cost..the plastic cup costs ten times as much, and it probably costs 2 cents.

I've heard crazy theories about air pressure, but they make no sense to me. I mean, the cans seem to have no problem. A soda fountain could easily be made adjustable with an barometer if that's really needed. The damn airplane is already carrying compressed air, it can carry compressed CO2.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[DavidTC]

While you are normally right, being trapped on an airplane is exceptional circumstances.

If you had planned to eat on the airplane because you informed you you could purchase food there, and then, once you were trapped there, informed you that you could only purchase food in a specific way, you might, indeed, have a legal case against them.

People don't just have to accept US only in debt resolutions. They often have to accept them for new services when you get previous things from them under the impression you can get another service for them in cash.

Strange example: If you had an auto club subscription that said if you ever ran out of gas, they'd bring gas, that you could pay for, to your car. (Weird subscription, but whatever.) If you did, and asked them to do that, and they brought gas but demanded payment in pennies only, for the gas, you'd indeed have a legal case against them. You paid for something with the expectation that you could buy something else from them, and they failed to explain the restrictions on how you could buy that second thing when you bought the first thing.

Likewise, if I bought the airline ticket with the expectation that I could 'buy food', which they advertised was possible, and it turns out they meant I could only 'buy food' in specific ways but failed to note that before I paid for the ticket, I'd certainly have a case against them. (In fact, I'd have more a case against them then the gas thing, as I'm actually trapped and can't buy food elsewhere, and now because of their failure to live up their promise, I am starving.)

People generally have legal grounds for a suit if somewhere says they can buy X and Y, and someone buys X because they intend to buy Y later, and in fact Y is a selling point of X...and then it turns out Y has some restrictions on it that weren't made clear when they bought X. (Normally, though, 'What currency you can buy it with' wouldn't be grounds for a suit, as that is generally a trivially solvable problem, and courts don't like lawsuits that could be solved for less work than actually filing the suit...but you can't solve that problem in midair or on the side of the road.)

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[blackraven14250]

I now know for sure that I'm right, now that I did some looking into this matter. On AA's own website, when you look at their Dining section, they mention repeatedly, on nearly every page, that they do not accept cash as payment for anything in-flight. I believe that constitutes a fair warning.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[DavidTC]

I've never understood why passengers have to sit down when the fasten seat belt light is on, but often flight attendants are pushing a 200 pound cart with a couple pots of scalding hot coffee on top of it down the aisles.

Often they've turned that on because food is being served. Because morons attempt to get past the food cart, which takes the entire isle. (They're always 'the exception' who think they can get past it.) They turn that light on so flight attendants can direct people back to their seat without argument.

Which is just stupid. They need a sign on the food cart that says 'You are not allowed to go past this cart for any reason whatsoever. If you are on the wrong side of it, tough.', and a light that lights up saying 'Food cart in movement, please check before leaving seat', and let everyone else sort it out. Normally, you can get to a bathroom in the other direction if you really really need to go.

If you leave before the cart gets to you, and try to come back after it's gotten past your seat, and hence would have to pass it, well, you lost the game and have to stand around like an idiot until the cart finishes. Sucks to be you. (OTOH, that's still better than not being able to get to the bathroom in the first place.)

None of this should be the same as the 'remain in your seat for safety' light, which should not be abused to stop idiots from trying to get past the food cart. And that light, incidentally, should be multiple levels...there's a difference between 'Do not walk around if you can help it because we got or are expecting some turbulence' and 'Stay buckled in you idiot, we're landing or crashing.'. I think a green, yellow, and red light is in order.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[DavidTC]

Yes, if they tell you beforehand, it's fine.

Well, actually, as they have you trapped for long periods, sometimes they're required to serve food regardless of any payment, but that food is already in the purchase price of a ticket and you don't pay for it on the plane. (This is the reason for the soft drink and crackers. They are legally required to feed you.)

Of course, all this is extremely poorly planned anyway. There's no logical reason not to take cash. There's no logical reason not to have change. There's no logical reason to serve soft drinks out of cans. There's no logical reason not to have passengers order and pay for food at the gate so that the plane doesn't have to carry a bunch of extra food.

The food service on airplanes is apparently designed by trained horses stamping their feet. Even within the space, weight, and cost restrictions they're operating in, it would be pretty easy to have a very nice meal service...in fact, they used to have one! But they cut it back to nothing, people complained, so they rebuild it...stupid style.

Apparently, in their universe, it all has to operate out of that stupid cart. Heaven forbid sodas get poured in the back and carried out, or people sit with a menu in the terminal, figure what they want later, and pay for it there. Heaven forbid they actually stagger food service so they can take more time, or let people order whenever.

I have a friend who's a flight attendant, I need to ask him why food service is so stupidly-designed.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[hrimhari]

I'm very interested in seeing you try. Don't forget to record it on video and post on Youtube.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Khyber]

The food items in McDonald's often come in a box. The rules are the exact same.

I've got my food handling license, these rules apply to EVERY INDUSTRY THAT SERVES FOOD IN THE USA.

But only a couple of states have mandatory licensing requirements to serve or handle the food - Washington and California as far as I know.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[mjwx]

Basic comprehension lesson,

In the English language context is more important then wording. For example, I'd say you'd be an absolute _orange_ not to understand what I just said.

Basic logic lesson,

GP caught a disambiguation, not damning evidence of my falsehood. Trying to claim my entire post is false on the basis of one word is at best, a strawman. A strawman that you cant seem to let go. I know /. is full of pendants, but they generally have a higher standard then yourself and the GP.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[eap]

What I found interesting was that they don't take cash anymore - just credit/debit cards - I guess that "...all debts, public and private..." printed on the money doesn't mean anything if you're an airline.

The text is "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". It's a common mistake to assume this means everyone is required to accept cash for payment. It only means that cash is a legal form of payment. Coins have no such wording, but that doesn't make them any less of an official currency form.

To add to the airline debate, I'd say the only benefit American offers is that they still fly MD-80s. One side of the aircraft only has two seats per row, eliminating a dreaded middle seat which the A319s and 737s have. The drawback is that the AB side has smaller overhead bins.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[eozh]

I actually like the lack of free food now: it motivates me to buy food before departure and I usually end up with something better than the typical airline food.

That said, I feel that it's not a free market but a rip-off when there is no price competition for these services. When you compare the tickets, none of the sites show you the price of the meal next to the price of the ticket.

Does anyone pay these people?

[robbak]

I just thought that everybody used these services (WebJet in australia) to research flights and prices, and then went to the airline's own sites to book? You might on a rare occasion find the flight you chose booked out in the few seconds it took you to switch sites, but, if that happened, you'd just go back and choose a second flight.

Re:Does anyone pay these people?

[ChunderDownunder]

The last couple of times I've tried using webjet their website has been malfunctioning when I've tried to book, despite me having used them in the past. Which is kind of a pain as their service for finding international flights used to be good.

The domestic prices on Qantas/VB websites weren't any different...

Re:Does anyone pay these people?

[hawguy]

Why would you do this when you can book right on Expedia or Orbitz for the same price as booking direct on the airline's site?

Re:Does anyone pay these people?

[nedlohs]

The price is the same, so most people won't bother.

I sometimes do just to remove a middle man from any disputes/issues that might arise, one less place for a screw up.

Re:Does anyone pay these people?

[drsmithy]

Why would you do this when you can book right on Expedia or Orbitz for the same price as booking direct on the airline's site?

It removes a non-trivial layer of obfuscation should anything go wrong.

Re:Does anyone pay these people?

[whoever57]

Why would you do this when you can book right on Expedia or Orbitz for the same price as booking direct on the airline's site?

Imagine that there is a volcano affecting flights between Europe and the USA, or a massive storm affecting all flights in and out of the east coast and your flight is canceled. You want to get a new flight or a refund. The airline will tell you to call Expedia or Orbitz and you may find that getting your new itinerary or refund is much more difficult than if you booked direct. At one time, one of these sites actually tacked on an additional change fee (over and above the airline's change fee), so that changes cost you more if you booked via that site.

They're all bad

[sjbe]

US Air and Southwest are the only two airlines that have not regularly fucked up my travel.

Give them time and I promise that will change. I've flown quite a bit on pretty much any US carrier you care to mention and they're all pretty much equally crappy. If you haven't had bad luck with one of them I applaud your good fortune.

Re:They're all bad

[gonz]

Really? Did you try Virgin America? Their planes are new, with stylish white plastic and black leather interior, with disco color lighting. They have a Linux-based entertainment system with free games and movies, seat-to-seat chat, and a shopping-cart style electronic ordering system for food/drinks. To celebrate the holiday, the internet was free for all of December. And the price is comparable to shitty airlines like Delta and US Air. Virgin America kicks ass.

Re:They're all bad

[oldspewey]

This is a reasonable approach when one of these airlines serves both your origin and destination and the price is +/-10% ... but you're not going to be able to fly Singapore airlines if you're doing Atlanta - Minneapolis for example.

Re:They're all bad

[Splab]

Have you any idea how hard it is to find a virgin american of legal age? And even when you do find one, they tend to be biblical nuts.. So no Virgin Amarica for me thankyouverymuch!

Re:They're all bad

[TooMuchToDo]

I've been begging Virgin America to fly into either ORD or MDW. Until then, they aren't much use to someone in Chicago =(

Re:They're all bad

[interkin3tic]

I got swine flu on one of their planes though (the PAX strain.) No other airline has gotten me sick with anything the cable news networks would deem a major threat to humanity.

Re:They're all bad

[interkin3tic]

I've flown quite a bit on pretty much any US carrier you care to mention and they're all pretty much equally crappy.

But like the two politically parties, they're -differently- crappy, and a choice is better. Frontier may have delayed 10 hours getting me to my wedding, but that only happened one time and they did let us watch cable FOR FREE so I won't hold that against them.

Southwest's"choose your own seat" policy may ensure that some f#(!ing midget will get the extra leg room while my knees are banging into the seat in front of me for hours, but at least I'm not automatically assigned the middle seat at the very back of the plane between two fat people and my seat can't recline.

And Delta... well... at least any time I'm choosing who to fly with, there is a clear "wrong" answer, which is Delta.

Re:They're all bad

[19061969]

Yeah, but did you read the FAQ and set the proper options in ./configure for your architecture? ;-)

Re:They're all bad

[kidgenius]

Your "shitty" delta airlines also has "linux-based" entertainment. Are you really trying to use that as a selling point, that the entertainment system is "linux-based", like that means people will give a damn? I doubt anyone cares what an embedded system runs, as long as it works....

Re:They're all bad

[apoc.famine]

Virgin America services all of a dozen airports in the Americas. To compare them to airlines that reach several airports in every single state in the US is stupid.

Sure, VA may be awesome. But you know what? They aren't flying the routes that most people need. They're flying a handful of really profitable ones. I know that Air France treated me well when I flew them, but I'm not about to compare them to US Air either. You're talking about very different markets than everyone else here as well as the article.

Re:They're all bad

[chrismcb]

They have a Linux-based entertainment system with free games and movies,

I'm not sure why a linux based entertainment system is any better than some other OS based entertainment system. IF the system serves up some movies on demand, and some decent games, I don't care if it is TRS-80 based. I've never seen anything other than a linux based system on a flight. Actually maybe I have, but only the linux based systems crashed and had to be rebooted.

Inevitable Battle

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

For as long as I can remember (practically since deregulation) the airlines' approach has been to maximize profits through increased pricing complexity - or "efficient yield management" as they are more likely to label it. The core reason for the existence of airline fare search engines is to reduce pricing complexity. Therefore it seems obvious that the airlines would do everything they can to kill the search engines - but they can only go so far because they more they squeeze, the more consumer demand they create for the search engines. Where is equilibrium? I dunno. I would like for it to be at the point where the airlines quit the pricing games and try to compete on service instead, but that would be too easy.

Re:Inevitable Battle

[ftobin]

For as long as I can remember (practically since deregulation) the airlines' approach has been to maximize profits through increased pricing complexity - or "efficient yield management" as they are more likely to label it.

This seems to happen in most commodotized industries where there are few suppliers: they increase the number of axes on from the final price is determined. Another good example is credit cards with rebate systems. By introducing dimensions such as "which quarter is it" and "how much have you spent this year", creating high "foreign exchange fees" it becomes more difficult to compare the final value of the card.

Re:Inevitable Battle

[DavidTC]

Google 'confusopoly'. Scott Adams coined it to mean 'a group of companies with similar products who intentionally confuse customers instead of competing on price', and the most triumphant example is the airline industry.

Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbitz

[citylife]

Airlines long ago eliminated commissions for in-person travel agents because they had the market power and how were 1000's of mom and pop agents going to fight the airlines? Fearing dis-intermediation, the airlines continued to pay Expedia / Orbitz and the reservations systems such as Worldspan commission for deal flow but now the airlines have the market power with their own sites.

Its a hard dose of reality for the online sites, who don't offer much functionality above what you can get on Southwest.com. My mom is a travel agent- and while she is computer challenged she can run command line commands into Worldspan faster than I can login to Orbitz. I've never understood why someone would spend hours online finding a site when a travel agent can do it all for you for almost nothing. My mother selected 3 of the 4 hotels for my honeymoon, the other coming from the NY times travel section. Guess which one was the dump with paper thin walls and crappy beds?

Online booking is generally great, but is not fool

[Anonymous Coward]

I booked a trip to Phoenix last Christmas on a ride share flight (USAir flight booked as a United flight via Expedia). I was not able to confirm my reservation on either United's or USAir's websites. I called USAir, they told me to call United. United customer service wanted to charge me $20 per ticket (!) for the privilege of helping me, which I declined. I called Expedia, who assured me everything was fine. When I got to the airport, I was informed that my flight had changed and had left 2 hours prior. No one bothered to tell me, despite having multiple means of contact and my good faith effort to check in prior to the flight. Expedia denied all responsibility (there was at least one more irate family in line with us that had the same experience).

To USAir's credit, they stepped up and got us to our destination in time for Christmas. I don't know if this was just a giant fuck-up, or whether United/Expedia were just pissing on each other with me in the middle, but I won't use Expedia ever again.

I wonder why MS says NO!

[rrossman2]

Just happened to look at ITA Software's website.. and look at their customer list:
www.itasoftware.com/about/customers.html
I do believe I see Bing as one of the customers :)

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[Andrew Garber]

The most useful page on ITA's site is this: http://matrix.itasoftware.com/

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[webmistressrachel]

Wow. How sarcastic of you. Thanks for the snide sniggers.

No, really. Thanks. Yeah.

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[ADRA]

Microsoft owns Expedia, and although ITA makes software to facilitate an internet booking engine, the areas are similar enough for Google to create a site that would compete directly with them.

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[19061969]

Would you guys stop being so childish and immature?

No, really. Thanks. Yeah.

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[farnsworth]

Microsoft owns Expedia [...]

No, they do not. That is false.

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[rmm4pi8]

Expedia was spun out of Microsoft over a decade ago...Microsoft is worried about the Bing Travel site, which is rather different.

Re:I wonder why MS says NO!

[webmistressrachel]

Would you stop biting random trolls on slashdot?

No, really. Thanks. Yeah.

Expedia wants to set rates.

[GayBliss]

Expedia has been trying hard for several years to become a travel retailer that determines the pricing themselves, and they want travel companies (hotels, airlines, and rental cars) to give them wholesale pricing. Right now, like any travel agent, they get a percentage of the rate that is normally determined by the travel company, but they would like to be able to set whatever rate they think they can get and give the hotel/airline/car company a flat wholesale rate. This would give Expedia a lot of control over rates, and they could make a lot more profit because they could take everything above the negotiated rate, instead of the fixed percentage. Luckily the travel companies see that this model would destroy their own business and have resisted.

Naturally the travel companies would prefer that people book through their own websites, because they don't have to pay the commission, which is typically around 10% of the price.

Re:Expedia wants to set rates.

[Attila Dimedici]

Naturally the travel companies would prefer that people book through their own websites, because they don't have to pay the commission, which is typically around 10% of the price.

Also, if people book through the travel companies' websites, they can condition you to think that company A has the best price for you in a particular class, so there is no need to check anybody else. Every time I see the Southwest Airlines ads about how you can only buy tickets on Southwest's website where they say, "You don't want to have to check a bunch of different sites to find the best price", I think that they are actually forcing me to do that by not allowing me to get their tickets from Expedia, etc..

Re:Expedia wants to set rates.

[KidHash]

Naturally the travel companies would prefer that people book through their own websites, because they don't have to pay the commission, which is typically around 10% of the price.

It's actually more like 30%, and at my hotel that means you're much less likely to get upgrades and freebies because our revenue is so much lower. Book direct for a lower rate and more perks!

Re:Go figure.

[theshowmecanuck]

American Airlines was my first experience sitting on a tarmac for five hours (at Boston's Logan Airport)... BEFORE taking off. Like if you are not going to take off right away, why put us on board, fucktards. A trip to Calgary that should have been at maximum five hours with the other airlines I normally flew on (even changing planes in Toronto or Chicago), took almost twelve with these idiots. Worse, American had no music on board... no movies... no newspapers... no magazines... other than what others brought on themselves. American has the least comfortable seats and less service than anyone I've ever seen with the exception of Delta, who suck shit too. I have never flown on American since (and stopped flying Delta after my one no leg room knee bruised on the seat in front of me flight). Not once in at least a hundred thousand miles of air travel since (granted I stopped flying mostly about a year after that... I had enough). I have never had that experience before or since. And that was twelve years ago. American can go fuck themselves... right behind Delta. Bitter? Hell yeah.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[Moraelin]

My mother selected 3 of the 4 hotels for my honeymoon, the other coming from the NY times travel section. Guess which one was the dump with paper thin walls and crappy beds?

Yeah, my mom can be a practical joker like that too ;)

If you happen to know who they are, sure

[Rix]

But most people won't, and it doesn't say anywhere prominently on their site that they're a sectarian organization, like, say, The Christian Science Monitor.

Re:If you happen to know who they are, sure

[Rix]

You are misinformed. It was founded by the Church of Christ, Scientist for the purposes of publishing favourable coverage of themselves.

Re:Go figure.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Like if you are not going to take off right away, why put us on board, fucktards.

Because they need that gate space for the next load of unfortunates.

No.

[Kohath]

That doesn't result in a ticket commission from American Airlines.

Re:Online booking is generally great, but is not f

[brusk]

Happened to me once on Orbitz, too: the flight changed to an earlier time and they and the airline neglected to tell me (but I noticed the discrepancy when printing boarding passes the day before so it was fine).

Pricing complexities

[MobyDisk]

If you book online with American Airlines, make sure to add $50 per checked bag. I bought an AA flight because it was cheaper, only to find out it was actually $100 more expensive ($50 checked bag, both ways). It would be nice if it asked you this when comparing tickets.

Re:Pricing complexities

[NotQuiteReal]

You probably carry too much stuff. Most people should be able to live for weeks out of a carry-on and a back pack. I did, and no, there were never any complaints about my smell or laughter when I wore the same outfit.

If my ticket costs less because you are paying $100 more for baggage, I say, "Bring it On"!

Re:Pricing complexities

[tompaulco]

If my ticket costs less because you are paying $100 more for baggage, I say, "Bring it On"!
What if your ticket costs the same as it did before the baggage fee, and yet now there is a baggage fee?
Also, these days, the planes they fly are getting smaller, so small that if you show up with a standard sized carry on, they make you check it.

Re:Pricing complexities

[MobyDisk]

1) My 2 year old can't manage a carry-on bag.
2) Your point is irrelevant. It does not address the fact that the online agent should notify me of fees at the time of booking, not when I reach the ticket counter.

Re:Pricing complexities

[pedestrian crossing]

so small that if you show up with a standard sized carry on, they make you check it.

Depends on your value for "standard sized". Most of the carry-ons I see are far bigger than the "standard" (ie., the little rack out by the check-in desk that demonstrates the correct carry-on size).

Really, next time, try to fit your "carry-on" into the sizer. If it doesn't fit, expect to pay. Just because it has wheels and a handle and is smaller than full-sized luggage doesn't make it carry-on.

Re:Pricing complexities

[tompaulco]

I would estimate that my carry on is about 12 X 20. As Carry-Ons go, it is one of the smaller of the ones that I see. However, it won't fit in the overhead bins of the regional jets which is what I end up flying on most of the time. They make me check it. Fortunately, I haven't been charged for checking it, since they check it at the gate. Of course, I haven't flown in 2 years and things seem to have gotten a lot worse in that time. I probably will never fly again, at least not unless my company makes me.

Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[schnell]

When I have to fly I try Southwest first, then Jet Blue. If I can get their on either of those I drive or I don't go.

If you are a "casual" traveler - i.e. you typically travel for personal reasons or at your own discretion - you're dead on. Southwest, JetBlue and Virgin America are inexpensive, comfortable and usually will get you where you need to go on time. These airplanes don't offer much in the way of perks or status programs (other than getting you a free flight now and then), but as a casual flyer that's not a big deal.

But if you fly fairly often (say, 50,000 miles a year or more) for work etc., then the traditional carriers start making a lot more sense - mainly because they do have multiple classes, perks programs etc. For example, United is a pretty terrible airline - more expensive, bad customer service in many cases, less nice cabins ... if I were a non-frequently flyer, I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole. However, because I fly a lot on United and its code share partners, I get a lot of perks. Specifically, I know that if my schedule changes and I need to fly standby, I will be able to get on ahead of pretty much anybody else. Ditto for if my flight is cancelled and I need to be rebooked. It's also worth the extra money to me (especially since I'm not usually the one paying it) to know in advance I won't get a middle seat, will get to board first and not have them run out of overhead luggage space, occasionally get upgraded to first class, and so forth. American Airlines to me falls into that group of airlines I'd never look at as a casual flyer but would think strongly about as a business/frequent traveller.

So I think which airlines you look at should be based on your travel profile. I can almost analogize it to business class vs. consumer class Internet services - consumer class is cheaper and is good enough most of the time. If you have special needs or are a heavy user, paying more for the business service is the way to go.

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[CohibaVancouver]

But if you fly fairly often (say, 50,000 miles a year or more) for work etc., then the traditional carriers start making a lot more sense

They also make a lot of sense if you want to fly from Des Moines to Paris or from New Orleans to Rio. You can check in with a "tradional" legacy carrier at those airports and be checked all the way through to your international destination, baggage and all (via a hub). Try doing *that* on Southwest. I realize Americans who have passports and travel overseas regularly are very much in the minority, but for those who do this is a valuable service.

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[TooMuchToDo]

In that case, I usually use JetBlue or Southwest to get to New York or SFO and then fly Singapore Air (since rarely do they come into Chicago).

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[SanityInAnarchy]

You mean they put a dozen clones of you on Southwest flights and wait till one of you reports back that you made it alive?

Are you sure your name isn't BadAnalogyGuy?

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[BrianRoach]

However, because I fly a lot on United and its code share partners, I get a lot of perks. Specifically, I know that if my schedule changes and I need to fly standby, I will be able to get on ahead of pretty much anybody else. Ditto for if my flight is cancelled and I need to be rebooked. It's also worth the extra money to me (especially since I'm not usually the one paying it) to know in advance I won't get a middle seat, will get to board first and not have them run out of overhead luggage space, occasionally get upgraded to first class, and so forth.

Just as an FYI, I'm a business frequent flier with SouthWest, and get all of that with the exception of the first class bit (their 737s don't have first class). Once you hit their "A-List" status they make it so you always get priority and don't even have to worry about when you check in (You're guaranteed A1 - A15 for your boarding pass, though technically if they had more than 15 "A-List" people I suppose that could slip - have never seen it happen) . At some airports they even have an express line at security so you don't have to wait.

You also rack up free flights - free round trip voucher every 16 flights, regardless of distance flown.

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[jonnyj]

But if you fly fairly often (say, 50,000 miles a year or more) for work etc., then the traditional carriers start making a lot more sense - mainly because they do have multiple classes, perks programs etc.

All the frequent flier perks that you describe - priority boarding, advance seat booking, etc - are basically queue jumping. That's great for the jumper, but it makes service worse for evereyone else, and that's why the traditional airlines are so bad for most leisure travellers. With the low-cost model, everyone is equal, so I'm not a second class citizen waiting to be pushed aside to make room for the favoured few.

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[CohibaVancouver]

In that case, I usually use JetBlue or Southwest to get to New York or SFO and then fly Singapore Air

This can be a risky move - If the Southwest or JetBlue flight goes mechanical and you miss your connection you're SOL. If, on the other hand, you have a through-ticket on one of Singapore's Star Alliance partners then you're protected...

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[TooMuchToDo]

You are correct. I do travel about 80K miles/year on Singapore Air though, so when I miss a flight, it is very painless getting rebooked on the next one even though I'm not ticketed all the way through.

Speaking of Star Alliance/OneWorld, if you ever get the chance, book an around-the-world ticket.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/10/08/round-the-world-plane-ticket/

I paid $5K/ticket for both myself and my wife, and we traveled around the world *cheap* compared to buying individual flights (used OneWorld, got 16 segments across the globe).

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[wickedskaman]

OMGZ SO MANY LULZ!1

Re:Low-cost airlines vs. traditional

[EverlastingPhelps]

If you are a "casual" traveler - i.e. you typically travel for personal reasons or at your own discretion - you're dead on. Southwest, JetBlue and Virgin America are inexpensive, comfortable and usually will get you where you need to go on time. These airplanes don't offer much in the way of perks or status programs (other than getting you a free flight now and then), but as a casual flyer that's not a big deal.

You may want to narrow your generalization there. I'm an A-lister on Southwest, so I think that qualifies me as a fairly often flyer for work. I fly frequent, short haul flights (TX & CA). First, you act like the "usually" is something to scoff. To me, that's a huge deal. AA and its like (Delta and United and all the ones who really want to be a crappy as AA but don't put quite enough effort into it) can be relied on to either delay or flat our cancel my flight regularly. I only fly on them when I can't reach someplace with more than one stop on SWA, and even on those overpriced niche routes, they can't perform. Also, SWA flies its routes frequently enough that I even if one flight is delayed, there is another in 60-90 minutes -- and if I am running late, I can change flights on my phone to a later one with no change fees. If I'm early, I can get the gate agent to put me on an earlier flight, easy-peasy.

SWA gives me perks that I actually want, and a class upgrade on a short haul 1-2 hour flight isn't what I want. Free drinks, free flights. That's what I want. Hot towels and warm nuts don't. Airport clubs aren't necessary when I can rely on being able to show up at an alternate airport (like Love Field) 60 minutes before my flight and get on it on time, rather than having to show up at the airport three hours ahead just to make sure that I can make it through the poxy security and so my luggage actually makes it on the plane.

Plus, I hate flying on MD-80s with a passion. And AA always seems to stick me on an MD-80.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[OzPeter]

I've never understood why someone would spend hours online finding a site when a travel agent can do it all for you for almost nothing.

Probably because travel agents don't like to work from my home office at 3am.

Re:Go figure.

[oldspewey]

Yeah, a lot of times it isn't the airline that's at fault in this kind of situation. I've been lucky enough to avoid 5 hours on the tarmac, but I've done 2 plenty of times, and it's pretty much always been due to apron traffic control or air traffic control giving the poor pilot (and the 80 people sitting on the plane) the fuck-around.

This is a flat out lie from the airlines

[magsk]

I travel alot, and wish the ticket prices where cheaper if booked directly from the airlines (american in particular) . But they are NOT they are the same price regardless if booked through travelocity, expedia, aa.com or where have you. If AA was trying to save money or cared about the consumer then their direct website price would be lower by whatever fee it is the travel sites are getting paid. But it is not.

The Epoch Times has some good content

[notthedroids]

Actually I've found their articles to be insightful. They have real stories on China that don't get covered elsewhere, especially on the inner workings of the communist party.

As for "cult," that's what the communist party calls Falun Gong :-), so check your sources. I haven't seen any evidence that term is accurate: charge money (no), keep a membership list (no), coercive (no). The Falun Gong has been subject to a massively brutal persecution -- kudos to them for enduring the CCP and without violence. People can believe what they want, doesn't make them less deserving of human rights last time I checked.

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[Rix]

They're pretty out there. They're very active around Vancouver, protesting the Chinese embassy and such. They're mostly harmless, and they've got mostly fair points about the Chinese government, but yeah, they're a cult.

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[kls_slshdt]

> "mostly" harmless, "mostly" fair points, "but yeah, they're a cult" That's all it takes to slap people with a label. Go talk with one of the Falun Gong practitioners you see at the embassy, if you didn't do so yet. Ask him/her about his beliefs, about his daily life; see what moral integrity and freedom mean to these people. Come post here again afterwards.

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[IgnoramusMaximus]

see what moral integrity and freedom mean to these people.

Lemme see: According to their messiah/founder, the afterlife of the "enlightened" is problematic for children of multi-racial couples because paradise is racially segregated (with an unspoken implication of Asians being somewhat more pure) ...

And it goes downhill from there.

Look, every cult out there, large and small - from African hunter-gatherer tribes through the entire recorded history culminating with globe-spanning dominance of massive cults of modernity who due to their (sometimes direct) control of governments managed to re-brand themselves (usually rather violently) as something "special" and call themselves "organized religions" - has some kind of mumbo-jumbo "moral code" claiming to bring about paradise on Earth (or failing that, in afterlife) if only one were to leave all those horribly inconvenient reasoning faculties of ones brain behind ...

These turkeys are no different at all. Just yet another flavour of woo-woo.

I would agree however that they are (mostly) harmless as their core tenets involve non-violence. I also agree that the Chinese authorities have gone ape-shit on them, buy they usually do that when faced with even the smallest competition to their absolute, totalitarian power and so this cult is not even particularly special in this regard.

But trying to pretend that they are not a cult is just intellectually dishonest.

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[DavidTC]

Dude, Falun Gong is about as far from a 'cult' as possible. They're one of the most disorganized religions on the planet.

I don't think you understand what 'cult' actually means. They are religions with charismatic leaders that claims ultimate authority under a strict hierarchy that isolate and essentially brainwash followers by replacing their entire life. (Often in the Western world they will hijack Christianity and place themselves in the middle.)

Whereas Falun Gong is just another mix of Dao and Confusism and movement exercises and apparently mostly practiced by well educated middle-aged women, and something like half the 'followers' appear to just be people who read the philosophy book and show up at the exercises groups.(1) It's barely even a religion by western standards, and it's not a 'cult' in any of the legitimate sense of the word except the rather bigoted 'any new religion' sense. (And even then it's not really a new 'religion', it's more a new 'sect' of the rather amorphous eastern religions.)

1) China claims otherwise, claims it's a well-organized subversive movement, but China is lying

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[Rix]

They've held a decade long, 24/7 vigil at the Chinese embassy here. They've taken it to the point that many people assume the building belongs to them. They run a high production value propaganda newspaper, as linked to here.

If that's not organized, what is?

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[DavidTC]

They've held a decade long, 24/7 vigil at the Chinese embassy here. They've taken it to the point that many people assume the building belongs to them.

Yes, strangely, when countries imprison people for religious beliefs, often people in other countries will protest at their embassy in another country. (Which is a hell of a lot safer than protesting in the actual country.)

You know, like here. Or here.

This is not the story you seem to think it is.

They run a high production value propaganda newspaper, as linked to here.

There is no link there.

And, incidentally, all religions put out 'propaganda', or, as it's normally called, 'religious text'.

If that's not organized, what is?

Vigils are almost by definition not organized. The fact a local community of followers is organized enough to keep that up is does not mean it's anywhere near as organized as, for example, Methodists.

And, incidentally, 'organized' doesn't making it cult either. I was just pointing that out something as disorganized as the Falun Gong can't be a cult.

Things are cults only if, as I explained, they exhibit specific characteristics, which I listed. One of those is a fairly strict hierarchy, which Falun Gong does not appear to have. In fact, many 'followers' appear to have just read a book and show up to worship, aka, group exercise.

That is not how cults operate. Cults specifically isolate you from friends and family, replacing them in your life. They have leaders that must be obeyed. They teach you the outside world is against you.

Hell, there's not really any cults that are over multiple cities. Cults have to be heavily centralized. The closest is something like Scientology, which manages to maintain order and control via a corporate structure. (And is a rather atypical cult.)

Falun Gong is the most uncultlike religion that I am even aware of. It behaves nothing like a cult, and not even really like much of a religion, at least not a western one. (And cults are an exclusively western phenomenon, even when they borrow the trappings of eastern religions.)

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[kls_slshdt]

Well here's my take on it. Out of belief in a deeper meaning behind what one encounters and does in life, one may strive to be constructive and altruistic, and gradually grow to really have a bigger heart. You may be cynical and say it's just concealed selfishness. I say that being able to wholeheartedly conduct yourself according to your understanding of a spiritual or moral principle, amounts to the manifestation of your enlightenment of that principle. It's a very real and concrete process that stems from belief. It requires self-discipline and dedication, and it doesn't require denigration or abortion of the intellect. To speak in Chinese self-cultivation terms, enlightenment is an aspect of man's state of mind/heart (xinxing) that plays out in everyday life. The broader you cultivate your xinxing, the deeper your spiritual realm and inner peace. I think that researching the implications of this requires to broaden the scope defined by the conventions of modern western research. It's exactly what Chinese, through various schools, have been researching for several thousands of years. The outcome of this research - the realm of spiritual cultivation - and that of "modern western conventional research" are often regarded as mutually exclusive, but I think many deeply carved conceptions are derived from intolerance, and are translated in gross generalizations, and a quite arrogant disposition that "we have already discovered what is currently technically possible to discover, so there is no reason to alter our premises". Speaking of being intellectually fair - Embracing one system of thought or belief does not imply to lose the faculty to grasp or put into perspective another one. Yet taking a snippet from one system, stripping it from all context, and contrasting it against another one can indeed stir up revolt. It doesn't paint the true picture though, it doesn't accurately reflect the nature of that system. This is what I perceive to be intellectually unfair. Belief - or the concept of enlightenment - is a difficult thing to defend in a "binary" place like /. , which is the reason why I didn't explicitly say I practice Falun Gong myself for over 10 years, to spare me some rant management before I could make my point; anyway so here's my sig: Nicolas Schols, 33, Belgium

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[IgnoramusMaximus]

This is actually a very typical of various cults:

Out of belief in a deeper meaning behind what one encounters and does in life, one may strive to be constructive and altruistic, and gradually grow to really have a bigger heart. You may be cynical and say it's just concealed selfishness. I say that being able to wholeheartedly conduct yourself according to your understanding of a spiritual or moral principle, amounts to the manifestation of your enlightenment of that principle. It's a very real and concrete process that stems from belief. It requires self-discipline and dedication, and it doesn't require denigration or abortion of the intellect. To speak in Chinese self-cultivation terms, enlightenment is an aspect of man's state of mind/heart (xinxing) that plays out in everyday life. The broader you cultivate your xinxing, the deeper your spiritual realm and inner peace. I think that researching the implications of this requires to broaden the scope defined by the conventions of modern western research. It's exactly what Chinese, through various schools, have been researching for several thousands of years.

On the face value this is plausible. Modern science has very little true understanding of the processes involved in sentience or even far more fundamental questions such as "what is the nature of information itself?" and "what is its actual relationship to the physical universe?".

Subsequently it is quite possible that some insights into the nature of consciousness were obtained over the millenia by various researchers in China and other places where the local philosophy/religion combinations encouraged such analysis (as opposed to the pursuit of power and control with their attendant refinement of dogma and authoritarianism employed by Judeo-Christian-Muslim flavours of woo-woo).

But this is where the good news ends.

The outcome of this research - the realm of spiritual cultivation - and that of "modern western conventional research" are often regarded as mutually exclusive, but I think many deeply carved conceptions are derived from intolerance, and are translated in gross generalizations, and a quite arrogant disposition that "we have already discovered what is currently technically possible to discover, so there is no reason to alter our premises".

As here comes the setup for pretty much every cult out there: poor-oppressed-us versus the-all-powerful-evil-them. "We are misunderstood!", "We are morally superior and the evil ones hate use because of it!", "Our divine knowledge is just tooo advanced for their puny minds to comprehend - and they hate us for it!" etc and so on.

This is a basic trick: you setup a premise with which reasonable people can agree, then you perform a bit of non-sequitur sleigh of hand and presto - a "justification" for any hokum, no matter how loosely related to the supposed premise.

Case in point: while your previous point was reasonable, the second point does not follow from it. It is quite possible for a mountain of "research" by Chinese monks to be - for example - 99.9% bogus and only 0.1% revolutionary insight. Given the subject matter and the wholly unscientific methodologies employed by pretty much all of these "researchers" it is in fact quite likely that such a staggering ratio of hokum-to-brilliance is the case. And so it is also quite natural that the scientific method as understood by the traditional Western science is going to be very efficient and detecting and demolishing any such gibberish.

It is not arrogance, it is simply an application of a knowledge gathering and verification process upon which the whole of modern western science is based (with rather spectacular technological results to highlight the validity of that system). And so any serious research into the nature of consciousness must produce a set of results that is ultimately compatible with the western scientific method in some way. For any conflict that exists to be resolved

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[Rix]

No one begrudges them the right to protest, but come on. Part of protesting is eventually packing it in and going home. The Falun Gong have built semi-permanent structures on the sidewalk. Even if you agree with them in principle (and I do, for the most part), that's a bit much.

I have no problem with them putting out religious texts, or even running a newspaper, but if they do the latter they should clearly identify it as the former.

The link I was referring to was TFA.

You have a very narrow definition of cult. The Hare Krishnas don't fit yours, but they certainly are one.

Re:The Epoch Times has some good content

[DavidTC]

ISKCON isn't a cult either. It's just a form of Hinduism that proselytizes to non-Hindus.

What exactly is your definition of a cult?

Re:Go figure.

[theshowmecanuck]

I think there is also money involved. They get charged a fee if they want to unload passengers and then reload them. The airline will know pretty quick if there is a long wait involved, but don't want to pay the gate fees if they don't have to, and will screw their customers over that fee. I really wish they had legislated the traveler's bill of rights like they were going to.

License agreements can prevent scraping

[gmor]

Can't the airlines just put a license agreement at the bottom of the page, combined with a robots.txt entry, that says that the user is prohibited from aggregating and publishing prices? This is the standard method of protecting databases in the US.

Re:License agreements can prevent scraping

[laughingcoyote]

They can put a note saying the user is prohibited from breathing, too. But since there's no legal basis for such a restriction, it's unenforceable.

Otherwise, why stop at prohibiting you from data grabbing? "By visiting this site, you have agreed to never fly on another airline so long as you live."

Raw data is fair game, period. If it's simple factual information, it isn't protected by copyright or any other law.

Expedia is good for consumers

[Monkeyman334]

If airlines were so hurt by websites like Expedia, then you'd think they'd inform users that they could get better prices if they just went to the AA website. But every time I've tried finding a flight on Expedia, and then going and finding the same flight on AA, the price is outrageously high with AA. Really, I think it's like TV networks fighting netflix and Hulu (on TV boxes), the networks want to divide up the market and overcharge you for crap you don't want, and Netflix just makes it too convenient for people to get what they want at the lowest price. Same thing with Expedia, services like that need to stick around.

Re:Expedia is good for consumers

[Frankenbuffer]

No kidding. Several years ago I was surfing some travel sites for flights (Canada->Europe I think) and found a bunch of reasonable options in the $700 range. For comparison, I decided to call Air Canada (our major carrier) directly to see how their prices compared, eliminating the middle man. They quoted me something like $8000+taxes and fees (I shit you not) for the exact same flight (same flight numbers, etc.) that one of the travel sites listed. I asked the agent if she was joking.

I don't know why those clowns even bothered with a direct service line then. I don't know anyone who's actually paid that much for a flight. But with service like this, it's easy to see why some of these carriers lose credibility with their customers.

 

Re:Expedia is good for consumers

[chrismcb]

Actually, not only does American want to keep the commission, they ALSO want to sell you a rental car and a hotel room. Of course what happens when Avis does the same thing to AA that AA is doing to Orbitz and Expedia?

Re:Expedia provides no value

[whoever57]

Until quite recently, one of the major online travel booking sites used to add their own change fee if you wanted to change your flight. You still had to pay the airline's fee, so the reward that the website gave you for using their site was increasing your cost.

I was using Hotels.com (really Expedia, I think) for hotel bookings. However, I stopped after one bad experience. I booked through hotels.com and when I arrived at the hotel, they denied that I had booked the room. When my credit card statement came through and I saw both the Hotels.com and the actual hotel's charge for the room, I called hotels.com and demanded a refund. While I was on the phone, they confirmed that I had stayed in the hotel and had paid the hotel directly, athough they claimed that the hotel had received the booked (but really, after the fact, who knew whether the booking had been transmitted before I arrived at the hotel?). Knowing this, they said I would have to call back again to ensure that I got the refund. I told them that my next call would be to my credit card company to dispute the charge. The operator even had the gall to claim that his supervisor wasn't there (yeah, right -- a call center without a supervisor there?).

So I stopped using hotels.com. In truth, the same rates are available directly from the hotels. The websites provide some value in locating the hotels, but after that, there is no value.

baggage and food fee

[aepervius]

Baggage fee are not new. You have a certain weight authorized with your ticket, (depending on class and trip it can go from 25 Kg to 40 Kg) and everything over that is Excess Baggage, for which a fee will be asked. We (yeah I wqork in airline nindustry) even have a document named EBD (Excess Baggage Doc) for this case, and when I started 10 years ago it was already existing. What might be new, is that the agent are asked to ENFORCE the rule strictly on baggage weight instead of being more relax and allow a kg or 2 of coolance. In other word if you were not paying before for baggage over the allowance it was NOT because the fee did not exists, but because the CKI agent skipped it. So now you are paying what you should always have paid. And really that is not a big deal. WEIGHT your luggage at home on a personal weighter, the one you use yourself, and remove crap until you get it OK.

As for food, make the concurrence work on that one. Other airline are still giving the crappy sandwich for free. A fee european airline comes to mind for that, and they are even airline which are "in the black" making profit. I think for example LH is still giving crappy food without asking money. If the crappy food (and it *IS* crappy) is that important, then check around for other airline. Otherwise do like we all do, buy MUCH less crappy food for the same price after you are thru security, in the gate area.

Re:baggage and food fee

[zyzko]

LH is one of my favorites, they still offer free soft drinks, beer & wine and that crappy food (quality also depends on what flight you are on, because catering is outsourced at some destinations and sometimes they just travel with supply to service the round-trip both ways).

And I'd like to thank LH also for being very nice in customer service - this far they have had me booked to flight in Munich when I was late due to trafic and check-in was closed - an agent offered help without asking and got me in on time. And they have quite nice interior in coach witout cramming it full and skipping cleaning like the cheapo-airlines.

Regarding to weight, I'm putting on my asbestos suit and a wizard hat and say that those 1 or 2kg overweight charges are laughable. Yes, I understand that there has to be some rules or else everyone would be bringing along their whole wardrobe and it's all about averages but come on - I weight 65 kilos, why the next guy in line who weights 120 kilos and I have the same 20kg limit on package (25kg was abandomed and lowered to 20kg on most airlines a while ago and on holiday charter flights the limit can be 18kg) and *I* have to pay extra (big) fee for 1 or 2 kg of overweight?

Re:Expedia provides no value

[tompaulco]

I have also been double charged by the hotel and the booking site. Most annoying, but at least in my case, the hotel removed the doubled charge. However, in another incident, I was charge an "environmental charge" for smoking in my room. I informed them that I have never smoked in my life and I wanted the charge removed. They refused. I spoke to the manager. They refused to remove the charge. So I called American Express and told them to remove X amount from my bill from the hotel. Thank goodness the credit cards at least will look after the consumers interests.

American AAdvantage Platinum and Gold members

[twasserman]

If you are a high-status member of American's AAdvantage frequent flyer program, you are probably already booking directly on the AA.com site or through a travel agent who has access to all of American's flights through SABRE or one of the other reservation systems. If you want to fly in or out of DFW, you may know that American has about 85% of the total traffic, since Southwest flies to the more convenient Love Field. But that doesn't cover a very large percentage of American's potential customers. While many of us know about Kayak and other fare comparison sites, there are a lot of people who automatically go to Travelocity or Expedia to arrange their flghts. If the American flights don't pop up on a search, then these people are going to choose from the options that are shown. It's not as if American has retained the strong passenger loyalty that they had back in the days when their crew smiled at you and fed you. So American loses those revenue opportunities, and gives a different carrier the opportunity to fill the seat. If I were an AMR stockholder, I would bail. AMR stock was even in 2010 while JetBlue, Southwest, Delta and other airline stocks were up. Without a presence on a major reservation site, AMR is likely to lose market share (and thus stock value) in 2011. I can't imagine what American execs have been smoking to have made such a poor decision.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[interkin3tic]

I've never understood why someone would spend hours online finding a site when a travel agent can do it all for you for almost nothing.

Hours online finding A site? Man, you really need to upgrade from dialup.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[Strider-]

I've never understood why someone would spend hours online finding a site when a travel agent can do it all for you for almost nothing.

For someone like me, who flies > 120,000 miles a year, one of my conditions of employment is that I do my own travel booking. By the time I've explained to an agent which airline I want, which flights, which airports I want to transfer through and/or do not want to transfer through, etc etc etc... i might as well have booked it myself. Every time I've had something booked by an agent, it's had something wrong with it. (on a non-partner airline, crappy seat/no seat booked, wrong hotel, etc...)

OTOH, as someone who has top tier status with my airline (Air Canada), making a change is much simpler if I book directly with the airline. I can call the Super Elite desk, get a helpful and knowledgeable human within 30 seconds, and make the changes. If you book through an agent, you're often stuck dealing with them instead, and they keep shorter hours than the airline's call center does.

are you working for them? advert?

[fantomas]

crickey, I reckon you must be working for them, what an advert! Personally I wouldn't choose my airline on the grounds they have "stylish white plastic and black leather interior". Since when has white plastic been stylish? :-) And who cares?! Get me there on time and do it comfortably.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[apparently]

My mother selected 3 of the 4 hotels for my honeymoon

This might be the saddest comment I've ever read in slashdot history. You had your mother book your honeymoon suites? Did she also pick out the condoms, and provide a stack of index cards dictating the order of foreplay?: "Honey, I'd love to squeeze your left breast right now, but mother says it is pertinent that I first graze my tongue against your popliteal fossa, but try not to get too excited, mother has ordered up a bunch of bananas so that we can mind our potassium."

AA has been backwards for a while

[toxonix]

AA wasn't one of the airlines to see the benefits of the OTAs in the first place. That was up to Delta, United, Continental and Northwest in the late 90's, which spawned Orbitz. Orbitz later built, maintained and hosted AA.com, AFAIK, still hosts it. The 'war' here is going on because AA wants to negotiate rates that are beneficial for itself, but costly for the OTA's. AA wants to pay nothing for OTA bookings, which means the OTAs would lose money providing AA fares. Every fare search costs the OTAs money, as does transaction processing on bookings. AA will take a hit if they pull their rates out of the OTAs. They are hoping to recover that loss by somehow generating more direct bookings through their own site. AA accounts for less than 5% of the major OTA's bookings, so the OTA's really don't care all that much. The OTA's account for a much larger percentage of AA's bookings though. AA can't just start doing what Southwest does. They are too large and have way too many routes. Southwest's model is very different.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[DavidTC]

I think they probably should start using some sort of search engine.

It really does take a long time to find sites if you just punch in random numbers or words.

I used to fly American all the time

[C_Kode]

I used to fly American all the time. Then their service started getting really bad. Then not only did they started charging for baggage, their fairs where hardly ever competitive.

They say go to their website to get the cheapest fairs, well going to their website vs Expedia usually meant you paid at least twice the price. I haven't flown American in over two years. I stopped buying flights on their website over five years ago. I wasn't going to pay double the price for the same flight Expedia was offering.

I have

[Rix]

They're wild-eyed and a bit unstable. They may have good reason for their fanaticism, and I'm sure they have legitimately been persecuted, but it's fanaticism none the less.

Re:I have

[kls_slshdt]

Come on dude. This stuff - it's been going on for ten years now - is not something wide-eyed, unstable people could stand through. It takes willpower - and not fanaticism - to survive such attempts to break your will. No group of people has been able to remain as composed in face of persecution by the CCP as they do. We're talking the whole toolbox here - blackmailing, ransacking, abduction, brainwashing, torture, rape, death. There have been no reports of Falun Gong responding with violence to all the bitterness they have faced. They believe in being truthful, compassionate, and tolerant, and feel they should be free to determine for themselves if living according to this is good or bad. It's easy to hail those principles in your living room, but to put them in practice - even under the harshest conditions - is a totally different story. And you can be sure that several standing at the embassy in Vancouver have faced this persecution firsthand.

Re:Welcome to the Airline Industry Expedia / Orbit

[apparently]

No, no, I've been married for 6 years, and my mommy didn't dictate neither where nor what position to bed my bride. Nice assumptions though! They worked out real good for ya.

Quite the opposite

[Rix]

Only someone fanatical would put themselves through that. That doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy, but it does mean they're a bit unbalanced.