Um I don't know where you're from but local transpo [e.g. busses] GO UP every quarter not down.... This is even with the fact that local transpo is government sponsored.
Used to be $0.65 for a bus ticket [few years back] now it's $0.90 [two tickets to ride the non-express busses]. Which makes sense. Cost of living goes up, cost of bus goes up.
Similarly long-haul buses aren't that cheap. From Ottawa to Windsor is about 160$ [round trip]. How much does it really cost to load up a bus of 45 people and drive for 20 hours? The bus driver is making say 20$/hr which is 400$ then you have say 200$ in gas and 200$ in repairs [on average per trip].
That's a total cost of $800-$1000 per round trip. They rake in about $7200 even if half the people are on discount rates they're still making decent profits. In fact they'd have to sell the seats for less than $22 [or so] to "lose money" on the trip.
I've seen greyhound trips specials for $50 [roundtrip] which is still twice the minimum required to break even.
So you're saying the solution is to lower the price so they can recoup costs.
My point is the **real** solution is to
get this, this is a doozy
====> **** NOT FLY THE FUCKING PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE **** <====
If you're over supplying the true demand then you're always going to waste money. Don't make 90 million gizmos when there is only demand for 1 million gizmos.
The demand for air travel only surged when discount rates appeared. Discount rates only appeared to fill seats [re: artificial demand].
Essentially if you're flight is an emergency or longer than say 3-4 hours than it's a "need". People used to go by bus and train remember? You could take a one hour flight to the next city or spend a day on a bus. When flights were 400-500 dollars a seat people used to take the bus. Now that the same flight may cost 150 or so it's more attractive to fly.
But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
I mean they COULD sell the tickets for a buck each. That would fill up planes quick too. By your logic is that a good idea?
They would stop losing money by trying to supply an artificial demand.
Sure I'd love to fly to England for $50. Doesn't mean the airliners should offer it. It's irresponsible to their share holders.
The only reason people fly more than they really need is because it's really cheap. To them though. The airliners are losing money to gain "more clients".
What if Sony sold the PSP for $7 just because they wanted to "sell a lot". Are we then to cry for them when they post net revenue losses of billions?
You've clearly never been in France. It's not a pedestrians dream I can tell you what. Even in the hotel parking lot people were pulling through at 50Km/h [it was a shortcut to another road].
The real problem is they're trying to supply for an artificial demand. People only fly [over train or drive] because it's artificially cheap [e.g. not true cost].
If they kept plane tickets at the true cost people would opt for other means of travel. They would then "service less people" but also "not lose money with every flight".
But where's the fun in that. I mean americana! gotta just build big, not sufficient.
The only reason why the airlines are so popular is because they made it relatively cheap. It's just not the reality of the situation.
It's a business that truly fills a niche [e.g. travel by air as a last resort] that it should be at least for now. I never shed a tear for businesses that assume it's their right to make billions in profits. This is the same thing as the movie/music industry bitching when people stop shilling over the dough for their latest "product".
If a seat costs $300 sell it for at least $300. Anything less is just asking for trouble. If you can't afford then to have 1200 planes in your fleet maybe the "demand" for your service isn't as big as you think.
Imagine if Hersey stocked local corner stores with 2000Kg of product a day because they had a wet dream of selling that much product. Then because they weren't selling they lowered the price from the $1 per bar to below their costs [say it costs $0.30 per bar] at say $0.15 per bar.
A loss is still a loss though. I mean if you're net income is -2% of your remaining assets that may not seem "huge" but the implications are. You're not making any money.
The simple math of the situation is if it costs them money for me to sit in the seat then they're not on the road to recovery.
How can you honestly tell your investors "you're doing all you can to not go for broke" when you sell seats at a loss?
If you're going to try and wield a joke of this nature at least get it right. That's like saying "I wish we had a beowolf gaggle of one pentium". Just doesn't sound right or funny.
A sells tickets for $0 loss. B sells tickets for $75 loss.
B gains many customers. However, the more customers the more loss they incur. Recall EVERY SEAT costs them $75. Eventually B just runs out of money and ups the costs.
Now A and B sell at the same cost. Customers notice the price hike and get upset [because for some reason people think air travel is a god given right so they get insanely upset at everything].
Sure some won-over customers will stay with B but many will spread out [many are also not particularly loyal they just use whatever cheaptickets.com tells them to].
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that most airlines haven't been filing for protection. Come on, tell me;-)
Oh but didn't you hear? The airline industry is bankrupt.... Bankrupt to the CEO's million dollar tropical mansion that is.
If my seat literally costs $300 and they sell it to me for $225 that's just stupid. Even if I only fly that airline it still COSTS THEM MONEY to fly me....
So why don't airlines just charge what it actually costs to fly. The others who don't will die anyways because well they're losing money with each "heart, mind and body" they "win" with lower prices.
As for this particular bug it's a matter of being cheap. They could spend the time and money to fix it [say like a decade ago] but instead they wait until it causes trouble and then spend 10x to fix it in a shorter amount of time.
Where have you been for the last decade or so? Survivor, Gilligans Island, Fear Factor, etc, etc, etc,... ? Then let's not forget all the pre-packaged "music" and "movie" talent out there.
I just sit in awe at the levels of stupidy media execs will stoop to do what they think is the "next big thing". Oh I know, let's get 10 guys, put wigs on them, call it "reality tv" and then see what they do as strutting females...
oh I know better, let's put no talent teenagers on a stage, enough synth to make the winners sound like the other packages and call it "pop idol".
oh no? I got one better, let's take three tit bag chicks, have them drive around in an expensive car and solve crimes?
damn... ok what about a "reality" series at an airport. Well not a real airport but sound stage B in new mexico....
well... running low on ideas, oh I know, how about a sitcom where the male breadwinners comes off as stupid, the inappropriately big chested female is witty and right and then, oh for a totally new spin we'll throw in an uninvited relative. Laugh track it right and we'll have a good fortune!
The only thing I don't get is why the Olsen twins don't have their own daily talk show yet. I mean they gave one to just about everyone including Ellen, Tony [from who's the boss] and that annoying other fat chick....
I weep for people who do more than just "get paid cash money", e.g. do things because you have one life to live and you might as well occupy it with something beneficial to others. They are a dying breed.
USA: They knock you down [blame you] and steal the PDA [blame society for their lack of income]. Thus concluding that none of the actions were their own responsiblitiy.
Canada: They knock you over [apologize] but don't help you up [don't really care] and then swipe your PDA when you're not looking [finder keepers]. When caught they try to laugh it off and say "it was only a PDA".
Mexico: Well they're all drunk so they'd stumble into you [pissed] would see the PDA and not know what it is. The flashy lights though would trigger some primal instinct and they would steal it and try to fence it for some more urea contaminated drinks.
But let's get international:
France: They would run you down with one of those 400lbs minis. Then back up, steal the PDA and mutter something about your heritage why driving away.
England: They would hoof ya with a good soccer kick, write "liverpool forever" on your chest and steal the PDA to pay for a pint.
Switzerland: Would let you walk by and watch on as Canada, the USA, Mexico, France and England beat the shit out of you. They wouldn't need the PDA because everyone knows when you're hiding in the hills you don't need electricity....
Just differentiate yourself from the stereotypes we see on TV.
That is, ditch the cowboy hat, you're not a cowboy, ditch the football pennant, it's a stupid game [cricket is cooler] and drink a good Canadian ale or two;-)
Then you can safely say "bush? bush? He's not our type of person."
Hehehehe
[I'm kiddin btw, I actually don't know the first thing aboug texas seeing how I've never been there.]
Society grows through the exchange of ideas, not MPAA movies. If you don't like that MPAA wants to use laws [that they didn't write btw] that are in place.... then ignore the MPAA. There are more sources of fresh ideas then what MPAA studios put out. Crying out loud people, just because it would be altruistic and all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Also you're mixing up moral with legal. Is that "right"? I don't know. It's the way things are.
Don't get me wrong, I fight the machine too. I resist commercialism and use critical thought consistently. I also know the limits. Sure I'd love to strut around naked because it's more comfortable but that's not entirely practical [hint: think of the increase of shit, literally, that would spread from that].
It can only be infringement if it's violating a distribution license. From what I read they're very specifically bitching about MPAA member movies and not Knoppix torrents.
"They just tell 'em to stop everything that violates copyrights...which is nearly everything there."
Boo fucking hoo. And we're supposed to feel outraged at MPAA because?
I don't have kids. But when/if I do I'll teach them the importance of culture and teach them to seek their own path, to see through media propaganda and to not "desire" what others tell them to [including myself].
I hate how they can "produce" a CD [and I don't even call them albums anymore because they're not original enough] then just label it a #1 hit and automatically people go out and assume it's good and buy it.
I've seen Disney DVDs in blockbuster on the FIRST DAY of their release being called "best sellers". What I hate even more than that though... is that SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T SEE THROUGH IT!
And really at the end of the day if you really desire that mp3, buy it. What the fuck gives you the right to copy other peoples work without paying them for it?
Again this isn't MPAA vs. technology. MPAA is very specifically complaining about the torrents that are related to MPAA member movies. So don't get all/. on me saying "the mpaa is suing to destroy bittorrent" when that's plainly not the case. Grow the fuck up you little/. pandering kid.
Slashdot Mirror
I was joking...
I hate driving 5 mins to walmart to buy stuff, I'd hate the 20 hour flight even more.
Tom
... And it's much different in the States?
Hahahahahahahhahahahaha
Good laugh.
I for one, welcome our open source overlords. ...
;-)
Ok I'm gonna lose karma for this one...
Tom
Um I don't know where you're from but local transpo [e.g. busses] GO UP every quarter not down. ... This is even with the fact that local transpo is government sponsored.
Used to be $0.65 for a bus ticket [few years back] now it's $0.90 [two tickets to ride the non-express busses]. Which makes sense. Cost of living goes up, cost of bus goes up.
Similarly long-haul buses aren't that cheap. From Ottawa to Windsor is about 160$ [round trip]. How much does it really cost to load up a bus of 45 people and drive for 20 hours? The bus driver is making say 20$/hr which is 400$ then you have say 200$ in gas and 200$ in repairs [on average per trip].
That's a total cost of $800-$1000 per round trip. They rake in about $7200 even if half the people are on discount rates they're still making decent profits. In fact they'd have to sell the seats for less than $22 [or so] to "lose money" on the trip.
I've seen greyhound trips specials for $50 [roundtrip] which is still twice the minimum required to break even.
Tom
So you're saying the solution is to lower the price so they can recoup costs.
My point is the **real** solution is to
get this, this is a doozy
====> **** NOT FLY THE FUCKING PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE **** <====
If you're over supplying the true demand then you're always going to waste money. Don't make 90 million gizmos when there is only demand for 1 million gizmos.
The demand for air travel only surged when discount rates appeared. Discount rates only appeared to fill seats [re: artificial demand].
Essentially if you're flight is an emergency or longer than say 3-4 hours than it's a "need". People used to go by bus and train remember? You could take a one hour flight to the next city or spend a day on a bus. When flights were 400-500 dollars a seat people used to take the bus. Now that the same flight may cost 150 or so it's more attractive to fly.
But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
I mean they COULD sell the tickets for a buck each. That would fill up planes quick too. By your logic is that a good idea?
Tom
They would stop losing money by trying to supply an artificial demand.
Sure I'd love to fly to England for $50. Doesn't mean the airliners should offer it. It's irresponsible to their share holders.
The only reason people fly more than they really need is because it's really cheap. To them though. The airliners are losing money to gain "more clients".
What if Sony sold the PSP for $7 just because they wanted to "sell a lot". Are we then to cry for them when they post net revenue losses of billions?
Tom
Reason: Tools and overt actions are not solutions for stupid people.
Evidence: Warning labels on coffee.
Tom
You've clearly never been in France. It's not a pedestrians dream I can tell you what. Even in the hotel parking lot people were pulling through at 50Km/h [it was a shortcut to another road].
Tom
The real problem is they're trying to supply for an artificial demand. People only fly [over train or drive] because it's artificially cheap [e.g. not true cost].
If they kept plane tickets at the true cost people would opt for other means of travel. They would then "service less people" but also "not lose money with every flight".
But where's the fun in that. I mean americana! gotta just build big, not sufficient.
Tom
I agree with your darwinism issue.
The only reason why the airlines are so popular is because they made it relatively cheap. It's just not the reality of the situation.
It's a business that truly fills a niche [e.g. travel by air as a last resort] that it should be at least for now. I never shed a tear for businesses that assume it's their right to make billions in profits. This is the same thing as the movie/music industry bitching when people stop shilling over the dough for their latest "product".
If a seat costs $300 sell it for at least $300. Anything less is just asking for trouble. If you can't afford then to have 1200 planes in your fleet maybe the "demand" for your service isn't as big as you think.
Imagine if Hersey stocked local corner stores with 2000Kg of product a day because they had a wet dream of selling that much product. Then because they weren't selling they lowered the price from the $1 per bar to below their costs [say it costs $0.30 per bar] at say $0.15 per bar.
Would that sound smart?
Tom
A loss is still a loss though. I mean if you're net income is -2% of your remaining assets that may not seem "huge" but the implications are. You're not making any money.
The simple math of the situation is if it costs them money for me to sit in the seat then they're not on the road to recovery.
How can you honestly tell your investors "you're doing all you can to not go for broke" when you sell seats at a loss?
Tom
it has to end with you...
"In Soviet Russia, car drives you!"
etc...
If you're going to try and wield a joke of this nature at least get it right. That's like saying "I wish we had a beowolf gaggle of one pentium". Just doesn't sound right or funny.
I would have accepted
In Soviet Russia, a crime victim is YOU!
or
in Soviet Russia, PDA steals YOU!
Tom
I come from the north [and there are zero loops in my family tree]. Care to explain the "okie" reference for us not from your neck of the woods?
Tom
Ok dude do the math.
;-)
A sells tickets for $0 loss.
B sells tickets for $75 loss.
B gains many customers. However, the more customers the more loss they incur. Recall EVERY SEAT costs them $75. Eventually B just runs out of money and ups the costs.
Now A and B sell at the same cost. Customers notice the price hike and get upset [because for some reason people think air travel is a god given right so they get insanely upset at everything].
Sure some won-over customers will stay with B but many will spread out [many are also not particularly loyal they just use whatever cheaptickets.com tells them to].
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that most airlines haven't been filing for protection. Come on, tell me
Tom
Oh but didn't you hear? The airline industry is bankrupt. ... Bankrupt to the CEO's million dollar tropical mansion that is.
...
If my seat literally costs $300 and they sell it to me for $225 that's just stupid. Even if I only fly that airline it still COSTS THEM MONEY to fly me.
So why don't airlines just charge what it actually costs to fly. The others who don't will die anyways because well they're losing money with each "heart, mind and body" they "win" with lower prices.
As for this particular bug it's a matter of being cheap. They could spend the time and money to fix it [say like a decade ago] but instead they wait until it causes trouble and then spend 10x to fix it in a shorter amount of time.
Go people with MBAs!!!
Teh Winner is you!
Tom
I was trying to be off the wall. I don't watch cricket at all. Though I listen to my paki friends talk about it... ;-)
Tom
The way I figured it I could save on the middleman and buy it directly.
And walmart buys exclusively from China not Japan.
Tom
Where have you been for the last decade or so? Survivor, Gilligans Island, Fear Factor, etc, etc, etc, ... ? Then let's not forget all the pre-packaged "music" and "movie" talent out there.
...
I just sit in awe at the levels of stupidy media execs will stoop to do what they think is the "next big thing". Oh I know, let's get 10 guys, put wigs on them, call it "reality tv" and then see what they do as strutting females...
oh I know better, let's put no talent teenagers on a stage, enough synth to make the winners sound like the other packages and call it "pop idol".
oh no? I got one better, let's take three tit bag chicks, have them drive around in an expensive car and solve crimes?
damn... ok what about a "reality" series at an airport. Well not a real airport but sound stage B in new mexico....
well... running low on ideas, oh I know, how about a sitcom where the male breadwinners comes off as stupid, the inappropriately big chested female is witty and right and then, oh for a totally new spin we'll throw in an uninvited relative. Laugh track it right and we'll have a good fortune!
The only thing I don't get is why the Olsen twins don't have their own daily talk show yet. I mean they gave one to just about everyone including Ellen, Tony [from who's the boss] and that annoying other fat chick.
I weep for people who do more than just "get paid cash money", e.g. do things because you have one life to live and you might as well occupy it with something beneficial to others. They are a dying breed.
Salut!
No, no, no,
...
USA: They knock you down [blame you] and steal the PDA [blame society for their lack of income]. Thus concluding that none of the actions were their own responsiblitiy.
Canada: They knock you over [apologize] but don't help you up [don't really care] and then swipe your PDA when you're not looking [finder keepers]. When caught they try to laugh it off and say "it was only a PDA".
Mexico: Well they're all drunk so they'd stumble into you [pissed] would see the PDA and not know what it is. The flashy lights though would trigger some primal instinct and they would steal it and try to fence it for some more urea contaminated drinks.
But let's get international:
France: They would run you down with one of those 400lbs minis. Then back up, steal the PDA and mutter something about your heritage why driving away.
England: They would hoof ya with a good soccer kick, write "liverpool forever" on your chest and steal the PDA to pay for a pint.
Switzerland: Would let you walk by and watch on as Canada, the USA, Mexico, France and England beat the shit out of you. They wouldn't need the PDA because everyone knows when you're hiding in the hills you don't need electricity.
I kid because I care.
Tom
Now I just need the airfare, hotel and spending money....
... no reason
;-)
Oh yeah, that was my only barrier anyways.
Actually given enough money the countries I want to visit [in order] would be
- New Zealand, meet some peeps
- Australia, box a roo
- Germany,
- England, meet some peeps
- Japan, get some cheap DVD players
Maybe also add Switzerland there for the good chocolate and hang out at EPFL.
"I gotta be ashamed to be texan".
;-)
Just differentiate yourself from the stereotypes we see on TV.
That is, ditch the cowboy hat, you're not a cowboy, ditch the football pennant, it's a stupid game [cricket is cooler] and drink a good Canadian ale or two
Then you can safely say "bush? bush? He's not our type of person."
Hehehehe
[I'm kiddin btw, I actually don't know the first thing aboug texas seeing how I've never been there.]
one word. Conspiracy. If you help someone commit a crime I can see why people would get upset by it.
And the real point is more americanisms. 15 minutes of fame as being "that sued guy" then he gets a real job at starbucks or something.
Tom
Copyrights expire btw.
Society grows through the exchange of ideas, not MPAA movies. If you don't like that MPAA wants to use laws [that they didn't write btw] that are in place.... then ignore the MPAA. There are more sources of fresh ideas then what MPAA studios put out. Crying out loud people, just because it would be altruistic and all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Also you're mixing up moral with legal. Is that "right"? I don't know. It's the way things are.
Don't get me wrong, I fight the machine too. I resist commercialism and use critical thought consistently. I also know the limits. Sure I'd love to strut around naked because it's more comfortable but that's not entirely practical [hint: think of the increase of shit, literally, that would spread from that].
Tom
It can only be infringement if it's violating a distribution license. From what I read they're very specifically bitching about MPAA member movies and not Knoppix torrents.
"They just tell 'em to stop everything that violates copyrights...which is nearly everything there."
Boo fucking hoo. And we're supposed to feel outraged at MPAA because?
Tom
I don't have kids. But when/if I do I'll teach them the importance of culture and teach them to seek their own path, to see through media propaganda and to not "desire" what others tell them to [including myself].
/. on me saying "the mpaa is suing to destroy bittorrent" when that's plainly not the case. Grow the fuck up you little /. pandering kid.
I hate how they can "produce" a CD [and I don't even call them albums anymore because they're not original enough] then just label it a #1 hit and automatically people go out and assume it's good and buy it.
I've seen Disney DVDs in blockbuster on the FIRST DAY of their release being called "best sellers". What I hate even more than that though... is that SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T SEE THROUGH IT!
And really at the end of the day if you really desire that mp3, buy it. What the fuck gives you the right to copy other peoples work without paying them for it?
Again this isn't MPAA vs. technology. MPAA is very specifically complaining about the torrents that are related to MPAA member movies. So don't get all
Tom