|
Title: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Aske on September 15, 2008, 10:32:49 AM http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080915/us_nm/unitedairlines_dc
Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Spanky on September 15, 2008, 10:46:36 AM I cant believe more companies arent trying to copy Southwest. You would think they would say "Hey look at what they are doing and they are still making money, maybe we should try it"
Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Teed on September 15, 2008, 11:44:50 AM I cant believe more companies arent trying to copy Southwest. You would think they would say "Hey look at what they are doing and they are still making money, maybe we should try it" That's why I only fly Southwest. Obviously, they know what they're doing! Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Clive on September 15, 2008, 12:03:50 PM I don't see all the fuss. Domestic policies for the first checked bag, second checked bag, and subsequent checked bags for tickets purchased after, say, Labor Day 2008:
Northwest: $15, $25, $100 US Air: $15, $25, $100 Delta: $0, $50, $125 (third bag)/$200 (thereafter) Continental: $15, $25, $100 United: $15, $50, $125 IIRC from an old thread, one of the biggest reasons Southwest is comparatively profitable is their gas futures positions (or something like that). Take that away, and the general feeling was that they'd be in the red, too, although perhaps not as deeply. I don't know if all the airlines could go to an avoid-the-hubs scheme, and I also don't know the costs associated with discarding an established hub system. Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Aske on September 15, 2008, 12:11:36 PM Well, since it really translates as a result of the space/weight issue, why not start charging simply by passenger+luggage volume and mass?
Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Fuzzy on September 15, 2008, 01:07:38 PM Well, since it really translates as a result of the space/weight issue, why not start charging simply by passenger+luggage volume and mass? Where do I sign up? :) Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: stroh on September 15, 2008, 01:49:18 PM Well, since it really translates as a result of the space/weight issue, why not start charging simply by passenger+luggage volume and mass? Where do I sign up? :) I wholeheartedly agree. If the reason truly is weight = more gas = more money..... Look dude, you fat, you eat too much. You pay more. Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Clive on September 15, 2008, 02:49:58 PM Well, since it really translates as a result of the space/weight issue, why not start charging simply by passenger+luggage volume and mass? Because it really doesn't translate as such. I'm sure the baggage weight has an impact on fuel consumption. But mostly, and I suspect you well know it, this is merely an effort to bring in more revenue. Made by many businesses operating in the red. In an industry critical to American commerce.Title: Re: *fiddlesticks*Off United Airlines. Post by: Fuzzy on September 18, 2008, 06:33:57 PM http://www.startribune.com/local/28605679.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUJ
Quote MINNEAPOLIS - Northwest Airlines says it could make a pretax profit of $60 million to $100 million in the quarter..... The profit prediction did not count potential hedging gains or losses, and the company did not give an earnings-per-share figure......... Northwest said it had $3.3 billion in unrestricted cash as of this week. Northwest is being bought out by Delta Air Lines Inc.; the two have said they expect to have about $6 billion in cash after the deal closes. Davis said new fees for checked baggage brought in $370,000 on Aug. 31 alone, and the company expects $150 million to $200 million per year in new revenue from those fees. [sm_shock] Wow. |