Swinging back to the main topic of this thread:
(1) Part of the problem is that most of the metrics being considered are dubious in terms of their actual utility. With some specific exceptions (NEC shuttles, for example) I highly doubt that too many pax get horridly bent out of shape if their flight is 15-30 minutes late. I suspect some threshold for "catastrophic delays" might be more useful on that front.
(2) Given that travel time for airlines is usually pretty straightforward (a direct flight EWR-SFO is probably going to take about the same amount of time regardless of airline +/- 30 minutes) and given how price-conscious most travelers tend to be, there's still going to be the strategy of "match on price and do better on benefits" which is where things seem to be heading on the more competitive long-haul routes (e.g. NYC-LAX/SFO): If I have two flights to choose from, their price is basically the same and they run about the same time, but one includes a free checked bag and another inch or two of legroom I'll probably take the latter. If I have four or five to choose from, this applies even more.
Basically, on less competitive routes (and/or short flights, probably under about two hours) pure price is likely to win since (A) time in the air isn't a major consideration for some inconvenience (i.e. for a lot of people the flight is short enough not to care if it's lousy) and (B) in many cases the city pair in question isn't big enough for a "real" fight. The exceptions are going to be markets that are (1) big and (2) long-haul...
...which has a direct parallel in the railroad industry, actually: New York-Chicago and a few other markets saw truly brutal competition in terms of amenities on trains because (1) runtime/convenience was similar on different routes and (2) fares were basically fixed. With the airlines, fares are also close to fixed...albeit being "fixed" by the lowest bidder in many cases rather than by the ICC or CAB. At that point it really comes down to the question of whether an airline is better off trying to slash costs to the bone to pad their margins (and risking a handful of empty seats) or trying to "scoop" pax with some added benefits to pad market share and load factors a bit more. But it really only applies on certain key routes...and much like in the railroad parallel, there are going to be plenty of people who don't get the shiny new express train, they get the crappy local that's still running heavyweight cars in 1965.
(1) Part of the problem is that most of the metrics being considered are dubious in terms of their actual utility. With some specific exceptions (NEC shuttles, for example) I highly doubt that too many pax get horridly bent out of shape if their flight is 15-30 minutes late. I suspect some threshold for "catastrophic delays" might be more useful on that front.
(2) Given that travel time for airlines is usually pretty straightforward (a direct flight EWR-SFO is probably going to take about the same amount of time regardless of airline +/- 30 minutes) and given how price-conscious most travelers tend to be, there's still going to be the strategy of "match on price and do better on benefits" which is where things seem to be heading on the more competitive long-haul routes (e.g. NYC-LAX/SFO): If I have two flights to choose from, their price is basically the same and they run about the same time, but one includes a free checked bag and another inch or two of legroom I'll probably take the latter. If I have four or five to choose from, this applies even more.
Basically, on less competitive routes (and/or short flights, probably under about two hours) pure price is likely to win since (A) time in the air isn't a major consideration for some inconvenience (i.e. for a lot of people the flight is short enough not to care if it's lousy) and (B) in many cases the city pair in question isn't big enough for a "real" fight. The exceptions are going to be markets that are (1) big and (2) long-haul...
...which has a direct parallel in the railroad industry, actually: New York-Chicago and a few other markets saw truly brutal competition in terms of amenities on trains because (1) runtime/convenience was similar on different routes and (2) fares were basically fixed. With the airlines, fares are also close to fixed...albeit being "fixed" by the lowest bidder in many cases rather than by the ICC or CAB. At that point it really comes down to the question of whether an airline is better off trying to slash costs to the bone to pad their margins (and risking a handful of empty seats) or trying to "scoop" pax with some added benefits to pad market share and load factors a bit more. But it really only applies on certain key routes...and much like in the railroad parallel, there are going to be plenty of people who don't get the shiny new express train, they get the crappy local that's still running heavyweight cars in 1965.
Last edited by a moderator:
