![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... In the Airline biz they have Revenue Per Seat Mile. Right, but -- correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't the airlines pretty much universally losing money? Sounds like their method is flawed, to me. There's a couple layers of issues here. First, the strategy of "yield management" is designed to try and maximize the revenue per seat-mile. In and of itself this makes perfect sense. The apparent oddities this leads to, like the Saturday-night stay rule, all make perfect sense towards making each person pay as much as possible for their seat. This, too, is logical: a vacationer heading to Miami does not value a seat nearly as much as a businessman headed to an important meeting. This benefits the vacationer because it allows for the availability of very cheap seats, and benefits the businessman because it increases the odds he will be able to get a seat at the last minute that he desperately needs. Second is the issue of cost structure. No matter how you look at it, running an airline is a hellish business. It's as capital-intensive as real estate, only your main assets are always depreciating. Operating costs are astounding, and not easily adjusted. Pilots, mechanics, FAs, gate leases, etc. all add up very quickly, and it takes years to adjust the formula. So newcomers will always have the advantage because they built their business models around last year's conditions, and not the last decade's. But come ten years from now those newcomers could be in just as bad shape. Third, you have the destabilizing role of the low-cost carriers. The critical thing that these guys have done is to throw out the yield maximization strategy in favor of a simplified flat pricing model. And because their built-in costs are much lower, they can undercut the majors' prices at every step of the game. The only way for the majors to compete is to reduce costs, and as we already explained, this takes years to accomplish, years during which incredible sums of money fly out the door. Their management has been at turns arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent, but then this can be said of nearly every established company in every industry at one time or another. Today's darlings will get their turn at the rack sooner or later. The problem that we have is that traditionally the low-cost carriers lived by cherry-picking routes and thus could not be looked to to provide a truly national network. This is a "must-have" in the same sense that the Interstate highway system is a fundamental component of our economy and way of life. Interestingly for us, the future is in some ways headed in our direction. Regional jets are replacing not only the Saab 340s and Dash 8s, but MD-80s and DC-9s as well. Many of the new airlines have all-RJ fleets from the ground up. I suspect the smaller-is-better trend will continue as far as technology and passenger comfort allows, with on-demand taxi services using VLJs possibly displacing Part 121 carriers flying into less-dense areas. Who knows. -cwk. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 07:31 PM |
| Sleeping on long flights - What's the secret? | C. Osbourne | Piloting | 107 | February 21st 05 02:08 AM |
| Radio outage at ZLA grounds flights | A Guy Called Tyketto | Piloting | 0 | September 15th 04 06:56 AM |
| US to Ensure Safety of Japan Military Flights, Dow Jones Says | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 25th 04 05:43 AM |
| Ownership and passengers | Roger Long | Owning | 30 | October 11th 03 03:00 PM |