I haven't heard about charges for the itchy blankets or other stuff I never use on a flight. All I've heard about is charges for the stuff I do use, like soft drinks and checked baggage.


Go ahead and fool the rubes. If I can ever afford to fly again, I'll be figuring the cost of my food and drink and baggage into the ticket price quoted. But if the point is to have the lowest quoted "ticket" price ... what's the point of not raising those prices to include the drinks and baggage if every other airline is doing the same a la carte thing???

No one's done the blankets and pillow thing yet, I was just taking it to the extreme end.

And yes, once everyone else does the same, it'll be moot. But that's the game that's always played. Once one airline does it, they all have to do it to keep up and stay on a level playing field. Sure, it'd be nice if they could all just kinda agree not to undercut each other like that, but if there's an advantage to be had, there's going to be an airlines that will take it, so they've got no choice.

Oh, I was just joining in the facitiousness about those guaranteed-to-itch-you blankets and car-headrest-sized pillows.

But seeing as it's been monkey-see monkey-do in the airline industry for decades, couldn't American have just done without the month's bump in revenue for checked baggage?

Remember, it's not about revenue from the a-la-cart stuff, it's about making sure they're selling tickets. If they didn't do it, someone else would have, lowering their listed ticket price, cutting into American's (and everyone else's) ticket sales.

They all want that kind of advantage. Baring that, they at least want a level playing field. When they're all including basically the same stuff in the ticket price, they can play with a flight here and a flight there to knock a few bucks off and bump ticket sales by being on the top of that "lowest first" price sort. But if one airline figures out a way to knock $15 off each and every ticket, all of the other's are kinda screwed so they have to follow suit.

At $2.00 for a bottle of water, the chances are that it will still be cheaper to purchase on the plane than to buy from the post-security store.

About the only item that I have an issue with (on the whole a la carte pricing structure) is the (non-alcoholic) drinks. Since they don't have drinking fountains on planes, water (Coke, etc.) is the one item I would consider a necessity on the plane that I am forced to purchase.

I think GD addressed this question pretty succinctly in his post above, but the point is that by splitting out the "additional" items, it allows the airlines to publish (newspaper ads, et. al.) lower air fares. For example, your average person make look at US Air's ad and see that the fare is $59 to Phoenix from LA and see that Southwest is $69 for the same flight. That average person won't think about the fact they will have to spend another $20 for checking baggage, getting a drink, etc. on US Air, thus making the net cost on US Air higher.

Caveat Emptor

One would assume they'll still offer water for free. Flights usually have plenty of non-bottled water in pitchers to serve.

Good point. Bet it tastes gawd-awful too.

I think you missed my point, Kevy. If Southwest charges for drinks and brings their fare down to $69, and American charges for drinks and brings their fare down to $69 and every airline does the same ... where's the "published ticket price" advantage in charging for drinks? And moreover, why bother for the few weeks that charging for drinks is going to give you that purely temporary advantage in published ticket prices?

Seems to me that re-vamping the policy for the few weeks it provides an advantage costs more than the money earned during that few weeks of advantage.


Nickel meet Dime.

Like I said, because if you don't someone else will. It sucks, but it's the reality of any competitive, low-margin market. Once someone smells an advantage, you've got 3 options: Let them take the advantage and get left in the dust, figure out a different way to compete with that advantage, or jump on board to nullify the advantage. But once the barn door's open, there's no going back.

Why?


Besides panic, that is?


If you know that "someone else will" three days after you do, what's the incentive to the the first someone that will???


:confused:



American's advantage is over. Why did they bother?

Every airline knows that the minute they pull a stunt like this, all other airlines will be forced to follow. So why bother in the first place?


I don't agree with the assumption that "if you don't do it, someone else will." There's simply no sound business reason for this decision.