I've never been on an AC flight that has had any resets on the entertainment, my anecdote can beat up your anecdote?
That's awsome for you. Do you have the same need to point out the small sample to the guy i was responding to as well? I responding to someone saying that it doesn't happen to him, however I don't see you quite as motivated to be as humorous yet petty with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
This doesn't make sense, customers aren't the ones in the board rooms deciding what an airline does with its fleet. The other airlines and what they do are what pressure airlines to make those decisions. Customers choose the airline that offers the best value for that customer, if airlines want a bigger slice of the customer base they have to ensure they offer an equal or better value proposition to the customer. Different things are important to different people (price, space, entertainment, rewards, service, schedule, etc), and the more things are equal the smaller the difference that will make a customer choose one airline over another.
Of course it makes sense. Companies respond to demand. If there was demand for something, it gets filled. The 'pie' you are referring to is price sensitive customers, not service sensitive customers. The supply of anything is a function of demand. Your about about confirm this is true in your below statements.
Customers are in the board room essentially, if a critical mass wanted to pay a few bucks for seat pitch, promised on time arrival (and if not you get a refund), or thousands in baggage insurance then board rooms would have executives that would say "we need to reconfigure our cabins and our value proposition" Pretty short sighted to say the customers don't have much say in what is offered to them. When you say "best value" that's vague. It's better to say that customers have their own definition of what IS valuable to them, they express that through their consuming behavior, and companies respond to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Price is one of the biggest factors, so they have to price close to each other, and as a result have to walk a narrow line between cutting as much as they can so they can break even or turn a profit and still offering enough to out compete the other guys.
The price is close because it's THE most important factor. You are prooving it with the 2nd half of what you say here. My entire point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
And if an airline offered a full plane business class service and seating for the same price no one would fly another airline if they could help it.
I've read this several times, I don't get what you are trying to say. If you are trying to inform me that at the same price a customer would prefer better service, thanks. However I already knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Again, airlines are competing for customers, and the difference between them is so narrow that the things that can make someone choose between one or another do approach the level of trivial.
If I'm flying somewhere, and the flights are the same price, the times are the same, the service is the same, what is the problem with choosing AC because I can watch a new movie rather than TV? Or choosing WJ because I can get a Spolumbo's sandwich. I don't know why that's "complaining", that's choosing the better value proposition among almost identical choices.
I understand market economies, you don't need to spell it out. What I said, and say again is that things seem pretty trivial when TV and Spolumbo's are the big differentiators.
In the US they complain about being stuck on the tarmac for 5 hours at EWR. Maybe that happens in Canada to, but in the scheme of problems on airlines I'm just commenting on how things can't be that bad when you get transported across the country, safely, for almost nothing, but you had to endure diet coke service instead of coke zero service. Also if on demand TV is so important, mix in a ipad and you aren't so depended on the dreaded awfulness that is an airlines service.
Things are pretty good in Canada when are differentiating between TV systems. You could be in the US where they lose all your bags and don't give a F. You could be kicked off a flight that you are on with your kids and now figure out how to manage that, or in Russia where planes fall out of the sky.
Seems like the ultimate in 1st world problems.
Last edited by Flames in 07; 05-09-2013 at 05:46 PM.
The 'pie' you are referring to is price sensitive customers, not service sensitive customers. The supply of anything is a function of demand. Your about about confirm this is true in your below statements.
It's not the entire pie, but a big enough portion that the everything hinges on that price. I said I agree with that part, it's your complaining about the complaining I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
What I said, and say again is that things seem pretty trivial when TV and Spolumbo's are the big differentiators.
And we agree on why the differentiators are so trivial.. but then discussing those differentiators and why someone would choose one over the other based on the only available differentiators is somehow jumping the shark?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
In the US they complain about being stuck on the tarmac for 5 hours at EWR. Maybe that happens in Canada two, but in the scheme of problems on airlines I'm just commenting on how things can't be that bad when you get transported across the country, safely, for almost nothing, but you had to endure diet coke service instead of coke zero service. Also if on demand TV is so important, mix in a ipad and you aren't so depended on the dreaded awfulness that is an airlines service.
Choosing one airline over another (or rather talking about it) because one offers better entertainment is jumping the shark because airports in the US have longer wait times? I don't see how that follows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
Things are pretty good in Canada when are differentiating between TV systems. You could be in the US where they lose all your bags and don't give a F. You could be kicked off a flight that you are on with your kids and now figure out how to manage that, or in Russia where planes fall out of the sky.
Well sure, if this were a thread comparing air travel in Canada to elsewhere in the world, those would be the expected comments..
But that's like saying no one should discuss or lament the Flames current owners/players/situation because 5 other teams are worse off.
It's not like people are proposing revolts in the streets or for airline management to be pitted against bears in unarmed combat, they're saying "I don't like A because I get this thing I want on B for the same price".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
Seems like the ultimate in 1st world problems.
What's more 1st world, people discussing how they choose their first world airline based on its food/entertainment offerings, or people complaining about people discussing how they choose their first world airline?
"Fire/Keep Feaster and Vancouver sucks" discussions would sit pretty high on the 1st world problems scale. We happen to live in the first world though, and I don't think "discussing X or feeling Y is jumping the shark because someone somewhere else has it worse" is meaningful. At the very least it's off topic.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I have. I like them enough and their prices are competetive usually.
Their international flights are where they earn their reputation as a good airline for sure though.
Agreed on the international service. I would be terrified if KLM's Europe service became the standard in Canada. No TV would be the least of worries. Cramped, uncomfortable, unpleasant flights.
It's not the entire pie, but a big enough portion that the everything hinges on that price. I said I agree with that part, it's your complaining about the complaining I'm talking about.
And we agree on why the differentiators are so trivial.. but then discussing those differentiators and why someone would choose one over the other based on the only available differentiators is somehow jumping the shark?
Choosing one airline over another (or rather talking about it) because one offers better entertainment is jumping the shark because airports in the US have longer wait times? I don't see how that follows.
Well sure, if this were a thread comparing air travel in Canada to elsewhere in the world, those would be the expected comments..
But that's like saying no one should discuss or lament the Flames current owners/players/situation because 5 other teams are worse off.
It's not like people are proposing revolts in the streets or for airline management to be pitted against bears in unarmed combat, they're saying "I don't like A because I get this thing I want on B for the same price".
What's more 1st world, people discussing how they choose their first world airline based on its food/entertainment offerings, or people complaining about people discussing how they choose their first world airline?
"Fire/Keep Feaster and Vancouver sucks" discussions would sit pretty high on the 1st world problems scale. We happen to live in the first world though, and I don't think "discussing X or feeling Y is jumping the shark because someone somewhere else has it worse" is meaningful. At the very least it's off topic.
OK I get it, and to me vastly different than what you were saying before. I don't get the econ 101 summary, but if your main thing is 'what is actually jumping the shark' that's fine. There's certainly others that fly more than me, but i fly enough that I have seen some serious problems, from mechanical to managing luggage to double booking every single seat on a flight, and on and on. In light of such problems (which actually I think have been cleaned up somewhat in Canada, in large part because of the competition that WJ provides) some stuff seems pretty trivial.
One of my GMG's I guess is how airline customers have evolved over the years. If I look over the past 10 or 15 years what has made travel less enjoyable is all the princess's who need to fly with their 4 crying kids, and or carry on 2 large bags each and or complain about the most petty of things and of course they must hover at the gate as if the plane will leave without them.
Lastly, I don't know what is a bigger 1st world problem between the two examples you compare but why is that relevant at all? The thread is about problems with WJ.
Last edited by Flames in 07; 05-09-2013 at 06:03 PM.
It's the basic nature of the job which is far from glamorous. You show up for work, do a few checks, sort out a bit of paperwork and then transport passengers from one location to the next. And the pay at most levels of aviation, outside of major carriers and cargo companies is not very good.
If this was your approach to the job, then it is appropriate that you are an ex 'commercial' pilot.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Would Westjet no longer be profitable if they returned to their prices and quality of service from the late 90s/early 2000s?
I think we all want to love Westjet, but they've become greedy. Why do they have to follow other airlines leads and start charging for extra bags, charging for seat selection, making the flights more cramped, etc.
I truly don't get it. Why does it matter if AC can get away with charging more or nickel and diming customers, and I don't see how it puts Westjet at a disadvantage not to.
I truly don't get it. Why does it matter if AC can get away with charging more or nickel and diming customers, and I don't see how it puts Westjet at a disadvantage not to.
Westjet already has massive cost advantages over AC, yet they feel the need to bleed consumers for more.
Less maintenance costs and far less staffing cost.
Would Westjet no longer be profitable if they returned to their prices and quality of service from the late 90s/early 2000s?
I think we all want to love Westjet, but they've become greedy. Why do they have to follow other airlines leads and start charging for extra bags, charging for seat selection, making the flights more cramped, etc.
I truly don't get it. Why does it matter if AC can get away with charging more or nickel and diming customers, and I don't see how it puts Westjet at a disadvantage not to.
This is just one semi-uninformed opinion, but as an airline matures the costs start to creep up, and the battle then becomes trying to keep costs in check. Then the battle lines are drawn when the eventual disagreement occurs about how to keep costs in check.
The US is a good example of it. Especially the US regionals. New airlines are formed, they are new and cheap, but as they mature, costs, salaries and benefits go up and reach a point where they are unsustainable and then the big mergers happen or bankruptcies. Those merged airlines costs eventually creep up until they reach a breaking point, things get ugly and then the previously merged airlines fracture into brand new smaller companies that start fresh, new and somewhat sustainable. Then the cycle continues. Thats an oversimplification, but pretty much the jist.
Not saying that that is what is happening at Westjet. I think the CEO said at one point that they have to keep their "CASM" below a certain point or else their whole model isn't sustainable. I think they are starting to see some real pressure on that CASM value.
To Westjet's credit I think the people there are quite forward thinking and will do their best to keep the interests of the company, employees and customers at the forefront. But its not going to be easy.
OK I get it, and to me vastly different than what you were saying before. I don't get the econ 101 summary, but if your main thing is 'what is actually jumping the shark' that's fine.
Sorry, just a too wordy way of saying "the trivial differences ARE the only actual differences, driven by the economics of it, so the trivial differences are going to be what people talk about/complain about/differentiate on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
In light of such problems (which actually I think have been cleaned up somewhat in Canada, in large part because of the competition that WJ provides) some stuff seems pretty trivial.
Sure, but I doubt there's any huge difference between AC and WJ in terms of delays per 100 flights or mechanical problems per 100 flights or screwed up customer service incidents per 100 customers, so that still only leaves the trivial stuff that's actually able to be used to differentiate.
I just don't see discussing those differences as jumping the shark. Though there probably are some real things that could be compared (customer satisfaction surveys, there probably are real stats for on-time flights or mechanical problems etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
Lastly, I don't know what is a bigger 1st world problem between the two examples you compare but why is that relevant at all? The thread is about problems with WJ.
I don't know why it's relevant, you're the one who brought up 1st world problems, not me. I just figured if you were critical of one thing because it was the ultimate in first world problems, then you'd also be critical of something else that was arguably more ultimate in 1st world problems.
Sure, the thread is about problems with WJ. What it's not about is complaining about how and what people want to say about WJ.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I haven't, but I like the international service enough to see them take a crack at our market.
Unfortunately their "domestic" European service, like most "full-service" airlines, leaves a lot to be desired. Seat pitch is so tight that it's uncomfortable (30 inches, I think, even Air Canada used to offer 32 inches). Nothing to pass the time on the plane - people complaining about live tv cutting out would be horrified on European flights. They do usually offer sandwiches on longer flights, but the tradeoff is horribly uncomfortable travel.
Lufthansa is very similar. I get the feeling these guys are competing with the lowest-common-denominator Ryanair/EasyJet/Germanwings on these services.
Don't compare transcontinental service to European service on these airlines. It's not only apples and oranges; it's apples and rotten, decayed, discarded oranges.
People here complaining about Westjet/Air Canada service should try these out and see how well we compare.
That being said, it's usually pretty cheap to fly within Europe on these flights.
I'd also hate to see the typical domestic USA airlines come to Canada. The plunge in service quality would worsen.
The Following User Says Thank You to billybob123 For This Useful Post:
Does Swissair still exist? For some reason I thought it went out of business after the crash off Nova Scotia. I could be completely wrong!
I'm a casual traveller, rarely ever travel for business. Westjet continually has received my business over the years for domestic travel, but I'll admit I'm getting a bit weary of the cash-grabbing and decline in service over the last few years. I'm willing to look closer at flying AC now more than ever.
I do think (and people can feel free to disagree with me) is WestJet still has better on-ground service. I can't think of a time when I've waited in line more than 10 minutes to drop my bags/check in. The two times I flew AC last year (one domestic, one international), the wait was no less than 45 minutes in line, juggling a baby and all the gear. I waited in line patiently and watched as there was a customer service rep who only dealt with first class/elite staus folks - in which there were about four in the 45 minutes I stood there. The rest of the time she twiddled her thumbs. Meanwhile, folks were in danger of missing flights and were getting bumped up to the front of the line, then pushing the rest of us even later. That is the one thing that makes me very hesitant to fly AC, just the rigormorale of checking bags, especially now that we have a toddler.
WestJet said its on-time performance had slipped during the fourth quarter of 2012 by 14% to 64%, which management blamed on harsh winter weather, high utilization of its aircraft, and the increases in connecting guest delays, where planes are held for connecting passengers.
So they're blaming delays on flights? lol.
I really don't like how they stack flights with little to no allowance for any delays. Try taking a flight out of GP at the end of the day, I don't think I've ever departed out of there on time.
I'd also like to thank the Westjet Social Media team for having the balls to address issues and concerns raised in this thread. Good customer service guys.
Remember when air travel used to be glamorous? Ok, me neither but I remember stewardesses. They robbed us of that. Now it's a bunch of older ladies who are stretching those pant suits to the their limits.
