Yes it is time! I actually commented something along those lines on an article that Sean O'Neill wrote earlier this week.

I've flown with international air carriers and their quality of service is far superior to US air carrier. I actually feel bad foreign travelers who travel on US airlines. For example, imagine what someone from Australia must think when they travel in the US on a dumpy AA MD-80 when they are used to a pleasant flying environment including entertainment and (gasp!) a decent meal on their domestic Qantas flights. I think it's embarrassing.

Posted By Sheila on April 11, 2008, 3:58 PM

Is luggage an airline issue or an airport issue? i.e. who is responsible for how luggage is handled in the terminal?

Unfortunately I will always be driven by price. I'm excited to fly internationally on a foreign carrier versus domestic, but in general I'll be driven by price. The rare exception is say an Asian trip where I probably would pay ~10% for a Singapore Airlines experience. Can a domestic match that kind of service for that price - no, but I do think that they could offer a meal, free alcohol and serve it.

The second factor is inefficiency. We have had commercial flights for decades, etc... Why are delays so common? I come from Alaska where it is an extremely rare day that AK Air flight 64/65 doesn’t land in communities of under 3,500 people. Here in the Continental United States you have 1,000 of flights running daily, talk about economies of scale - there should be ample opportunity to learn how to fly around/in/under/through a rain/wind/snow/thunder storm.

They seem to focus on the fixed costs. I guess they only see that they can save $3 on an airline meal for me, but then they seem to ignore structural issues that cost them. I love my $300 vouchers for being bumped, but dealing with all those re-bookings sure takes a toll on their customers and their front line employees. And I would expect decreases the demand for their service.

Posted By Iolaire McFadden on April 11, 2008, 4:50 PM

I think that people should either pay more or complain less. Personally, I choose the latter. I'm a student and one-half of a long distance relationship, so paying more would really kill me. I only get worked up about excessive delays, which are also partly the fault of the outdated air traffic system. But I do think that with the amount of complaining that Americans do about air travel is silly in the face of the dirt cheap fares they get. If people want nice things, they should pay for them. I'm simply happy to get where I'm going within roughly the time estimated.

However, I am curious about how the nice low-fare airlines make it work. The Virgin Americas, Jet Blues and Southwests, for example?

Posted By Whitney on April 11, 2008, 7:49 PM

Is there a correlation between fares paid and quality of service?

I'm a Singapore Airlines regular flyer. They charge market fares and often they are lower than other alternatives. I mostly travel on their 747 fleet which is very old and being phased out so not new planes.

I would note that even on their old aircraft the toilets are always immaculately clean, the cabin crew are always warm friendly and caring, any delays are well informed and promptly and calmly resolved.

Call it attitude, call it pride, call it training, I don't know what it is but I do know they do a superb job of consistently delivering a very pleasant travel experience.

Last time I was in the US (January) traveling on half a dozen UA and US Airways flights I found often surly staff, dirty toilets and a generally I don't care attitude, and that's without talking about TSA!

Posted By John O'Hara on April 14, 2008, 3:37 AM

Paying higher prices doesn't necessarily mean you'll be getting better service or have better accommodations. If I have to pay higher prices, I won't fly. I'll travel closer to home. I generally fly BECAUSE prices are low. I go places I might not ordinarily go...not because I HAVE to fly.

Posted By Shelley on April 14, 2008, 12:26 PM

I am willing to pay a reasonable amount for the cost of fuel, for a safe, clean plane, for courteous staff, and for acceptable service. I am NOT willing to pay more so that airline executives can receive multi-million dollar bonuses. If they can justify increased prices due to increased costs and fair salary and benefits to their employees, I'm OK with that. But don't expect me to line the pockets of millionaires. I can't afford that.

Posted By dhl on April 14, 2008, 12:27 PM

British Airways made huge profits last year and even although they offer meals and great in-flight entertainment, this is at expense of customer service when things go wrong. They do not have a telephone number for customer service in USA, have to do it by email. Lost luggage is a joke, tracing page information laughable. No way are their flight prices cheap. I find Continental for long haul to be the best to Europe. For domestic, who cares about crappy meals, all I want is staff available so that plane leaves on time!

When will airlines learn that even although delays are inevitable, being kept up-to -date and not misinformed is the best way to go.

Posted By claire on April 14, 2008, 12:28 PM

The airlines are a business and to say that an increase in fares will lead to newer planes is not true because you cannot dictate the way they spend their money. It is about filling planes to be profitable. Even if I am choosing the lowest fare, I pick the airline with the nicest planes and comforts.

Posted By Steve on April 14, 2008, 12:29 PM

I almost always fly Alaska Airlines for domestic travel, usually they are the cheapest anyways for the Seattle area, but if it came down to it I would pay more for them since their service is superb.

I have no problem paying more to get more, doesn't that make sense?

Posted By Anna on April 14, 2008, 12:39 PM

I don't travel that often 2-3 times a year. The problems that the airlines were experiencing, so be included in their maintenance inspection program, whether it's daily, weekly, or monthly.
The airlines sure don't hesitate to raise the prices, and the services go down hill. I usually try to fly Midwest Airlines--I like the direct flights, and the cookies are wonderful, always come with a smile.

Posted By Kris Bergsbaken on April 14, 2008, 12:41 PM

No we should not pay more. My recommendation would be for all airline executives to take a 30 to 50 percent reduction in pay, bonus and fringes. They should then invest that money in improving their airplane fleets. Also, the airlines should learn how to do FAA inspections properly so they will not disrupt travelers and increase costs more than necessary.

Posted By Russ on April 14, 2008, 12:45 PM

I will probably always be driven by price but air travel has become as tortuous as interstate bus travel. Unfortunately the history of American business indicates that any increase in profits from higher fares would not be used to purchase new aircraft but to purchase competitor airlines. Maybe it is time to invest in better rail service.

Posted By Barry on April 14, 2008, 12:47 PM

I live in Alaska. For me to travel by car to another state it takes 3 days of driving and a passport to get through Canada. For me to travel by plane just to Seattle it costs, on average, $450.00 RT. The smaller airlines do not service my state and sometimes just flying to other cities in Alaska can cost as much or more (sometimes double)as it costs to fly to Seattle. I certainly dont want to see the cost of air travel increasing.

Posted By anna on April 14, 2008, 12:51 PM

As a member of a family of four, we are already crippled by the prospect of paying $900, $1,000 for the cost of airfare alone just to get from Denver to Chicago and then rent a car to get down to mid-state to get the kids together with grandparents, aunts, cousins, etc. If ticket costs rise (which I would guess would be a substantial increase in order to solve said problems) this will quickly become an elite-only method of transportation. How could we stand for that?

That will also mean more drivers on the roads using more gasoline, and creating more pollution. I'd think a method of transporting many people at once (planes, trains) would be preferable and would hope there would be a cost-effective and environmentally-reasonable way to do that. I'm just horrified to think that flying is going to cease to be an option to those who are not moderately wealthy.

Posted By Karen in Colorado on April 14, 2008, 12:56 PM

I would have no problem paying more for better service safer planes more comfort if the higher fares went for those things and not higher CEO saleries.

Posted By Lenny on April 14, 2008, 1:03 PM

Well, US airlines should raise their fares by at least 10% - 15%. There's no comparison between US and foreign airlines. The US unions and poor management have destroyed the US carriers.

Think about how you would feel if you made $35K - $40K a year, worked at the airline for 25+ years, and then your company defaults on the pension plan.

You wonder why the US airline employees aren't smiling so much?

The failure of some low cost airlines is nothing more than survival of the fittest. You can't be low cost at $110 a barrel oil..

Posted By George A. on April 14, 2008, 1:06 PM

I don't believe for a split second that passengers paying more for fares will increase US airlines efficiency or quality of product delivered. Maybe tying the receipt of the gargantuan salaries of upper management to the efficiency and quality of the airline would have some effect, though.

Posted By Penny on April 14, 2008, 1:07 PM

I absolutely believe we should be willing to pay more to help the airlines provide the flying public with upgraded equipment. My concern is that when airlines merge for economy of scale, their service sinks to the lowest level. I wrote Delta Airlines in 2007 asking them to raise their prices if that meant they would not have to merge with Northwest Airlines. Delta personnel have all been great! I have never met anyone who has not had a bad experience with Northwest. As we can see from the news of the impending merger, I lost.

Posted By Stuart Shaffer on April 14, 2008, 1:07 PM

I do not feel that it is up to me as a consumer to bail out struggling, poorly run airlines. If the airlines had made more of an effort to keep fares reasonable, maintain planes properly (inside and out), provide decent amenities, keep track of luggage, get flights to destinations on time, etc., etc., I might be more sympathetic with their current woes. Airlines, however, are in business and it is up to them to get their own messes straightened out. Meanwhile, I will avoid using them whenever possible.

Posted By Nancy C. Dallas on April 14, 2008, 1:26 PM

Where does it end? we are being hammered with fuel surcharges and taxes that can cost more than the ticket - British Airways shows low prices then hits you with taxes and fees that far exceed the norm and make it one of the more expensive carriers. so it is hard to justify even more money to fly especially as the service is so bad on most airlines. staying at home seems like a good idea

Posted By tina mitchell on April 14, 2008, 1:32 PM

Deregulation has always been a predicable, open invitation to scrimp on safety for the improvement of the bottom line. Flying is no longer a pleasant adventure, but an ordeal. Airline passengers are packed into a cigar tube like a third world bus! I no longer fly if it is possible for me to drive to my destination. I would welcome a return to regulation of the airlines if it would improve the experience of flying within the US, and overseas on US airlines.

The idea of tying the salaries of upper airline management to passenger satisfaction ratings is a present urgent necessity. Management simply ignores passenger complaints these days.

Posted By Geoff Logan on April 14, 2008, 1:37 PM

I would gladly pay 30% more for a safer and better maintained aircraft, more pleasant in-cabin environment, better service and higher quality meal service on a par to foreign carriers. Airlines operate on margins that are too thin and the traveling public suffers as a result.

Posted By Gary Hague on April 14, 2008, 1:38 PM

Those who have the money and make the salary to pay for more expensive airfares, go at it. For me I believe it's time for the Fed Govt to support the airlines and railroads in bringing low cost transportation to the masses. The only gain in raising the prices is pouring more into the money pit caused by soaring oil prices and top heavy management. God help the marrried couple with kids who desparately need to get away to Disney!

Posted By Kevin McKelvey on April 14, 2008, 1:40 PM

NO! It is not time the consumer pays higher prices for the airlines to invest in their fleet. As a past airline spouse and knowing how these airlines work it is time they cap the salaries of their executive management and get rid of their bonuses / goldern parachutes upon termination of their employment with a company, whether termination of their contract is voluntary or not. This is what is costing the airlines billions every year. The airlines can reinvest the savings from having to pay exuberent salaries into the proper maintenance of the fleet.

Posted By KLR on April 14, 2008, 1:46 PM

I feel we pay enough for airline tickets.

Posted By Christina Davis on April 14, 2008, 1:59 PM

I agree with Lenny and Penny. As long as the increased fares go towards upgrading the airline nd service and not for CEO and other board member salaries and bonuses then I think a 10% increase would be okay. The CEO and boards of directors of these Airlines ought to take a 10 % cut in compensation at the same time. Or maybe they would like no salary and bonus when they go under.

Posted By Bill Pemberton on April 14, 2008, 1:59 PM

Yes, I would gladly pay more for better service, higher equipment quality and an improved overall traveling experience....BUT only if there are dramatic, noticeable improvements.

Posted By JAA on April 14, 2008, 2:14 PM

There is a limit to what people will pay to fly. So at what point will the government allow the infrastructure to be put in place for fast speed rail connecting this country. The airlines lobby furiously every time this subject is discussed in Texas. We need to see what Japan and Europe have done to move their people around, and depend on flight for trips above 1000 miles.

Posted By saint on April 14, 2008, 2:17 PM

You get what you pay for. Sheila why don't you move to Australia?

Posted By Bryan on April 14, 2008, 2:21 PM

Would I pay more than what? The present fare formula means that the fare I pay will vary wildly according to when I purchase my ticket. As I understand the system, the fares adjust to ensure that each plane will fly as close to full as possible. And the planes these days are full to bursting! Unfortunately, the pricing formula completely discounts the costs of customer comfort and service.

Posted By Cynthia on April 14, 2008, 2:54 PM

I don't think airlines need to hike fees... I think they need to stop paying executives so much and stop passing out bonuses like candy.

The business model of Corporate America has become seriously flawed, airlines are some of the worst examples. In any business, cuts should come across the board and from the top down. Any time that I read about how much airline executives make and what their bonuses are like I am shocked.

On top of this is the overall current attitude in service industries to tell the customer what they want. If you won't pay for it there's 10 others that will, buh-bye.

Posted By addflower on April 14, 2008, 2:56 PM

Flying was a delight before deregulation open the door to greed and over all end of courteous and on time service. Amerca's airlines are now a disgrace to humanity in all areas of flights, service in the terminals, in the air and reaction to customer complaints. Whenever possible I will fly Quantas, Singapore, Lufthansa or Virgin and the likes.

Posted By David Hendrickson on April 14, 2008, 3:20 PM

I would happily pay an extra 10 to 15 percent for more leg room and decent food -- on top of things like a safe plane, on time departure, and luggage going to the right place.

But there doesn't seem to be a market for these things -- based on most of the comments here, and the actions of airlines, this doesn't seem to be taking place.

Posted By nathan on April 14, 2008, 3:34 PM

US air carriers are driven by corporate greed. The salaries of CEOs and airline executives should be cut and their private jets should be removed from their long list of perks. I would not pay one cent more for what should be expected: safe and on-time flights, good service, friendly staff and comfortable seats. Why should I pay more for lost baggage, filthy toilets on planes, crammed seats, perpetual delays and surly staff? Flying has become a nightmare.

International carriers are excellent in terms of service, seating, friendly staff and overall far superior to US carriers.

Posted By Sally Smith on April 14, 2008, 4:14 PM

First, the airlines should convert their money-losing short hauls to train service. An aircraft is most inefficient on the ground, when manuevering at approach/departure speeds and altitudes through the approach/departure corridors and climbing/decending.
We have a proven model in Europe. Arrive at most any airport, walk to the escalator, down a flight or 2, get on the train to many close destinations. I have arrived in Zurich, taken the train to Basel & put my feet on the ground in Basel, 60 miles away, 60 minutes after walking off the airplane. Try to match that time on any connecting flight.

No longer would there such a passenger desire for direct flights from many smaller cities, allowing use of larger aircraft with lower passenger/mile cost.

Now that rising fues costs have finally ignighted some interest in rail, we should use the opportunity to include stops at the airport terminal -- making the transportation mode irrelevant to the connecting passenger.

Posted By Clay Hogan on April 14, 2008, 4:25 PM

You've got to be kidding. Reward the airlines for bad service?

Higher rates are only justified when the service improves. We just returned from a flight on AA from Guayaquil, Ecuador to Orlando, Florida, and by the time we arrived in Orlando we felt as if we'd been horsewhipped.

And what makes you think that higher fees will result in investment in equipment? The oil companies don't use their increased income from the higher prices we pay for gasoline for development of new energy sources, they just go to greater profits for the top executives and stockholders. Why wouldn't AA and the other airlines do the same thing?

When they improve, I'll be glad to pay more. For the present, I think they're paid more than they're worth.

Posted By Lonnie Clar on April 14, 2008, 4:26 PM

The airlines should run their business like a business. Fares should be less volatile...one passenger should not pay $49. while another pays $1400. Determine the value of a seat (cost plus profit) and use that as a baseline. If there are remaining seat open just prior to departure then sell them for 'cost'. Most people won't risk missing a flight for a few extra dollars AND last minute travelers shouldn't be punished because they are willing to take that risk or because something has prompted a need for a last minute flight. Hotels don't charge 5 times the standard rate if you show-up without a reservation...why should airlines.
Because airlines have: (1) eliminated nearly every amenity on their flights; (2) increased the number of seats to where passengers are 'crammed in like sardines' and (3) otherwise reduced the travel experience to one that is most often dreaded rather than enjoyed...it is hard to feel sorry when they fail.
The expansion of 'air mileage' programs has resulted in a lot of travel that is under-taken just because it is cheap. Eliminating these programs will reduce the number of passengers and the number of flights needed. This will aid the airlines in avoiding many flight delays because departures and landing won't have to be so tightly intervaled and aid the environment.
Airlines should make the flights more user-friendly (i.e. comfortable) and attract travelers based on quality of service and not solely price. If there is one place that the 'warehouse pricing' model should not exist, it is in air travel. Continuously cutting prices always ends up with an inferior product/service...which is just where we are today. I can only say to the airlines "good luck" in making bold changes...or "good riddance".

Posted By John on April 14, 2008, 4:39 PM

What makes you think higher prices will lead to anything but higher profits?

Posted By Dennis on April 14, 2008, 4:40 PM

The problem goes beyond the airlines. It's the lack of a balanced transportation system in the US. There is no reason why a person should have to fly between Milwaukee and Chicago just to get on another plane to fly out to the west or east coasts. There is so much talk about delays, overcrowding, needing additional runways, additional air traffic controllers, etc. What they need is to eliminate unnecessary flights. The air infrastructure is suffering from its own success and a failure of balance. In order to remove these short haul flights there has to be a viable transportation alternative. Currently Amtrak is not reliable alternative. A high speed transportation network of frequent trains between city centers and airport hubs need to be implemented. They can compete through factors such as price and time, and also will help alleviate the heavily burdened air industry. Internationally, many high speed trains compete with airlines. Domestically, the Acela trains on the east coast compete well against the airlines traveling the same route. This competition will keep prices in check and help bring the freedom of travel back to Americans. Let the skies be kept clear for flights of 500 miles or more.

Posted By Dave on April 14, 2008, 4:42 PM

Absolutely not! An airline like Northwest can declare bankruptcy, get protection, cut its employees wages, refuse to pay its bills, but still be able to take over other airlines such as Messaba. They reduce service, make no pretense at civility, and we should pay more money for that? It's time instead to demand an end to million dollar perks for predatory executives. If that fails, it's time to look for another means of transportation for trips!

Posted By Daniel J. Vandeberg on April 14, 2008, 5:17 PM

I think that his should have been thought of before they went into business. I think that this is one of the BIG Corporations that line their pockets before thinking about the safety of their crew and passengers.

New equipment has to be bought to stay in business or current equipment must be kept up to standard. The BIG Corportations should have had to save money for this a long time ago along with saving for a slump. Why do WE, THE PEOPLE, have to bail them out with what usually is our tax dollars to keep them in business?

If I am a small business owner and I do not plan for a down time in my business, then I will more than likely have to close my doors when the time comes, should they not have to do the same?

Posted By Dawna on April 14, 2008, 5:24 PM

Should the consumer pay more? NO!!! One of the solutions is to look at the airline schedule. They fly to the same cities within miutes/hours of each other. Perhaps if they discontined some of the overlapping flights they could reduce their expenses, increase their profits and could afford to buy new airplanes.

Posted By Bob on April 14, 2008, 5:24 PM

The best way to improve the airlines, is to have the CEOs and other upper management actually fly on their own planes (incognito or course) and not first class. When they experience all the hassles of making connections, delayed flights, no food or overpriced garbage, getting stuffed in a middle seat, losing luggage, etc. there might be some improvement.

Posted By VAjaybird on April 14, 2008, 5:45 PM

If higher fares assured us of flying machines in excellent working condition (not "battle-fatigued"), I'd pay them. I wouldn't ask for fancy snacks--just something to drink and maybe a package of pretzels or nuts....probably would bring my own eats. Would be nice if our luggage arrived at the same destination at the same time as we passengers. I'd just be happy to get there safely and with minimal delay.

Posted By Cathy Katrovitz on April 14, 2008, 6:51 PM

Why pay higher prices for good service, state of the art entertainment, new planes with a choice of leg room in coach class when you can fly Virgin America or even Jet Blue?

Posted By Eileen on April 14, 2008, 6:59 PM

With the high prices for jet fuel, need for improved maintenance and reasonable pay for their employees, I'm in favor of increased fares. It appears most airlines are reluctant to increase fares to cover their costs, so continue to operate in the red. The fear is that airlines like Southwest will take their customers but I venture to guess that Southwest doesn't have that many aircraft. Travelers should get used to it or not fly.

Posted By Mark Beales on April 14, 2008, 7:46 PM

If the europeans and asians can give good service why can't the americans ? Its about attitude.

Posted By colin on April 14, 2008, 9:23 PM

Absolutely! The airlines are a business. But cut out the food and other "frills" we don't need. I can get my own food and snacks...or sell them on the plane. Also, no overhead luggage should be allowed on the plane. Travelers should just learn to travel lightly...can be a challenge!

Posted By b collins on April 14, 2008, 9:38 PM

Years of McD's, Wal-Marts, and the Bushes have made and revealed Americans for what they are --- cheap! You get what you pay for and we are getting what we deserve. CHEAP!

Posted By aztec69 on April 14, 2008, 10:19 PM

Why can I fly to Italy or California for the same price I paid 25 yrs ago? I think it's incredible that airfare is so cheap when you consider how everything else - cars, homes, gas - has gone up in price. How much did we pay for a car 25 yrs ago?
We should be paying more. The airlines should be run like other businesses and raise their prices so they can maintain their planes and staff.

Posted By Annette on April 14, 2008, 10:42 PM

Only If airlines cut Hqs bureaucracy alone & cut costs otherways, other than Food Service & luggage services.
But I say this:
Dump the Hub Spoke Plan & make more Flexible
Hold competitions for Best Rated Airline
Motivate employees
Give incentives.
Alter International routes.
CUT down US Customs time for US travellers.
Expand 777 fleet more.
Or use Air Bus more.
Mini AirBus.

Offer:
WiFi
HD mini TV & 100 movies or TV
Gourmet meals
Bedchairs for flights to Pacific from US.
& the above is for Coach fare aside Business Class.

Use the Virgin Atlantic model for airlines.
Use the above for Longer flights ONLY.
IE LA to Cebu City, Phillppines or
Tokyo.

More can be done.
& use Biofuels for flight.

Posted By Stephen Russell on April 14, 2008, 10:48 PM

[Screw] American Airlines. The only thing they are good for is to: tear your luggage or loose it. I had rather drive than fly American

Posted By jhall on April 14, 2008, 11:35 PM

People really need to educate themselves about the airline business in order to comment on this subject. First you cannot compare USA carriers to International Airlines such as BA or Virgin. Many of these airlines are government subsidized. Even if the airline is isn't government subsidized many these carriers do not share in the the cost of airport gates and security costs. There are so many more variables that the public isn't aware of. As anyone heard of Deregulation Act of 1978? Government gave the control to the airlines to have more competitive route structure. Ever since then it's been a race to the bottom. The first thing and only thing is that these airlines are concerned about is how can we fly cheaper then the next. Now tell me, without government regulation how will safety be maintained with this mentality.

Posted By ERY on April 15, 2008, 12:59 AM

First, someone has to define 'fare'. When the person sitting next to you on a plane may have paid hundreds of dollars more (or less) than you did, who knows what a 'fare' is?? Fares should be consisten first, not change by the hour and not be so drastically different for same seat on same flight.

Posted By Dennis on April 15, 2008, 10:33 AM

Airline companies are in business.They are in business for profit. Like any business they have to follow the laws of Economics concerning their balance sheet. Different to some other businesses however they are federally and state wide scrutinized, in terms of safety [travellers, employees and people on land]which usually means high costs. Their utensils, -if I could call them that-, for business are specialized technical manpower, super-insured readily appropiate flying containers apparatus [airplanes,land units and collateral requirements] petroleum products [gas, diesel,oils, etc] and conmuter units [consumers, pass.].That costs money, lots of money.And many people earn and live from this industry. Unless they are govn't subsidized their operating capital comes from clients. If costs rise, so do tickets price, because that's the basic material with which they operate and move their business.And that's it. * By the way I am a furious passenger airline-criticizer most of the times, but reality is reality.Economics is economics.

Posted By Ramón Buitrago on April 15, 2008, 11:42 AM

Don't kid yourself about correlations between higher fares and improved service. As long as the Airline Pilots Association controls the major airlines, a disproportionate percent of any fare increase will end up in their pockets. If you think airline executives are making huge salaries you haven't looked at pilots compensation at the major airlines, especially compared to hours worked for the two groups.
The airline business model is broken and has been for some time.
Is there another American business that requires the approval of a labor union before it can make an acquisition?

Posted By kenneth on April 15, 2008, 2:10 PM

What is it about American airline travellers that they dont comprehend the simple maxim-" You get what you pay for", and the corollary- when you dont pay much, you dont get much. Aircraft are incredibly complex, incredibly expensive machines. Fuel is ridiculous, and there arent many places left for an airline to save money. Passengers want every fare to be under $100., or free. Airlines are suffering from having customers with the high expectations from the past, coupled with the passengers desires to have very low current day fares. The current situation just doesnt work. As for the employees, we are tired of being beaten up CONSTANTLY by employers trying to squeeze the last ounce of productivity out of us, and beaten up by passengers who want great service without paying for it. You dont expect the same dining experience from Mcdonalds that you do from a fine restaurant. This is the situation that has evolved, and this is what we now have.

Posted By Steven Muscher on April 15, 2008, 4:12 PM

The problems with the airlines in the United States are multifaceted. The first big problem is multi level poor management. There is a pervasive draconian attitude of management toward the ground employees-particularly mechanics. Yet, it's the mechanics--not the pilots or managers--who keep those planes safe to fly. Every time a plane backs up from the gate, there is a signature from a federally licensed aircraft mechanic declaring that aircraft airworthy. That mechanic is held legally, financially, and morally responsible for that multimillion dollar piece of equipment and all of the lives on board. Think of it like this: A surgeon can only kill or maim one person at a time. But if an aircraft mechanic makes a mistake repairing a plane and that plane crashes, he/she can kill/maim hundreds of people at a time. Yet, the average pay for a commercial aircraft mechanic is 62K before taxes. Take a look at what has happened to the aircraft mechanics at American Airlines. In 1994, their weak union, the TWU, settled for a bad six year labor contract that provided an immediate pay freeze for 3 years. The last three years provided 3% per year. In 2000, the mechanics actually saw a decent raise. The increased cost of health benefits ate up a lot of that raise. But then 9/11 happened. Under the threat of the airline going bankrupt, in 2002,the TWU opened the contract and settled for the worst deal in labor history. The highly skilled, experienced mechanics lost an immediate 17.5% in pay; one week of paid vacation; changes in over time rules-no matter how many hours worked, it's only at time and a half; including working on holidays; weekend pay is straight time pay; no pay for the first day called in sick; night shift differential is a whopping .03 cents per hour; and a whole 1.5% pay increase per year. It is a total of 35% decrease in pay/benefits for 6 years. All while there is an annual increase in the cost of health insurance. How happy would you be with your job/employer/union if this happened to you? Many of American's mechanics live in metropolitan areas with high costs of living. The bad working conditions--out doors in all kinds of weather, night shift, weekends and holidays, with increasing responsibilities-- have driven many experienced mechanics away from the airline into better jobs. Can you blame them? Mechanics cannot switch companies like others can in their job category. No matter how much experience you have, when you start at an airline, you are at the bottom of the pay scale and seniority list. Here's a shocker for you, teachers are paid more per day worked than an aircraft mechanic is. Here's the real slammer: In 2006, the top 1000 mangers at American Airlines split $170 million dollars in stock, which was immediately allowed to be converted into cash,amongst themselves. They took it out of the paychecks of mechanics and put it in their own pockets. Why has mechanic pay been kept low? To provide cheap airfares. So yes, please, raise the ticket prices so that we can get a decent raise and good mechanics won't leave their jobs. By the way...in five years there will be a shortage of aircraft mechanics.

Posted By lisa on April 15, 2008, 6:07 PM

Yes. And then let's make the same kind of public investment that we do for air and auto to build and support high speed train service from coast to coast.

Posted By R. Grabinski on April 15, 2008, 9:51 PM

With record high fuel prices airlines must pay, I believe it is necessary to pass this cost along, so that US carriers may have the dollars to properly maintain their fleets. We either need to somehow bring down the price of fuel, or pay more for everything else. Air travel is no exception. It must be kept safe and well maintained.

Posted By Wendi T remblay on April 17, 2008, 11:32 AM

CHEAP sums it up, for sure. We are getting what we pay for. We seem to EXPECT flying to be the mode of transportation for 'every man' - whereas in the past, it was not the case. It was a mode of transport for the elite, which is certainly where we are headed again, when the price goes up. No, service probably won't get better with the rising price either, but the wealthy usually enact change when they complain. Sorry but the days of flying for $20 are over. And why exactly are you SUPRISED? Have you filled your tank or bought groceries lately? Do you live under a rock. Getting what we pay for and it is certainly sad.

Posted By Leash on April 17, 2008, 1:46 PM

Current infrastructure is overwhelmed by the number of air passengers these days. The system was simply not designed to handle this many passengers. Because the system is operating at 100% of capacity and then some, any small issue is magnified and causes massive delays. Increasing the prices would reduce the number of passengers, and alleviate some of the stress on the system.

Posted By Meg on April 17, 2008, 3:20 PM

Why do you think that raising prices will give us better service? And why is it that the smaller airlines in the UK and Ireland can offer really good prices and service for a lot less than we are paying here in the US? Seems to me their petrol costs are much higher than ours...
yet they can still give good prices and good service. So what is wrong with the airlines in the US??? Why are we constantly getting less service for more money????

Posted By SLR on April 17, 2008, 7:44 PM

The cost of flying is high enough already. Given that the space you rent on a airplane would most appropriately fit a 5 year old! The better solution would be to take some of the overly inflated salaries and perks from the management's top level and put it where it would do some good. Customer service might be a nice place to start.

Posted By PAT D on April 17, 2008, 8:23 PM

In 1970, I began work for a major US airline. I made $600.00 per month before taxes, paid 33 cents per gallon for gas, and the NYC subway was 15 cents. The lowest airfare from New York City to California was $300.00

It's 37 years later. Regular gas is $3.59 in my area (8 times the 1970 price), the subway costs $2.00 (13 times the 1970 price).

And you can still get New York to California airfares for under $300.00.

Why is there any question that the airlines need higher fares to invest in improved service and newer planes? What other business, anywhere in the world, is expected to stay in business and turn a profit using income amounts from 40 years ago and paying costs at today's prices?

Posted By Kathi K on April 19, 2008, 2:05 PM

We have been shooting ourselves in the foot for years. We say that we want lower cost airlines, but when the hub airline matches the lower cost fare, we fly on the hub airline instead of supporting the lower cost airline. Then when the lower cost airline goes bankrupt, we start wishing for another lower cost airline. Until we start using lower cost airlines and supporting them with our travel dollars, things won't get better.
I, for one, refuse to travel on my hub airline (NWA) and use my travel dollars to support the smaller, lower cost airlines.I have been pleasantly surprised by their services.

Sunny

Posted By Judith S on April 19, 2008, 6:41 PM

Want quality, modern planes, caring staff, great prices and legroom for starters? Fly Jet Blue! (Now, if they would just fly internationally! sigh!)

Posted By Martha on April 21, 2008, 8:06 AM

Dream trip to Hawaii now cancelled due to horrible
price increase for airfare. So Sad, Too Bad.

Guess I'll drive up the California coast and view
the sunset from Pismo Beach.

Still Smiling.

Posted By Terri on April 23, 2008, 11:44 AM

Terri,
I’m sorry to hear that high prices have forced you to cancel your trip.
But keep smiling—as gorgeous as Hawaii is, there are many closer-to-home destinations that can be fun, relaxing, and rewarding.

Good luck!

And thanks to everyone for posting such insightful comments. We're lucky to have such a smart and passionate group of readers.
--Sean
(blog editor)

Posted By Sean on April 23, 2008, 12:09 PM

Why should airline execs take a pay cut? Their salaries are in line with nearly every other industry out there. Actually, they're quite a bit lower when you take their base salary into account.

Here's the long and the short of it. People want better service and the lowest fare possible, i.e they don't want to pay for the product they desire. It's one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Higher fares which bring newer fleets and better paid front line people and the associated better service, or you can have your bargain basement prices in 30 year old airplanes with surly, underpaid staff. Your decision....

Posted By Mike on April 24, 2008, 12:33 PM

I've enjoyed paying the same or lower air fares recently as compared to 18 years ago when we started our annual or twice yearly trips to the Rocky Mountain West. But I would be amenable to fare hikes if used for new planes and maintenance as stated by some of your commentors.
Regarding Northwest vs Delta, Stuart Shaffer was full of praise for Delta and claimed that he knew of no one who hadn't had a bad experience on Northwest. Well Stuart, my experience has been just the opposite of yours = always had good experiences year after year on Northwest. My one Delta flight was a disaster.

Posted By Alan Gilbert on April 24, 2008, 12:57 PM

A certain minimum amount of re-regulation is in order. No seats should be sold below the seats share of the cost to run the flight. It's an awful practice that is the root of many of the problems of todays airlines. Paying $2000 for a coach roundtrip ATL-LAX is ridiculous, but so is paying $200. A regulated floor of say $25/segment + $0.15/mile would eliminate a lot of the stupid and self destructive things the airlines have done since deregulation. A round trip ticket covering 4000 miles (2000 out, 2000 back) one non-stop each way, would have a floor of $650. Airlines would be free to charge more, but not less. If they have their cost well below that range, then they can make more money as their costs go down, and compete on service. If they want to offer fancier, better, more timely service, they are free to charge more. People that want to fly for less than the cost of their seats share of the fuel need to become reacquainted with greyhound :)

Posted By dorn hetzel on April 29, 2008, 2:23 PM

Oh for God sake, Shiela, do you have ANY idea as to what kind of aircraft QF flies in it's domestic markets?

Posted By Sam on May 1, 2008, 2:45 PM