Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Feb 10, 2012.
Air Canada, TSA play blame game after belongings stolen
How many of us have alreadylived this song? Raise your hands in the air!
Not checking bags (whenever possible) would serve two purposes:
1. theft is greatly reduced
2. it would force the airlines to confront their economic losses due to the tsa
Except that we have a competitive domestic market where Southwest allows you to check two bags & is gaining market share while the competititon (esp. Delta which was for a brief time the largest U.S. airline after their merger until they resumed shrinking) just keeps cutting capacity. The message might be misread. Certain airlines are also so hooked on that "ancillary" income that they won't reverse the trend until it's too late.
#1 is a good reason, #2 not so certain.
I was under the impression that for many of the airlines the bag fees are what's keeping them in the black. If that income stream starts drying up, then what?
Not me. But that's because the Gestapo consider me a threat to air travel.
It is, more correctly "ancillary income" which includes outrageous changes fees, credit card kickbacks, seat charges, priority boarding, etc., not just baggage fees. I believe UA &DL are now raking in close to $1B a year in ancillary income. Of the airlines, only Southwest seems to stay in the black based on actual ticket fees, and even they are trying to boost ancillary income.
Kind of amazing when you think of it -- an industry in which all the legacy players (DL, UA, AA, US) can't sell their core product at a cost that breaks even.
My disagreement with your #2 was not that wouldn't hurt but the airlines are unlikely to recognize the reason for it, and they are so hooked on all the ancillary income that they will hang on to it until the bitter end.
Ahhh, yes. That certainly could be.
Part of the problem is that if it can't be measured on an Excel spreadsheet, it isn't considered.
I can't tell you how many times I went to the revenue guys and said, "Hey guys, let's try this idea and see if it boosts revenue?" Their response was always the same, "We get $X from doing what we're doing, and we don't know what we'd get from your idea. Now, I know Southwest is the only profitable carrier and that's exactly what they do, but if we do it, then we lose $X in revenue." They never see the $X+Y available that is literally sitting on the table.
Therefore they will never see that TSA is the cause of their loss. Look at the last round of quarterly reports. They would've been more profitable if not for the increased price of fuel. Fuel they can measure on an Excel spreadsheet. TSA not so much.
Excel spreadsheets? I daresay you're giving beancounters too much credit. It's all about flashy PPTs these days. Try formulating it in a slideshow with lots of little money-bundle graphics and differently-sized piles thereof. They might get the message that way.
Powerpoint = the idiotfication of any profession. NASA proved years ago powerpoint bastarized any useful information
Just as spreadsheets can be used to cook the books. Enron-inomics anyone... or is that fannie-freedienomics for the modern day
Separate names with a comma.