So frustrated.. flights just so expensive!

[brazilgirl]

http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2015-10-19/the-5-cheapest-ways-to-fly-to-europe?mbid=social_facebook

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CapCrunch]

So you weren't joking?

 

I thought you were since you didn't indicate why you think the travel industry should be subsidized or how this was going to be paid for.

 

No, I wasn't joking. I did say why I thought the travel industry might consider subsidizing the airlines, but I didn't say they SHOULD. I was really just wondering if that was an idea that had ever been floated. I do realize that right now flights are full so there's not much anyone can do. But if they ever add runways at major airports, which they need to do for safety reasons, perhaps there'll be more flights and less demand.

[CapCrunch]

http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2015-10-19/the-5-cheapest-ways-to-fly-to-europe?mbid=social_facebook

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thanks - I might need to fly to Montreal next Spring - will look into WestJet!

[Budget Queen]

No, I wasn't joking. I did say why I thought the travel industry might consider subsidizing the airlines, but I didn't say they SHOULD. I was really just wondering if that was an idea that had ever been floated. I do realize that right now flights are full so there's not much anyone can do. But if they ever add runways at major airports, which they need to do for safety reasons, perhaps there'll be more flights and less demand.

 

And where would the "travel industry" money come from?????? Do you really think that the airline industry is going to oversupply? Not if they can help it.

[CapCrunch]

And where would the "travel industry" money come from?????? Do you really think that the airline industry is going to oversupply? Not if they can help it.

 

I did some reading online, and apparently certain segments of the hotel industry HAVE either subsidized the airlines or considered it in the past, so it's not as unimaginable an idea as some of you think. However, I didn't know the airlines were all flying at capacity, though all of you apparently did. Again, I only fly an average of once every couple of years, not because I can't afford it, but I just find it's not worth it. This year it WOULD have been three times, but so far two trips were affected by cancelled flights that couldn't be re-booked within 12 hours, and one trip was cancelled because of the cancelled flight (after a 12+ hour delay, the trip was no longer worthwhile). We'll see what happens with the next one...

Edited October 27, 2015 by CapCrunch

[waterbug123]

Why would you assume I meant the government when I said "the travel industry?" Your state of appalledness is completely unwarranted, but I guess it gave you a chance to have your little, presumptuous rant.

 

Well then who, exactly, in the "travel industry" to you think is making so much profit that they can afford to just give millions in subsidies to the airlines in the name of making flights cheaper? :rolleyes:

 

 

But if they ever add runways at major airports, which they need to do for safety reasons, perhaps there'll be more flights and less demand.

 

How do added runways = less demand? I can see where that could potentially lead to increased supply, but decreased consumer supply? :confused:

[CapCrunch]

Well then who, exactly, in the "travel industry" to you think is making so much profit that they can afford to just give millions in subsidies to the airlines in the name of making flights cheaper? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

How do added runways = less demand? I can see where that could potentially lead to increased supply, but decreased consumer supply? :confused:

 

In answer to your first question, certainly not the government. Still not sure why you jumped to that. I mean not only the U.S. Travel industry, Europe and Canad as well. As I say, it HAS been considered as a possibility on some scale in the past.

 

Your second question, I didn't mean to say demand would decrease, but that supply might better meet demand, leading to flight not entirely full. But of course I don't know, I just know there are plans to add a runway at LGA for instance.

[klfrodo]

As I say, it HAS been considered as a possibility on some scale in the past.

 

.

 

You're correct in that in the past, cities, hotels, and some business have subsidized air travel. Hotels in Las Vegas used to subsidize air travel to get gamblers into town. I believe Carnival used to have their own airline to charter to get people to the ports.

However, these arrangements just lost too much money or could not compete.

 

People and politicians are the ones who tend to forget and allow history to repeat itself. Business?? Not so much.

[FlyerTalker]

I just know there are plans to add a runway at LGA for instance.

Brrrppp.....I'm sorry, but that answer is incorrect. But thanks for playing with us, and here are some nice parting gifts.

 

The correct answer is that there is a four billion dollar plan to rebuild terminal and taxiway facilities at LGA, while utilizing the existing runways.

[CruiserBruce]

 

Your second question, I didn't mean to say demand would decrease, but that supply might better meet demand, leading to flight not entirely full. But of course I don't know, I just know there are plans to add a runway at LGA for instance.

 

I think you would find gates are a far more significant restriction on numbers of flights from a given airport than runways.

[bubbadogmom]

I just had to give in and buy my airfare today :eek: (there was no crying emoticon)

 

I did cry a little. I can't lie.

 

I posted here last week to talk about it.....and then I kept checking prices - then I was sick for a few days and didn't look.

 

Sure enough I go on today to check - and they've gone up by a couple hundred dollars EACH.

 

I should have bought them last week, but I put it off hoping that there would still be some fluctuations as it was still early (or at least I thought it was for tickets in February).

 

I hate being pressured by the little pop ups that say "only 3 seats left at this price!!" - it makes me feel like its a high pressure sales tactic, (which I do not usually respond to as usually it's BS), but in this case it is true!

 

So today I had to give in and bite the bullet and buy it, because it will only go up higher.

 

I just have to figure out how to hide how much I paid from my dad who will have a fit if he finds out!!

[FlyerTalker]

I should have bought them last week, but I put it off hoping that there would still be some fluctuations as it was still early (or at least I thought it was for tickets in February).

Truly sorry that it came back to bite you. Consider it a learning experience and it may not sting so much. And remember, "Hope is not a strategy".

I hate being pressured by the little pop ups that say "only 3 seats left at this price!!" - it makes me feel like its a high pressure sales tactic, (which I do not usually respond to as usually it's BS), but in this case it is true!

There is a very simple way to test the BS factor. If you see a flight with a certain price and it says "only X seats left at this price", try a dummy booking of X+1 number of seats. If you don't get the same price for that flight, guess what....there really ARE only X number of seats.

 

Personally, I'd just tell Dad the truth. If nothing else, you'll get the respect from having fessed up rather than obfuscating. And you can tell him how you've learned about real world supply and demand - and it was cheaper than an Econ 101 class at Harvard. :D

Edited October 27, 2015 by FlyerTalker

[waterbug123]

I should have bought them last week, but I put it off hoping that there would still be some fluctuations

 

So today I had to give in and bite the bullet and buy it, because it will only go up higher.

 

There WERE fluctuations...they just didn't go in the direction you'd hoped. ;)

It's always good to remember that if you wait for prices to hopefully go down, you have to be prepared for them to go UP as well.

 

As for your assumption that the price will only go up higher.... who knows? Just like nothing was certain before, nothing is certain now. They could go up, go down, or remain the same.

[waterbug123]

In answer to your first question, certainly not the government. Still not sure why you jumped to that.

 

Because typically when people talk about "subsidies" they are talking about government subsidies, as those are the most common. Have businesses ever subsidized other businesses? Sure. Has it worked out to the benefit of both parties long term? No, so as a general rule those business-to-business subsidies haven't lasted.

[HLGW60]

I don't know if this is still accurate but here are the 25 cheapest European cities and airports to fly to in 2015. http://www.priceoftravel.com/3468/cheapest-europe-cities-and-airports-to-fly-into/

[FlyerTalker]

I don't know if this is still accurate but here are the 25 cheapest European cities and airports to fly to in 2015. http://www.priceoftravel.com/3468/cheapest-europe-cities-and-airports-to-fly-into/

Gotta read the methodology on this one - and then drive a truck through it.

 

They take the "lowest fare" in two months and average. Which shows a big gaping shortcut. Just because there is a "fare" doesn't mean that there is inventory put into the fare bucket. Or that there may only be a handful of seats. The existence of a "fare" doesn't mean that one can actually buy a ticket for that price. That's because in airline lingo, "fare" does NOT equal "price". "Fare" is the published rate for a ticket, including the specific fare rules for that fare basis. Airlines have many "fares" between any city pair. However, they do not necessarily have to offer inventory in any particular one, or any group of them. So just because XYZ airline has a "fare" of $500 to London doesn't mean that you can actually buy a ticket for that.

 

Had they used "pricing" data, I'd have been more impressed.

[HLGW60]

Gotta read the methodology on this one - and then drive a truck through it.

 

They take the "lowest fare" in two months and average. Which shows a big gaping shortcut. Just because there is a "fare" doesn't mean that there is inventory put into the fare bucket. Or that there may only be a handful of seats. The existence of a "fare" doesn't mean that one can actually buy a ticket for that price. That's because in airline lingo, "fare" does NOT equal "price". "Fare" is the published rate for a ticket, including the specific fare rules for that fare basis. Airlines have many "fares" between any city pair. However, they do not necessarily have to offer inventory in any particular one, or any group of them. So just because XYZ airline has a "fare" of $500 to London doesn't mean that you can actually buy a ticket for that.

 

Had they used "pricing" data, I'd have been more impressed.

 

 

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on air travel because when I plan the occasional flight for leisure I have seen that fares can change almost hourly. What has worked well for me is that when booking trips to Hawaii and Europe, is to book my airline of choice ( based on aircraft, # of connections, layover time and how it fits my vacation itinerary) when the flight first becomes available. Since we usually plan vacations almost a year in advance this approach has worked well for me. Sure......I could wait closer to my vacation date but then I often do not get the seat location I want or flights I prefer. Last winter I tracked airfare for the airline/flight I wanted and by the time it came to book, I knew what the average price might be. I had a range I would accept. If the price fell into that range.....I grabbed it.

Edited October 28, 2015 by HLGW60

[FlyerTalker]

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on air travel because when I plan the occasional flight for leisure I have seen that fares can change almost hourly.

Let's try this again. The "fares" don't change. By and large, they are loaded into the GDS and they stay there. What does change dynamically is inventory -- how many seats are allocated to those "fares". And what you are seeing is that "prices" change. That may seem semantic, and it is, but when travel people talk "fares" (as in this article), they aren't talking "prices".

 

For example, AA has 124 different "fares" between JFK and LAX, ranging from $328 round-trip to $20,270 round-trip. What you actually pay is a function of what inventory is put into which "fare bucket", how those fare buckets correspond to your travel dates and times, and how many tickets you want.

 

So, it is completely honest to say that AA has a $328 round-trip "fare" between NY and Los Angeles. Whether there are any seats to be had - that's a completely different question.

 

All of which, again, puts the above article into some question.