The Squeeze

United to start charging passengers extra if they want to more than one bag. Can pay bathrooms on airplanes be far behind? Actually, though, one can imagine charging for baggage being a good thing for most people. There are real, if minor, externalities involved in checking additional bags.

All that said, I find the trend over time to reduced quality and lower prices for air travel slightly odd. It seems like the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a country that was becoming poorer over time rather than in a growing economy.

Comments

"All that said, I find the trend over time to reduced quality and lower prices for air travel slightly odd. It seems like the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a country that was becoming poorer over time rather than in a growing economy."

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 8:55 AM

It's all very Marxist-- the immiseration of the flying class.

Posted by MattF | February 6, 2008 8:57 AM

Actually they should charge for carry on. That has a much higher external cost. People carry on refrigerators now a days. In the event of an accident that carry on is also much more of a risk when trying to exit a plane.

Posted by crack | February 6, 2008 9:00 AM

This is nothing. If you compare the kind air hostess es that the airlines had in the 70s to the hags that you have to see now you know that our country is already poor.

Posted by gregor | February 6, 2008 9:01 AM

It's almost as if economic growth has very little to do with the actual day-to-day standard of living of ordinary people.

Posted by Christmas | February 6, 2008 9:03 AM

Ever ridden Skybus? They charge for every checked bag, as well as all food and drinks. The flight attendants are about 19, in T-shirts, and look like bartenders. They advertise for other destinations during their spiel. It is a decidedly unromantic way to fly.

Tickets start at $10 each way.

There is no way on God's green earth that economics could possibly be sustainable, but I will happily fly them until they go out of business.

Posted by Jen | February 6, 2008 9:07 AM

Isn't this just explained by the fact that domestic air travel is much more common that it used to be? Seems like the industry is moving from a high-value-added luxury market to a more commodified market.

Posted by WillieStyle | February 6, 2008 9:09 AM

It's deregulation

When ticket prices were kept high by fiat, the airlines competed on amenities. People had gotten used to the amenities, and thought of them as a marker for more serious qualitative factors, such as safety, so it's taken a while for them to hit bottom as the airlines bring down their prices. But they've gotten there.

Of course, "Darwinian" for the jet set just means narrower seats and paying for the second suitcase. Perhaps it would be wise to quit complaining, lest we jet-setters be overheard by the real victims of deregulation and disaster capitalism.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | February 6, 2008 9:12 AM

It's deregulation

When ticket prices were kept high by fiat, the airlines competed on amenities. People had gotten used to the amenities, and thought of them as a marker for more serious qualitative factors, such as safety, so it's taken a while for them to hit bottom as the airlines bring down their prices. But they've gotten there.

Of course, "Darwinian" for the jet set just means narrower seats and paying for the second suitcase. Perhaps it would be wise to quit complaining, lest we jet-setters be overheard by the real victims of deregulation and disaster capitalism.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | February 6, 2008 9:12 AM

Is there something about this site that double-posts or makes people double post? I'm not picking on Glen because I see it all the time, I think it's even done mine that way before.

Posted by Jen | February 6, 2008 9:17 AM

Yeah, it could be what WillieStyle and Glen Tomkins said, as well as the fact that many airlines use their unused cargo capacity on each flight to ship cargo, for a fee of course, creating an opportunity cost for them if many people check many bags.

That, or it could be a powerful message about how poor the US is and how economic growth does nothing for ordinary people, just like how animals can tell when tornados are coming.

We report, you decide.

Posted by mike | February 6, 2008 9:17 AM

Personally, I'm not too upset about this, mostly because I usually check just 1 bag. Presumably the money airlines will make from charging for an extra bag will go to improving some other service, or making tickets cheaper, or reducing the number of lost bags.

Posted by MS | February 6, 2008 9:19 AM

labor and oil: the costs of providing labor to lug around baggage and the additional weight does increase fuel consumption.

More generally the trend has been to replace paid labor with your customer's -- internet/ATM banking, self-checkout lines, self-serve boarding pass kiosks, etc. Not surprising given the economics of having employees (actual labor costs, taxes and mandates on paid labor, scheduling, management etc). Fortunately, for those businesses that go the DIY way, their industry is going that route so it doesn't negatively differentiate them & they still get to charge their full price.

Besides, I really enjoy the self-checkout line at home depot (can you scan a 3/4in bolt without customer assistance?)

Posted by mike c | February 6, 2008 9:20 AM

Well, actually it is the sign of a country in which people will forgo their dignity to save 10-20% on airfare.

Wealth has nothing to do with it if people still make their decisions on the margin. That is, it doesn't matter what your 401k says, you still don't want to pay extra to fly with a little style.

The other force at work here is that that among airlines that have first class, making economy undesirable relative to first class can be extremely profitable. It pushes price insensitive folks like rich people, or people who aren't paying for their own flight (business class) to the place where paying 10x the price for a bit more comfort makes sense. So by making economy a terrible place to be, rich folks fork over extraordinary amounts of cash just to escape the masses suffering in economy.

Posted by economouse | February 6, 2008 9:21 AM

Is there something about this site that double-posts or makes people double post?

I've never double-posted, but I've noticed there's a verrry looong pause here between when I click on "Post" and when the browser window updates with my comment. I always wonder if the numerous double-posts are the result of commenters, impatient with that pause, clicking twice.

Or it could have something to do with me being on a Mac.

Posted by James Gary | February 6, 2008 9:25 AM

Charging for extra services and price differentiation isn't evidence for poverty, it's evidence for inequality. They want to sell seats to (relatively) poor and rich alike, and then sell extra stuff to rich people.

Overbooking should be seen in that light too. For someone like me just trying to fly across the country to visit the folks during the holidays, I'll take the chance that I might be forced off the plane in exchange for a cheaper ticket. If I were wealthy, I guess I'd be willing to pay a whole lot more to avoid that inconvenient possibility.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 6, 2008 9:33 AM

Willie Style has it right, I think.

I took a business trip recently and sat next to an older gentleman who had been traveling for several decades. I asked him how things were different now and he opined rather snootily, "Well, the class of people has certainly changed. Taking a plane is now like taking a bus."

A lot more people fly now than was a case a few decades ago. I suppose the real question is why there isn't more segregation of stratification of products and service levels into high end and low end options. My guess is that limited airport capacity, and the requirements of airport logistics on the ground - including security requirements - means airlines cannot simply put a lot of new, cheaper, lower service flights into the market to capture that expanded demand while still retaining all of the pricier, higher service options for premium customers. And rapidly rising fuel costs mean that one can't even sustain existing levels of quality without raising prices substantially or squeezing yet more productivity out of already overworked staff.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 6, 2008 9:34 AM

Spirit Airlines charges $10/checked bag.

Posted by djslippyb | February 6, 2008 9:41 AM

"I suppose the real question is why there isn't more segregation of stratification of products and service levels into high end and low end options."

There is if you take into account the rise of the fractional jet market. The rich rarely fly commercial these days.

Posted by Fred | February 6, 2008 9:45 AM

As if traveling with small kids isn't difficult enough already. Now they want to charge you more for the pain.

Why doesn't the OB/GYN just give you a hammer when the babies pop out to hit yourself in the head?

Posted by Joe | February 6, 2008 9:47 AM

I agree with Jen. RyanAir is probably the most profitable airline in the world and their charges are breathtaking in the scope of what they try and get you to pay for:

Airport check-in (4 euros)

Checking ANY baggage (9 euros for the first bag and 18 euros for the second) + they require the aforementioned airport check in if you check bags

Any carryon baggage over the legal limit is charged at 22 euros

Priority Boarding (since they do not have assigned seats) for 4 euros

Plus there is a charge (I believe) to use a non-partner credit card

But the flights only cost 20 Euros or so each way. As with SkyBus, you are subjected to a non-stop barrage of ads, flight attendents trying to get you to buy 10 euro sandwiches, enticements to book things with their "partners" etc etc.

Is it worth it? For me, yes, because I don't remember the golden age of flying. All I remember is high prices and discomfort. Now it is low prices and discomfort.

Posted by Chris B | February 6, 2008 9:48 AM

Re economouse's comment "The other force at work here is that that among airlines that have first class, making economy undesirable relative to first class can be extremely profitable. It pushes price insensitive folks like rich people, or people who aren't paying for their own flight (business class) to the place where paying 10x the price for a bit more comfort makes sense. So by making economy a terrible place to be, rich folks fork over extraordinary amounts of cash just to escape the masses suffering in economy."
-----------

Poor little economouse. He's too poor to realize that only the little people fly Commercial --even First (actually "Decidedly Lower") Class.

One has those ridiculous security lines for example. And take my off my Guccis -- or let the rabble paw MY LUGGAGE? I think not.

After all, if one's Boeing is tied up in the shop, one can always charter:
http://www.aircharterbahamas.com/pages/aircraft.html

Of course, the nouveau riche always make comical little gaucheries --even when one tries SO very hard to show them how to go on.

That dreadful John Travolta , for example, parks his Boeing in HIS BACKYARD! See
http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Travolta.Preston.FL.Home.jpg

One wonders when he is going to put it up on cinder blocks! Shudder!

Some people will go to such LENGTHS to economize -- in a shabby genteel , nip farthing way. After all, a Rolls and driver don't cost very much. Especially if the driver is in this country "informally". hee hee

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 9:48 AM

Ah, yes. I see that dear Fred knows what I'm saying.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 9:51 AM

I read that due to high fuel prices this year would be the year the airlines started to decouple service cost from fuel cost. In other words, you will and you will pay the fuel charge separately and that would be charged to you just before the flight and would be wholly dependent on fuel prices at the time.

There's a tremendous lag between when you hit "Post" and when it gets posted. Yesterday for me it was over a minute at times. My advice is to copy (Ctrl+C) your whole post before it goes into the nether and never hit "Post" more than once. If it's lost, just paste it in and repost. But comments are never lost, in my experience. Even when my display times out it gets posted. Guess the Atlantic servers are being taxed.

Posted by blah2 | February 6, 2008 9:52 AM

Even with fuel costs rising, the bulk of an airline's cost structure is still (if I understand correctly) labor. In another industry or market, employers might have flexibility to renegotiate labor costs and spend part of the cost savings on increased service. However, the unionization of the airline industry largely precludes this. Think of it as a compulsory wealth transfer from customers to unionized employees.

Posted by DJ Ninja | February 6, 2008 10:27 AM

"There is if you take into account the rise of the fractional jet market. The rich rarely fly commercial these days."

Depends on what your definition of rich is. The top 0.01% may charter a private plane, but I know various people in the 1% range that all fly commercial. I believe even professional sports players fly on commercial planes from game to game. They just happen to fly first class or business class.

Posted by JordanT | February 6, 2008 10:36 AM

I find the trend over time to reduced quality and lower prices for air travel slightly odd.

Are you sure this will actually lead to lower prices for those who don't check two bags?

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 6, 2008 11:02 AM

The new Airbus A380 will be much better than that grubby Boeing 747 known as Air Force One.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003986629_superexecjet01.html

Although the 747 is certainly good enough for the President. He is merely a minor functionary, after all.

Back to the A380 -- the brochure is not clear on where one stores the concubines.

Decisions, Decisions -- the details constantly intrude on one's peace and quiet

Sigh. Life is so demanding -- I really don't know how I bear up.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 11:04 AM

I've always thought that you should have to weigh yourself along with your check-in luggage. If you weigh 300 lbs, yuo can't take any luggage with you. I you weigh 100 lbs, you can take 200 lbs of luggage with you.

Posted by goethean | February 6, 2008 11:06 AM

The only people who don't fly commercial are people paying for plane flights with shareholders' money. Sure, there are the hugely wealthy who might use fractional jet-ownership, but you don't see that much unless you're flying into Aspen or Jackson Hole.

The rich tend to be careful about their money and fly coach until they get enough frequent flyer miles for an upgrade.

And, really, I'm not seeing a huge amount of cheap air travel in the US. It's still a major event if I can find a round trip flight from DC to Boston for less than $200.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 11:12 AM

I dunno if it counts as 'a country becoming poorer', given the Ryanair model, where you're penny-pinched every step of the way.

Thing is, you know what you're getting with Ryanair or Easyjet: two hours max in the air, max. You expect better with a big carrier, and you generally get it in Europe.

At the other end, fractional jet rental is still a tiny fragment of the market, but Fallows would be good on this.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 6, 2008 11:15 AM

With the bad business models of major American airlines and relatedly the even worse customer service as well as the array of petty humiliations travelers now face because of a few crazy Arabs you wonder if we won't begin to see a significant internet-based service for pooling resources and organizing charter flights.

Posted by Linus | February 6, 2008 11:18 AM

And, really, I'm not seeing a huge amount of cheap air travel in the US. It's still a major event if I can find a round trip flight from DC to Boston for less than $200.

Absolutely. The equivalent of the Ryanair EUR20 special is rare, and that's because none of the bigger carriers works on Ryanair's model: one type of plane, fast turnaround.

I'm still waiting for Sedation Class, where they knock you out and stow you, after you've signed a waiver against personal injury in the event of a crash.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 6, 2008 11:20 AM

All that said, I find the trend over time to reduced quality and lower prices for air travel slightly odd. It seems like the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a country that was becoming poorer over time rather than in a growing economy.

I'm not sure why you would think lower prices are a signal that a country is becoming poorer. As a country gets richer, real prices tend to decline.

And the quality of air travel has not been declining. You're just focusing on a few features and missing the bigger picture. The additional costs associated with new charges for extra bags, meals, etc. have been more than offset by lower ticket prices. In almost every way, air travel is cheaper, better and easier than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Planes are safer, quieter, more comfortable and have much better entertainment options. There are many more routes, and much more frequent service. Researching and buying tickets, and checking in for flights, is much easier, thanks to the internet and increased computerization. Baggage handling is better. Airport connections are better. But like many people you take all these improvements for granted.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 11:45 AM

The only people who don't fly commercial are people paying for plane flights with shareholders' money. Sure, there are the hugely wealthy who might use fractional jet-ownership, but you don't see that much unless you're flying into Aspen or Jackson Hole.

I sort of feel like this is the same thing at work with people who complain that 'my God we don't get movies and meals anymore!': they tend to travel for business and do not pay for their own ticket. Therefore, higher ticket prices do not really affect them. As for me, I'm perfectly capable of bringing a sandwich and a book with me in exchange for even tiny savings, and it seems like a lot of people agree with me. As long as the savings aren't so tiny as to be less than the cost of the sandwich, anyway. :-D Seriously, though...I've not found flying to be all that uncomfortable as long as you're prepared (bring something to do, wear something comfy, bring food) and I think all of the rending of garments over air travel being so undignified is a smidge overblown. It gets you where you're going, you can often find pretty good prices if you plan ahead...I'm not sure why people are so stressed out about it. The one thing I've noticed people will totally pay more for is bigger seats, and though this is not an issue for me because I am very short, I think that is a reasonable criticism. And one it seems like airlines are responding to, somewhat.

Of course, the one thing I miss like crazy and will totally complain about is cheap last-minute standby flights. That is truly a loss. :-(

Posted by rabbit | February 6, 2008 11:55 AM

Tyro,

And, really, I'm not seeing a huge amount of cheap air travel in the US. It's still a major event if I can find a round trip flight from DC to Boston for less than $200.

I just went to Kayak.com and looked for roundtrip flights between Washington DC and Boston on the default dates in their search engine. Got 6 airlines offering roundtrip flights for less than $200, ranging from Airtran at $119 to United and JetBlue at $189. The whole thing took 30 seconds.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 11:55 AM

Re Linus's comment "you wonder if we won't begin to see a significant internet-based service for pooling resources and organizing charter flights "
------------
1) Already here, dear boy.

http://www.sentient.com/news/articles/financialtimes_051005.asp

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewarticle&id=684&Itemid=51

2) But hush -- don't breathe a word to the herd. They SPOIL every party they find out about.

We want them to pay taxes to support the air traffic control system -- but not, you know, burden it.

3) Plus Al Gore will throw a HISSY FIT if everyone has a giant carbon footprint:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118791212669107260.html

Mum's the word.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 12:04 PM

Anyone who thinks that the services you presently get on airlines are the same as it used to be has rocks in his head or amnesia.

There's a reason why I'm willing to pay the surcharge to fly JAL to Tokyo as opposed to using United or American: comfort.

Posted by grumpy realist | February 6, 2008 12:16 PM

WillieStyle, Glen Tompkins and Economouse all make good points.

The economics of the air travel business don't make a lot of sense. It's basically a commodity, especially since sites like kayak, mobissimo, etc. make it so easy to compare prices. At the same time there's a very high ratio of fixed to marginal costs. So the tendency is to compete prices well below the point of profitability.

As noted upthread, airline prices were formerly regualted -- which makes sense, given the nature of the industry -- and airlines competed on amenities.

You really can't make a business with high fixed costs work without some degree of market power. The easiest way to establish this is with a brand, but again, air travel (except at the high end) is basically a commodity. Airlines have tried otehr strategies, like frequent flyer programs (which don't really work) or dominating certain airports via the hub-and-spoke system (which sort of works) but the reality is that it's very hard to maintain profitability. I recall that in the early-90s recession, airline losses exceeded aggregate industry profits since the beginning of air travel. Easy to imagine that happening again.

On the other hand, the value of prmium classes is relative to economy, so reducing services in economy can actually raise revenue, by shifting travellers to business or first class. And, price discrimination is much easier for air travel than for most other services. Even without market p[ower, you can make money if you can identify the price-insensitive travellers and charge them more.

All in all, it's a much more interesting subject than "everything's going to hell." Much as I enjoy this blog, it must be acknowledged that Matt's consistently weak on economics.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 6, 2008 12:20 PM

Re Mixner's comment "In almost every way, air travel is cheaper, better and easier than it was 20 or 30 years ago."
-----------
Maybe Mixner could give us the name of his drug dealer ? That's good stuff.

30 years ago, the seats were much bigger and the one next to you was often unoccupied. Plus when you were going from Point A to Point B, you FLEW from Point A to Point B -- you didn't waste hours at Hubs like Atlanta or (shudder) Chicago.

No security lines -- you showed up at the gate 10 minutes before the flight. One time at Dulles, I reached the gate late (the bridge had been withdrawn) and an airline employee drove me out to the plane and I walked up a stair to climb aboard. That was a transcontinental flight from Dulles to Los Angeles.

The stewardesses came by every couple of minutes and asked if you needed anything. This was in coach.

Oh -- and I never heard of a plane sitting on the tarmac for hours in those days. 30 minutes and the passengers would have popped the evacuation chute and walked to the terminal.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 12:21 PM

Mixner, and it's a "major event" when that happens (also, I'm talking flights that occur outside of work hours). There are cheap flights over the first weekend in March, and, honestly, that's a lot better than I can usually do. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was a "major event."

The high point of discount flying was in the 1990s, which also coincided with cheap fuel and an era of overall airline profitability. Ryan-air-like discounts are not common in the US.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 12:42 PM

30 years ago, the seats were much bigger

You're simply wrong. Newer generation planes have larger seats than older ones, even in coach. See this article, for example.

And seats in business class and first class have also gotten bigger and better. The lie-flat seat, which used to be limited to first class, is now becoming standard for long-haul business class service.

Plus when you were going from Point A to Point B, you FLEW from Point A to Point B -- you didn't waste hours at Hubs like Atlanta or (shudder) Chicago.

Also false. U.S. air travel has always been organized primarily as a hub-and-spoke system, but there are now far MORE direct flights between non-hub destinations than there were in the past. Deregulation stimulated a huge expansion in route systems as demand increased and previously uneconomic routes became economically viable.

Your other claims are also false.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 12:56 PM

Tyro,

Gee, so I just happened to luck into one of these "major events" right after reading your post. And not just for one airline offering sub-$200 flights, but six of them. What are the odds?

And "Ryanair-like discounts" are most certainly available in the U.S. Southwest is the largest low cost carrier in the world. The teaser fares advertised by European LCCs like Ryanair and EasyJet are typically available for only a few seats on a flight, or only on flights with highly undesirable departure and arrival times, and do not include taxes and fees for everything from paying with a credit card to checking a bag. A few years ago, I flew EasyJet from London to Spain. The advertised price of the flight was 39 pounds sterling. But by the time I had completed the online purchase process, the final price was over 100 pounds, because of all the taxes and fees. European LCCs also tend to use secondary airports often located far from the cities for which the service is advertised.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 1:13 PM

Mixner, what can I say? I've been booking flights from DC to Boston over the past year, and there are times I can get a sub-200 fare, but, as I said, it's a "major event." And I wrote that knowing I could get some flights for $150 (incl. taxes) in 3 weeks when I wrote the comment.

Typically, of course, I can get the best deals if I'm willing to leave Friday morning and Sunday mornings, but I never do that. Getting a friday-night-to-sunday-night flight for less than $200 is, as I said, a major event.

The 90s are over and aren't coming back, sad to say.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 1:23 PM

In 1981, it cost $200 roundtrip to fly coach class from LA to Seattle on United or Alaska Airlines. In 2007, it still costs $200 roundtrip, despite both general inflation and a huge increase in fuel costs.

Why does it surprise anyone that the $200 buys less?

Now, why does it still cost $200? Because airline travelers are incredibly price-sensitive and won't pay for extra amenities. (For instance, TWA and American in the last 10 years both tried to offer more legroom throughout coach. People wouldn't pay.)

Personally, I'd love to go back to the days when flying cost more and the service in coach was better. I don't like lining up for fast food meals in airports, I don't like planes stuffed to the gills with people, I don't like unfriendly service, and I don't like being nickel and dimed. But there aren't enough of me who would pay for this, so the market doesn't offer it. (First class is ridiculously overpriced and is also not what it once was (except internationally).)

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 6, 2008 2:09 PM

Re Mixner's comment "Also false. U.S. air travel has always been organized primarily as a hub-and-spoke system,"
---------
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

The hub and spoke network was largely created by the airlines AFTER Jimmy Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. And that hub-and-spoke setup was what resulted in most of the seats on a plane being full.

1) From a history of the airline industry at
http://www.avjobs.com/history/airline-deregulation.asp

"Today's airline industry is radically different from what it was prior to 1978... The turning point was the Airline Deregulation Act, approved by Congress on October 24, 1978 ...A major development that followed deregulation was the
widespread development of hub-and-spoke networks, which existed on a more limited basis prior to 1978"

2) From a study at Stanford --
http://www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/Honors_Theses/Theses_2002/Rosen.pdf (Page 8)

"No longer required to serve specific routes,[because of Airline Deregulation Act of 1978] airlines began to move away from direct
service between city pairs toward networks focused around centralized hubs, through which
the vast majority of passengers transferred en route to their final destinations. The adoption of
these hub and spoke networks increased the ratio of seat-miles sold to seat-miles flown for
airlines, known as the load factor, and led to greater efficiency in terms of the use of resources
(Caves, Christensen and Tretheway 476). ...Airlines were able to fill up more seats per plane, but the cost savings from
improved load factors were moderated by the fact that routes were shorter, adding to the cost
per mile flown because of more takeoffs and landings (Liu and Lynk 1085)."

3) Airlines liked the hub-and-spoke because the hub airport was a "competition fortress" -- once an airline cut a deal with city to get the bulk of the limited terminal slots at the city-owned airline, it controlled the area for 400 miles around --and could drive other competitors into the ground.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 2:21 PM

Airlines liked the hub-and-spoke because the hub airport was a "competition fortress" -- once an airline cut a deal with city to get the bulk of the limited terminal slots at the city-owned airline, it controlled the area for 400 miles around --and could drive other competitors into the ground.

Don, you really need to be less conspiratorially minded. Yes, you are right that deregulation made hubs and spokes more practical (though it wasn't that they didn't exist at all before, just that they were less common and less dominant a model).

But the reason for hub-and-spoke is quite simple-- it is the most efficient way of allowing an airline to serve a lot of destinations. A point-to-point flight requires that there be a sufficient market to support that particular combination of destinations; this is fine when you are talking about Los Angeles to San Francisco, but not when you are talking about Boise to Albuquerque.

However, a hub and spoke allows an airline to fly between any two city pairs served by the hub with only one stop. So Boise to Albuquerque becomes practical, because the Boise to Denver flight is filled with people changing to all sorts of destinations in Denver, and the Denver to Albuquerque flight is filled with people coming from all sorts of destinations.

The subsidies are almost irrelevant-- if you don't force the airlines to serve all sorts of routes, hub-and-spoke is going to end up the dominant structure for most airlines.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 6, 2008 2:31 PM

Dilan Esper,

I seriously doubt you would be willing to pay twice as much for your ticket in exchange for an indifferent meal and a modest improvement in service.

But the market isn't quite as monolithic as you're suggesting. Several airlines that offer first class service on domestic routes, if not all of them by now, allow coach passengers to upgrade to first class if there is space available for a fee much less than the difference between typical coach and first class ticket prices.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 2:33 PM

Re Dilan Esper's comment "Personally, I'd love to go back to the days when flying cost more and the service in coach was better. I don't like lining up for fast food meals in airports, I don't like planes stuffed to the gills with people, I don't like unfriendly service, and I don't like being nickel and dimed. But there aren't enough of me who would pay for this, so the market doesn't offer it "
------------
That's because the American Middle Class is POOR! We supported decent airlines and uncrowded Interstates in the 1960s and 1970s -- just not now.

Why? Because our politicans are WHORES for the rich and special interests. Want to know why our goddamm highway bridges are falling down, why we are stuck for hours in traffic jams, and air travel is fucking miserable?

Well, because our two parties let a million immigrants in every year to pander to the Hispanic lobby and to drive wages down.

However, they don't build PUBLIC infrastructure to handle the increased population because they rather give $2 Trillion to the richest 1 percent of the population and to piss away another $Trillion grabbing oil deposits for Dick Cheney's buddies.

The rich don't care if commercial air sucks -- they don't have to use it.

How could a "democracy" allow itself to become such a shithole? Because Americans have become stupid, fucking SHEEP who let themselves be HYPNOTIZED by a huge, deceitful propaganda machine broadcasting Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News 24/7.

A broadcast which NEVER addresses whether our political establishment is giving a fair shake to the people who fight this country's wars and whose hard work creates this country's wealth.

The American people DESERVE to be fucked like dogs. That why our elites give us cheap beer and NFL football -- it serves the same purpose as vasoline.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 2:42 PM

I seriously doubt you would be willing to pay twice as much for your ticket in exchange for an indifferent meal and a modest improvement in service.

Not only would I be willing to pay additional, I have. And I have also taken advantage of the First Class upgrades you mention where available (though as I noted, First Class isn't near what it used to be either).

There just aren't enough of me.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 6, 2008 2:43 PM

Don Williams,

The hub and spoke network was largely created by the airlines AFTER Jimmy Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

No it wasn't, and neither of your links supports your claim. Hub and spoke routing certainly increased following deregulation, because airlines were no longer required to fly low-use, uneconomic direct routes between non-hub cities, but the hub and spoke model has always been the primary way of organising air travel simply because airlines cannot afford to duplicate large-scale passenger- and aircraft-handling facilities in more than a few locations across the country. The same is true for international travel. Most flights to Europe and Asia go through one of a relatively small number of gateway destinations where passengers connect to flights to smaller cities. But as I said, the number of direct flights has increased, as technological advances and increased demand have allowed airlines to serve more secondary point-to-point routes economically.

Your posts are just one false or irrelevant claim after another.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 2:49 PM

Re Dilan Esper's comment "But the reason for hub-and-spoke is quite simple-- it is the most efficient way of allowing an airline to serve a lot of destinations."
---------
Well, a bus route is a very "efficient" way to move people around.

So how many rich people do you see freezing their asses off at bus stops?

The idea that American citizens should tolerate Third World living standards is another example of successful brainwashing by whores for the rich --aka economists.

Ah, but economists are objective scholars?

Yep, and one thing they objectively study is that they get grants, lucrative consulting contracts, and highly paid corporate sinecures from rich people -- whereas the common citizen doesn't give them shit. Not directly, any way. The Tax dollars really come from the politicans.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 2:53 PM

"
As if traveling with small kids isn't difficult enough already. Now they want to charge you more for the pain.
Why doesn't the OB/GYN just give you a hammer when the babies pop out to hit yourself in the head?
"

We'd all be better off if they did. Pretty much every major problem in the world today has overpopulation at its root. And still we have the breeders whining about how difficult their lives are and how someone else should be picking up the slack for them. How about you spend some time thinking about the negative externalities you are imposing on the rest of us for a change?

Posted by Maynard Handley | February 6, 2008 2:58 PM

"
As if traveling with small kids isn't difficult enough already. Now they want to charge you more for the pain.
Why doesn't the OB/GYN just give you a hammer when the babies pop out to hit yourself in the head?
"

We'd all be better off if they did. Pretty much every major problem in the world today has overpopulation at its root. And still we have the breeders whining about how difficult their lives are and how someone else should be picking up the slack for them. How about you spend some time thinking about the negative externalities you are imposing on the rest of us for a change?

Posted by Maynard Handley | February 6, 2008 2:58 PM

as I noted, First Class isn't near what it used to be either

You're right. It's improved in virtually all the same ways that coach class service has improved. Ticket prices are lower. Planes are safer, quieter, more comfortable and have better entertainment services. Seats are better. There are many more routes, and much more frequent service. And computerization has made researching and buying tickets and checking in for flights much easier and more flexible.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 3:00 PM

Re Mixner's comment "No it wasn't, and neither of your links supports your claim"
---------------
I finally understand.

Mixner has a reading problem.

Mixner CAN'T read and understand such simple sentences as

a) "Today's airline industry is RADICALLY different from what it was prior to 1978

and
b) "A MAJOR development that followed deregulation was the WIDESPREAD development of hub-and-spoke networks, which existed on a more LIMITED basis prior to 1978"

and
c) "airlines began to move AWAY from direct
service between city pairs TOWARD networks focused around centralized hubs, through which
the vast majority of passengers transferred en route to their final destinations "
----------

Did I mention that the public education system is not what it was 30 years ago either??

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 3:04 PM

In the early 90's, I used to take the 6:23 a.m. San Jose -> O'Hare flight, regularly get three seats across to myself, fold up the arm rests, and sleep the whole way. And it was much easier to burn miles for an upgrade or a free flight (especially international). Revenue optimization software wasn't as good.

Coach seats were more expensive, though. The surcharge for not staying over Saturday night was a bigger percentage, too.

It seems to me the legroom in first has gotten tighter, at least on the Super-80's that I mostly fly, to the point where I prefer an exit row seat to an upgrade to first.

Puddle-jumpers are faster and quieter than they used to be.

Other than that, flying is pretty much the same.

Posted by BrianM | February 6, 2008 3:08 PM

Re Mixner's comment "because airlines were no longer required to fly low-use, uneconomic direct routes between non-hub cities "
--------
Actually, I think one should be able to fly from one American CITY to another American CITY.

And my definition of "efficiency" if that if I'm flying from City A to City B, I should NOT

a) have to sit on the tarmac for a damm hour or more or
b) take a several hundred mile long side trip to City C, sit in the lounge for an hour (or six if the plane to my destination breaks down, is delayed etc) then get back on the next plane and continue to my destination.

Even the fucking primitive Greeks of 2500 years ago knew that the shortest (i.e, the "most efficient") distance between two points is a straight line , not a dog leg.

PS I want my damm wide seats back, too. And I don't want the one next to me occupied.

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 3:17 PM

Don Williams,

Sorry, but you're the one who can't read. You claimed:

Plus when you were going from Point A to Point B, you FLEW from Point A to Point B -- you didn't waste hours at Hubs like Atlanta or (shudder) Chicago.

Your links directly contradict this absurd claim. You later tried to backpeddle, asserting that the hub and spoke system was only "largely," rather than entirely, a product of deregulation, but your own links do not support even that weaker assertion.

PS I want my damm wide seats back, too

As I already told you, airplane seat sizes have increased. You're spouting nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 3:50 PM

As if traveling with small kids isn't difficult enough already. Now they want to charge you more for the pain.

Why doesn't the OB/GYN just give you a hammer when the babies pop out to hit yourself in the head?

Posted by Joe | February 6, 2008 9:47 AM

You are wrong thinking things are getting worse rather than better on this front. Children are much more popular accessories in this country than ever before.

Back in ye olden days like the 80's, you didn't see so many children on planes, it was too expensive.

Just like back in ye real olden days before the domination of inexpensive fast food, you didn't see a lot of children in restaurants. They both weren't wanted at most restaurants and people couldn't afford to take them there.

When I think of what my mother had to go through in the 60's with 4 little kids, and with only one family car, I think you have it made in the shade. Children were not properly brought into many public spaces without spending a lot of time getting them formally dressed and very presentable. If you had an infant, and you couldn't find a babysitter, you went nowhere, unless you had a pram in which case you might be able to take a walk but not go into a store. You chose between the two: a decade or more of grown-up life or a decade or more of raising children.

The only down side as to work that I think people raising children today have is all the safety requirements, the car seats, the helmets, all that stuff.

Posted by artappraiser | February 6, 2008 4:44 PM

Normally I come into comments to posts like this and shudder because of all the incorrect information floating about -- and, don't get me wrong, I shuddered in this one too -- but Mixner has done an admirable job of rebutting the misinformation. Well said, Mixner.

Posted by jeff larson | February 6, 2008 7:09 PM

As a guy who used to load and unload planes, I think that's a great idea. Also airlines have to leave bags behind if the total load (bags and passengers) is too high or unbalances the plane. This causes FAA to penalize the airline, and screws the passenger whose bag got left behind. Every bag (except the super heavy) is assumed to be 30lbs for the calculations, even if it's an umbrella, so discouraging people from bringing two bags could be a great thing.

Posted by aleks | February 7, 2008 2:40 AM