Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: terapined

I book tons of business travel, mostly international

Other people's Money!

Airlines are very quick to trot out the PASSENGERS ALWAYS BUY THE LOWEST POSSIBLE FARE argument, although it is clear that travelers do not buy the lowest priced possible room, or the lowest priced restaurant.

Delta and Spirit both operate SAN - LAS Nonstop and differ in price by about 50%. More than likely I would choose Delta at the higher price as the flight times are very inconvenient for Spirit. As the flight is 77-84 minutes I doubt that I would look at anything else like seat size or additional fees.

8:00am - 9:24am Delta 1h 24m $153 .54 roundtrip operated by Skywest DBA Delta Connection
10:20am - 11:37am Spirit Airlines 1h 17m $104.38 roundtrip
11:45am - 1:13pm Delta 1h 28m $153 .54 roundtrip operated by Skywest DBA Delta Connection
5:05pm - 6:32pm Delta 1h 24m $153 .54 roundtrip operated by Skywest DBA Delta Connection
8:40pm - 9:57pm Spirit Airlines 1h 17m $104.38 roundtrip

Quote: Nareed

But let me ask, when buying, say, cooking oil or coffee, do you always pick the cheapest one?

I would say that I usually defer to the cheaper item if it is a product that I am generally not familiar with. If I don't care for it the next purchase will probably be the next cheapest and repeat until I am satisfied. I will always buy the generic box of macaroni and cheese over the Kraft brand if I will save 5 cents.

I believe the only brand loyalty I have is to JIF peanut butter. I like JIF and I am willing to pay an exorbitant amount over the cost of the cheaper brands.

Quote: terapined

I book tons of business travel, mostly international

I look up flights at the office, mostly for schedule. I've noticed a few things.

Quote:

I would estimate that only 1/2 of my clients use price to determine what flights they take
1/2 of my road warriors generally have a huge loyalty to an airline and take that airline every time regardless of price
Its all about comfort due to getting upgraded because of status or miles

At the office schedule tends to rule. Price is determined upstairs at the downstairs office, but usually it doesn't figure as a factor. Still, a few people insist on Aeromexico because of the miles. then they can use those miles for their own travel.

Luggage is seldom an issue, and thus far no one's charging for carry on. But most will pay for better seats in Volaris and AM, meaning exit row and bulkhead seats. This is an out of pocket expense for them, as the company only pays the fare. But it's easier to pay $10 US for a better seat when the fare's taken care of.

Quote: Pacomartin

Airlines are very quick to trot out the PASSENGERS ALWAYS BUY THE LOWEST POSSIBLE FARE argument, although it is clear that travelers do not buy the lowest priced possible room, or the lowest priced restaurant.

That's exactly what I keep expecting people to realize.

But I've been thinking about it. There are differences. a restaurant is supposed to be a pleasant experience, and people pay mostly based on how good they judge the food to be. A hotel has to meet certain standards of cleanliness, safety and location for most people, even if they believe they'll only use the room for sleep.

A flight is hardly even seen as part of a trip by most people, and all they seem to care about is safety and price. Schedules are important mostly for business trips (though they can be very important for weekend leisure trips). In other words, people buy the transportation, not the experience.

The question remains how true this is.

Premium seats aside, which are out of reach for most people, a lot of travelers seem ok with paying for food, drink, better seats and checked bags. I think in many cases this drives the total expenditure quite high, even with a low base fare.

Quote: Nareed

Premium seats aside, which are out of reach for most people, a lot of travelers seem ok with paying for food, drink, better seats and checked bags. I think in many cases this drives the total expenditure quite high, even with a low base fare.

Even with the fees below, an Allegiant fare was still $15 cheaper than Delta, but Allegiant was a nonstop (Delta would have involved a long layover in Atlanta). But if you aren't careful the Allegiant fare could really balloon on you. That carry on bag would have cost $90 to $100 if it wasn't paid for at booking. Failure to print boarding pass at home would cost another $10.

Round trip per person (1020 mile trip)
$144.93 Airfare
$10.87 Fed Excise Tax
$8.00 Segment Fees
$4.50 PFC
$11.20 Sept 11 Security Fee
$26.00 Carrier Usage Charge
$30.00 Carry-on Bag
$28.00 Trip Flexibility
$8.43 Credit Card Surcharge
$271.93 Total Trip Cost:

The "Carrier Usage Charge" can be bypassed on Spirit by driving to the airport and paying. Allegiant requires you to drive to the airport in Florida which is impossible as most people are using Allegiant to fly to Florida or Vegas.

The "Carry-on Bag" fee is difficult to avoid as most people can't pre-ship or buy everything they need at the location.

The "Trip Flexibility" fee is optional, but you can't even change time of flying without voiding your whole ticket.

The "Credit Card Surcharge" can be avoided if you have a debit card.

Quote: Pacomartin

Even with the fees below, an Allegiant fare was still $15 cheaper than Delta, but Allegiant was a nonstop (Delta would have involved a long layover in Atlanta). But if you aren't careful the Allegiant fare could really balloon on you. That carry on bag would have cost $90 to $100 if it wasn't paid for at booking. Failure to print boarding pass at home would cost another $10.

The differing fees for when you do something are terrible. Maybe you weren't planning on taking a carry on, yet wound up having to do so last minute. Why should that cost several times more if paid later? I can see gate-checking costing more, but that's not carry on.

The fee to print a boarding pass is also ridiculous.

and yet, people keep using these airlines.

Quote: Nareed

and yet, people keep using these airlines.

because it is still usually cheaper.

Quote: Nareed

The differing fees for when you do something are terrible. Maybe you weren't planning on taking a carry on, yet wound up having to do so last minute. Why should that cost several times more if paid later? I can see gate-checking costing more, but that's not carry on.
The fee to print a boarding pass is also ridiculous.

If I did it again, I would check a bag for $44 as carry on bag for $30 is very very small
Carry-on Bag :Maximum size is (22.9 x 35.6 x 55.9 centimeters =114.4 linear centimeters ) no weight limit
Checked Bag :Maximum size is (203 linear centimeters ) up to 18 kg.

Quote: Nareed

Yet, people keep using these airlines.

The extra $14 for a checked bag would make the Allegiant flight the same price as the Delta flight, but Delta had a long layover in Atlanta. Allegiant is nonstop for the 1018 mile trip, so you are in the air for 143 minutes (2 hours 23 minutes) versus a flight that will take a minimum of an extra 2 hours and possibly a lot more. I can live with the loss of an inch or two of leg room to keep my travel time to 2.5 hours vs 6 hours.

There is very little difference in the seats except Delta gives you a little more leg room
Allegiant MD-80 | 30" pitch 17" width
Delta MD-88 | 31-33" pitch ,16.79-17.17" width

The nonstop is worth the hassles, but you just have to be careful about an extras like sitting with a friend, an second bag, forgetting to print a boarding pass.

It's important that you realize in America we almost never have competing nonstop flights. The San Diego to Las Vegas that I listed earlier is fairly rare. On that one you are mostly willing to pay an extra $25 each way to avoid the fees and to fly at more convenient times.

The Allegiant $28.00 Trip Flexibility is probably not worth skipping, because if you have to change days the penalty would wipe out the whole ticket (you may get your baggage fee returned).

Quote: Pacomartin

The extra $14 for a checked bag would make the Allegiant flight the same price as the Delta flight,

For $14, I'd pick Delta, all other things being equal.

Quote:

but Delta had a long layover in Atlanta.

Ok, so all other things aren't equal. But it shows where and when the ULCCs offer really low fares. Not that undercutting a rival with a non-stop flight doesn't make sense, but it hurts the "cheaper fare" image.

Quote:

It's important that you realize in America we almost never have competing nonstop flights.

I hate to tell you this, but widespread adoption of smaller, longer-range aircraft could easily change this, If only there was something like the C Series available :)

Quote: Nareed

I hate to tell you this, but widespread adoption of smaller, longer-range aircraft could easily change this, If only there was something like the C Series available :)

There is a rather detailed study of fuel economy of Bombardier vs Embraer that is about four years old.

Quote: Leeham news

Bombardier went with a clean-sheet design and Embraer chose the derivative route. Bombardier claims its CSeries is an optimized design for the 100-149 seat sector while the E-190/195 and E-195-E2 are multiple stretches of the basic E-170/175 series, with new wings and ultimately new engines.

Bombardier also added enhanced air field performance into its design, as EMB noted above. The CSeries can operate from shorter runways and more challenging airports, such as London City Airport and potentially from Toronto Billy Bishop Airport, in ways the E-Jets cannot.

Our analysis shows that this works well for the segment that Embraer addresses, when the aircraft meets the real world of fluctuating passenger loads, which often hovers around or dips below 100 passengers. The E-Jet E2s operating economics matches the more advanced CSeries for normal load factors. When more passengers or cargo are transported over longer distances, the CSeries comes into its design window and leaves both the E-Jets behind in efficiency.

They both are more
economical then the A319neo and 737-7MAX for this segment of the market. CSeries provides more field performance, range and cargo capabilities than the E-Jet E2.
https://leehamnews.com/2014/01/13/embraer-continues-and-refines-its-strategy-at-the-low-end-of-100-149-seat-sector/

I think the CS100 was valued primarily because of it's ability to land at London City airport. The CS100 is a larger plane than the regional jets

48 planes ordered
10 March 2009 Swiss Global Air Lines 10
30 Mar 2009 Lease Corporation International 3
1 Jun 2011 Braathens Leasing Ltd. 10
20 Jun 2011 Gulf Air 10
24 Jun 2011 Odyssey Airlines 10
19 Jan 2012 PrivatAir 5

In the 9 years that they have been taking orders there were no orders from the North American Airlines until Delta came along. That's why I didn't see that it would make that many changes in the flight patterns. I am still not convinced that Delta is going to take a few token CS100's and upconvert the remainder of the order to CS300s. I think the CS100's were an easier fight to do in front of the US Department of Commerce . Certainly Bombardier got most of the world's sympathy, and no doubt largely because Boeing doesn't have any counterpart to the CS100.

Boeing doesn't have a direct competitor to the CS300 but it is much closer to the B737 Max-7.

========================
In February 2010, Republic Airways Holdings became the first North American customer for the Bombardier CSeries regional jet.
In 2014, following delays in the CS300 program, Republic expressed doubts in keeping their CS300 order, but announcement that a final decision would be put off.
In September 2014 Republic confirmed that their order for 40 Cseries aircraft was still in place, despite ongoing technical issues.
As part of the 2016 bankruptcy proceedings, an agreement was reached with Bombardier to amend is order for its CSeries aircraft in terms of deferral of payments and deliveries.

Bottom line is that the Bombardier CS series aircraft so far are going to have minimal impact on the domestic USA network. The basic network of Regional airlines flying Embraer or Bombardier CRJ up 76 seats is too embedded in the USA.