cheaper airfare?

[JetBlast]

Originally Posted by Quatsch

Yeah, I realize most flights are that way, but the flight I did between Hahn and Girona last June and when I fly from Nashville to Orlando are comparable distances, but the Euro flight cost me about 45 euro, whereas its about 200 dollars to go to Orlando. I realize there are a lot of factors, but I've always wondered why the shorter flights weren't cheaper.
As mentioned before, it's the nickel-and-diming. Not to mention Ryanair isn't exactly going bankrupt either.

I'll agree about southwest. I've had the best experiences with them of any airline, barring Lufthansa. Despite all the Ryanair horror stories, I've had really good experiences with them as well(out of six flights), though I do realize if something goes wrong you're screwed.

I've only flown Southwest twice and never had a problem on either. They were more than accomodating in letting me ride the jumpseat

 

[tiecollector]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Didn't you say 3 posts above this that you wanted airlines to become exclusive again, but now you're willing to sign-away your safety for a cheaper fare?

The planes would probably get to where they needed to go faster too. If you paid less for overhead you could add more luxury. I just want planes to not feel like I'm riding the Greyhound.

 

[JetBlast]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

The planes would probably get to where they needed to go faster too. If you paid less for overhead you could add more luxury. I just want planes to not feel like I'm riding the Greyhound.

Why would an airline make a "less safer" aircraft more luxurious than the "safer" aircraft? If a "less safer" aircraft crashed wouldn't they be losing more money because of the better furnishings in that aircraft as opposed to a "safer" one?

Either way, flying is an unavoidably dangerous thing (you're screaming through the air at 600 miles an hour, 40,000 feet above the earth, in a pressurized metal tube) but it is much safer than virtually any other mode of transportation. I see no reason to compromise the safety of passengers so they can save 5 dollars on a round-trip to Fort Myers.

 

[tiecollector]

Originally Posted by JetBlast

Why would an airline make a "less safer" aircraft more luxurious than the "safer" aircraft? If a "less safer" aircraft crashed wouldn't they be losing more money because of the better furnishings in that aircraft as opposed to a "safer" one?
That's a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of if they hypothetically change the design of all the planes. Also, the designs I was reading about were still pretty safe. Safe enough that I would not even think twice about riding in them.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

The planes would probably get to where they needed to go faster too. If you paid less for overhead you could add more luxury. I just want planes to not feel like I'm riding the Greyhound.

Well, thankfully planes have better security than greyhounds do these days.

 

[JetBlast]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

That's a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of if they hypothetically change the design of all the planes. Also, the designs I was reading about were still pretty safe. Safe enough that I would not even think twice about riding in them.

Point well taken. The only issue would be with the people who are already scared of flying as it is, the reaction wouldn't be all that hot on their part if they find out that their aircraft isn't as safe as it could possibly be.

Not to mention if the newer design of airplane is less safe than the aircraft we have flying around now, wouldn't we be taking a step backward?

 

[JetBlast]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Well, thankfully planes have better security than greyhounds do these days.

The TSA haters would beg to differ

I have never had a problem with them, some people tend to think they are out to do everything possible to not allow you on the airplane. But they are not the responsibility of the airlines; blame it on the federal government. The general negative attitude people have toward TSA seems to spill over to the airline employees as a result.

 

[tiecollector]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Well, thankfully planes have better security than greyhounds do these days.

As far as the exclusivity I was talking about. I just can't stand to sit next to another person that smells like they came from a homeless shelter. Maybe with the credit crisis, the clientele, though maybe not the style, will improve on its own. I think airlines would feel more exclusive if people just stopped looking like slobs, but that isn't really the airline's fault, it's society. It really bugs me that they can't give us airline "food" anymore too.

Originally Posted by JetBlast

Point well taken. The only issue would be with the people who are already scared of flying as it is, the reaction wouldn't be all that hot on their part if they find out that their aircraft isn't as safe as it could possibly be. Not to mention if the newer design of airplane is less safe than the aircraft we have flying around now, wouldn't we be taking a step backward?
Yeah people hearing "less safe" and "airplane" in the same paragraph might not over well for most people. I'd ride in it though. Meanwhile, let's hope the engineers at Boeing can come up with some new stuff. Also, iirc the planes weren't any less safe to fly, they were less safe in terms of ease of evacuation after a crash.