Before I acknowledge your comments, there is a lot of reference to yourself here. That's fine but there is just under 4.5 billion passengers boarded onto commercial aviation services each year.
If you want to patronise me, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. I'm not sure if you actually believe the BS you're pedaling; or are simply singing from the NZ songsheet but the argument "we're cramping things up in order to give you, the customer, lower fares" is the catch cry disseminated to anyone who feels aggrieved enough to complain about the reduction in pitch/width/aisle space/meal quality and, while it's effective it is still a fallacy.
None of this was a reference to NZ. I actually referenced QF via the image I used and highlighted the word all as I predicted this response.
I'm not sure how you expect lower fares without some form of compromise? Either way, the market determines the competitive rate. The airlines need to then formulate a strategy to achieve strong returns and maintain a high level of customer satisfaction (not all, a high level)
. In many cases, looking at your configuration and product is the first step.
If you as a consumer are not price driven, options like the premium economy are often priced around the Economy levels of 15-20 years ago once inflation is factored in. The offering is personally, superior to that era's economy class.
Ultimately though, you're stuck wanting more and paying less.
The market dictates fares in general, and within that framework airlines set out to maximise profits. This involves squeezing in as many seats as possible and providing the lowest possible service.If the market dictates fares can be higher; those gains are not diverted to the customer in terms of a higher quality product but are returned to the shareholders. To claim that anything more than a weak correlation exists between product quality and fare is false. It's the same with Seats to Suit. It provides the illusion of choice but overall the passenger pool is paying more.
This is business, isn't it? Isn't any shareholder looking to maximise profits?
If you can do this with the market driving lower fares and having lower density cabin than industry you'd be a rich man.
Not exactly sure what you by service in the comment "lowest possible service". Do you mean cabin crew vs hard products?
I'd actually argue this comment and to quote you...
Utter, utter bollocks.
Look at SIN-EWR, this market dictates fares can be higher; those gains are not diverted to the customer in terms of a higher quality product.
Fares have undeniably got cheaper over the years in real terms but that is due to the evolving market economy and would have happened anyway even if seat density had been maintained at 1990's levels. *Every* marketable commodity these days is cheaper and unlike air travel is usually higher quality than its siblings from yesteryear. I've just bought a television set for a fraction of the cost of my last one and this was not achieved by Samsung making it smaller.
Sure, TV manufacturing has become automated and cheaper to produce whereas the main cost of air travel (fuel) has increased while fares reduced. Not exactly oranges with oranges is it.
So please don't tell me that progressive declines in quality are being driven by me, or are being provided for me because I demand to pay less. They are being driven by the needs of the company and the shareholder, not the needs of the fare paying passenger.
They are driven by the market and competition. So indirectly it is driven by you, you and the other 4.5 billion air passenger trips last year.
You also imply that I'm supposed to take modern IFE as some sort of compensation for everything else. Well firstly, IFE doesn't cost the airline much. Secondly, especially now that all the IFE I need is on my cellphone, I'd foresake it in a heartbeat for a bigger seat. Through to the early 2000's, NZ's 744s had 36" inch pitch. It made long haul Y travel actually enjoyable, even without IFE.
I never said anything of the sort, I'm merely stating the world is a changing place, IFE, WIFI, Devices are more important to people than they were 20 years ago, in fact, they didn't really exist.
I have no doubt, the majority of the travelling public would prefer today's offering (not airline specific) over the 2000's no IFE but slightly more leg room higher priced option.
Ultimately I'm sure you want all the bells and whistles, WIFI, IFE, Meals, Bar Service, Magazines, Amenity Kits, 40" pitch, FFP points, lounge with a sense of infinite space yet be priced competitively?
Sadly they world doesn't work like this, the majority vote with what important to them and without insulting you personally I don't believe you are relevant to what the majority find important to them these days.