When it comes to airfares, you get what you pay for

Here’s a fascinating graphic from our friend Bob Herbst, who shares a few numbers about airline ticket prices that might make you wish for the good ol’ pre-deregulation days, when airlines competed on service, not price.

During the last two decades, Amtrak’s average passenger revenue per mile is up 125 percent, and commuter rail revenues have jumped a respectable 45 percent.

Meanwhile, airlines are down nearly 10 percent.

Airfares haven’t even kept up with inflation.

Herbst’s take on the data?

Contrary to what politicians frequently attempt to suggest, airfares on average, are simply too low to cover the ever increasing and required costs for safe air travel.

A few more interesting facts:

✓ In 1990 there were 460 million passengers. In 2009 there were 704 million passengers.

✓ In 1990 there were 546 thousand airline employees. In 2009 there were 536 thousand airline employees.

✓ The US airline industry has lost money in 12 of the last 20 years and accumulated a net loss of approximately $29 billion (excludes airline bankruptcy and reorganization write-downs).

✓ Since January 1, 1990, there have been 98 US airlines file for bankruptcy.

✓ After twenty years of on and off airline industry growth, there are now two percent less airline employees responsible for a 53 percent increase in passengers. The numbers make it easy to see why there are so many complaints against the airline industry, says Herbst.

“Sometimes the old cliché: ‘You get what you pay for’ has true meaning,” he says.

Truer words were never spoken.

  • Steve Surjaputra

    Like so many others have said, everyone keeps demanding lower prices, so the airlines have to cut back somewhere. Unfortunately, service is one of them.

  • John

    Wow, you have finally written an objective article about the airlines. I’m quite surprised.

  • http://www.kylehepp.com Kyle

    Do airlines in other countries actually make money, and if so, are the fares much higher? Are we doing something wrong here in the U.S. or is this a universal problem?

  • http://www.best-travel-deals-tips.com Marianne Schwab

    Thanks for this! Excellent article, Chris, and you bring up some interesting points and facts. My only question is: Do lower fares mean that we should expect a surly attitude from airline personnel? Granted, I’m not saying all airline employees have a surly attitude, but just because people are paying low airfares is no reason for lousy treatment of passengers. I’m not naming names here but I travel enough to say that I see this “we give you lousy service and through in our bad attitude for free,” on certain airlines and it definitely affects my buying decision unless I’m “stuck” with an airline due to the route. Loyalty should be rewarded, you should be treated GREAT if you have a First Class or Business Class ticket, but flying these days sometimes feels like a battle of surfs and turfs…I’m just saying.

  • http://www.sanibel-rentals.net Sylvia

    Don’t quite understand nor agree with “You get what you pay for” in this instance. What is happening overall is that you are paying more but getting less.

  • Bill

    In 1990, did you have baggage fees, airport usage fees, security fees, fuel surcharges, air traffice control fees etc? In 1990, some of these fees were around, but accounted for a small percentage of the total cost of flying.

    I admit that the cost of flying seems to exceed the cost of airfares, but nobody asked them to separate the charges. And no one asked them to see how much business they could take away from greyhound.

    I don’t know of any other industry than the travel industry that lets prices vary so much for the same thing. if they kept it within 10-20% or so, then people wouldn’t try so hard to get the lowest far, and airlines wouldn’t have to react so much. We are all online trying to see when the price drops and it does. If we knew that the first price we saw was within the ballpark of every other price, we wouldnt’ do that. I don’t care about a difference between $390 and $410, but I certainly care when I’m presented with a fare that’s $1050 then gets down to $145. The travel industry screws everyone because they try so hard to outsmart us. In only messes up everyone in the end.

  • http://KarlSakas.com/ Karl Sakas

    Fascinating analysis — I’m surprised to see how airlines fell while everyone else grew.

    People’s complaints about service seem to miss the issue of value. In today’s dollars, how much were airfares before 1978? If I can fly somewhere for $250 with mediocre service versus $600 for stellar service, I’d endure the discomfort and save the $350.

  • John Canning

    Great article! I agree with the notion that you get what you pay for. I also agree with the notion that airfares are too low to cover the cost of safe air travel. However, I believe that the airlines are to blame for putting themselves in this position. Southwest and JetBlue are not hemorrhaging cash the way that United, Delta, and others are. Some airline CEOs and management teams know what they’re doing and others are just enjoying the perks.

    Take the merger between United and Continental. United is all excited because they will now have connections out the NYC area to London and the rest of the Europe. Hello… They used to own that corridor until their current management team decided to close the NYC bases and move the flights to Dulles. And then they acted surprised to hear that folks from NYC didn’t want to travel to Dulles before crossing the ocean.

    The CEOs and management teams of the big five or six airlines are busy running their companies into the ground. They are the ones that have outsourced maintenance, reduced services, and continually blame “customer demand” for their poor business decisions. We can allow ourselves to be distracted by their sleight of hand or we can take our business elsewhere.

    After all, you get what you pay for.

  • Dave

    WHOA!!!!! Amtrak has never turned a profit. They get billions in money from the federal government. Take this money away and there is no Amtrak. Those stats are wrong. Check out the Cato institute for more details. And Yes, I also realize that the feds have bailed out the airlines several times.

  • David Z

    Favor, Chris E: perhaps ask Mr. Herbst to “show” data for airfare before and after baggage fees were introduced. Thanks.

  • Datanerd

    Since bag fees aren’t taxed as ‘fares’, are they included in the airline revenue? You also should factor in the value of a ticket that did provide bags and meals versus the value of a ticket that doesn’t. The CPI data factors this into the index.

  • Tom

    I like low prices. I view airlines as a method of getting where I’m going. I like that airlines have been able to keep prices low. If I want service and to be pampered, I might go to a day spa. If I want great food, I will go to a fine restaurant. The people who moan about lack of service are generally those who don’t pay for their tickets so the lower prices mean nothing to them.

  • David Emery

    The airline industry is in a self-imposed spiral. They cut costs, treat their people like “fertilizer” and provide NO BASIS other than raw price for choosing between them. Then they complain that the price wars make them operate below a profit margin.

  • John

    Amtrak doesn’t turn a profit because they have to provide rail for the whole country. If they could just have the NE routes (i.e., The Acela, Regional and Downeaster). They would be raking in the cash.

  • http://takinglibertyseriously.net Taking Liberty Seriously

    Another thing these numbers show is that regulation made the air carriers so bloated and inefficient that de-regulation, like any weight loss program, took a real long time to remove off the excess.

    There’s a vast difference among airlines in number of employees per million miles flown. How can this be? Answer: Some, especially big European carrieres, are still bloated.

    A big reason airlines are now more efficient (lower cost per mile) is automation, not only things like e-tickets and self-checkin kiosks to many things we do not see.

    No doubt unbundling (baggage fees, etc) is another big reason for lower nominal fares per mile.

    takinglibertyseriously.net

  • Dave

    Seems to me anyone would be free to start a high-priced, luxury, Mercedes of airlines. Anyone would be free to remake an existing airline in that mold. How much business would they do? Who would pay hundreds to thousands extra to fly in luxury for a few hours? A small minority, not including me. If I had those extra funds, that’s not the way I’d choose to spend them. Airlines are giving the public what it wants.

    That being said, I chose Continental over Delta for a trip leaving tomorrow, even though it was a little bit more expensive. I did that because I think Continental has better service. They still have meals, for example.

  • Carver

    Comparisons betweeen southwest and the rest of the legacy airlines are generally of limited benefit. As a late entry into the market, southwest gets to cherry pick the best routes and pay its people peanuts compared to legacy airlines with union contracts and truly national service.

  • Tom

    Holding Amtrak up as a model is crazy considering they just received $4 billion this year from the federal government as a subsidy to defray their losses on 25 million riders. That’s a government subsidy of $160 per passenger. And if they run through that, they can ask for a supplemental appropriation, which they’ve done in some years. Only 2 percent of Americans ride Amtrak in any given year and yet they’ve burned through $50 billion in government subsidies.

  • http://www.talestoldfromtheroad.com Dick Jordan

    If the airline industry has lost money in 12 out of the last 20 years, how is it that any of the losers are still operating? Did the money earned in the 8 “up” years offset the losses in the 12 “down” years?

    Today, what would airfares be, how many airlines would be profitable, how many would be employed by the airline industry, if fares had not been de-regulated?

  • David Emery

    >I don’t know of any other industry than the travel industry that lets prices vary so much for the same thing. if they kept it within 10-20% or so, then people wouldn’t try so hard to get the lowest far, and airlines wouldn’t have to react so much.

    Bill is right. The automated fare games (in both the emotional and the mathematical sense) the airline pricing engines play is a self-inflicted wound. It separates the cost of the product from the price of production, in an attempt to maximize income.

  • Roberto

    Chris, it boggles my mind how badly you pine for the old days of airline regulation.

    Don’t you remember how expensive airline tickets were? Back then, only business travelers and the well-to-do did any flying.

    And it’s not as though life was magical back then. Bags still got lost and damaged. Flights still got delayed and canceled.

    How many of you who want better service would be willing to pay for it? And by pay for it, I mean paying 2-3x what you’re paying right now?

    That’s right, you wouldn’t. And neither would I.

  • http://www.flyspectrumair.com Elise Lowerison

    Your blog about getting what you pay for was of great interest to me. I found your comments about how airline travel has suffered over the past 10 years particularly intriguing. I look forward to reading additional posts in the future. We’re in the luxury travel business as well and would like to invite you and your readers to checkout our innovative private jet service: http://www.flyspectrumair.com/. To cut to the chase, we are offer $3950 per-seat private jet flights between NYC and LA. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

  • Jeff B

    I really do not agree with the statement “You get what you pay for” when it comes to good service. Good service to me is more about the attitude of the people providing the service than what they are providing. The attitude of the airline employees should have nothing to do with the price that is being paid.

  • Mark K

    The revenue per passenger mile has nothing to do with profitability. It is simply a measure of how many dollars the industry took in per passenger serviced. If your passenger revenue goes up 100% but your costs go up 150% over a given time, you are worse off than when you started. Or if your revenue remains constant but your passenger count goes down it can show a jump in revenue per passenger mile that does not show the real situation. Most airlines have not had to go up on revenue to remain in business because there have been many automated processes that they adopted that have allowed them to serve more passengers with less labor (also cutting out all the extras like food, blankets, pillows and so on had to help the bottom line and kept prices down too). Amtrak, on the other hand, still requires paper tickets for every passenger and has many more employees per passenger than the average airline does so their apparent revenue increases have not helped them reach profitability yet.

    And yes, you get what you pay for. If we were all paying more for our airline tickets, we probably would get more services. Maybe those meals we hated so much would still be part of the travel experience. If the airlines were making good profits maybe their employees would be paid more or have better working conditions and would be in a better mood in general and make all of our traveling experiences better.

    @Dave There have been several airlines that offered all business or 1st class service between NYC and London or Paris over the past 10 years. This meant approximately 50 – 60 seats on a 737 size plane. All of them failed because of the spike in jet fuel prices and the fact that most people don’t want to pay those types of prices to fly anyway.

  • Carver

    @Jeff B

    I really do not agree with the statement “You get what you pay for” when it comes to good service. Good service to me is more about the attitude of the people providing the service than what they are providing. The attitude of the airline employees should have nothing to do with the price that is being paid.

    ===================

    In theory you are right. Unfortunately, reality bites. And the reality is that service, like anything else, comes with a price tag. Service is more than just the attitude of the employees. It’s also, also the infrastructure, e.g. how much work the employees have to do, and the conditions that they toil under. For example, say your flight is cancelled. The poor gate agent has to rebook 150 people. By contrast, you and 14 others paid for access to the club lounge. Three lounge agents may have to rebook 15 people. So whereas the gate agent has 150 yelling at him/her, each lounge agent only has to deal with 5 people. Obviously they can give better service by virtue of having fewer people to take care of.

  • David Z

    The attitude of the airline employees should have nothing to do with the price that is being paid.

    Maybe not. But…try telling that to, say, flight attendants and pilots who are “asked” to take pay cuts and work longer hours.

  • Linda

    I was “asked” to stop working for my company (ie downsized), along with many other people.

    So I should have sympathy for the FAs that treat me like crap, even though I am overly polite to them, and flying in First Class, because “I get what I pay for”?

    Nope. Sorry.

    Why? Because I know many others who were “asked” to leave their jobs would be happy to have theirs. And would do them with a smile, not a snarl that is the de-facto FA face, at least on AA.

  • http://www.oyundiyari.org oyun

    great post, thanks very much