You get what you pay for revisited — oops, there goes my journalistic objectivity

What does “You get what you pay for” mean?

I ask because a post earlier this week ended with airline pilot/analyst Bob Herbst concluding, “Sometimes the old cliché: ‘You get what you pay for’ has true meaning.”

To which I said, “Truer words were never spoken.”

It turns out we probably meant different things. Let me explain.

You get what you pay for, in the airline industry, is often used as a licence to treat price-conscious passengers who demand dirt-cheap fares like, well … dirt.

You want a $99 transcontinental fare? Well, hope you’re ready to pay extra for everything. What’s that, you expect service in the back of the plane? Forget it. One of our surly flight attendants will be happy to give you nothing. (They’re here to save your butt, not kiss it.)

When customers say, “You get what you pay for,” it often means you weren’t a savvy buyer. You purchased a product using price as the sole criteria, when you should have considered quality as well. It means you received a shoddy product to which you weren’t entitled.

So what’s the difference?

To airline apologists, “You get what you pay for” means you deserved the crappy flight you had.

To consumers, it means you flew on the wrong airline.

Some readers of this site thought I was endorsing the airline view of “You get what you pay for” and lauded me for being “objective.” Sorry to disappoint.

I think the airline view — that passengers deserve to suffer through their flight because they wanted to save money — is short-sighted and incorrect. There are plenty of other businesses that provide an affordable product that their customers like.

I was thinking about that today, just as the government released its baggage fee reports for the second quarter.

You get what you pay for, illustrated. I’ve posted a chart above. The industry, meanwhile, is flush with profits.

The airline industry is living the “You get what you pay for” dream. It’s our nightmare.

  • Tom

    I don’t like to pay for things I don’t get or want. Why should the price of my ticket include two checked bags when I’m not checking bags? Why should the cost of my ticket including refundability when I am not going to ask for a refund? Why should I have to pay for a meal, blanket, pillow etc. when I don’t want or need those things? I’m not sure why travel writers feel that the old days when prices were higher and all the extras were included in the price of a ticket constitute the Good Old Days. I’m paying in the $200s for a transcontinental ticket vs the $400s I paid 25 years ago and yet people claim that the old ways were better. They’re nuts.

  • Brian\PVD

    I have mixed feelings on this, particularly in light of the graphic you posted showing that base fares haven’t kept up with inflation.

    These companies are for-profit, so they need to do something new to generate revenue. Increasing fares when they are only airline to do it on a particular route will lose market share. Charging for items that used to be included in the price of a ticket seems like a good business move if they can get away with it without alienating their passengers. But now it seems like there will be more and more of a backlash.

    For much of the travelling public, planes are the most efficient way to go. Outside the northeast, trains are too expensive, infrequent, and slow. Driving has an outer limit of tolerability for most people, and is less safe than flying.

    I guess the consumers’ choices for maintaning a financially viable airline industry are:
    1) Put up with ancillary revenue charges and adjust our behavior accordingly. Demanding “all fees and taxes included” pricing is simply a subset of this option, and may make the charges more palatable by removing the element of surprise;
    2) Agree to pay more in a base fare so that the cost of transport is actually covered. This won’t happen unless all the airlines essentially collude in starting to raise prices. Nobody wants to be the first to raise prices;
    3) Go back to full regulation where prices are pretty much set.

  • SirWired

    Personally, I don’t mind low levels of service, if that is what I was promised. Spirit, RyanAir, and, to a lesser extent, SouthWest, promise little and deliver on those limited promises.

    It is the legacy airlines, who for the most part advertise (and price) a full-service experience, and then provide less service than Southwest.

    Detroit learned the hard way you can’t do this indefinitely.

  • Flawfal

    I agree here. If I want a cheap ticket then give it to me, with no hidden fees. Travellers are upset, wrongfully so, that there are so many unhidden fees now. But if I need to check a bag then I’ll pay for it. For those who just want to travel they’re certainly able to handle 4 hours on a plane with just the book and water bottle they brought with themselves…why should I demand service? If I’m hungry then why not stop at the airport food court and walk it onboard with me? I know I do that with my children; there’s no way I’ll anticipate the flight attendants will have a package of goldfish or some fruit snacks on their cart.

    If people want the old days of flying then we’ll all be paying a higher price (and dressing better) when we fly. But I, along with many others, will trade a little service for a lower price.

  • Chris in NC

    There’s one more piece of the puzzle that has been left out. How much are airlines making off CARGO? Its my understanding that on some premium routes, cargo revenue can exceed passenger revenue.

    In my opinion, the airlines need to re-evaluate their entire pricing model. The airlines should make money and no one honestly thinks that airlines are running a charity. But the price difference between a cheap, restricted ticket and a flexible ticket is insane.

    One of the best comments I read on tripso (I wish I remember who wrote it), was that if hotels were run line airlines, that $89 room rate would either be:
    a) a $49 room rate that you pre-pay, with no changes in the dates. You have to register the names of all the guests. You have to pay $10 for each piece of luggage that you bring to the room, have to pay $10 for towels, soap and shampoo. If you fail to check in with the actual number of guests, you have to pay a penalty.
    b) a $499 room rate that allows changes and refunds.

    I also find it ironic that the so-called legacy airlines are essentially “no frills” airlines, unless you are in first class. The service of domestic first class is a joke compared to economy class of Asian or European carriers. The only thing you get is a bigger seat.

    The only difference between Southwest and the so called legacy carriers is the route structure. Unfortunately, Southwest doesn’t fly out of everywhere.

  • Plat flyer

    Legacy carriers need to get some things figured out. They are bloated and desperately need to purge some of that bloat. That’s the advantage that cheap carriers have, little bloat. But, how much of the bloat can be attributed to labor unions? That’s another story all together…

  • Carver

    @Tom

    +1

    I have a specific set of gripes with airlines, but the so called hidden fees are not one of them.

    I object to

    1. Tickets being non-transferable
    2. Restrictions on how you use the ticket (e.g. no back to back or hidden cities)
    3. The huge disparity between refundable and non-refundable tickets
    4. Change fees

  • Eric

    The change fees are ridiculous. When I book travel I don’t intend to alter my plans, but you know what? S@*t happens that’s beyond our control. I don’t see the airlines doling out checks when a flight gets cancelled due to weather or some other “unforeseeable” circumstance. While I don’t have a problem with the IDEA of change fees, its the amount of the fee and the difference for a refundable fare that’s an issue. If I purchase a $200 ticket and a change of plans results in me having to pay a $150 fee (75% of the original ticket) shouldn’t the changeable ticket be $350 ($200 + 150)???

  • Ernest

    I think we are getting “less than we paid for” when it comes to most airlines. They gripe about not being able to make any money but their CEO and executive staff are making millions of dollars plus the perks. They use creative (dishonest?) accounting to make everyone think they are suffering financially.

    I don’t object to their high pay as much as their arrogance in thinking that they deserve it while their company overcharges its customers to keep the board members happy.

    I think it is time to reregulate the airlines.

    You don’t always get what you pay for, sometimes you get less.

  • Carver

    @Eric

    I do have a problem with change fees. It costs the airlines basically nothing to change an electronic ticket. As someone pointed out, a change fee is to disincentive certain behaviors. I find that highly inappropriate. Fees are to compensate, not punish.

    On that one, southwest wins.

  • Thomas

    I agree with all the posted comments. What I want is service and comfort. I’ll pay for it, but I don’t want your children interfering with my work I need to do onboard. You want a $99.00 fare, I hope you get it! I just hope you don’t complain to the crew when I have a blanket and pillow, get a cocktail before takeoff, and enjoy my movie. Yes, I still wear a suit when I fly, but then again, I’m a dinasour :)

  • David Z
  • Mike Z

    To me, most people here are wrong. Sure, airlines need to make money and sure hauling extra bags costs money. What we’ve never seen is how much these bags actually cost to fly/haul. What we’ve never seen is how much the airline is saving on fuel each flight because of this. The only thing we have seen is how much the airline is making off the consumer.

    Also, I have no problem with these additional fees provided they actually guarantee a better service. If I pay $35 for a bag to fly with me, then it better get to my destination with me, and without anything missing. If not, I want/demand a refund. Also, I want the fees disclosed, up front, for the ticket I am purchasing so I can compare apples to apples the price and value or service.

    Last, if I buy a $200 ticket and don’t wish to pay extra for meals, checked bags, pillows, etc… That does not mean that I shouldn’t be treated with respect on the part of my flight that I did pay for. if the airlines want to seperate each component then they need to make sure they are providing outstanding service on each part of the component paid for.

  • Steve

    @Carver: I basically agree with your complaints, and I agree that the single most unconscionable restriction on tickets is that they cannot be transferred. There is no rational reason for this (except, of course, that the airlines win if you buy a nonrefundable ticket and do not use it); all airline tickets should be transferrable to someone else, perhaps with a small ($25 or less) administrative fee.

    I have said many times that I’m a fan of Southwest’s policy on being able to cancel any ticket and reuse the funds, even on their cheapest fares, but on my last visit to their website I noticed that as of early 2011, funds can only be used to buy a ticket for the original ticketholder. I’m very disappointed in them for that; it seems like even Southwest is getting in on this particular money grab.

  • Toni

    I’m totally with the first poster, Tom, on this one. SW has the “best” baggage policy? Yeah, if you’re Ma and Pa Kettle with a total of 200 pounds of baggage between you, not even counting the carry-ons. Frankly, I don’t like paying for others’ choices. I don’t mind paying at all for MINE.

  • Lisa S

    IF, and it is a big if, prices actually went down when the airlines unbundled baggage and other fees, that would be okay. However, my experience was that the prices of the legacy carriers did not go down, but continued as is and ADDED fees. Southwest flies out of Midway, American out of O’Hare. Both have direct flights to Austin to the same airport. Southwest is significantly cheaper because I check in two bags when I go to visit Austin. If I didn’t check in bags, the cost would be the same. If Southwest is covering its costs, why isn’t American able to do so at the same price? Why does American need to charge an additional $50 that Southwest doesn’t if not to increase their profits? And, by the way, until recently American cost more than Southwest for the flight whenever I checked, so I can only guess American lowered its price to match Southwest. I am lucky in that Southwest flies to Austin–I wish they flew to more places. So far the explanations of the legacy airlines that unbundled services to charge more sound like a bunch of excuses to me.

  • http://AirlineFinancials.com Robert Herbst

    To Lisa-
    Your questions are valid and asked frequently by passengers. Unfortunately, the airline industry doesn’t do a very good job of educating and explaining why there are so many “differences” from airline-to-airline.

    Before I share my [airline] explanation, I’ll throw out a couple of questions that may be easier to relate to:

    - Why is there a price difference between a Cadillac and a Ford? They are both automobiles.

    - Why does it cost more to buy a steak dinner at Morton’s than it does at Outback? They both have steak on the menu.

    Because both American and Southwest happen to fly to Austin from Chicago, it may not be very noticeable but Southwest and American are producing and selling a “different” product (similar to the steak you get albeit from two different restaurants).

    Southwest incurs less costs using Midway Airport as compared to American using O’Hare Airport. These costs could include items like landing fees, airport lease costs for gates, terminal counters, offices, employee parking, etc. etc.

    O’Hare has significantly more air traffic delays than Midway. The cost to operate a large passenger jet is $hundreds of dollars per minute. Just to taxi from the terminal to and from the runway is at least three times as long for O’Hare as it is for Midway.

    The list of cost differences could go on and on for what appear as simple operational differences but in reality are major cost items for the airlines.

    Southwest is a great airline with great employees. As you note in your specific flight, if you do not check bags, the air fares were similar. However, every day there are millions of air passengers flying to airports literally around the world. To get to those far away airports, a passenger must use larger (more expensive to operate at) airports like O’Hare.

    Southwest operates one type of single aisle aircraft (Boeing 737). Airlines operating just one or two types of aircraft have a cost advantage (crew & maintenance training costs, inventories etc.) over the large global network carriers.

    American, in order to operate to airports and countries around the world requires both the smaller aircraft for domestic passengers and large jumbo jets for the long-haul international routes.

    The bottom line difference is Southwest cannot compete with any of American’s world wide destinations but American must compete with Southwest for the US domestic customer and to carry passengers that may also connect at O’Hare going to worldwide destinations.

    Looking at the numbers side of the airlines:

    Last year (2009) Southwest had $10.4 billion in total revenue. Their profit for the same year was a dismal $99 million ($143 million without special items). Now consider Southwest is not only one of the most profitable airlines, they are also one of the most productive and efficient airlines in the industry and they barely made a 1% profit on over $10 billion in sales! Any other business sector or publicly traded corporation would consider that dismal profit as unacceptable.

    Here are a couple other numbers that may come as a surprise to most passengers but should give an idea of why there is such a significant difference between Southwest’s single aircraft type, all US domestic coach operation and American’s much more complex global operation that not only uses the same Boeing 737 type aircraft as Southwest but also requires a large fleet of medium to jumbo jets.

    In 2009, Southwest paid 34.4% of their total operating expense for labor. Excluding much smaller Alaska’s 34.5%, Southwest’s labor costs as a ratio to operating cost is the highest in the industry (over the same time period, American’s labor cost ratio was 32.8%).

    The past few years of history has shown that passengers want the lowest air fares *possible*. In order to reduce air fares, costs must also be reduced/eliminated. Over the last decade, in order to compete, the older and much more complex (legacy) airlines have drastically reduced internal costs and services.

    Now keep in mind your Chicago to Austin scenario takes place millions of times a week at hundreds of airports.

    The current US domestic average air fare to fly one mile is under 14 cents and little changed for the past 20 years.

    Chicago to Austin is just under 1,000 air miles. You can currently buy a ticket for as low as $99 for this route. That’s less than 10 cents per mile. 15 cents if you have to add $50 for two checked bags.

    It will take little more than two hours to fly from Chicago to Austin. You will have incredibly experienced employees accept full responsibility as they (potentially) deal with any type of weather and unknown maintenance issues to get you safely and as comfortably as possible to your destination.

    To drive a 20 MPG car and $3.00/gallon for gas would cost you $150 for gas, wear & tear on your car, and approx 16 hours driving time.

    Sometimes it’s a challenge to understand why there are so many complaints about the current cost of air travel?

    Robert Herbst
    AirlineFinancials.com

  • Scott

    FANTASTIC POST, Robert Herbst. Right to the heart of many of the issues.

    What is the big deal about the difference between non-refundable and refundable tickets? You buy the non-refundable, pay the change fee, still save potentially hundreds of dollars. What’s the issue? And “Southwest wins”? They don’t charge change fees….they just make you pay the difference to the current day’s fare which can be hundreds of dollars. So….Southwest is better because you are paying (for example) $200 in fare (but not a fee) while a legacy charges a $150 change fee?

    Everyone keeps attempting to rationalize fees, such as baggage fees. They should be guarantee “x”, what is the actual cost to transport a bag, etc. First of all, trying shipping a bag on your own. WAY more expensive. But feel free to do it. However, this really has nothing to do with the fees. You have to understand the other graph Chris has shown about ticket prices over the years. Tickets cost LESS now than 30 years ago. The model does not work, but no single airline can raise those prices on their own. Brian/PVD posted this already. It is a very simplified example but it is clear. Fees make up the difference of what tickets cost today versus what they *should* cost. And many people are not required to pay some or all of those fees so it is a great deal. People whining that airlines did not lower their fares when they started charging for these things are completely missing the point. Yes they did…..they have been lowering them constantly for the past 30 years.

    I love how everyone laments that Southwest doesn’t fly everywhere and how sad that is. Realize that if Southwest DID fly to as many cities as a legacy carrier that their business model couldn’t hold and they would be in the same shape as all the other airlines.

    (Side note re: Southwest — For everyone that loves Southwest because of the great employee attitudes, a reality check is coming. First of all — for all you Union haters — Southwest is probably the most unionized carrier of them all, which is why they have the highest labor expense ratio in the industry, as Mr. Herbst pointed out. Moving on….Southwest created a fantastic corporate culture under CEO Herb Kelleher. It worked because he actually valued his employees, which is anathema for most corporations, especially in this industry. After he left three years ago, that culture is changing. The current regime is operating with a punitive “legacy attitude” toward its employees. While their top pay is good, it isn’t as fun to work there as it used to be. Those attitudes are already beginning to change.)

    Ah yes, then the requisite bitching about labor unions being the cause of all the airline financial problems. Let’s recap:
    1) Airline loses money
    2) Airline enters bankruptcy
    3) Airline uses bankruptcy to force millions upon millions of dollars in concessions from employees rather than actually figuring out how to run a profitable airline
    4) Airline emerges from bankruptcy and pays top executives 8-figure bonuses for doing such a great job navigating bankruptcy
    5) Airline then start charging numerous fees
    6) People complain about labor unions causing the airline financial problems
    Now I think I get it.

    These airlines pay their employees as little as possible and people want to pay the airlines as little as possible, then tell the employees that they should “be thankful just to have jobs.” Isn’t that just a heartwarming sentiment? How often are you in a store and see someone screaming at an employee? Now how often do you see that in an airport? And then people expect “great service” for their “as little as possible.” (And for all of you who will say you would pay more for that service? Just buy First Class then, because you are in the VAST minority and it ain’t happenin’, so let’s get real.)

  • David Z

    Unfortunately, the airline industry doesn’t do a very good job of educating and explaining why there are so many “differences” from airline-to-airline.

    Also unfortunately, some (if not lots of) folks will likely treat airlines’ attempts at trying to explain their price differences as excuses or even bull kaka. Is it because it’s conveniently easier to believe that, especially if one feels emotionally hurt by them for whatever reason?

    BTW, Robert, been meaning to ask: how have airfares been before and after baggage fees were introduced?

  • http://AirlineFinancials.com Robert Herbst

    To David Z-

    When the media receives updated DOT data and reports the change in average air fares, it is almost always a misleading report and here’s why.

    While it’s true the “average” airfare has been going up, it is also true the “average” passenger distance flown has increased. Especially over the past few years as short haul markets lost traffic demand, primarily due to airport security delays after 911.

    Every airline is slightly different, but in general, most airlines have seen both their average airfares and trip distance increase.

    More specific to the chart Christopher provides at the start of this exchange; If you also look at the DOT/BTS chart for 39010, you will see passenger revenue starts to fall off at nearly the same time baggage fees jumped up.

    Below is an example of how (average) air fares increased at the same time (average) passenger distance flown also increased over the past decade. I choose Southwest for the example as they are an all domestic US airline and generally determine the low fare market price.

    Year Avg fare

    2000 $85.87 (12.95 cents per air mile)
    2002 $84.72
    2003 $87.42
    2004 $88.57
    2005 $93.69
    2006 $104.40
    2007 $106.60
    2008 $119.16
    2009 $114.16 (13.23 cents per air mile)

    Year Avg trip distance (revenue passenger miles)

    2000 663
    2002 720
    2003 730
    2004 753
    2005 775
    2006 808
    2007 815
    2008 830
    2009 863

    While it’s true the 2009 average air fare (for Southwest) increased 33.5% over the 2000 average fare. It’s also true the average trip distance increased by 30.1% over the same time period. On a per mile basis, the price to fly is little changed over the past 10 and 20 years.

    Robert Herbst
    AirlineFinancials.com

  • Max Entropy

    Why is the government keeping baggage fee statistics? Don’t they have something better to do? (LOL)