Almost everyone who follows the airline business and the airlines themselves continue to insist that people buy overwhelmingly on price and there is quite a bit of evidence to support that general feeling.    The best example is that among legacy carriers serving a particular non-stop route, when one airlines lowers their price, the other airlines can and do see a drop in their bookings for that route if they don’t match that price.

 

There is a lot of truth that individual routes can be seen as nearly perfect competitive environments.  Any airline executive worth his salt will tell you that when an airline opens up a city pair, they look upon it as growing another business.  Each route is a “business” to be developed and nurtured and maintained.

 

Legacy airlines are the masters of being all things to all people.  Low cost carriers are the masters of high frequency/low cost models.  Leisure airlines have learned how to serve market with low frequency but high value.  

 

But what do most people want?  That isn’t ever as clear as people want to believe.  The dynamics between two cities change over time and adjusting to those changes is essential to maintaining that “business”. 

 

My father, once a very senior airline executive, told a story to me long ago that I’ve never forgotten.  His airline, Braniff, served the Dallas / NYC route with a daily late afternoon flight that for years was a huge money maker because it was flown primarily by businessmen.  In the mid-1970’s, they noticed that traffic on that route began to erode ever so slightly and even a small erosion worried an airline even back then.   Then he happened to take the flight to do some financial business in NYC on behalf of the airline and he realized the problem.

 

Business between the two cities had begun to change.  Traditional businessmen such as bankers or leaders of large corporations had continued to fly that flight because their model was to go to NYC the night before, conduct some business until 2 or 3 in the afternoon and then fly home to be in their own homes by mid-evening.   But entrepreneurship had begun to flower and more and more businessmen/entrepreneurs saw that as a waste of time for such a trip.  They wanted to work until late afternoon and fly home as late as possible in order to maximize their time there.

 

So Braniff added a second flight in the early evening that allowed businessmen to work until 4:30pm, go to the airport and catch the 7:30pm flight home which put them back in Dallas late at night but which met their needs to stay as long as possible to maximize their work.   As a consequence, both flights began to do much better because even the entrepreneurs could recognize that when their work was done, it was time to go home and if it was done at 2pm, they went to the airport and caught the early flight home.  Traditional businessmen began to be expected to be more efficient and when they couldn’t leave at 2pm, they knew they had another option for later in the day.  Braniff began to own that route again.  Frequency was the answer.

 

I would argue that when two or more airlines “own” a route, service is often going to be the discriminator.  But what form of service will be necessary?  Is it options in seating that allow a traveler to have more legroom?  Is it more frequency?  Is it some form of a meal?  Is it WiFi or video on demand?

 

For 30 years airlines have worked to harmonize their fleets, reduce the different number of equipment types and flatten their service offerings to the lowest common denominator.  Particularly the legacy airlines.  But for the past 10 years, we’ve seen new airlines offering more segmented choices on each flight and those airlines are the ones who continue to earn a profit, experience growth and satisfy shareholders.

 

There have been some half hearted experiments with increased choice and segmentation.  Delta had Song airlines offering more entertainment and a brighter, cheerier environment.  United had Ted airlines which was economy oriented.   But I suspect that it wasn’t necessary to change the brand so much as it indicated a need to offer more choice on the aircraft.

 

I think in the future we’re going to see more choices in seating on airlines.   The low cost only passenger wants price above anything else.  The business traveler needs an economy choice (to satisfy their company’s desire to economize) that offers a little more room.  I think we’ll see different seat pitches offered and different service choices (a la Frontier) offered as well.  This is an area where Frontier has pioneered change and seen positive results.  Same for jetBlue.  Those airlines continue to earn an operating profit and grow.

 

Legacy airlines are going to have to be more flexible in fleet, fleet configuration and they’ll even have to consider offering things like meals and entertainment.  There already is a move to do this among certain airlines.  Continental is adding LiveTV to their fleet.  Delta/Northwest has recognized that having a varied fleet allows them to “tune” their service to the demands and continue to earn a profit. 

 

When an airline can adjust capacity on a route by season, month or time of day, it can continue to make money.  When it has just two choices of aircraft to use on a route and both have more capacity than needed, they start to lose money.  (Hello AA.)

 

I think that one day one legacy airline will have the guts to start advertising in markets that speaks to “real world” experience on their line versus the airline that “owns” the city.   For instance, I think Continental could come into the Dallas market and already argue that yes, you have to connect in Houston to go to NYC but if you do, more often than not you’ll get there in the same time with better service than flying American Airlines who has an untrustworthy on-time record and who treats their passengers to old aircraft and little or no service.   Someone will have the guts to start trying to change the perceived value of travel.

 

The truth is that there is a great difference between legacy airlines on any two city pairs.  The key is to identify that difference and communicate it to the traveler.  Right now, that really doesn’t happen.   An airline such as Continental shouldn’t attempt to compete with AA on price alone.  They should offer the real differences such as a meal on flights of 3 hours or more, LiveTV, equipment that is as much as 10 years newer or more than AA and a staff that enjoys doing its job.    They should offer incentives for changing airlines and trying them once such as a guaranteed business class seat for the price of AA’s economy seat. 

 

It will happen in some form.  It has to.  The newer airlines such as Frontier, Airtran, jetBlue and Virgin America have all proved that offering more choice on the aircraft works.  Even Southwest has recognized that it has to offer more choice in order to retain their very valuable business traveler.   What’s more important is that even some passengers who buy on price alone have realized that the incremental extra cost of one or two of those “extras” is worth it once again.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service by ajax