Canadian Money Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,674 Posts
Capitalism is designed to sell to the masses. Catering to the wealthy didn't help Neiman Marcus avoid bankruptcy.

There aren't enough rich people flying around to run one small airline, let alone airlines around the world.

If airlines can't pack people into the planes.........they are out of business. If resorts don't pack the people in....they close.

It is the same with everything. The rich may buy mulitmillion dollar yachts but it is the masses who buy all the boats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Capitalism is designed to sell to the masses. Catering to the wealthy didn't help Neiman Marcus avoid bankruptcy.

There aren't enough rich people flying around to run one small airline, let alone airlines around the world.

If airlines can't pack people into the planes.........they are out of business. If resorts don't pack the people in....they close.

It is the same with everything. The rich may buy mulitmillion dollar yachts but it is the masses who buy all the boats.
If you look at the business models of airlines today, you are right sags. But why would you assume that a different business model was not possible?

Look at the Concorde. British Airways and Air France were able to successfully(meaning profitably) fly the Concorde for 27 YEARS, despite it having a high ticket price. It succeeded because it gave the passenger something no other did. It go there in less than half the time of other planes. So there are 'enough rich people flying around' to support such prices.

What you are really assuming sags is that there has to be a way for those with less money to fly and so a business model must cater to them. Why would you assume that? Why not just as easily assume that those without enough money will not longer be able to fly, as was the case in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
You're right in the sense that a cost-benefit analysis is entirely subjective, I give you that. But even a hardcore traveler is more likely to consider the opportunity cost of a $2500 flight to London compared to a $700 flight to London (lets assume they can afford both). While I don't consider myself a huge travel bug, a price increase on those lines is substantial - and apart from having a little more elbow/leg room on flights, the service does not change at all. Full disclosure, I'm not a scientist - I don't know how the spread of covid works on planes, or how much space you need to effectively reduce spread, or if space even plays a role at all in this scenario. In short, I think going backwards and making a mass-appeal service exclusive will do more harm than good.
I have no doubt a $2500 vs. $700 price tag would discourage a lot of people alexincash. But I think your associating this with 'hardcore traveller' may be misleading you. Think instead about any activity that you personally are passionate about. Maybe you are into wind surfing for example. You can do that near home perhaps on a lake but if you are really passionate about it, you may reach the point where you want to surf the 'meccas of windsurfing'. Chasing the Wind: The Best Windsurfing Spots in the World - BookSurfCamps.com

Then it is not about TRAVEL, it is about pursuing your passion and you will want to go to where that is to be found. In that case, the only issue regarding the travel to GET there is can you afford it or not. The travel is irrelevant, it is what you will do at the destination that will matter to you.

Now consider mass appeal once more. As I wrote, someone only interested in a beach, any beach won't care where they can afford to go to find one. But if you try to tell me as someone who really loves hiking that I can hike in Ontario as easily as I can hike in the Swiss Alps, they simply aren't comparable. So a flight that is more expensive to get to where I want to go is only going to be a question of whether I can afford it or not. That may be my reason for paying the price asked to get on that flight, while someone else may be on that flight for an entirely different reason that matters to THEM. The result though will be that people who have their own individual reasons for wanting to GET somewhere and who can afford it, will fill the plane.

Will that be the majority of people? No, because the reality is that the majority of people do not have that strong a passion about something to be willing to pay to get somewhere. So no, there won''t be 'mass appeal' but then the 'mass' won't be able to afford it anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Capitalism is designed to sell to the masses. Catering to the wealthy didn't help Neiman Marcus avoid bankruptcy.

There aren't enough rich people flying around to run one small airline, let alone airlines around the world.

If airlines can't pack people into the planes.........they are out of business. If resorts don't pack the people in....they close.

It is the same with everything. The rich may buy mulitmillion dollar yachts but it is the masses who buy all the boats.
Well said sags
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Westjet has announced that over 3000 of their people will be permanently gone. They are acknowledging the writing is on the wall.

Here is a company that has taken a hard look at the future and has decided it doesn’t like what it sees,” School of Public Policy economics professor Ron Kneebone said.


“It wasn’t that long ago you’ll recall that it was petitioning the government to open up air travel, and the government hasn’t done that; so I think they’re looking towards the future and realizing their business model has changed maybe forever and that they need to downsize to accommodate that.”


The 'masses' are going to have to realize that their future in terms of travel and vacations are not likely to be any different in that they are going to be changed perhaps forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Much depends on whether the public decide they are comfortable getting back on a plane or not and if so, when.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
Much depends on whether the public decide they are comfortable getting back on a plane or not and if so, when.
And it depends on the cost. We'll go somewhere if the prices are reasonable but if it's $2500+ for a round trip as opposed to $1200 we'll just spend our money on something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
And it depends on the cost. We'll go somewhere if the prices are reasonable but if it's $2500+ for a round trip as opposed to $1200 we'll just spend our money on something else.
Then you may not be travelling anywhere in the foreseeable future. I found this story interesting.

What I notice is not just the numbers and the point of the news article but the response by the tour company and a couple of passengers. Our tour company says they could carry more safely and in fact are going to be allowed to increase to 100. Even that will not be enough to make a profit though and they have moved to including a meal and doubling the price per passenger with that.

One passenger from Quebec (why did I know it would be a Quebecer) complained about the price increase and a 10 year old said it was “It was great, because usually when there's a lot of people you can't even move to have a great view,” she said. From my perspective it took a 10 year old girl to realize what actually mattered while an adult couldn't see past the $ signs.

Perhaps the Hornblower operator will come to the realization that just carrying a reasonble 200 passengers instead of cramming in 700 can be profitable if they include the meal and it will be a far better experience for the passengers as well.

I get really tired of people who can't see past the price and as a result everything ends up being about how many sardines can be packed in the can.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
Then you may not be travelling anywhere in the foreseeable future.

One passenger from Quebec (why did I know it would be a Quebecer) complained about the price increase and a 10 year old said it was “It was great, because usually when there's a lot of people you can't even move to have a great view,” she said. From my perspective it took a 10 year old girl to realize what actually mattered while an adult couldn't see past the $ signs.

I get really tired of people who can't see past the price and as a result everything ends up being about how many sardines can be packed in the can.
That's fine because we're not "travelers". We just go somewhere warm for a couple months to escape winter (usually a rented condo). It's nice to get away but it's not a requirement. Once the cost to fly exceeds our perceived value of the trip we'll just find a different outlet for our disposable income.

It's easy for a 10-year old girl with no bills to pay to say how wonderful an empty boat is...she has the perspective of someone who has no concept of money and has no idea how hard some people have to work for their money. Ask her again when she's 25 if she wants to pay 5 times as much for that boat ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
While the airlines are suffering, the private jet business is back to near normal. Not with their traditional business travellers but with leisure travellers who will not now fly commercial flights.

Flying the masses may end up a thing of the past and air travel become something most cannot afford to do, as it was in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
While the airlines continue to try to tell us it is safe to fly with them, the majority of people do not agree with them.

Looking at the picture at the top of that article, I ask myself if it is so safe, why is the flight attendant wearing full PPE? Should passengers be doing the same. LOL

Canadians seem to be smarter about taking a cruise than Americans are. While 20% of Americans say they would take a cruise, only 13% of Canadians say they would and in BC, it's only 8%. Cruises have started with predictable results.
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top