Why U.S. Airline Service is So Bad

Pico Iyer wants to know why U.S. airlines are so crap – why "a place in Northwest’s (NWA) business class has afforded me less comfort than a seat in the economy class of the national airlines of Bolivia, Cuba and even North Korea". John Gapper thinks it has something to do with "the refusal of airlines to lie down and die" – certainly I don't think the big U.S. government airline bailout in the wake of 9/11 did any favors to the travelling public in the long term. But I think that the answer to Iyer's question is actually hidden in his own post, when he tells us that United's (UAUA) frequent-flier program "is more generous than it has to be".

Note that the centerpiece of Iyer's complaint is an abortive trip from California to Japan, one where Iyer turns out to be quite happy being rebooked on Japan's ANA rather than having to fly on United with his original booking. The question naturally arises: if United is so crap, why was he booked on them in the first place? And the answer presents itself: the frequent-flyer program, which, like most U.S. airlines' frequent-flier programs, has developed a life of its own.

America, it seems, has been successfully captured by the U.S. airlines, to the point at which most U.S. residents simply don't fly on any other planes. If you're a Brit, and you're flying abroad, you'll generally choose the cheapest and most convenient flight, no matter what class you're travelling in and no matter whether you're flying for business or pleasure. If you're an American flying abroad, by contrast, you'll almost certainly end up flying an American airline.

When I used to fly from the U.S. to Latin America every so often, I'd generally fly the local airlines to get down there: Lan, Aerolineas, Varig. None of them were spectacularly good, I must say. But one thing which jumped out at me was the fact that there were almost no Americans on those flights – the Americans always ended up flying on American or Continental (CAL). Maybe part of that was fear of the unknown, but I suspect a much bigger part was those frequent-flyer accounts. Americans have been conditioned to expect to either earn or spend frequent-flyer miles on every flight they take – something which mitigates strongly against taking any foreign airline. Even sophisticated cosmopolitan New Yorkers, well aware that Virgin and BA (BAIRY) are extremely competitive with American and Continental to Heathrow, still nearly always end up taking a U.S. carrier.

One can understand how the U.S. ended up in this position. If you're a country like the U.K. or Germany, where most people travel to many different countries quite regularly and have a wide choice of airlines, any one airline has a relatively small chance of locking in frequent fliers. If you're an airline in a small country where the citizens don't travel a lot, then those citizens who do travel are largely captive, and your best bet is to compete on quality against the airlines of the countries you're flying to.

The U.S., by contrast, is unique in that most U.S. airline passengers spend most of their time on domestic flights, racking up domestic miles. When they do occasionally fly abroad, they simply stick with the plan they're in. Is there another country where most flights are domestic, and where the big domestic airlines are also the big international airlines? I don't think so, but that seems like it could be a recipe for reliance on frequent-flyer plans rather than high-quality service.

Comments

[LeftCoaster]

Overlooked in this article is that most if not all American airlines partner with foreign airlines so we Americans do have the opportunity to fly on foreign airlines and still collect and use miles.

[AltantaBob]

Blind allegiance to a frequent flyer program doesn't contribute to a lack of quality. Money does. People are paying the same amount for a ticket as they did in the 1980's. That's NOT adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, new aircraft cost in upwards of $200 million and fuel nearly 5x more expensive. The public doesn't want to pay much for a ticket and since the fixed costs are pretty much the same for all airlines the product suffers since there isn't anything left over. We are after all, the country that would prefer to suffer at Walmart just to save a dime than pay for quality service. We did it to ourselves.

[GeeFour]

The more people fly, the more they become accustomed to what a difference good service can make. I don't think it's any secret that our domestic airlines suck. And they carry that same commitment forward on their international routes. LeftCoast accurately points out that most domestic carriers have FF tie-ins with foreign flag carriers. But I also understand that if you're stretching to attain that elite status, you get more credit when you actually fly the airline instead of the partner carrier. And it's the elite status, after all, that gives you a little more comfort--and a little better service--for your travel dollar.

[john haskell]

Next time I fly JFK-Moscow I'll go on Aeroflot, since it's so much better than Delta. Not!

[Bob Pierce]

The writer did a horrible job of doing his homework. American and United are the dominant carriers to Heathrow, not Continental. And most people fly the American carriers because they feel safer on them than the overseas carriers to lets say South America.

[C. G.]

Other things to note:
*The airlines are busy dismantling their frequent flyer programs. Delta just made it so that there are certain seats that no amount of miles will get you as well as removing the lounge benefit for its top tier members, and other carriers are inflating their mileage requirements and reducing the number of available seats. It's unlikely they'll truly get rid of the popular programs, but they will render them unusable. If I fly a lot and have to fly 50,000 grueling, expensive miles on a single carrier just to get in the short security line, I'll just buy a lounge membership instead (which provides the same benefit), fly who is cheapest since domestically, service is not a competitive issue, and go about my business.

*The airlines' pricing model is built around putting smaller carriers out of business and milking their best passengers in less competitive markets. Wherever there are what most call "low-priced" carriers but what I call "fair-priced"... carriers (AirTran, Southwest, Frontier), the bigger airlines charge ridiculously low prices at the beginning and fair prices if they lose the pricing war. In non-competitive markets, prices are through the roof. On Delta, a one-way walkup PDX-ATL was about $600, but a one-way PDX-ATL-LGA on _the same plane_ for the first leg was $250-$300 cheaper, consistently. America West had similar practices on it's ATL-PHX versus ATL-PHX-LAX route, and I'm sure every carrier has a comparable story. Practices like this along with the maze of fare codes made me resent my carriers of choice at the time and reduced my desire to be loyal. I disagree with the point that we just won't pay for anything; the fair-priced carriers generally don't have rock-bottom prices, but you'll never have a situation where you paid $99 (less than the seat is worth) and your neighbor paid $899, and that sense of fair play seems to permeate these airlines and make for a better experience.

Net-net, if the airlines stopped offering teaser fares to lure travelers who fly only a couple of times a year coupled with ridiculous walk-up fares that are as much as 8x higher and focused on offering fair, profitable round-trip prices ($250-$600 round trip depending on the route) to lure the business travelers who fly on short notice or need some flexibility but fly 50 times a year, they'd be in better shape.