Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why cheap airlines are so cheap

flickr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#41

Post by quizbiz »

hjnghgbi wrote: post #36
Boxer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what fraction of cheap flights have crashed vs. normal flights?

Easyjet, Ryanair, Westjet - no accidents. Southwest had a jet overrun a landing and kill a passenger in a car outside the airport. Compare this with KLM (worst accident ever), BA, Air France etc. And bear in mind that budget carriers operate the most 'dangerous' routes, short hop frequent take-off landing all weather - not the 'safest' transpacific long haul routes.

To be fair, Easyjet, Ryanair, Westjet, etc. don't handle nearly as many flights as KLM, BA, Air France, etc.

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#42

Post by bendotc »

tptacek wrote: post #28
bendotc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Discount air carrier Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft that federal inspectors said were 'unsafe' as recently as [March 2007]." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/southwest.planes/index.html

Uh huh. Compare the incident records of Southwest and any major carrier, and then get back to us. The real cost/safety tradeoff in air travel is between national carriers and the rebadged regional carriers that do the short-hop fights for the nationals. Southwest doesn't have any such arrangements, but all the majors do.

First, you don't need to be condescending.

Second, are you claiming that because no accidents happened to occur, that Southwest was in the right to fly passengers in planes that safety inspectors deemed unsafe or which were two and a half years overdue for an inspection? Or perhaps your point is that over-all, Southwest has a better track record than other airlines, to which I must ask, what is the probability that Southwest's spotless record (in terms of deaths) actually indicates that they're safer than the other airlines, and what is the probability that it's just dumb luck? I would be quite interested in the answer to this question, though it seems airline crashes are both fairly rare, even for airlines with poor safety records.

The point is, while I'm certainly not saying that their safety record is meaningless, I think it would be foolish to overlook things such as flying planes which have either failed inspection or which are years overdue to be inspected, especially given the low number of data points in the form of commercial airline crashes.

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#43

Post by scscsc »

look_lookatme wrote: post #22
scscsc wrote: post #18

I have never used the so-called low cost airlines. However I have problems fitting my knees even in high cost economy class. I would imagine there is a business opportunity for airlines which are willing to cut costs in every way other than safety and passenger space (i.e. we don't need those lounges).

" I would imagine there is a business opportunity for airlines which are willing to cut costs in every way other than safety and passenger space" Are you implying the current crop of low cost carriers are somehow "unsafe"? You would be very wrong (at least in the US). Also, such a carrier exists. It's called Jet Blue.

No, I am not implying that.

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#44

Post by scscsc »

patio11 wrote: post #21
vinutheraj wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is safety still high on their priority list though ?!

The worst airline in the world is still safer than your drive to the airport. Is safety on your priority list? (Humans are terrible at judging relative risks.)

I doubt it. And I guess safety is on everyone's priority list.

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#45

Post by ghshephard »

bendotc wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh huh. Compare the incident records of Southwest and any major carrier, and then get back to us. The real cost/safety tradeoff in air travel is between national carriers and the rebadged regional carriers that do the short-hop fights for the nationals. Southwest doesn't have any such arrangements, but all the majors do.

First, you don't need to be condescending. Second, are you claiming that because no accidents happened to occur , that Southwest was in the right to fly passengers in planes that safety inspectors deemed unsafe or which were two and a half years overdue for an inspection? Or perhaps your point is that over-all, Southwest has a better track record than other airlines, to which I must ask, what is the probability that…

With enplaned passengers at 101.9 million/year, it's not dumb luck that defines a safety record, but basic probability.

We must also consider the possibility that there is a bias against Southwest by the safety inspectors, and that perhaps Southwests safety record is a more accurate representation of how safe they are.

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#46

Post by mjs »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #25

Something I find astonishing is that the passenger/employee ratio of no-frills airlines is more than 10 times that of traditional airlines, yet all the labour related savings together seem to make up a relatively small part of overall savings. Any explanation for that?

They fly much shorter routes. I guess the number you really want to know is the number of staff per passenger kilometer, but the graphic doesn't say...

Other flaws:

* Misspells Aer Lingus.

* Claims low cost airlines have turnarounds of "up to 25 min" instead of "as little as 25 min."

* The 43% cost advantage is unclear (that's the cost advantage per passenger kilometer, or what?) and circles are not a good way to convey amount (is the radius important, or the diameter?).

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#47

Post by look_lookatme »

scscsc wrote: post #43
look_lookatme wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" I would imagine there is a business opportunity for airlines which are willing to cut costs in every way other than safety and passenger space" Are you implying the current crop of low cost carriers are somehow "unsafe"? You would be very wrong (at least in the US). Also, such a carrier exists. It's called Jet Blue.

No, I am not implying that.

OK. Wasn't clear in the wording.

Re: Why cheap airlines are so cheap

#48

Post by fauigerzigerk »

mjs wrote: post #46
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #25

Something I find astonishing is that the passenger/employee ratio of no-frills airlines is more than 10 times that of traditional airlines, yet all the labour related savings together seem to make up a relatively small part of overall savings. Any explanation for that?

They fly much shorter routes. I guess the number you really want to know is the number of staff per passenger kilometer, but the graphic doesn't say... Other flaws: * Misspells Aer Lingus. * Claims low cost airlines have turnarounds of "up to 25 min" instead of "as little as 25 min." * The 43% cost advantage is unclear (that's the cost advantage per passenger kilometer, or what?) and circles are not a good way to con…

Yes you're absolutely right. Staff per passenger kilometer is the missing piece of information. Very good point.
Post reply on HN