Comments on: If fuel costs are under control, then why are airlines stalling?

By: Oussama

Oussama — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:36:38 +0000

Well airlines kept fuel surcharges unchanged for months after fuel went down in August 2008. Their way of recouping losses and/or making an extra buck. To be fair some airlines stuck to one fuel surcharge amount regardless of the subsequent increase in fuel prices.

By: sami

sami — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:49:11 +0000

@Carver Farrow: I hardly think a ticket between SFO and LAX proves anything. That is like flying from New York to Boston or Minneapolis to Chicago. They are such short flights.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:42:06 +0000

Let’s face it. If one excuse fails you blame another. Oil is not the only problem. The poor economy and people not traveling also serves as a factor. However, even if everything was ideal there would still be MORE EXCUSES to raise prices. Let’s face it, costs go up even if their costs go down.

By: Carver Farrow

Carver Farrow — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:57:42 +0000

My $29 ticket each way from SFO to LAX a few weeks ago and next weeks $39 ticket each way counts as a sufficient showing by the airlines for me.

By: John B

John B — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:08:32 +0000

Chris, with all due respect, I think you’re misinterpreting what “affordable” is. The classic hub and spoke airline model is based on fuel going for $20 (maybe $30) per gallon. We’re at over $70 now. Sure, that’s not the $140 we had last year, but it’s still more than 3 times what it “should” be.

By: SirWired

SirWired — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:55:27 +0000

One factor behind SW’s losses was fuel hedges that went south. When fuel prices were at their peak, SW cleaned the clocks of the majors because they had locked in the price of fuel, and the competition didn’t. Well, this quarter, SW locked in the price of fuel at a price higher than it happened to cost; hence the loss.