Is it time to boycott air travel?
It’s no secret that recent moves by airlines to impose new fees on checked-in luggage, which I discussed at length in yesterday’s MSNBC column, will hit working families the hardest. But should families hit back?
Reader Steve Savage thinks so, and he e-mailed me with an idea that has some merit. Leisure travelers, he says, should skip the plane trip out of principle.
“Every family that was going to take a leisure-industry based vacation this year should instead change their plans and take a week off at home and do something local,” he says. “Go to a water park. Pick a campsite to go to. Use what your city offers.”
If enough families boycott air travel, the airlines will get the message, he says. And maybe air carriers will change their family-hostile policies as a result.
Why would a boycott work?
The existence of substitutes allows people to explore lower-cost alternatives that may indeed be just as relaxing and cost far less money, in addition to having a far lower hassle factor.
The leisure and travel industry is subject to the same rules of economics that every other business is. Specifically, they have fixed costs, and must cover those costs. That spurs them to do two things — have as high an occupancy rate or load factor as they can, and test the limits of elasticity of demand viz. basic rates and, especially, add-on fees and surcharges.
Since occupancy rates and load factors are already high, they then become tempted to tack on additional fees and surcharges, hoping, as your column points out, that people will just sort of go along with those fees since they don’t want a hassle.
But of course this is where a boycott can cut against them. We know that airlines need about a 60%+ load factor to be at break-even. If memory serves, the lodging industry also needs about that much in terms of occupancy.
I doubt that 60% of the people on an airline or in a leisure hotel or on a Caribbean cruise are there for business purposes. And even if they were, all that does is get the industry to a point they are breaking even. It does not get them to profitability, something their shareholders are going to demand at some point.
Savage suggests that even though business travelers account for a disproportionately large portion of an airline’s revenue, they still depend on leisure travelers to turn a profit. That’s why he believes a boycott would be highly persuasive.
We know from basic business that revenue is marginal. The first passengers or guests pay the fixed costs, including some labor just to run the company at a bare level and turn the lights on, so to speak. The next batch pay the variable costs, and allow the company to hire extra labor or lease more aircraft in proportion to occupancy or load. But past a certain point, one does not need more and more flight attendants on a flight or bellhops at a hotel or jet fuel in the tanks.
This is where the viability of a boycott comes into play. Take any segment of the leisure or travel industry below its break-even threshold and they have a problem. They still have to turn on the lights, but they don’t have enough leisure travelers to fill the last rooms or seats, whose revenue flows straight to bottom line, and so they suffer.
They will be forced to start by cutting out the ridiculous fees and surcharges. If that does not work, they will need to lower room rates, but since they are relatively prosperous we know they have room to do that, no pun intended.
Finally, Savage argues that the airlines would quickly cave in because of their fears that “leisure travelers will realize that life can go on without a trip to Disney or a Caribbean cruise.” That’s a good point.
I think a boycott is an interesting idea, but it would have to be embraced by a lot of leisure travelers in order to work.
What do you think?
You may also be interested in these articles
Comments
32 Responses to “Is it time to boycott air travel?”
Please share your thoughts...
Boycotting is a time-honored American way of saying, “We are not satisfied, and until you change your business practices, you won’t get any money from us.” If enough leisure travelers got serious about doing local events, or those within a day’s drive, I think it could hurt the airlines.
If you figure a family of four would spend $1,600 just on airfare, multiply that times a couple of hundred per day, over the course of about six months. I’m no math major, but my calculator tells me that would result in a loss of about $5.7 million in revenue. Not many business, no matter how profitable, can take that kind of hit. Certainly not the airlines, which are in perpetual bankruptcy.
This could work, but again, it would take a good many people changing a lot of travel plans. I’d like to see a concerted effort to put some pressure on the airlines for many things they do– extra baggage fees included.
All that would happen is our government would bail out the airline industry. Again.
I think a travel boycott would work if enough people participated; but I wonder if enough people would? Plus, there are always events like weddings, funerals, family reunions that people will think they HAVE to get to, and thus fly.
I think that the market will take care of this on its own. Families every day have to make the decision on vacations: Should I spend $1600 on airfare undisclosed surcharges waiting in security lines getting my luggage lost miscellaneous aggravation?
Or should I just take the minivan entertainment console to keep my kids from aggravating me?
Gas is expensive, but it’s not THAT expensive.
I’m already there. If I could get away with it for business, I’d do that too, but there’s only so far they’ll let me drive before it gets too expensive and time-consuming.
The assumption with boycotts is that the boycotted good is replaceable. Especially for vacationers, this is not true with air fair. The DelMarVa coast is beautiful, but I am sorry, it is not the same as a Caribbean or the Hawaiian coast. The one week a year I get of and that does not get filled wit family obligations, I want to go somewhere tropical, warm and sunny. Families with little children may want to go to Disney World. I can imagine that most kids would not be happy just going to the local Six Flags as a replacement. I am sure Chris can way in here.
This call for a boycott is so devilishly smart, it might almost be suggested by the airlines, since it will never come to be. The people that airlines are squeezing for money are the people that fly occasionally because they have no other means of travelling. There is no train to Hawaii or the Caribbean. If you’re in Minnesota, it is a waste of your valuable vacation time to drive to Disney, whether you pick the CA or the FL version. During the Holidays, a lot of people don’t even want to go see their family, but their (spouse’s) family kinda mandates. When I want to skiing in the Rockies, I know I-70 goes all the way from Baltimore to Vail, but I am not gonna waste my slope time on I-70, and I’ve covered the part from Baltimore to central MO.
Let’s face is: it’s the business world that should boycott. They have many meetings that could be done by alternative means, like teleconferencing. I’ve teleconferenced quite a bit, and most people don’t have a clue on how great that technology is, especially when there are multiple sites involved.
My bet is that most vacationers have already cut their number of flights to a bare minimum. Flying is just a plain pain in the neck. Even driving up and down I-95 is better, because at least you can get the food you want while stuck in traffic. Oh, and that is not to speak of the lack of security harassment on a highway.
Also, the airlines have smartly always performed so poorly, that their lobbyists have gotten massive bail-outs, that could have been invested in alternative long-distance transportation like fast-trains. Both France and Japan invest a lot in that technology and it pays of. For a matter of a fact, I know personally how stupid you feel when you’re driving down one of the very expensive toll-road going 80 mph (!), and you’re passed by a TGV going 220. And the newest models are approaching 250 mph. That’s Seatle to San Diego in 5 hours!
It is very odd to me that in a free market place like the US, the airlines are constantly being bailed out by the government. If the airline business was so great, wouldn’t it be able to keep up it’s own pants? If it can not, why hasn’t the government tried something else?
Now that’s a question I’d like to see an answer too.
Chris knows my answer - why boycott air travel? I’ll just boycott the airlines. We own a 4 seat airplane and fly ourselves most places. Sure - not the option for 99% of the world out there - but it is an option. We just need to be a little more flexible than the average traveler since ice in clouds will keep us on the ground in weather the airlines can routinely fly in. But thats it.
In summer, we have the same issues with thunderstorms the airlines do - the difference is that I can usually fly around them and can also fly into airports that are never busy, and never get in the way of airliners. When we land there is somebody waiting to drive the car rental right up to our airplane, we get help with our bags and
The problem with a boycott is that given the coming downturn in business - there will be no way for the airlines to know if its pax fed up with their fees, charges and rules, or just the economic downturn. Plus, they have shown over and over again, especially American, Delta, United and Northwest, that they simply do not care about their passengers other than as the source of revenue and as a problem to be delivered to the destination. . .
There’ll never be a successful airline boycott because you could never coordinate enough people to make an impact
I personally avoid the dinosaur airlines, their rude, incompetent, surly staff and lousy service as much as I can.
I travel light and rarely need to check a bag anyway.
How long until United and American cotton on to the idea of imposing a surcharge if by some miracle your flight actually leaves on time? Admittedly, it would only get charged rarely.
Heck, Richard Clarke has it backwards!
New Airline Fee -”‘Delay Compensation Surcharge”
Sounds like the airlines are ready to pay you for the delay, doesn’t it? In reality it is a fee to fund a pot of money for so that the airline can access it to pay for crew time, fuel and maintenance costs when the plane is late or over schedule! You see, the passengers cause the delays because they all want to fly at peak times, so the passengers create the delays because of their demand for travel. This way the airlines can have a fund to compensate themselves for the delays, and cover the additional costs of the operating flights in a crowded airport or air traffic control system. That’ll be $1 per segment, please.
I agree, Chris! Let’s boycott! I’ll be the first to boycott Delta ;)
How will they know if we boycott them? I have been avoiding air travel for leisure trips for a couple of years now. Between driving to the airport, parking, getting through security, and getting to my destination, a one-hour flight means four hours of travel — so for distances of 500 miles or less, I drive, because flying simply isn’t worth the hassle and the stress (which doubles if I can’t get a direct flight). I go on business trips regularly, but for personal travel I rarely fly more than once a year, and then only for really long trips. I’d love to boycott, but the fact is that air travel has become such a pain in the posterior that the airlines and the TSA have already chased me away. I have a feeling many other Americans are in the same situation. (And isn’t that the reason they’re scrounging for fees?)
I must said I gave up the american and canadian airlines. I choose asian and european airlines when need to travel. There was a time I travelled from Montreal to Miami every month and Montreal to Honolulu at least twice a year for many years. I haven’t been in Honolulu since 2004 and Miami since 2005. I change destinations to Europe and Asia since. A 15 hour flights on Cathay Pacific , Korean Air or Air France is a very pleasant trip with good food, nice and helpfull crew, plenty entertainment to watch, even in coach.
Last year I drove to Quebec rather than going somewhere I had to fly. Would have loved to go to Europe, but between the crummy dollar and crummy airlines, I opted for French Canada instead. How I wish we had a TGV here (of all the places where such a thing would make sense, a large country needs it more than a little island like Japan, you’d think). I’d never fly again except to cross water.
I’m not willing to stick to the continental US for all my travel forever, but I am willing to fly Lufthansa instead of American. And I’m willing to write irate letters to my senators whenever the govt gives billions of tax dollars away to a poorly run business.
I’ve already started. I haven’t flown since August 07! I left a job where I traveled 90% of the time because I was fed up with the way the airlines have been treating customers. It started with the incredibly surly employees, continued with smaller seats and less leg room, and forges on with the never-ending reduction in amenities (how about no meal on a FIVE hour flight???). And I’m speaking of business class! I’ve been a road warrior for the past 9 years and have watched the airlines get worse every one of those years. It’s shameful that an industry that cares so little for its customers continues to get bailed out by the government. What happened to the days when a bad company simply went out of business????
All this talk about how nice a TGV would be kind of ignores the reason Passenger Rail in this country died with the advent of airplanes: The US is just too durn large and spread out!
In most European countries, a nationwide rail network makes sense because the countries are relatively small. For a trip from Paris to Nice, a train makes far more sense than a plane. For a trip from NY to LA, the construction and maintenance costs of a high-speed train would be prohibitive. The problem is that a French businessman in Paris making an ordinary domestic trip is just as likely to go to Nice as a US businessman in NY is to go to LA. For one, a train trip makes sense, for the other, it does not.
In addition, there are a lot of large cities that the NY businessman is likely to go to, and outside of the NE Corridor, none of them are anywhere near each other, making for extremely long and spread-out and expensive train lines.
SirWired
While I love the idea, I just don’t think that enough people would be motivated to make it happen. There is no sense of ‘unity’ among the mass of general travelers that is required to make a successful boycot. No unifying factor makes it far to easy to simply ignore the boycot and just go about life as normal. With this sort of a thing that would be creating a major change in most families plans for their limited vacation time it would just be far too easy for them to either not know about the boycot or just ignore it.
Too bad there isn’t some major public figure to do the ‘call to action’ that would engender a bunch of people to join in on the boycot. But interesting idea.
@ SirWired: Yes, the US is larger and less populated that Europe. However, there are a bunch of corridors that could certainly used good rail connections. BTW: what made the US great? Wasn’t one of your historical staples the Transcontinental Railway?
In fact, there is a ‘fast train’ from DC to Boston. The problem is that the Acela is ‘fast from the 80s’ with a top speed of only 150 mph and an average speed (including stops) of merely 70-80 mph. Decela would be a better name, and I’m not even talking about the price tag.
And then there is the San Diego to Sacramento corridor, and if you think a little visionary, it’s not that hard to imagine such a line going to Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (make those Canadians pay too!).
Starting with those corridors you can slowly expand. La-Vegas? SF -Vegas? Vegas-Phoenix? There is railservice between DC and south FL for the Disney freaks. Why not upgrade that? Give airlines a run for their money? Puts Richmond, the NC research triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta on the map. Sneak from Atlanta to the Gulf Coast, New Orleans, and into Texas. On the Northern end, go from Philly through Pittsburg. Spilt of to Cleveland-Detroit and to Columbus-Indianapolis-Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities.
When France started with their TGVs everybody laughed at them. Now, Western Europe is scrambling like crazy to get on the network. London is on, Brussels is on, Barcelona is on. Amsterdam and Madrid will follow soon. Berlin is getting within reach. Italy is building lines fast.
Trains are very good for mid-range distances, provided they are comfortable and affordable. Railroads are excellent for shipping goods too. You think Fedex would not be interested in using a reliable fast train service?
So, again: yes, the US is larger and emptier than Europe, but I was not suggesting building a fast train in Alaska or the empty center of the country.
Oh, and I forgot the most important argument: it gives airlines REAL competition in the sense that they do not control how the rail companies conduct their business.
Amen, Jasper! It’s also worth noting here that electric high speed rail is capable of taking thousands of regional jets out of the air (lots of ’spokes’ in the ‘hub and spoke’ system that is in perpetual dysfunction) as well as a whole bunch of cars that today waste millions of gallons of gas and thousands of hours moving people from city centers to remote airports (whereas rail tends to be city center to city center).
High speed rail corridors are one of the only viable answers to both congestion issues and environmental issues.
Most people I know fly one time or less each year for personal travel-either vacation or to visit family. It has already become too expense for the average family to use it as a regular travel option. So a boycot by average personal travelers won’t make a big enough dent. Until businesses cut down on frivolous ‘business’ travel, nothing will change. I see alot of money wasted on travel for work when a teleconference, internet or webinar would do just as well.
And yes, I am all for more high speed rail as a viable option for all travel. Not only would it be a better option instead of flying, it would cut down on traffic congestion on the roads. It can be done.
I love to travel, and I love the world abroad as well as the diversity of the U.S.
Here’s a thought: How about boycotting crappy U.S. carriers. Drive to your nearest big city and get a flight to Mexico on Mexicana, or a cheaper offbeat destination in Europe via Lufthansa.
An American experiencing the service of a foreign carrier for the first time might not just boycott the U.S. flagships, but never consider setting foot on them again.
james http://www.futuregringo.com
I avoided the airlines and saved over the cost by taking the train this year from Iowa to Arizona, at Christmas time. Now for my kids, it was a drag, it was a long 28 hours or so and I’m not sure they really saw it from my point of view, LOL.
Amtrak is in the same boat, can’t make a profit. The trains are old, built at a time when most people didn’t travel with the electronics that are necessar today. We were lucky, we had an electrical outlet next to our seats. Each coach car has two… TWO! On the trip back, I made sure to request a seat with an outlet, but believe it or not, the placement of the seat blocked the outlet, it was completely useless…
Anyway, my point is that Amtrak has to rethink many things too… But I would highly recommend it over our airline system which is becoming something of a joke. I live in Iowa and often have to fly through Chicago which is akin to Hell for a traveler, especially in winter… I’ve grown so sick of air travel, all the hassles, that this year I decided to avoid the unfriendly skies… I think I did the right thing… Air travel sucks anymore.
I already do not use United. But I suggest a different tack. This is an election year. Every one start writing to their local congressman / senator (only 1/3 up for election) and tell them that you want a “Airline Passenger Bill of Rights” passed before November or you will withhold your vote. This bill of rights shall state that all commercial airlines that enter US airspace must allow their passengers two bags not to exceed 50 pounds. If we all write and visit their local offices, perhaps we can over ride the airline industry. Remember that we can unelect them and do it if they vote against us.
Have a good day - Cliff
I am already practicing this. I am forced to fly now and then for business, but I haven’t flown anywhere for leisure in four years. My husband and I take driving vacations. We live in the southwest and the list of great places within driving distance is very, very long…so I don’t feel the need to get on a plane right now. We tend to stay at B&Bs or middle-tier chains (like Holiday Inn and Best Western) that don’t impose the fees you’ll find at the higher-end resorts. If more people did this, and if they let the airlines and hotels know exactly why they are doing it, the travel industry would have no choice but to change some of its policies.
Regarding the luggage fees, although they’re obnoxious, I wonder how many people are really going to be affected by them. Aren’t most of the fees for a second checked bag? You can bring one on board and check one for free. So you’d have to have three bags in order to get to the point where you’re paying a fee. How many people need three bags to go on vacation? If you have kids, each child can take his/her own bag. So if you’re ending up with extra bags, I’d have to say you’re taking too much stuff.
Aircraft are not oceanliners.
Packing as if one is going on a year-long tour of “The Continent” makes no sense.
US airlines should get in line with IATA rules and set a limit of 20 kilos (44 pounds) per checked bag and allow one checked bag per ticket. Everything over that should be charged at standard cargo shipping rates. Carry-on size should be standardized world wide so a carry-on that started out in Chicago can still be carried on in Germany, Spain, Thailand, or wherever. One carry-on plus one small purse/briefcase/portfolio, a lap-top, per ticket. Special permission should be created for handicap equipment and child seat/child care equipment. Carry-on sizes and limits should be strongly enforced and identical for all classes of passengers.
The problem is not the surcharge — the problem is we drag too much stuff around with us.
In response to the comments of Steve Savage.
My observations are entirely anecdotal but certainly one-sided.
It seems that 9 months out of every year leisure travel, at least for those with kids, isn’t really happening. During the school year, I haven’t seen very many times when the planes and hotels are not at capacity. In the area where I travel the most, Northern Virginia and Washington DC, certainly there are months where tourist own the city: June, July and August. But I don’t see 40% of the plane or the hotel occupied by leisure travelers, even then. During the other nine months, I would be hard-pressed to witness 10% of the travelers wearing anything but business attire (and I’m not just talking about Mondays and Fridays). The only exception to this generalization is the day after the Redskins come to Dallas for the big game every year. Monday is, very typically, a jersey-filled trip home for half the plane.
I would be hard-pressed to believe that a boycott of a significant percentage of the leisure travelers would be attainable and, even then, I would expect little impact to the airlines and hotels. The ones hardest hit would probably be the ones you don’t want to hit because of their high degree of fairness and economy (Southwest, Days Inn, companies like that).
I’m all for re-introducing the local and nearby vacation opportunities to the leisure population and I believe they would make the vacations worth it, but effecting a change on the major carriers and the hotels? I would say unlikely. Just what percentage of the vacationing public goes to Disney or on a cruise in any given year?
Just my $0.02 worth.
I’m traveling to UK again this year and learned on my last trip–that one to France– if flying foreign airline, be sure not to book a ticket that includes a code share flight. Air France is great, but that was just in one direction. The other way was on an american codes share airlline and nothing to brag about.
I understand that BA is one foreign airline to avoid. And I avoid certain airports, too. Here and abroad. Such a long list of nots…..I’m glad I’ll soon be too old to bother with flying anywhere….the sky is blue and the stars are in the sky anyplace I am……and if one can see the stars, the place is most likely not overcrowded….. such a grand vacation that is……!!!!
Jasper’s comment on Feb 12th was right-on-target. WELL-SAID! I completely agree with you that a boycott could only work if the business industry were the main participants in it. When you need (or simply want) to travel a longer distance, you simply cannot drive. Whenever I need to fly (usually to Europe), I simply book whatever airline is the cheapest. E.g., if Continental is cheaper than SAS, I see no reason to boycott an American airline, if it’s still cheaper than the European one. If the price difference is negligble, I select the European airline. However, I believe that airlines of other countries are no more honest than our airlines here (with some notable exceptions).
I also agree with the previous posting that were pointing out how the government is constantly bailing out the airline industry. Maybe it’s time to let them take responsibility for themselves (although it might raise flight tickets even further). It’s simply a complicated situation that doesn’t have one single simple answer.
Agree with thrust some comments above: we can book away, but how will the airline we are avoiding realize this is a protest? Additionally, in case of checked bag fee, has UA announced what the policy is/will be for small cap RJ flites where there is no room for a roller that might ordinarily fit into overhead bin on a full-size jet
Hey - Thanks to everyone for commenting on my boycott idea, and being polite about it. I realize it’s highly unlikely to be able to be coordinated or to succeed, it was just my 2-cents’ worth. And aside from all the other really good points made above, I have to admit I was really intrigued by Jasper’s comment that perhaps it is the business clientele that should boycott. I think he has a good point because communication substitutes exist for them as well, at least to some extent and under some circumstances. My only final thought would be to remember that revenue, and hence profit, for the leisure and airline industry is marginal. It’s the last customers whose revenue falls straight to the bottom line. Start taking them away and things could quickly get painful for the L&T industry.
My husband and I are definitely refusing to fly in the near future. We will be driving round trip between the Seattle area down to Southern California in March — instead of flying. We will be going to South Carolina (and back) from Seattle to check out housing in July — driving, not flying. All of this is because of the egregious ways we are treated as the flying public. I wouldn’t call our decision a boycott, just a preference for avoiding the monumental hassles of airport entry, security screenings and the ghastly flight experience.
With the exception of the types of emergency travel mentioned in other posts, I started my boycott about a year ago. And I don’t find myself restricted to nearby travel.
The Amtrak station, nearest to my home, is about a one-day drive away–approximately 300 miles. If you opt for travel in a sleeper, the fare is the same, or sometimes higher, than first class air. Also, you need to get used to being bounced-around in your bed at night. However, all this is worth getting-away from the attitudes, cramped conditions, and scams that go with domestic air travel.