No, not as in "what's sexy about a man?" or "what's sexy about a woman?" Sorry to disappoint, but I was actually wondering, "what's sexy in an airline?"
I ask because, just over a week ago, I found myself bored enough to turn on the ol' PBS and watch this program on advances in airline safety, and how innovations in safety are usually implemented only after a terrible crash. (Cost-effectiveness, you know. When you're watching PBS, you have to take as a given that anything that can be treated as the fault of capitalism, will be treated as the fault of capitalism.)
Don't people demand air safety? Shouldn't that demand be supplied in a free market? Hasn't the free market voted against carriers who are perceived as neglecting safety? Well, I thought so. And this is where I wish I had a transcript of the program, because about as I was thinking this, a woman who'd written a book on the subject noted (please forgive the paraphrase), "Consumers care about air safety, but marketing studies have shown that what sells an airline are the amenities: extra leg room, onboard PCs, lower fares, more frequent flights to popular destinations."
Am I the only person who would, circumstances permitting, pay a higher-than-average airfare to a carrier that boasted of its superior safety record? Not just the safety record, in fact: How about documenting for me what extra steps you take, what corners you don't cut, what double- and triple-checks your carrier implements to prevent future tragedies? Don't just tell me you haven't had any accidents; that's something to be proud of, certainly, but it's not as seductive a hook to me as "and here's what we're doing to keep it that way." For example:
There's more I can think of--for example, tell me how well you treat your pilots. Do you hire enough of them that you're not throwing guys who've been up for the last 26 hours into the cockpit?
Safety, according to the woman on the PBS program, isn't marketed because it's not considered a "sexy" feature. It's also considered a given: To draw too much attention to safety is to remind people that sometimes, accidents happen. I can see how that could possibly discourage travelers from buying a ticket. Then again, most people who buy airline tickets have already chosen flying as their method of transport. I don't know the percentage of travelers who get cold feet and decide to go Greyhound instead, but I'd be shocked if it's currently a significant number.
Once a customer has decided to travel via air, it seems to me that nothing could be "sexier" than communicating to him that your airlilne has gone above and beyond the call of duty to secure his safety. But maybe that's just me, and maybe I'm out of the loop about what's sexy anymore.
Yeah in the airlines' defense all industries, government agencies, etc. are famous for not changing until something bad happens. Hell around here they don't even install stoplights on dangerous intersections until there've been at least two fatal accidents.
But here's something I've long wondered: why create something called "+25 Airlines." The catch? Guaranteed always to cost $25 above whatever your competitors are charging in each direction.
That's right, guaranteed to cost MORE.
The whole airline industry is extremely cutthroat. Nobody makes much money, everything is about price, price, price. Even before 9/11 airlines made tiny profits, and even with bailouts they've almost all had problems since. So why not create a prestige carrier? One you KNOW will ALWAYS cost a little extra, but which your extra $25 would include:
Guaranteed higher safety standards
Guaranteed nicer staff
Guaranteed tasty meal
Guaranteed roomier seating
Make everything look a little nicer with the uniforms and with the seats having little frills and there's always an in-flight movie and everyone gets the little headphones with the music and all that crap.
A prestige airline. First Class Airlines we could call that. "Did you want to fly First Class?" could be the phrase they could use. Standing offer: find us your best price from a competitor, and we guarantee to be only $25 more expensive than that in each direction.
Hell I bet it'd make millions, what with all the bitching people do about how sucky the airlines are these days. I mean for short under-one-hour commuter flights, no, but for any flight 90 minutes or more, hell I'd pay it woulnd't you? Or think about it anyway.
I don't think most people could really evaluate this data without extensive study of aviation safety and all its many subfields, from metallurgy to software engineering. For example: if a part needs to be serviced every 1000 flight hours and you decide to do it every 500 hours instead, is that necessarily good? Whenever doing maintenance, there's always a possibility of inadvertantly causing problems. Similarly, new airplanes aren't necessarily good. Almost always, there are design and manufacturing problems that don't get caught until the model has some real flight experience under its belt.
Almost always, there are design and manufacturing problems that don't get caught until the model has some real flight experience under its belt.
Point. Not that I like to think of airplanes as having to go through "debugging."
They do, though...as do cars and other products...no matter how much you think and how well you simulate, reality always seems to throw a few curveballs...
That's right, guaranteed to cost MORE.
I honestly don't think that's unsellable, but I admit I haven't run the numbers. Maybe someone's already tried to go that route--actually, didn't Braniff try it in the 1970s? Perhaps Virgin in the 90s?--and it simply can't be done.
But it seems reasonable to me that it could be done. Any running car can get a person from A to B, yet people who can, often do pony up for luxury automobiles regardless.
Left to their own devices, few people will pay more for safety except in the most extreme cases. And yet the same public screams for regulations to require the very same thing, only delivered in a vastly more expensive and less efficient manner.
Examples?
Seat belts started being offered as options in the late 50's. At some point which I'm too lazy to Google it was made mandatory for the automakers to make them available. And yet with few exceptions, only 1 or 2% of cars were ordered with them. And they weren't expensive.
Who wore bicycle helmets before they became mandatory?
How many people buy cheap tires as opposed to expensive tires? How many people buy brake repairs by price?
Who pays extra for non-generic drugs by choice?
How many buyers of motorcycle helmets, ask for the best, most expensive, models?
How many folks wear safety shoes when not required? Same for safety glasses?
The list is endless.
So, although I think your idea may actually be viable, it's selling on the Volvo model, and would likely have similar market penetration, imo.
General rules for choosing an airline in this order:
1. Non-stop flights in both directions.
2. Lowest price.
3. If there is a tie between 2 airlines, avoid Northwest if possible just on principle and surly flight crews.
I've taken charter flights on vacations where the planes looked a little run down. Given the safety record of commercial aviation, safety doesn't come into the equation.
You could sell me on additional leg room and seat size in coach. That's about it. I've heard of airlines that offer it but I haven't seen it yet.
Straight from the horses mouth: NTSB aviation accident statitsics. They have them broken out by aircraft type, carrier, etc., for 1984-2003.
Let's try again.
And if that fails:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
Oh, now I see. It insists on quotes.
My own experience isn't average, because most of the flights I take are 10+ hours. But I do take four or so such trips per year, and yeah, I gladly fork over the extra to go Japan Airlines (I'm in the mileage bank, but it doesn't offset the extra expense that much).
That said, once you're talking about a certain statistical level of safety, I agree with DSmith and Ralph Stephan that I wouldn't pay extra for extra conscientiousness. Since we're talking about domestic flights in America, not the PRC, I can't imagine many carriers are substandard.
The safety-related advertisement I'd like to see would be by the TSA, saying that it's actually going to deploy people who know their asses from a hole in the ground to take passengers through screening.
If you are looking for a prestige airline, with better food, bigger seats, etc. check out Midwest Airlines. It's based out of Milwaukee and has a relatively limited set of destinations, but I highly recommend it.
"Who wore bicycle helmets before they became mandatory?"
Me. But, in accordance with the above statement that safety procedures are usually only implemented after an accident, I only insisted on wearing one after getting knocked into the middle of an intersection sans helmet. (I didn't hit my head but was sufficiently scared by the thought that I might have.)