Why Don't The Airlines Just Raise Fares?

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens:

Do you have a point anymore? At one point, you complained that pax booked on an airline that stops service are hosed. In the next response, you complain that this doesn't allow the free market to work. So what is your point?

Complained or commented? I consider it a comment that exposes the hypocrisy. When workers are hurt by so called "Free market" forces we are told thats the way Capitalism works, but when workers attempt to use those same forces the same people run to the government for "protection".


I think there should be some consumer-protection regulations. I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but there should be some sort of regulations... And these again exist in most industries. Movies have ratings. Retailers have scanner regulations and price notification regulations (where I live, all products must have a price clearly indicated on the shelf or on the product, and the consumer must be able to read the scanner read-out for each items as purchased).

I agree that the RLA is antiquated legislation that should be replaced. However, I am not sure of what the best replacement would be. I do think there is a better way, however. On this, we agree.

Fine, put us under the same rules as everyone else, the NLRA.

Now on to the "conclusion" bit... Whlinder has already noted the theoretical conclusion of competition... And the railroads are a good example of that. There is still competition, and all players make little, if any, profits. It can be argued that airline industry fits this bill as well. The current issue in the airline industry is that even though the industry is close to break even, but within the industry, their are clear winners and losers.

The oil industry... last time I checked, there were a couple of different gas stations near my house...

Do you mean like Exxon and Mobil-the same company?

so, I am certain that there is not a monopoly on distribution of gasoline to consumers. Yes, there are some monopolistic influences on oil production due to our friends at OPEC, but even so, OPEC is seeing more competition from Russia and other non-OPEC countries. However, some oil producers getting together to limit production of oil is hardly representative of the conclusion to competition in a free market.

While MicroSoft has a near monopoly in some sectors, its not pure. Last I checked, I could still buy products from Apple. At work (no college boy here), I still have access to UNIX based systems. So there is some competition. However, currently there is some monopolization on software. However, this seems to be more the result of a search for a standard, rather than result of competition.

I can't comment on NYC mass transit competition, because I only have a small amount of knowledge on the subject.

Next, you say that I will claim that cheaper competitors will underbid the more costly legacy airlines, and that my "free market theory" forgets the power of the legacies. I reply that the LCC's have successfully reduced the power of the legacies over the last 20 years, and you respond with an attack on economic theory and my grammer...

Not quite, more like an attack in response to your condescending remarks about Econ101.

Well, here's the deal. I understand that economic theory isn't perfect. However, there are basic principles of economic theory that shine through the imperfections... Like supply and demand. Changes in supply and demand do not create perfect responses. Some of this is explained through the elasticity theories, and some of it is simply consumer preference (for example for airplanes over trains on long distance travel). But that does not invalidate the supply and demand theory.

No it does not invalidate the theory it just invalidates your application of it in support of your claim that the LCCs dictate pricing because as you admitt other theories apply as well in this situation. Just as Newtons law of Gravity is a valid basic concept it does not explain the fact that airplanes fly, nor does the fact that airplanes fly invailidate the law.

Lastly, I am not in school, and haven't been in several years. If I were writing a paper, or a book, or something for commercial publication, I'd edit it more throughly. Generally, I think my points generally come across as reasoned debate despite my occasional grammar or spellinng errors. I overlook others errors when their argument has merit. Get over it.

I have, apparently it bothered you though.

[post="230901"][/post]​

 

[funguy2]

Bob: I am not sure if you are confusing me with other posters or not, but I'll repeat what I said in my first post in this thread:

I've said for a while, its not the LCC's fault fares don't increase... It is, in my opinion, a macro economic issue. The costs of things people buy every day are rising, and rising dramatically. Gasoline is up over $1/gallon since the extremely low prices we saw in 1998 (under $1/gal). Natural gas and heating oil is up with the rest of petrolium. The cost of milk, and almost all dairy products is up, as are certain vegetables. People's income is coming down.

While I do believe the LCC's have a big impact on the pricing power of the legacies, that was never my argument. Rather I argued that some pretty basic economic theories are in play here... Among them, reduced discretionary income, and its affect on travel purchases (leisure travel is "discretionary" for most), and supply and demand in the market.

It has been discussed by analysts and airline execs who know more than me, that there is too much capacity in the US airline market.

You have seemed very uninformed of economic theory in several posts... Sorry if I was condescending... But you stated:

If the planes are full then they are charging too little. $20 -to $30 dollars per ticket is not going to make anyone stay home but it could make the difference between a profit and a loss.

And

The break even is at 95% because the price is so low. Raise the price and the break even number drops.

Now these two statements say "Just raise the fares". But again, the way the airlines will raise the fares is by reducing capacity and allowing supply and demand to re-adjust, becase, we know that fares, or the price of airline travel, is a function of supply and demand, not just the whim of Herb Kelleher.

However, I have gone on to argue that there are a few problems with adjusting supply... Such as, the airline industry does not have a rational contraction method. The airline industry contracts by everyone growing too much, and then one or two companies have catastrophic failures (i.e. bankruptcy/liquidation).

Furthermore, I have gone on to discuss that should the industry find a way to contract, then the resulting higher prices may further deteriorate demand. For example, if the $99 transcons were no longer available, some people would not demand travel services. In fact, theorized that the airlines are concerned that there would be a steep drop in demand caused by any increase in price and the lack of growth in discretionary spending. Also, we know that reductions in capacity means increases in CASM, outside of an airline completely ceasing service. What this means, is that even if prices rise, some airlines might lose more money than they are currently, because demand could fall faster than supply, and costs increase.

I also discussed the "commoditization" (if thats a word) of airline seats... By noting that some high-end travel services, like luxury hotel rooms, still attract a market, but demand for "high-end" airplane seats seems to be disappearing. Even folks who sit in first class cabins, domestically anyway, don't pay for it! They use their miles or corporate relationships, or whatever to get there for a reduced price or free. Your response to this was to attack the reliability of the LCC's:

And when that $500/night hotel room that was paid for sits empty because your LCC either overbooked or cancelled the flight how enjoyable will that vacation be?

Next, you begin to attack the travel industry, and claim that airlines and their employees are subsudizing the profits in other parts of the aviation and travel industries. But, you resist the fact that despite this, some companies are able to create a profit inspite of the soaring fuel costs and this subsidization. And you further call for the unions to "shut the whole thing down":

Or until the unions start acting like unions and shut the whole thing down.

So, next time you are trying to make a trip and we all just decide to walk off the job, dont complain, take comfort in knowing that the free market is working!

When you are asked by other posters what benefit "shutting the whole thing down" is, you struggle for an answer which is essentially revenge:

It helps the average union worker because it expands this whole mess to a crisis where we are not the only ones affected. Under the current conditions everyone else is doing well off our labor. The only ones suffereing are airline workers. The public is enjoying cheap air travel at our expense. We need to cut off that benifit to force a fair and resonable solution.

You made a call for the following:

Either the government should step back and allow the industry to assume its natural deregulated path-consolidation, or regulate it.

Well, since the government got out of the business of regulating the markets which airlines are allowed to fly and which they are not, most other folks took that to mean "re-regulation", which it would be. And several posters discussed the negative economic predictions which would probably occur. While I have not stated it, as far as I can recall, there are very few mergers which the fed's opposed, UAL-USAir being one. However, the feds have generally allowed consolidation to occur, and I believe will continue to. 9/11/01 has thrown that all off for a few years, but consolidation of legacies is likely to continue soon. Of course, sometimes consolidation is in the form of liquidation, not mergers.

Furthermore you "exposed my hypocracy" of "free market" for employees and "protection" for consumers. So, I guess employees do not get "protection" from unions, unemployment insurance, OSHA, etc? I, in fact, I agreed with you that there is a better way to handle airline employee relations than the RLA.

Thus far through this whole debate, you have not made one argument on the basis of economics. In fact, you stated that the "conclusion of competition is a monopoly," which is factually inaccurate. Then, you sited an example of the railroads, where the "conclusion of competition" was what is was supposed to be, a very low-profit/break-even commoditized market.

In the beginning, you argued for increased fares. Then you argued for either consolidation or re-regulation. Now you seem to be arguing for employee rights. All of these things, to me, sound like, "I'm a bitter airline employee".

So I am not sure what you are arguing. Do you think airlines can just raise fares? Fine. Tell me why. I've already disagreed with that notion in the current environment, and posted why I think so extensively. Do you want to argue for greater employee rights, such as an unimpeded ability to strike? Fine, do it, although its not the topic of this thread. Do you want to argue for re-regulation? Fine. Tell me what good it will do for the airlines, for the employees, and for the national economy.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob: I am not sure if you are confusing me with other posters or not, but I'll repeat what I said in my first post in this thread:
While I do believe the LCC's have a big impact on the pricing power of the legacies, that was never my argument. Rather I argued that some pretty basic economic theories are in play here... Among them, reduced discretionary income, and its affect on travel purchases (leisure travel is "discretionary" for most), and supply and demand in the market.

Well the fact is that travel is up, not down, load factors are higher, not lower so obviously the simple supply and demand explanation does not explain why with higher than normal load factors prices are low. Supply is less and demand is high. Now we can claim that demand is high because the price is low but the fact is that flying is only one part of the expense of travelling. People are not flying someplace just to turn around and fly right back.

It has been discussed by analysts and airline execs who know more than me, that there is too much capacity in the US airline market.

Yes, the same analysts and execs who made similar predictions in 1982 and 1992.

You have seemed very uninformed of economic theory in several posts... Sorry if I was condescending...
Now these two statements say "Just raise the fares". But again, the way the airlines will raise the fares is by reducing capacity and allowing supply and demand to re-adjust, becase, we know that fares, or the price of airline travel, is a function of supply and demand, not just the whim of Herb Kelleher.


Your assumption appears to be that every seat must be sold on evvery flight in order to raise prices, again, you are trying to aplly a basic formula where there are more complex forces at work. I still maintain that if a trip is sold out, or even 70% sold $10 to $20 would not have made a difference as far as the load but would change the airlines bottom line.

However, I have gone on to argue that there are a few problems with adjusting supply... Such as, the airline industry does not have a rational contraction method. The airline industry contracts by everyone growing too much, and then one or two companies have catastrophic failures (i.e. bankruptcy/liquidation).

Or aquisition. While there are cyclical trends the overall trend over the last 70 years has been continued growth.

Furthermore, I have gone on to discuss that should the industry find a way to contract, then the resulting higher prices may further deteriorate demand. For example, if the $99 transcons were no longer available, some people would not demand travel services. In fact, theorized that the airlines are concerned that there would be a steep drop in demand caused by any increase in price and the lack of growth in discretionary spending.

I dispute that theory in as far as that there would be a steep drop in demand with "any" increase. Especially with modest increases because air travel would still be an exceptional value in both cost and time. A $99 transon , thats basically what it costs to take the family out to dinner. Even if the fare went to $125 or $150 it would still be a bargain, less than a day at Disneyland.

Also, we know that reductions in capacity means increases in CASM, outside of an airline completely ceasing service. What this means, is that even if prices rise, some airlines might lose more money than they are currently, because demand could fall faster than supply, and costs increase.

Part of that is due to the fact that as airlines shrink they let their cheapest workers go first. CASMs have steadily decreased in both real and adjusted terms over the years.

I also discussed the "commoditization" (if thats a word) of airline seats... By noting that some high-end travel services, like luxury hotel rooms, still attract a market, but demand for "high-end" airplane seats seems to be disappearing. Even folks who sit in first class cabins, domestically anyway, don't pay for it! They use their miles or corporate relationships, or whatever to get there for a reduced price or free.

Not really, the "miles" brought income into the company.

Your response to this was to attack the reliability of the LCC's:

I think it was a fair enough question. Look at the reputation that Peoples Express had before dissapearing.

Next, you begin to attack the travel industry, and claim that airlines and their employees are subsudizing the profits in other parts of the aviation and travel industries.

Well we are.

But, you resist the fact that despite this, some companies are able to create a profit inspite of the soaring fuel costs and this subsidization.

Oh yea, who? Dont say SWA, because they are not a LCC.

And you further call for the unions to "shut the whole thing down":
When you are asked by other posters what benefit "shutting the whole thing down" is, you struggle for an answer which is essentially revenge:

Not revenge, defense.

You made a call for the following:
Well, since the government got out of the business of regulating the markets which airlines are allowed to fly and which they are not, most other folks took that to mean "re-regulation", which it would be. And several posters discussed the negative economic predictions which would probably occur. While I have not stated it, as far as I can recall, there are very few mergers which the fed's opposed, UAL-USAir being one. However, the feds have generally allowed consolidation to occur, and I believe will continue to. 9/11/01 has thrown that all off for a few years, but consolidation of legacies is likely to continue soon. Of course, sometimes consolidation is in the form of liquidation, not mergers.

Furthermore you "exposed my hypocracy" of "free market" for employees and "protection" for consumers.


"Your" hypocrisy? I believe I said "the" hypocrisy, unless of course you feel that the statement applies to the way that you feel.

So, I guess employees do not get "protection" from unions, unemployment insurance, OSHA, etc?

Obvoisly you are unaware as to how much we have lost over the years. Go see the thread on Mechanics Wages vs CPI for a start.

I, in fact, I agreed with you that there is a better way to handle airline employee relations than the RLA.

Okay, but you didnt say what it was.

Thus far through this whole debate, you have not made one argument on the basis of economics. In fact, you stated that the "conclusion of competition is a monopoly," which is factually inaccurate.

Ok, Ill restate it , the conclusion of competition is victory, which for a corporation is monopoly.

Then, you sited an example of the railroads, where the "conclusion of competition" was what is was supposed to be, a very low-profit/break-even commoditized market.

Thats because of government regulation and the fact that technology has introduced competion in the form of other modes of transport.

In the beginning, you argued for increased fares. Then you argued for either consolidation or re-regulation. Now you seem to be arguing for employee rights. All of these things, to me, sound like, "I'm a bitter airline employee".


So I am not sure what you are arguing. Do you think airlines can just raise fares? Fine. Tell me why.

I already have, several reasons including high load factors and the fact that the cost airfares are absurdly low, its cheaper than driving.

I've already disagreed with that notion in the current environment, and posted why I think so extensively. Do you want to argue for greater employee rights, such as an unimpeded ability to strike? Fine, do it, although its not the topic of this thread.

Do you want to argue for re-regulation? Fine. Tell me what good it will do for the airlines, for the employees, and for the national economy.

As you stated, its not the subject of this thread. The subject of the thread was "Why not just raise fares?" And I say with record high load factors, why not? So far we have seen where one airline raises fares and others do not follow, but we have not seen where the airline that did raise fares lost market share or if what they did lose offset the increased revenue. I feel that with high load factors they can raise fares, especially on routes where a low-balling competitor is not present. Once again, as we see in this discusion, the whole premise is built around a simplification that does not reflect reality, each fare to each city has many different variables, how many competitors, how much demand, time of day etc.All these factors affect the price.

[post="230991"][/post]​

 

[SSConcorde35]

Something is very wrong with the pricing of the airline business when it costs
more to park your car at the airport for 7 days than it does to fly half way
across the country. Even worse is that people will fork out $50 to take
a cab from downtown to the airport but complain about any airfare that's
above $99.
I have had enough of this nonsense, let'em drive!

9

[post="203750"][/post]​

AMEN

 

[funguy2]

Bob:

I'm done going round and round on this. A few parting thoughts:

1. If the airlines could raise the fares $10-$20, they would. AA has tried several times and in almost every case, has repealed the increase... Apparently they are not willing to find out how their market share would change in the face of higher fares.

2. I don't believe we will see a fare increase in the form of "AA (or insert airline here) raised fares $10 on all tickets and all other airlines mathced" any time soon. I believe that the only way to increase fares today is through revenue management. Thus the lowest available fare may not increase, but perhaps average fare and RASM will.

3. I think the best medicine for the airline industry right now is to simplify the tax burden on airline tickets. If the fares (including taxes) stay same, yet the tax burden is reduced, this would go directly to the airlines' bottom line. This occurred during 2002 when the fed's temporarily reduced the taxes on airline tickets. The airlines simply increased fares by the same amount as the reduced taxes. Thus consumers saw no change and the airlines booked more revenue. Of course, with a federal deficit growing, this is unlikely to be well received in Washington.

4. High load factors do not equal profitable airlines. Counter-intuitive, yes. True, yes. In the same vain, High load factors do not necessarily equal easy to raise fares. Just ask AA.

 

[Bob Owens]

funguy2,Dec 29 2004, 10:15 PM]
Bob:

I'm done going round and round on this. A few parting thoughts:

1. If the airlines could raise the fares $10-$20, they would. AA has tried several times and in almost every case, has repealed the increase... Apparently they are not willing to find out how their market share would change in the face of higher fares.

Well risk is the name of the game isnt it? But then again if you can get it from your employees why not?

2. I don't believe we will see a fare increase in the form of "AA (or insert airline here) raised fares $10 on all tickets and all other airlines mathced" any time soon. I believe that the only way to increase fares today is through revenue management. Thus the lowest available fare may not increase, but perhaps average fare and RASM will.

Thats a crock and you know it. The fact is the airline market is not monolithic. Each city pair is its own market and each has its own challanges, this "raise all the fares by $10-to $20" crap is nothing but a simplistic solution to a situation which does not exist. AA could raise the fares in some markets by $100 and cut them in others, like where it competes with Jet Blue, and still be ahead of the game.

3. I think the best medicine for the airline industry right now is to simplify the tax burden on airline tickets. If the fares (including taxes) stay same, yet the tax burden is reduced, this would go directly to the airlines' bottom line. This occurred during 2002 when the fed's temporarily reduced the taxes on airline tickets. The airlines simply increased fares by the same amount as the reduced taxes. Thus consumers saw no change and the airlines booked more revenue. Of course, with a federal deficit growing, this is unlikely to be well received in Washington.


Or the savings in Taxes could simply be funnelled to Bush's Saudi friends like our pay cuts were. I think we need to see how Washington recieves the news that all the airline workers have walked off the job.

4. High load factors do not equal profitable airlines. Counter-intuitive, yes. True, yes. In the same vain, High load factors do not necessarily equal easy to raise fares. Just ask AA.

How would they know? They announce a fare increase and then repeal it right away. A few weeks later NWA does the same thing. Its a game. Despite what they now claim other factors besides the lowest price influence people to buy tickets such as time of day, direct flights ,freq flier miles which allow a businessman to accumulate miles through tax deductable business travel that he can use to take his family on vacation, etc. If the load factors are high then they can raise fares. If the competitors planes are full, anyone else who wants to get there has to pay your price. Its a concept that has been in use for decades where the airlines rape business travellers and people who have family emergencies.

 

[funguy2]

funguy2,Dec 29 2004, 10:15 PM]
2. I don't believe we will see a fare increase in the form of "AA (or insert airline here) raised fares $10 on all tickets and all other airlines mathced" any time soon. I believe that the only way to increase fares today is through revenue management. Thus the lowest available fare may not increase, but perhaps average fare and RASM will.

Thats a crock and you know it. The fact is the airline market is not monolithic. Each city pair is its own market and each has its own challanges, this "raise all the fares by $10-to $20" crap is nothing but a simplistic solution to a situation which does not exist. AA could raise the fares in some markets by $100 and cut them in others, like where it competes with Jet Blue, and still be ahead of the game.

[post="233502"][/post]​

Well, I guess you've changed your mind then... because on Nov 24, you posted this rather simple solution:

If the planes are full then they are charging too little. $20 -to $30 dollars per ticket is not going to make anyone stay home but it could make the difference between a profit and a loss.

I know that AA offers 40 different fares between $99 and $2500 one-way on the JFK-LAX route. I don't think that raising that fare range to $119-$2519 will be a successful strategy, since someone else will offer $99. However, I do think offering less seats at $99 and more seats at $199 is more likely to be a successful strategy to raise fare levels. Thats called revenue management. And AA has revenue management skills superior to most other airlines.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

AA has revenue management skills superior to most other airlines.

Yup. AA invented "Yield Management".

I wish their superior skills would get us out of the mess we are in. Or at least us rank and file people.

 

[WorldTraveler]

A number of valid points here.

Don't doubt that part of the reluctance to raise fares by some carriers is that they are out to rid the industry of some of the weaker carriers. Even the popular press recognizes that part of WN and B6's frequent deep fare sales are aimed in part at US in hopes of push them out of business. The same charge has been leveled at NW, a charge that is certainly plausible given that NW has had one of the biggest cash stashes in the industry for the past several years.

If carriers simply snap up US assets and keep the same capacity (if they are the first carrier to fail), nothing positive has occurred. However, if some weaker hubs are eliminated or carriers trade weaker hubs for stronger ones, the remaining legacy carriers will be stronger and the industry more stable.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well, I guess you've changed your mind then... because on Nov 24, you posted this rather simple solution:
I know that AA offers 40 different fares between $99 and $2500 one-way on the JFK-LAX route. I don't think that raising that fare range to $119-$2519 will be a successful strategy, since someone else will offer $99. However, I do think offering less seats at $99 and more seats at $199 is more likely to be a successful strategy to raise fare levels. Thats called revenue management. And AA has revenue management skills superior to most other airlines.

[post="233821"][/post]​

Hey I thought you were leaving?

Fair enough attempt at a comeback but you left out some important points. I said nothing about the other carriers having to match, nor did I say on all flights, the statement is in conjunction with the statement on "full flights". The statement was in reference to the fact that for that small of an increase, the company could make a profit without driving away consumers. Two different thoughts although they name similar figures.

Although I may not have structured the reply clearly, it was really in response to both points #1 and 2 about how AA cant raise the price $10 to $20 because of competitors.

 

[Oneflyer]

Fair enough attempt at a comeback but you left out some important points. I said nothing about the other carriers having to match, nor did I say on all flights, the statement is in conjunction with the statement on "full flights". The statement was in reference to the fact that for that small of an increase, the company could make a profit without driving away consumers. Two different thoughts although they name similar figures.

Although I may not have structured the reply clearly, it was really in response to both points #1 and 2 about how AA cant raise the price $10 to $20 because of competitors.

No offense Bob, but there are people at AA that do this for a living, every day. They are pretty damn smart and I'm quite confident that they have a better educational understanding of economics and market forces than you. They also have a ton of information that you and I don't have available to us. What you are proposing makes sense and is simple to execute. The problem is your idea isn't unique, I've heard almost every person I've met at AA and just about every person I've met outside of AA suggest what you are suggesting. The problem is it doesn't WORK or AA would be doing it. Its that simple.

 

[funguy2]

Bob... I guess I worded it poorly. I don't believe a discussion can be accomplished when one poster just posts and leaves. Therefore, I make it a point to check back on threads I've participated in. I guess I should have said that I will no longer be engaging in "marathon" posting. Besides, outlasting the patience of your debate opponent doesn't make your point any more or less valid.

Anyways, you can't have it both ways. You state that fares should only be raised on "full flights". However, you recognize the fact that today we have record high load factors. This implies that more flights than ever are "full", depending on your definition of "full" (is 75% full, 90%. 100%? Most folks recognize that a 100% load factor is probably an impossible goal, so maybe full is something less). Thus my interpretation that you would raise fares on all flights...

Of course, you could make the arguement that a flight from DFW to LAS might be "full" every thursday and friday night, but "less than full" on monday nights. Therefore, the solution to this would not be a unilateral fare increase in the DFW-LAS market or even in all spoke-DFW-LAS markets, but rather the solution would be, as I suggested, to yield manage the average fare up on "full" days and continue to offer low-ball fares on "less than full" days. What a great concept... Maybe AA should try something like that

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Therefore, the solution to this would not be a unilateral fare increase in the DFW-LAS market or even in all spoke-DFW-LAS markets, but rather the solution would be, as I suggested, to yield manage the average fare up on "full" days and continue to offer low-ball fares on "less than full" days. What a great concept... Maybe AA should try something like that

[post="234273"][/post]​

................ Well, the root of capitalism is charging what the traffic will bear, isn't it? Unfortunately, the obverse side of that coin is paying as little as the employees will bear.

 

[Oneflyer]

Unfortunately, the obverse side of that coin is paying as little as the employees will bear.

I think you are beginning to see the bottom of airline wages. Don't think that AA upper management isn't looking at USair and the problems they are having. Most employees at AA, probably even most union workers, understood the need for one pay cut, but you can not continue to cut someone's pay and expect the same quality of work.

 

[Bob Owens]

funguy2,Dec 31 2004, 05:34 PM]

Anyways, you can't have it both ways. You state that fares should only be raised on "full flights".

I did not say "only", nor did I say "all". Dont keep adding to what I wrote in order to suit your arguement.

However, you recognize the fact that today we have record high load factors. This implies that more flights than ever are "full", depending on your definition of "full" (is 75% full, 90%. 100%? Most folks recognize that a 100% load factor is probably an impossible goal, so maybe full is something less). Thus my interpretation that you would raise fares on all flights...

I believe that the debate was whether or not they could raise prices, not should. You come across as saying they cant, I say they can. Whether or not they can raise every fare on every flight is not important.The obsession over market share vs making money has gone beyond reason.

Of course, you could make the arguement that a flight from DFW to LAS might be "full" every thursday and friday night, but "less than full" on monday nights. Therefore, the solution to this would not be a unilateral fare increase in the DFW-LAS market or even in all spoke-DFW-LAS markets, but rather the solution would be, as I suggested, to yield manage the average fare up on "full" days and continue to offer low-ball fares on "less than full" days.

Well that pretty much been said too, and it also challenges the arguement the airlines seem to be making about having to make across the board increases or nothing. A $20 increase in one market could stick while in others it wont. Obviously the so called attempts to raise fares are nothing but a PR sham.