Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Apr 21, 2003
- 1,626
- 12
Not really. While the sunk costs involved are analogous, there are variable costs associated with nonrev travel, mainly fuel burn.
AA carried about 3.4M nonrevs last year, and 80% of them flew in coach at little or no charge. Nonrev charges haven't changed in a few years, so I seriously doubt they're reflective of the current cost of fuel.
Assuming about a $10 increase in incremental fuel burned per nonrev, and that's about $34M in expense that was never covered by surcharges.
Personally, I'd rather see the people flying pay a fair price for the fuel offset than to have someone try to find yet another $34M in cost savings or concessions.
Good point, and your reasoning is sound. There is no doubt that a nonrev uses fuel. How much or how little, I can't guess. But I would not be averse to paying for the fuel I burned. Good idea.
However, not all non revs are no charge, and their fuel consumption costs are mitigated or even balanced by the NR charges in business or first class. On a three class route, the service charge for first class can be quite high, surely well in excess of the fuel costs for the added weight. Heck, I flew first class on a two class airplane, but was charged the higher first class charge for a three class airplane because, as I was told, it was a three class route.
So, yes, the dumpster analogy is not 100% accurate, but is is close, and is, you must admit, quite colorful. And, hey, a little overstatement never hurt anyone.