But it's not that funny when the low-information, high-chatter reader decides to take it as gospel.
I'm referring to yesterday's ChronBlog story, written by former Village Voice Houston blogger Craig Hlavaty, detailing the so-called "high" fares at IAH. The problem with this report from the DoT is that it doesn't take several really, really important factors into consideration.
For one, this report doesn't weight for destination. In other words, many flights out of Las Vegas are booked to California etc. Short-haul flights that are lower in price. IAH, by contrast, has a much higher ratio of International/Domestic departures than does LAS. You can't just "leave that out" and hope no-one notices. As an example of this, note the following:
Using the travel-search site ITA Matrix I searched identical trips to London Heathrow, departing March 12th 2014 (a Wednesday) returning March 19th, 2014 (also a Wednesday) the results were as follows:
LAS: The cheapest flight option was on British Airways, the total fare was $1,101. United (the bane of the chron.commenters) matched BA with the same fare. This fare was also matched by Air Canada.
IAH: The cheapest flight option was on Turkish Airways, the total fare was $907. United still came in lower than the fare for Las Vegas at $1,037. This latter fare was matched by American, Lufthansa, Finnair, Iberia and several others.
That fare is readily searchable, so you should have no problem replicating the results if you don't believe me.
Looking at it domestically, IAH still comes out ahead. When searching a flight to New York, the following results are found:
(Same dates, from LAS & IAH to either JFK or EWR.)
LAS: The cheapest flight option was $378 offered by Jet Blue. American offered the next cheapest, single airline fare* at $395 and Delta offered an option for $407.
IAH: The cheapest flight option was $287 offered by American. Delta and American both offered single airline fares for $297 and United weighed in at $316 which is high for the IAH market but still well below the LAS Option.
To be fair, where Las Vegas excels is on flights to the West Coast:
(Flight from LAS & IAH to LAX, same dates)
LAS: The cheapest option is $80 on Spirit (More on that later) with the lowest realistic option being the $129 fare offered by American.
IAH: The cheapest option is $280 on Frontier, with United logging in at $336
Still, it could be argued that may of these domestic fares are driven by geography, and that would make total sense. When you factor in that a LOT of the workers/residents in Vegas come from the West Coast it's easy to see why fares from there have such a low average price. Then there's the Spirit factor to consider. Spirit's base fares are very low, however, they also charge for carryon bags, have fees for choosing your own seat and a host of other fares that you won't find on many other airlines. I would argue that the $80 fare is more realistically going to land somewhere in the $150-$200 range when all expected fees are taken into consideration.
Finally, fare class. This DoT survey does not take it into consideration and that's a mistake. It's impossible to gauge exactly how much of an impact the purchase of a Business Class or First Class seat has on average fares but, in a business-travel heavy City like Houston it will at least be material. Unless you have those numbers, comparisons of destinations etc. the DoT report is pretty much useless and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, it’s given attention, too much attention. Part of this is because J-school grads writing on travel today don't seem to be especially skilled at actually traveling. They struggle through security, describe airports as "chaos" and seem to be befuddled by basic travel principles. In other words, they're projecting their frustrations and ignorance onto the general public who, because it's the only narrative in town, are lapping it up. It's much the same as the Faux outrage that's brewing over TIME not including any female chefs in their recent Top 10 list. This has been, at various times, held up by the media as proof our society "still has a long way to go" when it comes to gender issues. Feminists have declared the entire eating population to be a bunch of misogynistic carnivores (not thinly veiled one would imagine) who are incapable of giving women their just desserts.
I would disagree with all of this. In my view when the media makes a gaffe it's not the fault of society, but the fault of the media itself. Just because a novice travel writer takes issue with an air travel industry they obviously don't understand, doesn't mean that we're getting screwed or are falling into the same traps as they. Additionally, just because one publication can't find a female chef it deems worthy enough to put in a Top 10 list, doesn't mean that society shares the same issues. I've never heard anyone say "Wow, this fish is good but it'd be better if cooked by someone with male reproductive organs" and I doubt neither have you. The fact is, it doesn't matter who cooks the food as long as it tastes good. And it doesn't mean much that LAS has a lower average fare than IAH because, in most instances, IAH can get you to your destination cheaper.
If you dislike United because of the silly notion that they "stole Continental from Houston" then there's nothing I can do to change your mind. If you've bought the lie hook, line & sinker then just continue to be strung along by the media and continue being angry. What's concerning to those of us who have some understanding of the travel business, is the continuing de-emphasis of IAH by United from a "main hub" to just "a hub". This is going to have profound effects on both the Houston economy and how we travel in the future. When the City decided to break a long-term agreement with IAH and, by extension, United just because Mayor Parker had her knickers in a knot there was never any discussion of the long-term consequences and what this could mean for the City. Yes, United handled it incorrectly by cutting unprofitable routes (that were on the cutting board already) and then blaming the HOU deal. It made them look petty and ridiculous. I'm not trying to defend them there. And the fact is there are plenty of reasons to not be a fan of United. It has become a very unreliable airline which has made many changes of late designed to cull out a large portion of its passenger base because they were (and continue to be) unprofitable. That said, you have to respect business decisions made with profitability in mind. This is, after all, a going concern.
Like many, I would love for airfare to be cheaper. Most of us would like most of everything to be cheaper. But that's not the way the world works. United, American, Delta and even Southwest have to turn a profit. The days of being a "loss leader" but making it up in volume are long gone. Loyalty programs, designed to ensure repeat travel, are going the way of the Dodo as well. Sure, they'll still be around in some fashion but the days of qualifying at a higher tier for a song and then scoring upgrades to exotic locales are in the past. Air travel, for better or worse, has been re-imagined as a white good, with no emotional attachment to ensure loyalty the future state is one of free agents price shopping with little else under consideration. In Houston, this means that (if you're honest) you're still going to use United for a bulk of domestic travel because of their routing network, but that you now have options, especially Internationally that are going to suddenly be in play. IAH will no longer be the "main hub" for United but it will still be "a hub" of importance so it's not going to be world ending, but it is going to be much worse having two CLE type hubs in Houston instead of one EWR. That's the big travel story that the media should be telling, not some silly average fare price story that's not even relevant to how you travel.
