Regardless of Southwest's "average price" of a ticket, which is meaningless, every time I've needed to fly somewhere their price has been lower than any I've found on Orbitz, etc. The possible exceptions of flights that go halfway around the country to get me 500 miles, like Tucson to Salt Lake City to L.A. and taking 6 hours instead of 1 if I flew straight there on Southwest.

That's how a family business works but not a corporation that is owned by its shareholders.

Southwest's costs have definitely gone up in recent years. Airline cost fluctuations is kind of the nature of the beast.

My anecdotes are probably pretty worthless since full repeal of the Wright Amendment happened in 2014 which caused rates across the board to plunge here. I've heard anecdotally that the repeal may have caused rates to go up in other markets such as ABQ. At times I have been able to fly round trip to Vegas for $100 on Southwest. Last week I found $200 on Southwest but waited an hour and that price nearly doubled so I ended up booking on Virgin America for under $200.

My point is simply that the board has full confidence in Gary Kelly and his decision making just as they did with Herb Kelleher before him.

Well considering one of my best friends is a consultant in the airline industry and Southwest was his client, I think I will go with facts instead of opinion.

Interesting. I worked 5 years for Southwest Airlines in the Technology department and at one point reported directly to Gary Kelly.

And my dick's bigger than both of yours!

Wait, what are we talking about...? I think I focused on the subtext.

Were you the one who screwed up the software system upgrade?

Looking at recent photos, I'd doubt if I'd recognize her if I was standing next to her. But if she spoke, then maybe.

Adding my two cents worth to the Airline mini-hijack, I've felt for years that consumers should have an organization that keeps up with such things and speaks up and, if necessary, organizes boycotts against anti-consumer behavior. Since almost all flyers bring at least one bag, that should be allowed without an additional fee. The same for soft drinks and meals on long flights.
As for parking at the casinos, such an organization could have advocated avoiding MGM properties for a number of months if they proceeded with their plans. That may have had an impact on them, instead of the random complaint.
Basically what these companies are doing is charging their customers more because they can't attract more customers so their existing ones are punished. And they use methods that make the total cost of their services seem lower than they will wind up being.

I think the major factor for not charging locals is that they have far more power to do something about it. Namely, they have representatives in the local government who can pass laws that make it hard for casinos to do certain things. A law against charging for parking at casinos in Clark County is far more likely if the locals aren't happy about it. If locals park free, casinos get the extra revenue from tourists and the locals get their share in the taxes that are charged, and additional jobs that are created. It's a win-win.

while i think the parking charges are just bad business they don't piss me off like resort fees which are a complete and total scam.

Resort fees, resort fee tax and now parking charges. These have all definitely influenced me on not wanting to go as much as I used to.

There are consumer organizations, but nobody really cares about them.

I bet it's way more likely to organize a boycott that hurts the bottomline of a company by launching a fake news story that goes viral. I doubt MGM would notice a protest by consumers avoiding their resorts because of parking fees, but as soon as there's a big story out there about MGM being controlled by radical muslims that use profits to fund terrorism, you might see an impact.

A law based on what?

We're not in soviet russia and don't talk about milk or epipens. If a casino decides they want to charge customers for parking, they have every right to do so.

I might be able to come up with a hundred things where goverment intervention into a free market might be a good thing. Parking fees are certainly not among them. If people are unhappy with casinos, they can go see a movie instead.

Whoa, that's news to me! Better tweet that and tell all of my friends right away!

Dubai World does own 50% of Aria, Vdara, Veer and whatever is left of the Harmon since they bailed out MGM in 2009.

Interesting information. Although considering the UAE is a strong ally of The United States, I'm not really seeing the ties to terrorism.

It's possible they divested by now. http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...es-mgm-resorts

Didn't realize they first bought shares in 2007! OUCH!

Here's a better article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ns-gambli.aspx

Apparently the 50/50 deal was done prior to 2009, but they restructured in 2009 which prevented MGM from going bankrupt.

And they're all going to increase over time. Sounds like fun!

I'm curious to see how this will impact things over the next few years. It takes time for news like this to get to many of the tourists. I'm sure there were people parking at Caesars, Cosmo and Wynn in the last several months that still had no idea about the parking fees. But in the next year, a much higher percentage of tourists are going to find out. Locals will start getting charged. Vegas is not going to keep getting a new record for visitors forever.

Caesars is using the excuse that their garages are getting too full. But they also want to charge more for valet, which will lead to the garages getting more cars in them because of people avoiding the bigger fees for valet.

Some posts on here mention old Vegas giving away a bunch of free stuff. But that stuff wasn't really "free." People would take that free stuff, and have so much fun in Vegas that they would blow their money. The free stuff encouraged many of them to lose more money, and it would get many of them to come back over and over again. People felt like they were being treated really well, even though the casinos has just figured out a clever way to take their money while keeping them happy.

I think everybody knows that. The point is that the "freebies" would serve to keep people coming back. Nickel and diming them to death drives them away. It doesn't even matter if they lose more money via the freebies as it is a psychological effect to think you're getting something for free. Likewise, feeling like you're getting ripped off and charged hidden fees as the opposite psychological effect.

Wow, I never thought of it like this before. Thanks to your deep insight, the way I look at everything in Las Vegas has changed forever.

I think what they have found out over the years is that there are just too many cheap ****s who take advantage and game the freebees. They made a determination that they lost more money then the freebees bring in. And considering that young mellenials don't gamble, Vegas has lost almost all incentive to provide them.

Apparently it is deep insight to the people who are running things today.

And actually I do think some people are not getting it. I keep reading about casinos not making enough off of gambling, or about millennials not liking to gamble. But why would a younger person like gambling as much as older people? To a younger person, their experiences with gambling are to lose money more quickly, and get less "free stuff." Putting money into a machine and watching it disappear really quickly gets less fun after a while.

When they take away all the free drinks, we'll probably hear even more complaining about younger people not liking to gamble anymore.

It would be interesting to see one half-decent casino try doing it the old school way to see what happens. Free parking, no resort fees, super cheap buffet, good comps, but a nice-ish place (not a Four Queens type of place).