The airlines -- not their customers -- have created a business in which their most valuable/profitable customers are the most unhappy.

They make me pay the highest fares while casual customers are offered outrageous discounts. Many times I have sat in my $1,100.00 coach seat only to discover that the person sitting next to me paid $370.00 for their seat.

They want me to stay away from my home in order to 'qualify' for a cheaper fare. Is that their way of trying to make my life easier? What possible difference can it make whether I stay a Saturday night or not? I weigh about the same on Friday as I do on Sunday. Their fuel prices must be pretty close to equal on both days. I occupy one seat no matter what day I fly. If there is a seat available, why don't they sell it to me at a reasonable price so I can get home to my family?

They insist I pay the highest possible fares for booking travel close to my desired departure date. As a business traveller I have little control over the timing of most of my trips. The airlines see this as an opportunity to gouge me even more.

They make me pay before they provide their 'service' -- and if they decide not to provide that 'service' I am stuck with little recourse. I don't pay cab fare a month in advance, then hope a car shows up.

They feed me mediocre food at best -- although recent decisions to cut down on food service come as welcome news.

They often sell more seats than their aircraft contain, then ask me to give up my seat and take a later flight in exchange for a round trip ticket. I'm sure that makes economic sense to them.

They tell me that my safety is their primary concern, then hire poorly trained, underpaid people to take care of me.

I've heard the 'it's a complicated business' excuse before. It must be complicated indeed if a few days with no business means the airlines need the taxpayers (me again) to bail them out. I disagree totally with that scenario. Airlines are not an essential service. If four or five days with no business are all it takes to trigger their failure, shame on them.

Survival of the fittest is a powerful concept.

Price/value for shorter flights (e.g., 3 hours or less) becomes a bigger factor for shorter flighters where some of the frequent flyer ammenities don't apply (no upgrades, clubs, etc.) and a slightly less comfortable flight in exchange for significantly lower fares is very appealing.

An even better opportunity for repeat business from me is how the airline responds to a (valid) complaint. The airline I frequent the most is not the best at providing an enjoyable experience (they are fairly OK, but not the best), but they did handle my complaint very well.

What's interesting about the low cost airline segment is that as far as scheduling, comfort levels and prices are concerned, there is often very little difference between one carrier and another. Doesn't it follow that the key differentiator in a marketplace such as this must therefore be brand image/experience?

Overall they have positioned a commodity service by deliberately steering clear of traditional airline stereotypes. No old crabby stewards, no fluff with special business clubs, no confusion as to tiered ticket arrangements.

The same applies to a product or service. If you purchase a product for the frst time for whatever behavioral reason of the day it may be, as we all do, whether conciously or subconciously, and the product delivers and then some, and on a longer-term basis, you can afford it, you will become a user of that brand. And, I hasten to add, you will spread the news to all your friends, which then becomes a sort of viral marketing, if you will. It's a positive dominio effect from there on until, of course, the brand ceases to sustain its promise. However, depending on the product and negative encounter with it, the longer you use it with great satisfaction, creatng the all-so-important brand equity, the more forgiving you will be if the brand 'screws up.'

As a result Air Canada has become one of the most despised brands o fly the Canadian skies. This is due in part do to their monopoly on the Canadian marketplace, but mostly because their ongoing actions isolate, alienate and annoy their customers. It’s gotten to the point that examples of poor service and broken promises are posted on a third party gripe-site (http://www.errorplan.com).

In addition, the launch of brand extensions for Air Canada; Jazz, Tango, Zip have been so understated that they cause more confusion than clarity. If anything customers just want to know that they will get to their destination and get there on time, the use of a code-sharing or branded partner is usually not that great an issue.

A friend told me last week he flew ABAC to Calgary. ABAC he explained means Anything But Air Canada. He flies to the Orient 6 to 8 times a year on business. Air Canada has become too bothersome for him to fly and he is amplifying his displeasure by telling others about it.

Having said that, the rise and rise of low-cost airlines in mainland Europe is promising travellers cheap tickets and a reliable service. Cheap they maybe but it's still the good old fashioned companies that get you there earliest.

But not because of the airline topic – which I would argue demonstrates what Chuck of France said below: That the importance one subscribes to brand varies according to whether your flight is a short hop (therefore equals a quasi bus journey of near commodity value) or a longer experience (therefore equals a branded experience of less functional value).

What’s really interesting is that – whilst Brandchannel is normally a focus of objective and professional debate – such objectivity flies out of the window when it concerns a subject on which we all have subjective views and experience.

We have brand experts in here saying (and believing!) that the brand doesn’t matter to them (like advertising experts always say “Personally, of course, ads don’t influence me”) and we have them also quoting personal anecdotes as a means of justifying the branding discipline.

Which all goes to show that however objective and apparently academic this industry may claim to be, when it comes to a subject that touches us all, we all seem still to be human.

I travel regularly from Amsterdam to London. A very short hop across the channel. Here's a breakdown of the four major carriers on the route.

1.BMI - personable staff and fairly good sandwiches. 2.BA - patchy service 3.KLM - rude staff, a bag of nuts for the journey. 4. Easyjet - more expensive than the others unless you book months in advance, the overall experience is cheap (well on-brand!). Feels the least safe of all.

Apart from any remotely possible stirrings of patriotism I do that because I find the attentiveness of the staff, attention to detail and expression of caring all appealing.

I've flown with Cathay, Philippines Air, Luftansa and other carriers for various reasons...