Here is a letter I sent to US
June 23,2004

Ms. Deborah Thompson
Managing Director, Corporate and Consumer Affairs
US Airways
P.O. Box 1501
Winston Salem, NC 27102-1501
Fax at 1-336-661-8031
I find it hard to believe that on a 5-½ flight from Charlotte to San Francisco you have to BUY a breakfast.
This detests me.
Continental airlines feeds you at mealtime.
How do you compare US airways to Continental airlines?
My perception is a Southwest service with a full service carrier price.
How do you differ from other airlines?
Service is not your forte.

Currently I am flying Charlotte to Shanghai, China once a month.
I was doing this for the past three months.
Now about my trip
Scheduled attached
Left Charlotte on June 11 flight US 55 to San Francisco
Connecting to All Nippon flight NH 7 to Tokyo
Connecting with All Nippon flight NH 921to Shanghai
I paid $2,137.20 for this coach ticket

The flight to San Francisco was delayed because the plane needed to be cleaned before take off.
This delay was about 30-45 minutes
My connection in San Francisco, I made it, but my luggage did not.
I arrived in Shanghai, China. WITHOUT clothes.
The next day I had to fly to TIANJIN, China
I wear a 2xl shirt and clothes are very difficult to find for that size in China
All Nippon gave me 200 RMB about 24 US dollars. Which is not much even in China.
My luggage arrived two days later in TIANJIN, WITHOUT my digital camera.
Delayed, misplaced luggage has a much greater chance of pilferage then luggage that travels its normal route.
IS USAIR going to reimburse me for this camera?
Don’t send me any flight discounts, as I will not see this money
Report enclosed.

On my return trip, June 19 US airways flight 58, when we landed in Charlotte I proceed to the baggage claim area, the monitor said the luggage from the San Francisco flight would be in ZONE D.
Me along with the rest of the San Francisco passengers waited. Nothing came! About 30 minutes later all the San Francisco flight luggage came out on ZONE C.

What would happened if the pilot landed on the wrong runway.
It is important to get it right.
This is nonconformance.
Do you monitor this parameter?
Is this important to US Airways?
It is to me.
I heard one comment from another passenger “Well at least I got my luggage.
Is this the standard you want to me known by.
Attached is my new flight schedule, which I bought yesterday.
It is on NWA.
It may more inconvenient to me but I do have a choice even in Charlotte.
I am sending this letter to United airlines as this ticket was purchased through them.
I have no problems with United, but they should know the reason why my NEXT ticket was not purchased through them.

Anxiously waiting or reply
They wrote back on July 2 said someone will call me
Nobody has!
Today I was on hold for 38 minutes.
The CSR said they only getting to June compliants now maybe in a week or two they will get to mine.
For a CLT airport user I wished the United deal went through.

Blue Tiger

Is that supposed to be a poem?

Is that supposed to be a poem?

It certainly doesn't rhyme too good. Maybe the original poster should work on it some more.

Kind of like airline complaint haiku. I like it.

Sorry you had a bad experience. It is generally the exception to the rule of normally good experiences. BUT do you really like airplane food that much that not having it free drives you crazy?? The Buy on Board meals are better than the F Class meals

I think the OP's native language is not English, so let's be nice :) and focus on the content, rather than the form, of his post. I'd be lost writing a complaint in another language!

Yes, US sells food in coach - I've bought it and some of those sandwiches taste good, if I may so so, although a little pricey (but when you're hungry, price is irrelevant). We US flyers wish it were not so, but we live with it. For some of us, getting a good schedule and getting there safely takes priority over the niceties of food, service, etc. on board.

Misdirected/lost luggage - sorry it happened, but you did the right thing and filed a complaint.

I hope your next flight on another airline is better! Maybe you'd give US another chance in the future. I fly US to the West Coast several times a year for NW connections to Asia, and I've never had a problem!

BUT do you really like airplane food that much that not having it free drives you crazy?? The Buy on Board meals are better than the F Class meals

I had two very reasonable meals in F today. Much better than the stuff being served and/or sold in Y -- which looked ok, just not as nice. Oh wait... wrong airline...

Neo is right -- on US you're better off buying a meal in Y than getting a "free" meal in F. Based on the F product I'd rather not speculate on the level that a free meal in Y must have fallen to.

Kind of like airline complaint haiku. I like it.

Maybe Deb will publish it in the next edition of "Your Fault"...

BUT do you really like airplane food that much that not having it free drives you crazy??

He likes the food but it "detests" him. :)

Seriously, US FC is a joke. The more who complain, the merrier.

Reading his letter, I thought "What does he want besides someone to vent to?" A complaint letter usually carries a demand for something.

F/C Food is mediocre at best. I think US is still "fiddling" with the right ratio of cost versus quality versus competition.

Luggage gets lost from time to time. That's why I have a change of clothes in my carry on.

The pilferage concerns me greatly and US needs to respond.

What detests me is that US has to charge for food on a coast to coast flight.
What makes me mad is that they mis-direct by luggage twice.
What makes me real mad is that when I call them they dont seem to care
At CLT they currently have 90% of the market and they really don't seem to try to make things right.
Well Independence Air is coming and should wake them up a bit

seems a little much to make a big deal whether or not you get a free breakfast on the flight or not. Us Airways is an airline, not a restaurant. Would make much sense for U to drop all meals and transfer the savings to lower fares.

seems a little much to make a big deal whether or not you get a free breakfast on the flight or not. Us Airways is an airline, not a restaurant. Would make much sense for U to drop all meals and transfer the savings to lower fares.

Don't you have a Rapid Reward ticket to book to one of SWA's "Garden Spots" Like Oakland or Lubbock, TX?

Don't you have a Rapid Reward ticket to book to one of SWA's "Garden Spots" Like Oakland or Lubbock, TX?

actually, my next rapid rewards ticket is to philadelphia. i haven't booked it yet, but what's nice about rapid rewards is that as long as a seat is available you can use it. This is a major advantage over other frequent flyer programs. It used to be that you would get a free unrestricted for every four roundtrips, but now it takes around 5. But with those $19 fares from philli, it doesn't cost a lot.

Don't you have a Rapid Reward ticket to book to one of SWA's "Garden Spots" Like Oakland or Lubbock, TX?

LOL

Reading his letter, I thought "What does he want besides someone to vent to?" A complaint letter usually carries a demand for something.

F/C Food is mediocre at best. I think US is still "fiddling" with the right ratio of cost versus quality versus competition.

Luggage gets lost from time to time. That's why I have a change of clothes in my carry on.

The pilferage concerns me greatly and US needs to respond.


I believe the demand is that US pay for his lost camera.

But Blue Tiger- I mean when flying US, get used to the baggage never coming out on the announced carousel. And get used to waiting 30+ minutes for bags. And in Y, there is no free food service anywhere in the U.S. or Canada.


Iflysouthworst: Since when are SW's fares from PHL $19??

I believe the demand is that US pay for his lost camera.

But Blue Tiger- I mean when flying US, get used to the baggage never coming out on the announced carousel. And get used to waiting 30+ minutes for bags. And in Y, there is no free food service anywhere in the U.S. or Canada.


Iflysouthwest: Since when are SW's fares from PHL $19??

that was the promotional fare from PHL-PVD. Now its up to $29 each way. Still though, probably a 90% discount from what u used to charge for a non-saturday RT.

iflyswa: Whether $19 or $29 or whatever, nobody here disputes the facts of lower prices charged by the LCCs, and US having to match or lower fares in competing markets. As a consumer, I applaud the lowering of prices; as a loyal flier of US, I know that our costs have to go down substantially too.

No offense intended, but some of us here neither have Price as our main priority when we fly, nor a liking for LCCs attributes (no Australia on an award tix, no FC, group boarding, etc). Some of us don't mind paying higher fares than those charged by LCCS for what we perceive to be plusses - seat assignments, interline transfers, a chance to UG especially on a transcon, etc.

You have apparently found happiness flying SouthWest - God Bless You! A lot of us may whine and moan here, but deep down we still have an affection for US, and continue to fly US whenever we can.

I hear somebody's mother calling

No offense intended, but some of us here neither have Price as our main priority when we fly, nor a liking for LCCs attributes (no Australia on an award tix, no FC, group boarding, etc). Some of us don't mind paying higher fares than those charged by LCCS for what we perceive to be plusses - seat assignments, interline transfers, a chance to UG especially on a transcon, etc.

You have apparently found happiness flying SouthWest - God Bless You! A lot of us may whine and moan here, but deep down we still have an affection for US, and continue to fly US whenever we can.

Well said!!! Besides long term loyalties, different people have different needs and different reasons for flying. What is important for one person is useless or totally unimportant to someone else. Time limit restirictions (use within one year) is a VERY BIG negative for me with Jetblue's & Southwest's programs.The other priorities noted above also are very important to " moi"!

iflyswa: Whether $19 or $29 or whatever, nobody here disputes the facts of lower prices charged by the LCCs, and US having to match or lower fares in competing markets. As a consumer, I applaud the lowering of prices; as a loyal flier of US, I know that our costs have to go down substantially too.

No offense intended, but some of us here neither have Price as our main priority when we fly, nor a liking for LCCs attributes (no Australia on an award tix, no FC, group boarding, etc). Some of us don't mind paying higher fares than those charged by LCCS for what we perceive to be plusses - seat assignments, interline transfers, a chance to UG especially on a transcon, etc.

You have apparently found happiness flying SouthWest - God Bless You! A lot of us may whine and moan here, but deep down we still have an affection for US, and continue to fly US whenever we can.

kudzu - excellent comments. I completely agree with your perspective. I'm not a fan of LCC's for the very same reasons as you list. However, I do realize that not all flyers are like me. Some find SW, J6, and the other LCC's completely satisfactory for their needs. There are a variety of needs and I believe that companies can make money servicing different market segments. US just needs to figure out who it wants as its primary customer base and then focus and go after them. Right now I feel like they cannot decide so they are trying to act like a one size fits all carrier - which is no longer attainable.

that was the promotional fare from PHL-PVD. Now its up to $29 each way. Still though, probably a 90% discount from what u used to charge for a non-saturday RT.

Actually the non Saturday RT PHL to PVD used to be north of $700...

The $29 (one way) fares are few and far between but it's pretty easy to pick up a $200 (RT) fare now.

iflyswa: Whether $19 or $29 or whatever, nobody here disputes the facts of lower prices charged by the LCCs, and US having to match or lower fares in competing markets. As a consumer, I applaud the lowering of prices; as a loyal flier of US, I know that our costs have to go down substantially too.

No offense intended, but some of us here neither have Price as our main priority when we fly, nor a liking for LCCs attributes (no Australia on an award tix, no FC, group boarding, etc). Some of us don't mind paying higher fares than those charged by LCCS for what we perceive to be plusses - seat assignments, interline transfers, a chance to UG especially on a transcon, etc.

You have apparently found happiness flying SouthWest - God Bless You! A lot of us may whine and moan here, but deep down we still have an affection for US, and continue to fly US whenever we can.

yes kudzo--there perhaps can be different strokes for different folks. However, it seems the common denominator often seems to be who pays for the ticket. Most people who pay for their own tickets will not be willing to pay five fold higher fares for all these "amenities." In the past, the "full-service" carriers did best among those who flew on expense accounts. After all, who cares if your 300 mile trip costs $700 if it doesn't come out of your pocket, and it improves your upgrade chances next time you fly? The problem is that more and more corporate travel offices are keeping close watch on travel expenses. So the days when airlines like U can charge a huge premium for these amenities is probably coming to an end. Airlines like U may still be able to charge a modest premium, but the key question here is will that premium cover the extra costs, and be enough to stay in business?

On my return trip, June 19 US airways flight 58, when we landed in Charlotte I proceed to the baggage claim area, the monitor said the luggage from the San Francisco flight would be in ZONE D.
Me along with the rest of the San Francisco passengers waited. Nothing came! About 30 minutes later all the San Francisco flight luggage came out on ZONE C.

:rolleyes: clearly the end of the world...

Hold on!

The flight was delayed for cleaning? Who are they kidding? :eek:

Too bad about the disappointment in having to buy your breakfast--you might have done a little advance research--US is very clear about its IFC "food service".

I'll resist commenting on FC food service.

You have been flying from Charlotte to China once a month and you don't have preferred status yet (which should get you some upgrades and free food)? You should ask for a Gold Preferred "fast track" in case you don't have status yet.

Why are you complaining to US Airways that All Nippon didn't get you enough money and that you can't find clothes that fit? You should complain to All Nippon for that. If you had booked a ticket with a longer layover, perhaps your luggage would have made it. The connecting airline or the airport staff could be just as responsible for your lost luggage as US Airway is.


I find it hard to believe that on a 5-½ flight from Charlotte to San Francisco you have to BUY a breakfast.
This detests me.
Continental airlines feeds you at mealtime.

Currently I am flying Charlotte to Shanghai, China once a month.
I was doing this for the past three months.

I wear a 2xl shirt and clothes are very difficult to find for that size in China
All Nippon gave me 200 RMB about 24 US dollars. Which is not much even in China.
Blue Tiger

yes kudzo--there perhaps can be different strokes for different folks. However, it seems the common denominator often seems to be who pays for the ticket. Most people who pay for their own tickets will not be willing to pay five fold higher fares for all these "amenities." In the past, the "full-service" carriers did best among those who flew on expense accounts. After all, who cares if your 300 mile trip costs $700 if it doesn't come out of your pocket, and it improves your upgrade chances next time you fly? The problem is that more and more corporate travel offices are keeping close watch on travel expenses. So the days when airlines like U can charge a huge premium for these amenities is probably coming to an end. Airlines like U may still be able to charge a modest premium, but the key question here is will that premium cover the extra costs, and be enough to stay in business?

Yes, yes we know all that. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks that so-called "business fares" that are 5x (or 10x) coach are in any way justified. Everyone agrees that that model is broken -- even TripleB has said as much.

And it isn't just corporate travel offices that are putting this pressure on business fares -- individual travelers, even those on expense accounts, started doing it long before the corporate types caught on. It has long been known that the fastest way to reduce travel costs is to permit employees to book their own tickets. Individuals are amazingly cheap about what they'll pay when they do it themselves... (Of course there are bad apples -- but they're the exception.)

You will find disagreement here on what the proper premium over an LCC a full service carrier ought to be able to obtain is. Some people seem to think that 0%is the right number, others are closer to 100% (which is way less than the 5x or 10x...) A lot of the differences are related to differences in opinion on what "full service" means and the perception of what it costs to provide.

Quite frankly I think that a lot of people, such as yourself, have grossly over-estimated the cost side of the equation. You appear to think that the amenities of the dividend miles program are so costly that the airline cannot possibly afford them. I'm inferring from that that you might also think that their current financial problems are tied to these amenities.

That's crap. Spoon-fed from airline flacks who don't want people to pay attention to the real problem -- management ineptitude.

Dividend miles is a profit center. The airline earns more from dividend miles than it costs. I estimate that they're making 10 to 15% annually on their paltry investment in me, maybe more. I wish I had investments that performed that well -- I'd put a lot more into them than the $200 a year that US puts into my dividend miles account. The best part is that neither of us pays for that -- the profits all come from 3rd parties paying for access to the customer base.

But either way -- profit or loss -- dividend miles and the amenities are just a tiny little drop in the airlines financial picture. Neither ruin nor salvation is going to come from that quarter.

Their financial problem is real simple -- they spend too much money on the payroll. Is that because individuals are over-paid? No. It's because they (management) doesn't arrange to do the work efficiently. Labor costs make dividend miles look like the chump change you find under a cushion.

SWA can pay it's people more money on an individual basis because they get more out of them by managing the work better. To a great extent that's because they have a very simple product -- but that's not the whole story. They also have great management. US doesn't have great management and the biggest blunder they could possibly make would be to blindly emulate the superficial details of SWA's success. They have a better chance of seeing "The Return of The Business Traveler" than they do of succeeding by becoming just like SWA.

Herb can be heard laughing clear across the country every time a legacy airline "executive" decides to adopt one of the supposed keys to SWA's success. SWA's most brilliant strategy is the way that they've misled an entire industry while they've taken the shirts right off their back. (I watched a magician do that once -- it was a pretty cool trick...)

They real road to success is to get labor costs under control, to start managing the company competently and to market the product properly.

.


Tom,
[Applause]

Tom,
[Applause]

I second that!

you are probably correct that at least the direct costs of dividend miles is quite low. As a matter of fact, it may be the case that the cost of rapid rewards is greater. Rapid Rewards allows members to take any available seat, even if it is the last seat for sale. As a result RR members frequently take seats that would have otherwise been sold at full fare. DM members generally only take seats that would have been empty anyways.

However, some of the indirect costs of these amenities may be costly. For example, maintaining that first class cabin for upgrades is costly because it represents lost revenue in terms of reduced seats. That cost may have been worthwhile in the days when many people filling those seats were paying $700 to go PHL-PVD or $2000 to go PHL-LAX. It is less worthwhile when it is filled by customers paying $29 one way fares to PVD or $99 to LAX.

However, some of the indirect costs of these amenities may be costly. For example, maintaining that first class cabin for upgrades is costly because it represents lost revenue in terms of reduced seats. That cost may have been worthwhile in the days when many people filling those seats were paying $700 to go PHL-PVD or $2000 to go PHL-LAX. It is less worthwhile when it is filled by customers paying $29 one way fares to PVD or $99 to LAX.


It is worthwhile when you're keeping the ones who're paying the $29 fares 3x a month happy by giving them some upgrades.

The "F seats are wasteful" argument might be used to justify a fare premium for F seats of perhaps 60% to 75% (representing the "lost" coach seats.) Beyond that any argument that F is somehow costly enough to notice quickly falls apart. Upgrades, of course, only happen when the seats would have been otherwise empty.

The "F seats are wasteful" argument might be used to justify a fare premium for F seats of perhaps 60% to 75% (representing the "lost" coach seats.) Beyond that any argument that F is somehow costly enough to notice quickly falls apart. Upgrades, of course, only happen when the seats would have been otherwise empty.

yes, but i believe for most network carriers, some 90% of domestic F seats are used for upgrades. So, the issue is not really the fare premium for the F seats--it is more if availability to upgrade results in a better enough fare mix to justify the lost seats. It seems that may have been the case in the day of the $2000 PHL-LAX coach fare, but seems more questionable in this day of $200 RT fares.

As you say the average trans-con fare is around $200. They only need to get the average upgrader up to $300 to cover the lost seating issue.

As you say the average trans-con fare is around $200. They only need to get the average upgrader up to $300 to cover the lost seating issue.


not quite--that assumes that a $200 fare is at least break even.

actually though, it is not quite that bad-$200 is the lowest fare, not the average fare.

Averages are a really bad way to look at things but its hard to resist sometimes...

"Break-even" isn't relevant -- your contention is that F seats represent lost revenue opportunity to the extent that additional Y seats could be configured. An optimistic view of the revenue opportunity "lost" is simply the ratio of the average fare paid to the number of additional seats that could have been on the plane -- if they happen to be losing money adding seats will just help them lose money faster...

All of which is why averages are a bad way to look at this -- profit and loss aren't a result of averages. A flight has very high fixed costs and almost trivial marginal costs. Adding a passenger costs a tiny amount of fuel, a bag of pretzels and a can of soda. About $15. That's why $29 fares actually make sense -- getting $29 for a seat that would have been otherwise empty is a smart move. Selling the whole plane for $29 is stupid. Selling 6 seats for $29 is $234 more than you would have got waiting for a walk-up to pay $2,000.

What's important is the mix of fares that generates that average fare. If the opportunity to upgrade and earn the other amenities helps to bring in customers who buy $300 tickets when they would have otherwise purchased $200 tickets then the program works.

The problem today is that they are not setup to do that. At every turn they relentlessly drive the customer to the lowest fare. It's almost impossible to buy anything else from them even if you see a value proposition in doing so.

SWA, OTOH, makes it dead simple for people to choose to pay more. And strangely enough they sell a greater % of full fare tickets than anyone.

I'm putting words in his mouth but TripleB wanted to provide incentives to buy higher value tickets in August of '02. His mistake, IMHO, was that he tried to do it by using the "big stick" approach (aka the Delta "Simply Good Business" plan... If he had rationalized fares first, offered a 2nd route to elite status (such as the AA "q miles" method), relaxed the rules and focused on the good stuff (spiffing up the cabins, improving service and so forth -- little stuff like cleaning the seats not multi-billion dollar makeovers) he might have gotten a very different reaction. But by rolling out a plan that had nothing but elements that everyone hated onto an infrastrucure that is designed to work against those goals things didn't work out so well.

I don't think that it's impossible to do this. I do think that they have to work a lot harder at providing the vision and the infrastructure to pull it all together. There is still way too much wishful thinking going on where there needs to be a coordinated plan.

I fly Alaska a lot from the east coast to Seattle. They have an interesting system. Let's say Newark to Seattle, roundtrip. If you want the lowest fare, it's probably around $300. If you are elite, you can try to upgrade in the relevant window (they have 2 tiers). On transcons, there are rarely seats left by then. Alternatively, if the seat is allocated for advance upgrade, you go to their website, and indicate you want to buy it, and tell them which tier you hold. At that point, the airline will price the First Class seat at around $800 for a second tier (MVP) member, but around $450 for a top tier (MVP Gold). Not only is it a reasonable price, but it creates a real incentive to hit the top tier (and actually buy the seat), since the price break is enormous between the two FF levels. By the way, while I'm winging my way across the country, with an individual DVD player loaded with about 8 movies, having a 3 course meal on china, with real glasses, and a metal knife, fork, and spoon, USAir is selling the same seat, with a change of plane, and a meal that looks like it came from a Salvation Army soup kitchen, for $1800.

what you are saying essentially makes sense. It is all about the total amount of revenue a plane generates. First class loses revenue to the extent that the lost coach seats would have pulled in revenue. They gain money to the extent that the passengers upgraded are paying higher fares than they would otherwise have paid had they not had the opportunity to upgrade. So the first class upgrade benefit is useful when it creates loyalty among very high yield customers. 3-4 years ago, it was probably the case that passengers in the first class cabin were predominantly those paying the $1/mile fares. However, I'm not so sure this is so true now. With the much greater availability of low fares, more and more passengers in first class are getting upgraded after paying SW or JB style fares.

If I were running the airline, I would change the incentive system to reward those who pay higher fares. I would upgrade in order of fare paid, instead of tier status (only using tier status as a tie breaker.) Its a well known economic principle that you get what you reward.

what you are saying essentially makes sense. It is all about the total amount of revenue a plane generates. First class loses revenue to the extent that the lost coach seats would have pulled in revenue. They gain money to the extent that the passengers upgraded are paying higher fares than they would otherwise have paid had they not had the opportunity to upgrade. So the first class upgrade benefit is useful when it creates loyalty among very high yield customers. 3-4 years ago, it was probably the case that passengers in the first class cabin were predominantly those paying the $1/mile fares. However, I'm not so sure this is so true now. With the much greater availability of low fares, more and more passengers in first class are getting upgraded after paying SW or JB style fares.

If I were running the airline, I would change the incentive system to reward those who pay higher fares. I would upgrade in order of fare paid, instead of tier status (only using tier status as a tie breaker.) Its a well known economic principle that you get what you reward.

You are still making the implicit assumption that F cannot be profitable at less than $1/mile. US only needs $0.15/mile (overall) to turn an enormous profit. If they upgraders pay an average of $0.20/mile they should be extremely happy.

As far as upgrading in order of fare paid goes -- that's too simplistic. The whole point of "elite" tiering is (or should be) to view the customer's "book of business" rather than an individual trip. If I represent a $50,000 annual spend to the airline they had better treat me just as well when I'm taking the family to see Mickey as when I'm zipping out to LA at the last minute. If they don't then I'm not upset about 5 "free" tickets -- I'm taking $50,000 somewhere else.

You fly SWA so you wouldn't know any of this but they already have a perfectly fine system in place to make sure that high fare paying customers get preference. Full fare tickets are upgradeable from a different and higher priority "bucket" than ordinary upgrades. Ordinary upgrades only clear after high fare upgrades have been accomodated and only if there is sufficient inventory. If there is inventory for E (ordinary upgrades) there is always at least that much inventory for P (high fare upgrades) and there is always an F seat available for sale if anyone wants to go that route.

You do have a point, that it is the total revenue a passenger brings in, not just the revenue for one flight. But, in the that case, U would be much better off basing elite status on the total revenue paid, rather than the miles flown. In fact, i recently read that if the airlines were to do it all over, they would award flights in the FF programs based on $ paid, not miles flown. After all, you reward the behavior you want to encourage.

You do have a point, that it is the total revenue a passenger brings in, not just the revenue for one flight. But, in the that case, U would be much better off basing elite status on the total revenue paid, rather than the miles flown. In fact, i recently read that if the airlines were to do it all over, they would award flights in the FF programs based on $ paid, not miles flown. After all, you reward the behavior you want to encourage.

I wonder who the spokesman for "the airlines" is? I'd like to talk to that guy -- he gets quoted a lot and seems to know pretty much everything.

There's plenty of room for a multitude of approaches to loyalty programs -- various airlines fall in different places on the spectrum and that's a good thing. I doubt that they will all coalesce on a single approach though.

To a degree there are already mechanisms to base status on revenue -- class of service bonuses are one method (under-used at US Airways). Tier miles for high dollar volumes on the DM Visa are another (after all -- it's your total revenue picture that matters not just how often you keep seats warm...)

To do it totally on revenue probably isn't a good idea. I would argue that the $100 they get from me on a Wednesday morning is, in many ways, a lot more valuable than the $500 on Thursday evening. There are lots of people who will happily take my seat Thursday. But there's nobody vying for it Wednesday.

I think that it would make sense for them to put more effort into class of service bonuses that work towards faster elite status. That's a carrot strategy -- I don't believe that they're in any position to be pursuing a stick strategy.

I think that they should also work real hard on making it easy to "buy up" a ticket. Deelmakurs example sounds pretty good. And there's a whole lot they could do even without pursuing that to make the purchase process more streamlined and less one-sided. Yesterday's e-commerce presentation was pretty encouraging on that front.

It's pointless to offer people incentives to pay more and then not be ready to take their money (or deliver the goods -- as in F8 on the 757s; if you're going to be offering F fare sales you really ought to have a few seats to sell...)

it is important some issues separate here. I am discussing from the perspective of what's best for airlines--not what FF would most prefer (though there is some, but just some, overlap here). For example, from my perspective, as someone who always pays low fares when flying a network carrier, I am thrilled to get just as much credit as the person flying full fare. However, the airlines would be much better off rewarding those who bring in the most revenue, not necessarily those who fly the most miles. From this perspective, a purely dollar based credit system would work best. Naturally of course, the airlines dont have the option of starting from scratch. To start such a system now would create howls of protests. Revenue based bonuses are one way of approaching this problem, but the incentives are probably not enough to change behavior. From an economic perspective, giving much fewer status miles to passengers flying discount fares (say 50%, or perhaps even 0 status miles on deep discounts) and more vigorously awarding those who pay the $1/mile fare (perhaps double, or even triple status miles) would work better for U and other network carriers. Some carriers have actually gone this route, but from an economic perspective they should carry this even further. I personally would hate such a system, but i think it is hard to argue with the notion that such a system would be a better revenue generator.

iflyswa.com, I'm not sure what your motive is here? Why the passion that is somehow determined to position US vs. Southwest? If you want a meal you can eat a can of tuna; you can go to McDonalds; you can hit the local Olive Garden or perhaps drop a $100 at that nice place down the street, or you can jet off to Paris for 3 Michelin stars and a $2,200 charge to your AMEX. Why can't several succesful airlines occupy different points of the market without this antagonism?

At some point there is a level of ammenities that people will pay for. For a lot of people that level is found exactly where Southwest has possitioned itself. And, IMO, that's just fine and dandy. Some folks just want a cheap ticket from point A to B and that's all.

US (an a host of other legacy carriers) are learning the hard way that their old revenue generation system of having a couple of VERY-high revenue first class passengers sprinkled in with some last minute high Y fares and a bunch of cheap-o fares is not going to pay the bills. Southwest was wise to be the first airline to significantly reduce the spread on what passengers would have to pay for the same flight. Further, they reduced the spectrum by having every seat on the plane offer the same ammenities. Hence, no FC and no elites and no benefits for anyone.

But why do you seem so passionate when it comes to knocking US Airways? IMHO, they (US) will eventually figure out a balance between absurd FC fares, last minute fares and advance coach seats. They will also, IMO, figure out a way to price their domestic FC product so a certain percentage of the flying public will pay a fair premium for a more comfortable seat and a decent meal. They haven't done that yet but they are headed in the right direction.

If 2,000 passengers a day need to go from city A to city B and US and Southwest "own" those markets - what's the harm in BOTH of them flying those passengers and BOTH of them being profitable?

I think good that we have different price points for different levels of service.

Comparing US to CO,NW,UA , it is a distance fourth very close to Southwest in terms of service, but not PRICE.
They (US) needs to decide what they are going to be, and price themselves accordingly.

Comparing US to CO,NW,UA , it is a distance fourth very close to Southwest in terms of service, but not PRICE........

It would be helpful to know the basis for your comparison, and the length of your experience flying the airlines you named....

From your first post, it seems like you've only made one flight on US, and you are using your bad experience on one flight to generalize; I hope I'm wrong about this :)

kuduza
I live near CLT and have flown US many times say 20 times . Not much in the last year as my new job takes me to France and China.
I do have to get out of CLT so usually I use UA or NWA
In quality I look for CSR , gate and ticket agents,baggage.inflight service (food ,flight attentdents ,flight programing) , seats, quality of flight, schedule,price,frequent flyer program. to say a few parameters.
I just feel US is not a low cost airline,but it acts like one.

iflyswa.com, I'm not sure what your motive is here? Why the passion that is somehow determined to position US vs. Southwest? Why can't several succesful airlines occupy different points of the market without this antagonism?

At some point there is a level of ammenities that people will pay for. For a lot of people that level is found exactly where Southwest has possitioned itself. And, IMO, that's just fine and dandy. Some folks just want a cheap ticket from point A to B and that's all.

But why do you seem so passionate when it comes to knocking US Airways? IMHO, they (US) will eventually figure out a balance between absurd FC fares, last minute fares and advance coach seats. They will also, IMO, figure out a way to price their domestic FC product so a certain percentage of the flying public will pay a fair premium for a more comfortable seat and a decent meal. They haven't done that yet but they are headed in the right direction.

If 2,000 passengers a day need to go from city A to city B and US and Southwest "own" those markets - what's the harm in BOTH of them flying those passengers and BOTH of them being profitable?


Geo--you are not accurately characterizing my position. I actually do think there is room for both full service network carriers and LCCs. However, the service difference between the two is not sufficient to justify the current premiums that exist. I believe full service carriers will only be able to justify a modest premium. i also believe that overall market demand for a low cost product exceeds that for a full service product. Therefore, the number of seats on LCCs will rise, and the number of seats on full service carriers will fall. This probably means that there are currently too many full service carriers, and that at least one of them will fail.

iflyswa.com, I'm not sure what your motive is here? Why the passion that is somehow determined to position US vs. Southwest? If you want a meal you can eat a can of tuna; you can go to McDonalds; you can hit the local Olive Garden or perhaps drop a $100 at that nice place down the street, or you can jet off to Paris for 3 Michelin stars and a $2,200 charge to your AMEX. Why can't several succesful airlines occupy different points of the market without this antagonism?

At some point there is a level of ammenities that people will pay for. For a lot of people that level is found exactly where Southwest has possitioned itself. And, IMO, that's just fine and dandy. Some folks just want a cheap ticket from point A to B and that's all.?

What's ironic is that I currrently prefer a higher level of service and am willing to pay for it but perceive the quality of a JetBlue (or possibly SWA) flight to be higher at the lower price point.

What's ironic is that I currrently prefer a higher level of service and am willing to pay for it but perceive the quality of a JetBlue (or possibly SWA) flight to be higher at the lower price point.

depends what you mean by service--by some definitions this is definitely true--for example leg room on SW and JB is better in coach than many full service carriers. Also, the low cost carriers have better ticket change policies--for example no change fee on SW and only $25 on JB.