Air France Frequence Plus - Air France: the end of "all inclusive" economy class

The airline, which saw its sales fall, presented a comprehensive savings strategic plan. According to the Journal Du Dimanche, it could significantly change the habits of travelers.

Air France puts in place a comprehensive restructuring plan to try to overcome the effects of the crisis. According to the Journal du Dimanche (JDD) on Saturday, a strategic committee met Friday to review the final part of this savings plan whose final arbitration will be announced in November.

The measure that could dramatically change the habits of travelers is the end of "all inclusive" economy class. On the model of low cost companies, Air France would ask the passengers to pay for registration of non carry-on luggages.

Travelers who choose the front seats may also have to pay for this service. Finally, the meal trays would not be free anymore.

These measures, already adopted by some major airlines across the Atlantic, will allow Air France to cut its ticket prices and thus to compete with Easyjet and Ryanair.

In addition to these savings plans, Air France plans to change the frequencies on some of its flights as early as next month. This would mainly apply to the domestic flights from Orly airport. This covers the first trips in the morning and last in evenings. According to the JDD, four Airbus A320 will be removed from the fleet in November and ten additional aircraft would remain on the ground by the end of March 2010. (...)

In the first quarter of fiscal year 2009-2010, Air France has seen its sales fall by 20.5% with a loss of 426 million euros.

Source: La Tribune (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises/services/transport-logistique/20091024trib000436677/ce-qu-air-france-veut-vous-faire-payer-pour-faire-des-economies.html)

Once more this shows how much AF listen to its customers.
Last week I received a new survey about paid catering in Y for domestic and european flight; the survey was lasting 2 weeks so technically i could still be in a position to answer to this survey which means that the analysis of the survey has not been competed.

Conclusion:
1) AF generates some survey but takes decision before the outcome. Is this typical of a company that listen to its customers
2) AF is loosing money but still pay a consulting company to submit those survey that are useless anyway since they take decision without waiting for the feedback

Sounds like they want to reduce their sales by another 20.5%....

Modst people agree that the worst of the crisis will be over by Q2/Q3 next year - in my industry (not that dissimilar to Airlines) we have well stopped the cost cutting so that we are ready to grow the top line next year by winning customers back - not continuing to drive them away with lower service (that was understandable at the beginning of the crisis, not at the beginning of the recovery)!!!!!

Finally, the meal trays would not be free anymore.


For domestic and european flight, that will not be a huge difference as the catering is close to zero.

I think of AF as a premium carrier in TATL Y, really a shame to see this happen. a BIG :td:

really sounds like the end of champagne in Y

they will not reduce the fares, they will just make N (and perhaps E?) fares cheaper and slightly more available a month before departure... but as departure day comes closer, these cheap fares will not be available, only K/M fares will be for sale to corporate clients that cannot plan that long ahead. The levels will be similar and the service reduced. They should look a bit closer at what happened to SAS since 2004 and the devaluation of eurobonus (like FB april 1st) and the pay-for-everything concept in economy (20 kg free luggage though).

all in all, that is good news for the Lufthansa group I think :)

I think of AF as a premium carrier in TATL Y, really a shame to see this happen. a BIG :td:

For those still sitting on FB miles and not opposed to flying in Economy, they should burn them quickly before they just get a low cost seat for their efforts.

so what is the enhancement part of this? how will they "sell the improvement" to us? ;) :rolleyes:

so what is the enhancement part of this? how will they "sell the improvement" to us? ;) :rolleyes:

Well, if I remember well, there was a category of pax for which the earn/burn change of April 1st was an improvement: people buying full-fare Biz tickets and redeeming in Economy. This lucky pax (many disbelieve his existence, along with Nessie and Bigfoot) came unscathed by April 1st, and AF, moved by the French principle of égalité felt compelled to shaft him also. Praise AF's sense of justice.

More seriously, if these changes are considered, they are left only to compete on price. Which will make it difficult to maintain the price of corporate contracts if it's just more sensible to book low-cost tickets and ditch them in the event of a cancellation.

For domestic and european flight, that will not be a huge difference as the catering is close to zero.

Not true. Right now, their offering is above the European average on European flights in Y. But as always, it looks like AF are keen on making sure that whatever comparative advantage they have is sabotaged as comprehensively as possible. I think that ranskis is even too optimistic and that fares will not be reduced AT ALL. They are already cheap when on promotion and will remain the same, and the non-promotional fares will remain the same too. Indeed, with reduced service, AF will continue to lose more passengers willing to pay more to fly better, which means that they lose more revenue as these passengers (i.e. also us I believe) bring more cash than the average, and therefore whatever minimal money will have been saved will be more than outweighed by the income that will have been lost.

As far as I know, there is simply no single example of a full-service European airline that has managed to become profitable by trying to emulate the low cost attitude and lack of service. They can't compete as most of their costs are due to higher personnel costs (not something that can be fully changed despite attempts at reducing the number of crew on board) and the need to keep exploiting some loss-making routes to feed (occasionally inefficient) hubs. ranskis mentions an excellent example which is that of SAS who keep losing more money since changing their model. So does BMI who ended up to have to disengage from many of their European routes where they ended up losing more cash to try and refocus on the 'niche' Middle East market. Even more compelling are the examples of Austrian and Swiss which simply had to completely reverse their no/paid catering model as they were losing passengers at unprecedented speed. I see no reason whatsoever why this should not happen to AF and KL and I do not believe either that LH or even BA will follow suit (BA have adjusted their catering on shorted European routes recently but assured their passengers they would not do away with free food and bar in Y).

Of course, AF/KL will tell me that this is wrong and that they are the great trendsetters. The truth of the matter is that not a single AF/KL service innovation (whether positive, which has been rare or negative) has set a trend in the industry. Depending on the case, they behave either like losers (1 April changes) or like followers (premium economy, which they once swore would be a losing concept), but never like trend-setters. Here, it seems that they will prefer the 'loser' route once more, which increasingly seems to be the trademark of Mr Gourgeon (does he suffer from some odd form of customer allergy?) and his team.

Great point regarding the need of feeder flight for their hubs. Except in captive markets, I'd say it might convince more people to fly to another hub instead and move their long-haul business to another company. We had the exact same discussion w/r/t the suppression of European business class and the risk of losing some premium pax who will prefer the extra comfort all the way. I guess this trend might become much more prevalent if these pax are dropping in service, not from Business to Economy, but from Business to Low-Cost.

BA have adjusted their catering on shorted European routes recently but assured their passengers they would not do away with free food and bar in Y).
Well, you don't get any food, just "birdseed" after the end of the breakfast service, even at lunch or dinner time. Not even a sandwich.

seems to be the trademark of Mr Gourgeon and his team.
No specific information about this, but I would guess he has been instrumental in the previous round of disastrous service cutbacks. I want my Poire Williams back. ;)

On a more serious note, they seem to have implemented a lot of DL's playbook. If this new round of service cutbacks is implemented in all cabins on the medium-haul network, this could severely diminish the impact of factors (flexibility, full service, network) that currently continue to drive my professional travel towards Air France, despite the cutbacks in their FFP.

Well, you don't get any food, just "birdseed" after the end of the breakfast service, even at lunch or dinner time. Not even a sandwich.


I know - I'm becoming something of an at picking the raisins and stupid mini-pretzels while leaving all of the birdseed at the bottom of the bag! And even though fortunately, that's still only of flights below about 2 hours, I sure miss the sandwiches (and the poire on AF!!! ;) )

yes, BA is cutting down on everything, whilst still having the cheek to trumpet their ´full service´ airline credentials (I assume in their definition, as long as you don´t charge for food, you are ´full service´, even though you don´t offer food). And look at IB: they propose to actually create a seperate feeder airline.

US examples (Ted, Song etc) might not be a useful comparison (and those, like Deutsche BA and GO, IB´s Vueling/ClickAir, AFKL´s Transavia were low-cost created by the main-line airline, rather than the airline turning themselves into LCCs), but I like to add AerLingus and Spanair, and a host of smaller ones like B(ritish) E(european), to the list of those who tried and failed.

Indeed, I agree, they all look like headless chicken. Of course I don´t envy them in the present situation, and we will have to wait until the upturn is in full swing in order to see who had the best strategy and perhaps vision, but LH does seem to position themselves much better than AFKL.

Wouldn't a return to economic growth (more business traval, more companies willing to shell out money for flights, and the most important landmark of economic recovery, more bonus) prompte increased demand for higher-end travel options than for LCC?

I can now see the need of the restaurant option in the F lounge. "Please, estimed F pax, do eat in the lounge upon arrival, because in your next leg you'll be asked to pay 5 € for a sandwich.

As far as I know, there is simply no single example of a full-service European airline that has managed to become profitable by trying to emulate the low cost attitude and lack of service. They can't compete as most of their costs are due to higher personnel
Yes indeed. Low cost model never works with high fixed cost structure.

I shall believe that elite plus members may be upgraded to the front seats, with free food and drinks (if any) and no luggage surcharge.

The new AF model may be low cost service for economy & non frequent fliers, and traditional service for premium passengers.

These measures, already adopted by some major airlines across the Atlantic, will allow Air France to cut its ticket prices and thus to compete with Easyjet and Ryanair.
Source: La Tribune (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises/services/transport-logistique/20091024trib000436677/ce-qu-air-france-veut-vous-faire-payer-pour-faire-des-economies.html)

they will not reduce the fares, they will just make N (and perhaps E?) fares cheaper

This is then the real question: without reducing fares at the bottom, you cannot compete with LCCs, as this segment is often where bookings are made on fare only. I also do not see them reducing fares, and not even N and E. The only way they might do this is to introduce a new class, as KLM seems to have done recently with some offers booking into U class. Tough then for anyone booking at higher booking classes: no food, no drinks, no semi-comfortable seat pitch, but of course 25% miles (as opposed to 0 miles for U): we will have to thank the 1 April changers soon!

they especially need to change their fare structure to compete with low cost. Many of my friends tell "ryanair was 50 EUR but airfrance was 900 EUR"... since they buy plane tickets like bus ticket, on a one way basis. That is the major trend in buying plane tickets, incitated by LCC... and some of their 1 EUR fare imply that the return leg is often more than 1 EUR (put millions of 1 EUR tickets available in one direction and none in the other...).

Having reasonable one way fares in N E W up to 30 days in advance, and some more punitive ones (yet not full C) afterwards, will ultimately make them more competitive without jeopardizing their corporate revenues. Transforming it into AirBalticFrance will just make passengers who can choose fly away.

In addition to these savings plans, Air France plans to change the frequencies on some of its flights as early as next month. This would mainly apply to the domestic flights from Orly airport. This covers the first trips in the morning and last in evenings.

How on earth supress the first and last flights of the day would resolve the problem of crews hotel expenses ? There will always be a first and last flight, whatever the schedule....

Anyway, I wish AF "good luck" with its suicide strategy. AF is not a real low cost, and trying to implement visible low cost on a high cost basis will possibly lead to less and less customers.

Customers are not that idiots : if pricing scale do not fall significantly, why would they take AF any longer? No miles, no freee food, no free drink, no free checked-in bags, no more seat selection and a higher price. In that context, give me Easyjet anyday for PAR-GVA or PAR-NCE.

How much longer until they take away pre-assigned seating and just let us choose our seats as we board?

And how come the recent change to the logo's on the planes didn't include the web address to make bookings painted in big letters on the side - this will be necessary for Air France in the near future as there will be no regular or business travelers left who actually know how to contact them...

Does anybody think they'll soon move long-haul out of terminal 2E and across to T9?

Any news on the 13 abreast seating on the A380?

As long as the crews on shorthaul flights still help themselves to hot three course meals in front of pax eyes they are not a Low Cost Carrier. They'll merely be a low service carrier.

And there is another point: they want to copy the LCC model because they feel that Easyjet et al. are competitors. Fine. But by being the same as Easyjet, why then should people chose AF, since they are the same anyway?

The only thing that might work is to really very strongly differentiate the offering: dramatically upgrade the C offering even on shorthaul flights, and the rest is really low service. On paper that could work. Whether in reality it would work is a different matter. Setting up your operations and processes in a way that caters both to the top end and the bottom end of the market isn't easy. And just imagine the schizophrenia of individual FAs: they'd have to be top notch until row 5 (=C class), and outright cheapo from row 6 onwards. That doesn't sound right...

It will be interesting to watch over the coming years how one of two things will happen to AF:


The strategy fails dramatically and AF will revert course. It will then take them some years to re-position themselves in the middle ground
AF will continue to dream its dream of "premium carrier but with attractive prices". Afraid of one big leapfrog to ditch everything that smacks of full service and adopt right away the "The cheapo network carrier for Europe is AF" model, they'll make gradual changes, each of them downward. To end up in the same place, just much later and in a less coherent way: as the cheapo of Europe.

I think of AF as a premium carrier in TATL Y, really a shame to see this happen. a BIG :td:
me too. AF has always been on par with BA, Qantas and the others for me.

Like I said in another thread, it seems to me that AF would like to mix its hub-based strategy (which is also the one of European majors) with a low-cost strategy, the latter being based on point-to-point flights in the one hand and no long-haul network on the other hand.

AF is then the first European major to implement that hybrid strategy, which seems to oppose to any airline business model known as of now.

One of the main reason why they oppose is because feeding a hub needs a lot of money.

Thus I would say that hybrid strategy is very risky.

Now I am wondering which consultancy firm has given AF that idea?

The strategy fails dramatically and AF will revert course. It will then take them some years to re-position themselves in the middle ground

Classical strategic failure in that kind of industries (automotive is a close one) : if customer does not expect product devaluation, once it is done, it has some disastrous effects that take ages to be erased in customer mind.

Same applies on the price axis in the services : a top end service provider (law firm, consultancy...) should never drop their prices because :
- it devaluates its image
- once the client is used to lower prices, he will hardly accept an price increase

These measures, already adopted by some major airlines across the AtlanticReally? Which tatl airline charges for food and has a zero allowance for hold luggage?

How on earth supress the first and last flights of the day would resolve the problem of crews hotel expenses ? There will always be a first and last flight, whatever the schedule....The idea is that all a/c return to base, so that no a/c overnights at out-stations. This means that you have no a/c flying to an outstation in the evening and no a/c from an outstation early morning. Pretty much what LCCs do.

The irony for a full service carrier, however, is that early morning flights are those which are especially attractive to (premium fare-paying) business flyers.

The idea is that all a/c return to base, so that no a/c overnights at out-stations. This means that you have no a/c flying to an outstation in the evening and no a/c from an outstation early morning. Pretty much what LCCs do.

The irony for a full service carrier, however, is that early morning flights are those which are especially attractive to (premium fare-paying) business flyers.

All AF crew are based either in CDG or ORY. If we take CDG-GVA or ORY-BOD as example, that would mean aircrafts return to either CDG or ORY everynight. So the first inbound flights to Paris in the morning would necessarily occur after the aircrafts have arrived from Paris.

To me that makes no sense. Flight are scheduled according to what customers expect. If flights start at 6am both from Paris and outsations, that is because there is demand for those flights. Now if AF cut the first inbound flight to Paris in the morning, what are their choices :
- set-up a 4.30 am flight from Paris that will take off at 6 am from the outstation => no way because there is no demand for such a flight
- ask customers to wait for the 7.30 am flight bound to Paris => no sense because that is not what the customer wants

How do LCC handle the situation ?

Really? Which tatl airline charges for food and has a zero allowance for hold luggage?

where do we have a written statement that these changes are about long-haul flights?

How do LCC handle the situation ?

Many of their customers are happy to fly at later times if that means they can get a lower fare. In other words: rather pay 5 EUR on Ryanair at 10.20am than pay 500 EUR on Air France at 7am.

Thus, the demand the LCCs are confronted with is different.

Not so long ago, we were having passionate discussions on AF vs. SQ/QR… and product differences between AF and MiddleEast/FarEast airlines; now, we are about to discuss and compare AF vs. RyanAir and easyJet…
For the AFicionado I used to be, that is pretty sad.:(

How do LCC handle the situation ?As a rule, they don't provide very early flights from out-stations. customers have to wait a little later for a flight.
Pax may well like to have a flight at 6am but if there are none and no reasonable alternative, they will have to make do with a 7am flight. I guess this is what AF is thinking, at least on domestic routes.

where do we have a written statement that these changes are about long-haul flights?Sorry, I just relied on Nicolas75's translation, which spoke of "across the Atlantic", which I read as meaning tatl. I just had a look at La Tribune, where it speaks of "outre" (i.e. on the other side of...) Atlantique.

Those comparisons with domestic US flights are really nonsensical. The markets are completely different.

All AF crew are based either in CDG or ORY.

Well, both yes and no - all are indeed based in CDG or ORY, but at the same time, they are also allowed to live wherever they want in France and I believe on the AF European network, and many will fly on the early morning flight from NCE, MRS, LYS, BOD, etc to start their day at their airport of attachment. I wonder how this will also turn out to be more difficult if some early morning flights are suspended (BTW, the article doesn't necessarily suggest it will be cut for all stations. As explained by others, these early/late flights represent major income and are needed to feed some hub flights, so I would be massively surprised if, say, the early morning flights from NCE or TLS were cut). I'm only guessing that if some crew members are penalised and cannot get to work early enough on the day (and thus have to spend the night in Paris) because of the discontinuation of some early morning flights, this may be more difficult to handle for AF than the unhappiness of their business travelers they don't care about.

Oh, and of course, some negotiated company contracts may well slip away from AF as well if companies realise that their employees won't be able to take a 7am flight from Marseille or Lyon to Paris while they can get 4 or 5 TGVs by that time...

I'm only guessing that if some crew members are penalised and cannot get to work early enough on the day (and thus have to spend the night in Paris) because of the discontinuation of some early morning flights, this may be more difficult to handle for AF than the unhappiness of their business travelers they don't care about.

Your guess is right. If one looks at the forums where the "usual suspects" (=AF employees with a strong sense of what they believe the company owes them) hang around, this is one of the future strike grounds. Along with changes at AF Cargo and the letter sent by management to pilots on them being negligent in terms of security.

Isn't this sooooo AF? The company tries to improve its financial performance. Rather than add to revenues by offering an attractive product they want to save their way to better performance. Since they don't dare to apply savings to the workforce, they save on the pax end. But since pax benefits are also unwritten employee benefits, the employees are still unhappy and threaten to go on strike. Absurd, ain't it?

this is one of the future strike grounds. Along with changes at AF Cargo and the letter sent by management to pilots on them being negligent in terms of security.

Wow, quite a programme!! :rolleyes: And as most employees seemed to consider that the 'social pact' that Spinetta had negotiated and which 'guaranteed' [:p] that employees would not normally strike has been 'broken' by the management already, I guess it might be time to revive these 'how many of your flights have been cancelled because of the strike' threads!

Isn't this sooooo AF? The company tries to improve its financial performance. Rather than add to revenues by offering an attractive product they want to save their way to better performance. Since they don't dare to apply savings to the workforce, they save on the pax end. But since pax benefits are also unwritten employee benefits, the employees are still unhappy and threaten to go on strike. Absurd, ain't it?

A very neat analysis! ^ As a footnote, since we, AF flyers are notoriously rubbish at collective action as compared to, say, the frequent flyers of US or UK airlines, this might lead to a solution that would be even more disadvantageous to us :(

In any case, I don't want to be in PHG's shoes these days... There is increasing debate about AF planes falling from the sky a bit too frequently and the reasons why, AF seems to be hit even harder than its major competitors by the economic crisis, and their strategy out of the mess must look "courageous" to even the most naive observer.

He has three problems then: a very grave operational problem, because there are security issues. A revenue problem, because he realises that his product is sliding down the attractiveness scale. And a cost problem, because staff-rlated costs which are variable to other companies are fixed for AF (=can't be touched).

As an entrepreneur, what would you do if your factory doesn't run, you don't know how to increase revenues, and there is no way to reduce costs?

(I know, for a company like AF there's always the final answer: "Turn to the state". So they're not dead yet)

(I know, for a company like AF there's always the final answer: "Turn to the state". So they're not dead yet)

except that the state itself is close to bankruptcy as well :o but hell ... we do not care and keep spending money ... c'est la crise !! :D

In any case, I don't want to be in HJG's shoes these days...

Nor do I. Btw, isn't he PHG?

As an entrepreneur, what would you do if your factory doesn't run, you don't know how to increase revenues, and there is no way to reduce costs?

I would concentrate on what I am best at.

Nor do I. Btw, isn't he PHG?

Err, right... Thanks. Edited my post

Isn't this sooooo AF? The company tries to improve its financial performance. Rather than add to revenues by offering an attractive product they want to save their way to better performance. Since they don't dare to apply savings to the workforce, they save on the pax end. But since pax benefits are also unwritten employee benefits, the employees are still unhappy and threaten to go on strike. Absurd, ain't it?

Well said.

Well, let's just say AF can do whatever they want and the employees can go on strikes as often as they want. When the customers aren't there anymore, AF executives will be released from the employee's strike threats and the employee's unions will realize that no more strike will even be relevant anymore. So yeah, naively, an unfit company to its customers demands, will go down. And if you're not satisfied with AF's new service proposal, burn all your FB miles and stay away from it from now on. That is what I'm planning to do!

I think this is a good plan for AF. The bottom end of the market is really where they belong now and if management can weather the firestorm of social problems inherent in this change then they may have a winner. Let's face it, AF is no longer a serious premium player, and the PNC are no longer interested or capable of providing a premium product. They would be much better off looking after safety (which is after all the only thing they consider worthy of their attention) and spend the rest of the time chatting in the galley and reading magazines, at which they really excel. I remain doubtful however about anyone ever succeeding in cutting employee pay at AF. They already feel extremely hard done by, and although the progressive elimination of the service component of their job has been welcomed by staff, the idea of stagnant incomes may not. Bon courage.

If I was the KLM bit of this organisation I would be a bit hacked off as they seem to still run a far tighter ship.....could be wrong though.

At the same time, Swiss is sending this email: :)

ALL INCLUSIVE One price – everything included

Rather than pay more than necessary, you’re better off flying with SWISS. Because here you pay only one price, the final amount – not a franc more. And everything is already included.


Round-Trip Travel
With our tickets you get to fly to wherever you’re going and back home again. Our prices mean: return flight included.

Airport Taxes and Fees
You don’t have to worry about additional costs for security, handling or taxes etc. They are all included in the SWISS price.

Baggage Allowance
When you travel you generally have baggage with you: which is why your ticket price includes baggage allowance of 20 kg in Economy Class 20kg and up to 30 kg in Business Class.

Seat Reservation
Rather than struggle to find a seat, with SWISS you can board calmly because you have already reserved your seat from home. Your seat reservation is included. Thanks to Web Check-in, you can check in online from 23 hours and up to 1 hour before departure.

Miles & More Miles
Collectors of award miles are well looked after: miles are included with every SWISS flight.

Inflight Catering
As a passenger you can feel hungry during a flight, long or short-haul. Which is why inflight catering is included in your ticket price.

SWISS Service
If you have already flown with SWISS before, you know the difference service makes. Included, of course!

and for 100 EUR more per direction you can upgrade to business usually, which does NOT include pseudo food snack in wrapped plastic formed tray but rather a normal tray with normal cutlery and glasses etc... you also get business miles. Where is FB? far far far away......

And as a status customer you get recognized and treated as such

But we shouldn't be unfair and compare AF with airlines that actually offer service. The theme is "downward benchmarking": AF (and its fans) will argue that many other airlines are doing the same or even worse. Ryanair, SAS, Wizzair, Easyjet, many of the US legacies, and all the other beacons of customer service. In AF and its fans' logic, being in the company of other bad airlines makes you a good airline. :confused:

I think of AF as a premium carrier in TATL Y, really a shame to see this happen. a BIG :td:


Vote with your feet and your wallet. Boycott Air France!

Fly with Swiss and Lufthansa.

Vote with your feet and your wallet. Boycott Air France!

Fly with Swiss and Lufthansa.

That already happens. Look at the numbers of these airlines over the past 12 months: all are struggling, but Air France is hit the worst. But good to know they're changing their corporate logo from "Air France" to "AIRFRANCE". :D

I have to say I'm happy that ever since April 1st I haven't set foot on an AF airplane. I have no desire to ever do so again (other than burning all my miles).

AF simply have no clue as to what they are doing and more shockingly it seems shareholders don't realize how this airline is going to the ground.

Not true. Right now, their offering is above the European average on European flights in Y.

my last 3 flights featured 'water or coffee', not even sparkling water :rolleyes: plus some unedible cookie :rolleyes:
Honestly, DL on domestic US is MUCH better right now.
AF has come a long way down the slippery slope. Too bad, they used to be a decent company.

That already happens. Look at the numbers of these airlines over the past 12 months: all are struggling, but Air France is hit the worst. But good to know they're changing their corporate logo from "Air France" to "AIRFRANCE".


It gives me the chauvinistic satisfaction of loosening the association between the former national carrier and the country, so I guess it's a good news. Changing to AIRNIGERIA would have been better, though (no offense intended for our Nigerian readers)


AF simply have no clue as to what they are doing and more shockingly it seems shareholders don't realize how this airline is going to the ground.

1. If you follow the reactions of shareholders in the last quarter, they have been more sensitive, globally, to news of costcutting than to news of increased revenue. I guess they could applaud AF short term "plan".

2. I'd say the long-term shareholders care. LH share's worth 10,50 while topping under 21 in 2007. It lost less than half it's capitalization, while AF is now a little under 10,50 but it topped a little under 40 in 2007. Unless I missed some increase in the number of shares (which is quite possible), I'd say investors are realizing the situation.

The issue with AF is simple.

KLM/AF merged. KLM was already privatised and trimmed (to be profitable), with a succesfull strategy. AF was partially private, but remained unrealistic ideas and ideals, which cost money.

Keep in mind that the Dutch government still retains a call option on 51% of KLM to defend the 'Dutchness' of KLM (protective measure as well, both to KLM and Schiphol). This also lead to the dual hub strategy, which is costly.

The key issue is that the legacy carriers should not even try to compete with LCC's, they cannot cope with that (US domestic market is THE example). They should actually keep their current product and ask a 'premium' for it and express the reason behind it:
- Food and drinks included
- No hidden charges and fee's
- Assigned seating
- Free luggage (included in ticket)
- Service airline (Flight Attendants, Alliances etc.)
- Enough legroom (32')
This is what SWISS does and actually they acknowledge their advantage. The US legacy carriers act more like an LCC (read: Ryanair, Irish junk) than SWA or JetBlue...

Besides that, they should active show that LCC's don't have to be LOW COST to the customer. A flight from AMS to FCO is exactly the same ammount on KLM/AZ than on Easyjet, without the fuss. They should fight what LCC's propose: Expencive flights, while in reality the difference might be a little and sometimes even cheaper! Also fares should be more logical with the legacy carriers, like LH does €99 EUROPE.

Instead of trying to mimic, differentiation works, because they serve different markets and as mentioned before if all is the same, you pick the cheapest option. AF actually kills the reason to fly them and more importantly the 'service' associated with the brand. We all know Ryanair sucks, so we don't have high hopes, with AF we do.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)


This is what SWISS does and actually they acknowledge their advantage.

So right about Swiss. I am writing this from on board one of their aircraft still on the ground at CDG. The moment I approached my seat a FA came to me and said "good morning Mr. creber" (they look at the seat numbers of their loyal customers before boarding) and helped me out of my coat. A minute later she came to my seat with a bottle of water, a refreshment towel, my favourite newspaper and two pillows (they have those preferences on file). She also knew in which language to address me.

I am now looking forward to a flight with a true breakfast, served on real china and with real glasses, hot croissants and rolls, space for me and my belongings, and no bus ride on arrival.

I've done the CDG-ZRH-CDG flight on AF last week. A little more expensive. Do I need to describ that one or can you imagine how it compares?

EDIT after landing from a flight that I actually enjoyed despite its early departure time: I forgot the real reason for this post, which was not to laud LX (that is not the topic in this thread) but to make the comparison of the effects of a high service strategy vs. cheapo crap à la AIRFRANCE:



Swiss is profitable. Jan-Sept 2009, they make an operational profit of CHF 113 MM on a turnover of CHF 3'236 MM. That is a very low profitability, and indeed they have suffered from the crisis, as their profit is 1/3 of what it used to be one year ago. Revenues have slumped by 18%.
AIRFRANCE is making losses. As of 30th June 2009 (no newer figures found) they make operational losses of EUR 496 MM, on revenues of EUR 5'169 MM. The traffic figures they have released for the months of July, August and September looked bad as well.


So noone tell me that high service automatically means losses. It seems a low service level with a hit-and-miss performance, operational unreliability, putting employees' interests before those of customers, whilst at the same time maintaining claim to a full service carrier label and high prices - it just doesn't work.

There are numerous factors that contribute to LX' strategy working vs. AF' strategy not working (ADP might be one of them). But noone so far has explained to me why AF cannot basically do the same as LX, i.e. be a successful full service carrier. One could argue that one major difference between LX and AF is the size of their domestic network. But LX also faces competition from the train (few people take the plane just to from ZRH to GVA), and one might argue that in the age of integrated rail networks across European borders the notion of "domestic" vs. "European" is somewhat artificial (=AF faces competition from the TGV on Paris-Marseille, LX faces competition on Zurich-Frankfurt from the ICE. One is domestic, another is not, but the underlying market dynamics and economics are the same).

AF strategy seems predicated on becoming a 'reduced service' carrier as opposed to a 'low cost'. The social considerations faced by the PDG of AF are such that a low cost plan a la Ryanair is not probably not feasible. The product is now as follows:

1) Y (pointlessly rebranded as Voyageur) as a stripped down, high density cabin offering bare minimum of service on long haul routes.

2) Premium Voyageur. If this is anything like the introduction of the 'new' J cabins it will be a long time coming. Having said that, in view of AF's poor premium cabins this upgraded economy may be a real winner.

3) J cabin with gradual elimination ('enhancement' in AF-speak) of costly service items. Although the cabin is already some way behind its competitors AF has opted to 'enhance' (i.e. gut) the existing product to save money.

4) P. Retained for reasons of 'prestige' on NRT and JFK. Filled with staff and upgrades. Easily the weakest first cabin out there. Even UA has a better cabin now. This really is a waste of cabin space and cannot be contributing much to the bottom line. A shame.

Incoherent strategy and poor performance generally do not produce stellar results. In a good market AF's yield management and superlative IT make deficiencies in the core business less pressing to management.

I am a bit upset by the constant comparison with The American model (which has not been very succesful for legacy airlines). Let's for a moment talk about Asia, where the multi-country geography is more similar to Europe (even if countries tend to be larger in distance).
I recently flew HKG-SIN-LGK (Langkawi in Malaysia) return. For the SIN-LGK return I booked two one way on Air Asia (premium LCC) and Malaysia airline (full-service); 90 min flight. Air asia cost in Euros was (everything ordered on internet a couple of days before the flight) :
-ticket 27 + 14 tax
- one checked luggage 2
-one (good) hot meal 2
- advanced hot seat reservation 5
or a total of 50 EUR.
Hot seats are the first three rows and the two emergency rows: I booked the front row with plenty of leg space. Other seats can be assigned in advance for only 1 EUR. Otherwise seats are assigned at check-in.
On the return, I also paid 50 EUR on MH. Flight was quite full, but I got that great price nonetheless 4 days before flight. Full service meaning choice of hot meal (chicken or fish) and drink, checked luggage. No advance seat assignment (except for their elite pax) but good seats available at OLCI. Asian service throughout.

I can add that I flew HKG-SIN on SQ business class. The fare is extortionate for the region (duopoly CX SQ) at 1500 EUR for a 3h30 flight, but still below the 2200 that AF charges for a 3h flight to ATH. However, SQ uses longhaul aircraft and service. So wonderful Biz suite with flat beds (I napped for an hour) with 4 seats abreast on 777, great AVOD with over 100 movies and huge screen, longhaul-type dinner/lunch (much better than on AF longhaul), great service. And the flights are full in biz.
These comments to illustrate a business model where Y can be very cheap but still provide service, and Biz very expensive but justified by a great product and attracting biz pax.

brunos, I am not sure to fully understand the consistency of your comparison : you are comparing the Y of a premium LCC and an Asian major to AF Y then SQ C to AF C. Indeed, SQ is not MH which is also not Air Asia.

For the record, did you notice the the price for SQ Y or MH C?

Anyway, your example helps me being sure that I am not convinced by AF new business model.

brunos' illustration is a great one, thanks for that.

BTW: I flew SIN-LGK many years back, and I chose a routing SIN-PEN on SQ and PEN-LGK on MH. I remember that the SIN-PEN leg *in First Class* (!) cost something like 160 EUR back then. On a Boeing 777-200. But already back then fares on the Singapore-Malaysia market seemed to be very low.

But AF explicitly stated that they do not compare themselves to the top Asian carriers (SQ, CX, etc.). Probably because they'd look ridiculous in such a comparison.

But they do compare themselves with European legacy carriers. And there, they are sliding continuously, from one with the best service level (on top of anyone I can think of) to something extremely mediocre (something like IB or Aer Lingus). Their choice. But I don't think a wise choice.

brunos, I am not sure to fully understand the consistency of your comparison : you are comparing the Y of a premium LCC and an Asian major to AF Y then SQ C to AF C. Indeed, SQ is not MH which is also not Air Asia.

For the record, did you notice the the price for SQ Y or MH C?

Anyway, your example helps me being sure that I am not convinced by AF new business model.

Hi bodoy, sorry for not being more explicit.

AF has recently raised two issues. One is eliminating intra-European biz, the other is downgrading intra-European Y to bad LCC level. My illustration was based on one intra-Asia trip where the business model is different. Major full-service Asian airlines are both competing with LCC on their Y product and maintaining high service on their C product (MH also has a higher-priced successful C product). And they are successfully doing it. To stick with the HKG-SIN route, CX/SQ are offering a fairly-flexible return fare in Y at 200EUR. It is still full service, but food/drinks are not great. A bit more expensive that the LCCs on that route, but not much. And they are offering a C product at 1500 with exceptional service.

I believe that AF intra-European business model is flawed because they offer a very poor C product at very high price which is not attracting pax (except transit longhaul pax). The major attraction of C fare is flexibility, but that has become obsolete given the gigantic price differential with cheap Y tickets. And they want to introduce a very poor Y product competing with LCCs but they don't have the cost structure to support it. Asian carriers have been successful in truly differentiating their products by offering a high-quality C product for businessmen that are paying high prices, and a decent Y product, slightly better than LCCs (lounge in particular) at a competitive cost. They probably dont make much money on the Y sales, but they amortize the flight cost with Y and make money with C.

Hi bodoy, sorry for not being more explicit.

AF has recently raised two issues. One is eliminating intra-European biz, the other is downgrading intra-European Y to bad LCC level. My illustration was based on one intra-Asia trip where the business model is different. Major full-service Asian airlines are both competing with LCC on their Y product and maintaining high service on their C product (MH also has a higher-priced successful C product). And they are successfully doing it. To stick with the HKG-SIN route, CX/SQ are offering a fairly-flexible return fare in Y at 200EUR. It is still full service, but food/drinks are not great. A bit more expensive that the LCCs on that route, but not much. And they are offering a C product at 1500 with exceptional service.

I believe that AF intra-European business model is flawed because they offer a very poor C product at very high price which is not attracting pax (except transit longhaul pax). The major attraction of C fare is flexibility, but that has become obsolete given the gigantic price differential with cheap Y tickets. And they want to introduce a very poor Y product competing with LCCs but they don't have the cost structure to support it. Asian carriers have been successful in truly differentiating their products by offering a high-quality C product for businessmen that are paying high prices, and a decent Y product, slightly better than LCCs (lounge in particular) at a competitive cost. They probably dont make much money on the Y sales, but they amortize the flight cost with Y and make money with C.


Thank you, that is much more clear by now.

I fully concur with one thing : AF's dream to reduce costs like LCC will undoubtedly crash into the wall of their cost structure. AF is not a LCC and IMO, reducing catering and other visible things for the customer will not provide sufficient savings to compete with the invisible things of LCCs, i.e crews working twice as much and aircrafts rotation frequency being significantly higher.

About the comparison between Asian and European markets :

Like you said, the distance in Asia are higher than in Europe. Ex-CDG for example, the longest flights of the European network are IST, ATH, TLV and AMM (with AMM being in Asia regarding FB redeeming charts, but that is another story). Why is LX sending an A340 with true F and C to TLV when AF is using a crappy A320? I have no clue if it is demand oriented or cost oriented but I presume LX has made the right choice.

Ex-LHR, FRA or ZRH the distance are pretty much the same than ex-CDG.
The longest European flights would be from ARN or HEL to IST or its region but first I am not sure, secondly, I do not know which aircrafts and products are marketed by SAS or Finnair out there.

If I can understand that no one is willing to pay for a flat bed between CDG and ZRH or LHR and FRA, I am nevertheless quite confident that if no European major has implemented a long haul premium product for its European network (with some exceptions like said above), not only it is because distances are shorter (than is Asia I mean), but also because there is no demand.

However, things might change, maybe? US majors for instance have now implemented long haul products for their transcontinental flights. AF's move to the bottom of service without much reducing their prices could be taken as an opportunity by any European carrier to drastically improve their C product, if they think demand exists.

By the way, do Asian carriers have the same expenses rate/structure than European ones? I mean, high salaries, high pension plans, high taxes etc???
Apart from the customer pattern, that could explain why they are able to sell 1500 EUR a 3 hour ride HKG-SIN in a flat bed whereas AF sells its C-class-Y-seat CDG-ATH about the same price.

To conclude, I would say that it is quite difficult to compare US, European and Asian markets, because of their intrinsic characteristics, their different level of maturity and their cultural differences.

But one thing is sure : leveling down like AF does is not good for the customer.

And your Asian example clearly shows it.

AF's dream to reduce costs like LCC will undoubtedly crash into the wall of their cost structure. AF is not a LCC and IMO, reducing catering and other visible things for the customer will not provide sufficient savings to compete with the invisible things of LCCs, i.e crews working twice as much and aircrafts rotation frequency being significantly higher.

From the outside I would tend to believe that this is 100% correct. Just look at their work force, their rights/claims/expectations, or at their fleet utilization. But then: surely the people who have made up the strategy and the planning have looked into this and concluded that by some means they can really cut costs. Or they are really naive, thinking that taking out the biscuits will sufficiently save costs. But I don't believe they are that dumb. They may not have a good feeling for market trends (proven by the fact that they lose more money than their peers), but they would not make such beginners' mistakes in their strategic planning.


Why is LX sending an A340 with true F and C to TLV when AF is using a crappy A320? I have no clue if it is demand oriented or cost oriented but I presume LX has made the right choice.

We should be fair here. AF does not have a big market share in Israel. Whether people there don't like flying AF or whether the low demand is a result of the small capacity I don't know. LX has two flights per day, and whilst in summer indeed both flights are by longhaul aircraft (usually some mix of A340 and A330-200), one flight is on the A320 during the winter timetable period. Lufthansa would be a better example: their two daily flights from FRA and their flight from MUC are all on longhaul metal (always one 747-400 from FRA, the other flights a mix of A340-600 and A340-300).

But then look just some kilometers further, to Beirut: Lufthansa and almost all other Europeans fly there with medium haul jets (A32x, B73x) - except Air France, which sends a daily B777-300ER and on some days an additional A330-200. Full longhaul comfort and service. Mind you that Air France's market share in Lebanon is much higher than that of LH. And LX doesn't even go there.


If I can understand that no one is willing to pay for a flat bed between CDG and ZRH or LHR and FRA, I am nevertheless quite confident that if no European major has implemented a long haul premium product for its European network (with some exceptions like said above), not only it is because distances are shorter (than is Asia I mean), but also because there is no demand.

The bed may be a bit too much for the short European flights. But wider seats would be possible, but airlines want to keep the flexibilty of converting the C vs. Y capacities of their cabins. Fair enough. But then look at all the other elements of service: food, reading material, pillows,... AF reduces those items as well, and there distance/duration of flight is no reason. And on top of that: AF has also reduced service on the ground. Try contacting customer service and you'll know what I mean.


By the way, do Asian carriers have the same expenses rate/structure than European ones? I mean, high salaries, high pension plans, high taxes etc???
Apart from the customer pattern, that could explain why they are able to sell 1500 EUR a 3 hour ride HKG-SIN in a flat bed whereas AF sells its C-class-Y-seat CDG-ATH about the same price.

To conclude, I would say that it is quite difficult to compare US, European and Asian markets, because of their intrinsic characteristics, their different level of maturity and their cultural differences.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Although it's wrong to say that you cannot compare (because you can), you'll find regional patterns which are indeed explained by those regional specificities that you mention. And AF doesn't compare its shorthaul service with that in Asia. They compare it with their peers in Europe. And they see that some have already gone the "crap service" route (Iberia for instance) and so they say to themselves "we do the same". They benchmark themselves downward, instead of upward. Maybe the financial success of IB is their model.


But one thing is sure : leveling down like AF does is not good for the customer.

It surely isn't, but then I wouldn't expect of AF to provide a service just because pax like it. I would only expect them to provide good service if the market carries the cost of it. But here we go: I am not convinced their cheapo-crap strategy will actually pay off. If it does, good for them (they'll have earned their money from other pax, not from me)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

I also do not think they are that dumb.

But then, how do you explain the reason why they have chosen that strategy?

I have no clue.

I agree with all of you who point out to the difficulties in comparing the European, Asian, and North American markets (or Australian, South American, etc if you will), but fortunately, we don't really need to. The question is, within any one of these geographical areas of competition, can a major airline survive if it offers (1) significantly worse service than the competition with (2) equivalent or higher prices.

As pointed out by others, EVEN without free food and drink, etc, AF cannot be cheaper to run (and therefore offer lower fares) than BA or LX, let alone FR or U2 and it now wants to offer much less good service than these two, LH, AB and even (who thought this would ever be possible) AZ. We already mentioned examples such as SK and LX, but similarly, if I'm not mistaken, within the US context, the two airlines that had, at different times, lowered their service standards before other legacy carriers were TWA (which went bust) and US Airways (which survived but only under the chaperonning of UA). Not encouraging for good old AF and the brilliant ideas of the new management team...

Speaking from the Dutch side of the house, there has since the late eighties been an obsession with America and American management methods including trying to buy market share and volume in the American market. There is an implicit lack of trust in Holland or Europe or the Rhineland model being the answer to the future and a cynical capitulation believing that America, its worship of shareholder value and the radical American business models (no matter how flawed or customer unfriendly or employee hostile and no matter how dreary their dead ends) are the future and will be the future and thus must be emulated.

There was a great summary in the Volkskrant this weekend showing all the ambitious plans of Dutch multinationals during the 90s: the grab for market share and questionable mergers and acquisitions, the predictably hyped rise in share price and the inevitable crash and burn at the end. The marriage of KL with AF is one of the few less disastrous examples of an (reverse) acquisition -- partly because it was close to home and partly because the level of hubris was less and partly because the Dutch were not in charge.

AFKL(AZ) wants to be big. To be big one has to be a volume player. To be a volume player one must act like a volume player and compete with those having a simiilar volume model. The capitulation to the race to the bottom in emulating the American path forward is complete at AFKL. This race has been led by the KL side of the house, made possible by the simple fact of the real results they have built in turning KL into something between NW and Ryanair.

The customer travel experience, the service on board, the attention to details, none of that is seen as important. It is not important if your high volume/low price competitors are also not offering it. Even if they do and you are 50 euros cheaper, for substantial parts of the business and leisure market it doesn't matter anyway: whoever is cheapest wins and the passenger will just (have to) grin and bear it.

Could AF become a business one half or one quarter the size and focus a la Swiss on a more distinguishing market? Perhaps, but that is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the strategy for the group. It is also contrary to the no-nonsense, value for money KL brand and it is unrealizable with the variable, hautain, no value for money product and service offering that so many passengers report as their experience on AF. The elephant in the room: Sooner or later both the labour issues in the ground and cabin and the lack of creative product development and merchandising flair and service culture will have to be addressed on the AF side of the house. Or, it will be an evolutionary model starting with eliminating customer value and gradually eliminating employee value.

ALDI and LIDL are examples of companies that took the low cost/low price leadership role in their market of food retailing. They single handedly were successful in destroying the remaining ability of most German consumers to be able to judge what good food (e.g. good bread) is -- and they are exporting their low quality/low price model around the world.

Once you have successfully eliminated all expectations except for a low cost, once you have trained your customers to have no expectations, how low you can go is only a matter of being willing to descend one more ring in Dantes Hell. AFKL are not defining the market, they are being re-defined by it.

An interesting and philosophical post.

There is nothing wrong with a low cost model (Ryanair), as there is nothing wrong with a high service model (Singapore Airlines). You can be successful in either *IF* you manage to have a coherent positioning - either you are an "LCC" or a "high service" airline, even one that offers some less expensive tickets. By coherent I mean all elements of the product offering (hard and soft) fitting in and the operating model behind (including the cost aspect of things) supporting it. But AF's strategy of being a "full-service-in-premium-classes-except-that-full-has-been-reduced-to-virtually-non-existant-and-LCC-not-on-the-cost-but-on-the-revenue-model-side" carrier - besides regretting it from a customer point of view I doubt it from an entrepreneurial point of view.

They'll still have cost for lounges (even if most of them are mediocre), call centres (even if most of the agents are retarded and thus inexpensive morons), a workers council for employees' comfort but financed by the company, and so on - but they want to reduce their revenues from Eco pax. Which means that Business pax have to carry the entire cost burden. Which means that either Business fares go up even further or that their service will go down even further.

I'd be OK for AF to turn into a real LCC and act accordingly. Maybe that would open a window of opportunity for a French version of Virgin America for some routes.

An interesting discussion indeed...

Just for comparison's sake, SU manages to offer proper 2 x 2 J seating (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot---Russian/Airbus-A321-211/1158030/M/) and multi-course hot meals served by hand at your seat on all of their short- and medium haul network, be it SVO-LED or SVO-AGP (the latter being, I believe, one of the longest intra-European flights, only LIS-DME is longer). And they are not leaking money the way AF seems to be... On my last SVO-CDG flight on AF metal there was this Russian family across the aisle with a girl of about 12 and you should have heard her ask: "Mum, are you sure this is the business class section?" when they entered the plane...

As to how dumb the AF management can be - we're talking about the same bunch of people that basically killed their FF scheme in a heartbeat, right?

It gives me the chauvinistic satisfaction of loosening the association between the former national carrier and the country, so I guess it's a good news. Changing to AIRNIGERIA would have been better, though (no offense intended for our Nigerian readers)

1. If you follow the reactions of shareholders in the last quarter, they have been more sensitive, globally, to news of costcutting than to news of increased revenue. I guess they could applaud AF short term "plan".

2. I'd say the long-term shareholders care. LH share's worth 10,50 while topping under 21 in 2007. It lost less than half it's capitalization, while AF is now a little under 10,50 but it topped a little under 40 in 2007. Unless I missed some increase in the number of shares (which is quite possible), I'd say investors are realizing the situation.

2010 is going to be even better for AF, since they still had a fair amount of residual travel from most of us this year (already booked and pre-April travel). I am cutting back my travel on AF-op flights as much as I can and will rather fly DL metal; sometimes I still need to connect through CDG, but this is less and less the case.
There will be a bad awakening and we'll see too little too late ... aren't we all @ where the grass is greener already?

aren't we all @ where the grass is greener already?

for more than 50% of my flights (used to be 10%) :cool:

. aren't we all @ where the grass is greener already?
Just received today the Senator kit from LH thanks to a status match presently offered to Hong Kong residents.

I have to say I have been impressed by the quality of the card (the latest FB Platinum are a joke) and of the baggage tags.

These are of course details, but LH present financial results seem to show that you don't need to reduce the service on everything to be successful, even if you are a legacy airline with certainly high costs.

I have to say I have been impressed by the quality of the baggage tags.


Oh, you mean those two leather ones? Indeed nicer and not as cheapo as the one FB Platinum one you get as a top tier customer of AFKL.

But I must disappoint you: you can also buy those Senator baggage tags on ebay. They usually sell at around 20-30 EUR. As a reference: the Platinum baggage tags go out usually 2-4 EUR. Maybe even non-initiated buyers on ebay know that Platinum is worth nothing?

There is resale value to AF Plat tag? Maybe this should be mentionned in the FAQ, as one of the main strong points of AF's FFP?

But I must disappoint you: you can also buy those Senator baggage tags on ebay. They usually sell at around 20-30 EUR.
You are not disappointing me! In fact I had no idea such a "market" could exist.
But I will certainly use these tags, and they will certainly be more resistant than the all plastic FB ones, which break relatively quickly (generally before reaching the 10 flight mark).

There is resale value to AF Plat tag? Maybe this should be mentionned in the FAQ, as one of the main strong points of AF's FFP?

thanks for the info ... I still have a few ... maybe they will be worth more once the program is completely dead :D

for more than 50% of my flights (used to be 10%) :cool:

I am 50% *A crediting to BD and 50% ST crediting to NW/DL. For 2010 I am anticipating a 75/25 split for *A vs ST, expecially with CO earning 100% on BD.

But I will certainly use these tags, and they will certainly be more resistant than the all plastic FB ones, which break relatively quickly (generally before reaching the 10 flight mark).

Now I understand why everybody is leaving FB : since the tags are broken after 10 flights and FB does not want to provide new tags, people fly Star Alliance after 10 flights with Skyteam.

:p

I guess this trend might become much more prevalent if these pax are dropping in service, not from Business to Economy, but from Business to Low-Cost.

I'm sad but I will take this last option.
I always considered a benefit for my company when I was travelling intra-EU flights with so called national carriers because of the timetables and services like biz check-in (because I do not have always a printer with me and I do not want to loose my time with that or having to check whatever) and lounges (guests and saving on meals).
Now most of these benefits are disappearing for me that I am a loyal customer.
This is the crisis...they have to change? Ok, so I will change.
In 2 weeks time I will have my first Easyjet flight for business: I will pay my speedy boarding, for my baggage AND for a decent meal (on-board) or in the airport.
I bet I will spend less than my usual carriers...and, for this time, I will have more.

Especially with ST I'm getting more and more disappoointed...with the only exception of OK (CSA). LH still offer decent food in Y and in the lounges: tell-me where it is possible to get the same with ST.

I just let you thinking that I am currently planning my next year's travels...and I am really wondering if to switch to *A definitely...or to have a mix also with OK (CSA) and Easyjet.
I travel mainly in Europe...

fwiw - I did mention this at an meeting with AF officials yesterday and they said this will NOT happen as written in the newspaper. press conference on nov12th with more details.

What? It will be even worse ?

What? It will be even worse ?

no, it should be rather positive. someone at paris seems to listen ;)

no, it should be rather positive. someone at paris seems to listen ;)

I must say it sounds a bit reassuring to see that you and JOUY31 feel that you have reasons to be optimistic as I know how reliable you both are. It makes me feel a bit less worried about tomorrow's announcements (even though part of me still fears someone will still manage to pull some last minute nasty trick, but let's hope not!!) Fingers crossed, and maybe, we can finally start a thread that has reasons to be POSITIVE tomorrow afternoon. It has been a long time since we had much to celebrate about our favourite airline...

even though part of me still fears someone will still manage to pull some last minute nasty trick,

Still possible, we'll see ...

live coverage tomorrow here starting at 9am: Air France unveils its brand new European service

let's hope it'll be a real improvement ;)

http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/press/news/article/item/suivre-en-direct-air-france-devoile-sa-nouvelle-offre-europeenne/

"New european service". Do your general optimism also apply to changes with regard to the worker class?

Starting on 1st April 2010, Air France is offering a new service on its medium-haul network, aimed at better meeting the changing expectations of travellers seeking greater simplicity and clarity, and more affordable fares.

The essentials of the Air France service will remain, and the airline will continue to offer two clearly separate cabins, the "Voyageur" cabin and the "Premium" cabin. The Air France service will not be that of a low-cost carrier.

«Regarding short-haul travel, customer requirements have changed. They now want reliable, efficient air transport, with an appropriate service, at the lowest possible price, while retaining the «Air France touch». We designed our new medium-haul offering with this in mind», declared Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, Chief Executive Officer of Air France-KLM.

The Voyageur offering is designed for customers looking for a simple, inexpensive product, with all the essentials of the Air France service:

free carriage of hold baggage up to 23 kg, choice of seat at check-in, wide choice of newspapers, catering adapted to the flight time, and designated counters for customers requiring assistance.

When they make their reservation, customers can specify their preference for a window or aisle seat free of charge, and have their boarding pass sent to them by email.

For just 10 euros, Air France also proposes a «grace period», so that customers can keep their booking and the fare they have found for several days. Air France is the only airline to offer this service online.

Fares have been reduced and the simplified price range makes it easier to find the lowest price: the price displayed on the same web page combines the cheapest available fare for the outbound flight and the cheapest available fare for the return flight. Tickets are sold for round trips, but promotional fares are now available one-way. These tickets are not refundable but can be modified for an additional 50 euros.

The Premium offering is tailored to the requirements of business travellers seeking more flexibility, enhanced service, even greater efficiency and time-savings, at more affordable prices.

Premium customers have a choice between two products: the Premium Eco for those seeking flexibility and efficiency at the best prices and Premium Business for those who opt for more comfort and privacy.

In Premium Eco, the published fares are an average of 20% lower than the published fares for Tempo Challenge, and Premium Business fares are also lower than those of the current Affaires-Business Class.

All “Premium” tickets are available either round trip or one-way for all fares in the price range. They are can be refunded and modified free of charge.

Premium Business customers can choose their seat when they book their flight.

At the airport, all Premium customers benefit from a dedicated check-in area, dedicated security checkpoints, which are more numerous and faster at Paris-Charles de Gaulle and a priority boarding line. A dedicated Premium hotline is also at their disposal.

On board, they travel in a cabin at the front of the aircraft. The inflight catering has been upgraded both in presentation and content. Premium Business customers enjoy a wider seat, with no-one sitting next to them.

Furthermore, whatever class they are travelling in, all passengers continue to earn Flying Blue Miles, benefiting from a wide choice of destinations and flight frequencies thanks to the powerful Air France hub at Paris-Charles de Gaulle. They can use any of the Air France ticket offices downtown, Air France desks at the airport, call centers, and can be assisted by Air France staff at any time. They are taken care of by dedicated Air France departments such as the ROC (Reservations Operations Center), in the event of operating irregularities and malfunctions.

Air France also responds to the needs of customers with special needs via “Saphir”, a complimentary booking and information service reserved for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. There is also the “Family Service” designed for children travelling alone (UMs), which is free of charge on domestic flights. Every year Air France carries 400,000 Ums.

I started a new thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-france-frequence-plus/1016447-new-european-travel-concept-april-2010-a.html

maybe we could focus all info in one thread?

lots of talk but at the end it is business as usual. Lets see however if they really improve their price at the end