Does anybody know what a Gadfly is? We were just called "Gadfly's" in the most recent article of Inside Flyer Magazine. See link below. Jeez and all of time I thought we were actively trying to effect change bu pointing out managements missteps in a cute and humerous way. If indeed we are gadflys then why have a significant portion of our sale go to employees?? Perhaps Inside Flyer should talk to one of our media reps and get the whole story.
In September of that year, the airline announced sweeping changes to its Dividend Miles program, largely designed to change the behavior of its most frequent flyers. Among other things, the changes rewarded those paying higher fares, and reduced benefits for those flying on the cheap.
"We had customers who paid $2,000 asking us 'Why is the person who paid $200 afforded the same luxuries as me?'" said David Castelveter of US Airways. A logical question, and one US Airways tried to address.
Of course, not everyone saw it that way. Many economy-minded, and distinctly loyal customers felt slighted. Some of them, spurred by angry posts to FlyerTalk.com, formed a group that called itself the "cockroaches."
The name, they say, was taken from a pejorative post on usairways.com. Within weeks, 500 cockroach-shaped lapel pins (complete with the US Airways logo) were made. Some 400 have been sold.
For the record, US Airways never implemented the changes.
"What we might have said or done, we meant no offense," Castelveter said. "Today, someone flying for $200 and someone flying at $2,000 get the same miles awarded into their account, and they all count toward tier status."
Did the bugs win? In a sense. But the changes were rescinded long before such mainstream media outlets as USA Today profiled the cockroach movement. The direct impact, then, of the few hundred cockroaches out there, has been limited to an after-the-fact gadfly role.
markbach
Mar 5, 03, 1:48 am
gad·fly n.
1. A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
2. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gadfly
deelmakur
Mar 5, 03, 7:30 am
Inside Flyer depends on airline advertising (among other categories), as well as subscription revenue. FT (a service of Inside Flyer) is free. Sometimes you have to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you. Otherwise you might be considered a gadfly yourself. There might not be a lot of "cockroaches", but their ability to gain access to the editorial pages of publications like the WSJ and USA Today (both of which appear to have significantly greater readership than Inside Flyer)is hardly trivial. You can be sure the carriers don't like to see that stuff. It has a way of affecting the attitudes of not only other customers, but also creditors, lenders, and politicians who vote for loan guarantees.
TomBascom
Mar 5, 03, 8:15 am
"Gadfly" is fine, it's fairly accurate.
But I'm appalled that InsideFlyer, of all media outlets, should do such a misleading, one-sided and poorly researched story that once again regurgitates airline tripe as unquestioned gospel. It's not like they should have had any trouble finding us and talking to us...
You know that it's not going to be a brilliant bit of journalism when they can't even get the date right. Black Tuesday was August 27th 2002. A good lead in might have been to find the original FT posts that exposed the sneak attack...
??? Give me a break -- there's nothing luxurious about the flying experience -- InsideFlyer is letting the airline try to redefine the playing field by moving from "perqs" to "luxuries".
Sorry, false. Not one single aspect of the proposed changes rewarded anyone. It was purely punitive. The only "reward" angle was that maybe after chasing away all of the current elites (which wouldn't have happened until at least 2004) there would be less competition for the "luxuries".
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"We had customers who paid $2,000 asking us 'Why is the person who paid $200 afforded the same luxuries as me?'" said David Castelveter of US Airways. A logical question, and one US Airways tried to address.</font>
No they didn't try to address it.
That problem has many faces, none of which the airline tried to address:
0) Anyone who has a $2,000 ticket in the first place probably doesn't have a very firm grasp on how the system works.
1) The customer may very well have had a $2,000 restricted ticket that doesn't entitle them to "I" inventory.
2) If a customer has a ticket that entitles them to an upgrade but can't get one then US has an inventory problem that should be fixed. No effort was made to do so.
3) People who buy a $200 ticket this week may very well (be forced to) buy a $2000 ticket next week. You can't look at a single ticket to determine long term loyalty.
4) Why are they charging $2,000 in the first place? Of course a customer who paid that kind of money is going to feel ripped off and angry -- they should! After all they just got ripped off.
5) Why are the rules and restrictions so complex? Did they ever consider that adding still more complexity to the system is going to generate even more unhappy customers? Have they noticed the negative correlation between the complexity of the rules and their profitability yet?
6) Did they ever try to answer the customers question with the truth? Or are the rules too complex for their own employees to explain?
7) Just how many customers are making these complaints? I wouldn't blindly take an airline flack's word for it that there were any -- it makes a good cover story but is it true?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The name, they say, was taken from a pejorative post on usairways.com.</font>
The quality of research shown here is mind-boggling. "They say"??? Just who did this reporter contact?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">For the record, US Airways never implemented the changes.</font>
Untrue. Multiple changes were made on Black Tuesday. Most of them stand at least in part -- in particular "no stand-by" (specious claims to the contrary not-withstanding) and "use it or lose it". The changes to Dividend Miles were backed off from but the others were only slightly softened. And then only after much protest.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"What we might have said or done, we meant no offense," Castelveter said. "Today, someone flying for $200 and someone flying at $2,000 get the same miles awarded into their account, and they all count toward tier status." </font>
This is dangerous -- they're still focused on a single ticket rather than a pattern of purchases. This is a very smooth attempt to build sympathy for the "unfairness" of it all via a "left handed compliment" sort of strategy. Aren't reporters supposed to ask questions and probe deeper than the prepared pablum? Shouldn't an article digging into an uproar over changes to a loyalty program show some insight into what such programs are all about, ask appropriate in-depth questions and present findings that go beyond stale repeats of old press releases?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Did the bugs win? In a sense. But the changes were rescinded long before such mainstream media outlets as USA Today profiled the cockroach movement. The direct impact, then, of the few hundred cockroaches out there, has been limited to an after-the-fact gadfly role. </font>
This is the best part. Did Castelveter write this for the reporter? This is nothing more than an obvious attempt to pre-emptively disenfranchise an organized group of unhappy customers that threatens their cozy little fantasy world.
The media (including USA Today) was all over the changes at the time and referenced the angry fliers frequently -- we just didn't have a fancy name until afterwards. The letters and calls of complaint and the press coverage had an obvious effect -- they didn't roll back the DM changes from the goodness of their tiny little hearts...
The real story for "InsideFlyer" ought to have been about how an online community brought together customers to quickly and effectively lobby for change before it became a fait accompli. To have missed such an opportunity is a real shame.
[This message has been edited by TomBascom (edited 03-05-2003).]
PineyBob
Mar 5, 03, 9:00 am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TomBascom:
[B]"Gadfly" is fine, it's fairly accurate.
But I'm appalled that InsideFlyer, of all media outlets, should do such a misleading, one-sided and poorly researched story that once again regurgitates airline tripe as unquestioned gospel. It's not like they should have had any trouble finding us and talking to us...
I was a little "hot under the collar" last night when I read the article. But deelmaker is right I think in his assesment of the situation as there was a very nice "Pop-Up Advertisement" for US that came up while I was reading the article with smoke coming out both ears. Anyway I have always subscribed to the theory that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The beauty of things as they stand now is the press knows we are out there and lately we have gotten significant coverage without trying to generate it, and that's very good. Smal request?? If you run across a link to a media outlet could you forward it to me please! I still send out e-mails to various media outlets. Once US emerges from BK I want to make sure that we are still "In their face" on the issues Tom Bascom so eloquently presented. Thanks for your support. Don't forget to support our "Brothers in Arms" over at Delta, they're working hard.
[This message has been edited by PineyBob (edited 03-05-2003).]
AtlanticBeach
Mar 5, 03, 9:09 am
In addition to all the fun that we have had, I believe that the Cockroaches have had a tangible influence on US Airways and other airlines that are viewing our actions with extreme interest. My non-comprehensive list of positive accomplishments include:
1. Identify for US Airways an important group of customers that includes members of the two groups providing the highest sources of income (based on the United breakdown of passengers into 6 groups).
2. Vocal members of this group are more likely to refer other customers to US Airways.
3. Contributed to US Airways rescinding most actions taken on August 27, 2002 by an intensive lobbying campaign.
4. Provide emotional support to employees at a time that morale changes could result in significant passenger defections.
5. Self-identified so that if US Airways wanted to use us as a focus group, we are available.
6. Made recommendations to enhance income via fare rationalization that is used by other airlines and would be accepted by us.
It is rare in any business for customers to be as active as we have been to promote the future of US Airways. Most customers just leave without explaining why they have changed vendors.
I have been incredibly impressed by the knowledge of the Cockroaches. hscottm's treatise on how reduction in travel agent payments from airlines was a key factor in income reduction for the airlines is very thought provoking. Tom, Bob, deel and others understand pricing and customer service.
Are we having fun with the whole Cockroach thing? Yes. But we're also a good resource, if someone is listening to what has been suggested.
ClueByFour
Mar 5, 03, 9:41 am
I know that InsideFlyer has a good relationship with the airlines--they have to, in order to keep the business running.
This article, however, is way too cozy for my tastes. Castelveter might as well have written the article. Shame on InsideFlyer. They (of all publications) should know better. (I love how a "luxury" suddenly becomes "miles" in the context of the article).
What makes the cockroach movement a gadfly? What really makes US nervous? Easy--they keep selling. And now, we are getting informational material to hand out.
US does not want to see this happen, because then the lone remaining sucker (who complained that the guy on the $200 ticket was getting the same "luxuries" as his $2,000 ticket) might have it explained to him how much of a sucker he really is. And this is exactly what Big Ben B. does not want to have happen.
------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.
stimatr
Mar 5, 03, 11:26 am
Rock on gadflys!
TomBascom
Mar 5, 03, 11:29 am
For those who haven't noticed -- the cockroach piece is embedded in a larger article which spends an awful lot of time patting InsideFlyer on the back for being such a leading independent voice for frequent flier issues.
Seeing such a poor job done with the cockroach stuff I can't help but wonder if the rest of the article is as innaccurate, misleading and pandering.
woody1173
Mar 5, 03, 12:06 pm
ira - put me down for one "gadfly" pin!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif