US Airways Dividend Miles (Pre-FlightFund Merger) - No More USAir Tickets on Expedia

USAir has announced that its tickets are no longer being sold on Expedia. Seems like the dispute has to do with the fee Expedia wants to charge for USAir tickets. See http://www.usairways.com/about/press/nofees.htm

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by prh:
USAir has announced that its tickets are no longer being sold on Expedia. Seems like the dispute has to do with the fee Expedia wants to charge for USAir tickets. See http://www.usairways.com/about/press/nofees.htm</font>

US Air's response sounded like "That's ok we didn't need more passengers anyway"...
Chapter 11 here we come again!

Why would they charge US more than other airlines?

I would be pissed if I were BBB, too!

According to US's side of the story, this action was prompted by the extra fee that was imposed without notice. Provided that this is truly what happened, the action taken by US is justifiable in my opinion. The pricing quoted by Expedia for US flights would have been a disadvantage.

The added fee might be to cover the cost of any insurance Expedia might be taking out in case US Airways ceases operations.

There must be a reason that Expedia did this.... I am looking forward to hearing the explanation from Expedia as to why they raised their fee just for USAirways and nobody else.

Nothing on Expedia yet about this....but I tried to book a PIT - CLT trip.....no US flights were shown. Of course you can book on UA, which actually is US metal (at about a $200-$300 savings).

Expedia isn't a scam site......I've booked most of my travel during the past two years with them. There has to be a rational explanation. In the end, it'll be US's fault.

Don't be fooled by BBB's press release. This has nothing to do with protecting the interests of US customers who would've been paying a higher fee by booking with Expedia (or with the resulting pricing disadvantage relative to other carriers, for that matter)...

This is probably similar to the spat Travelocity and Northwest had a short time ago. Travelocity would not agree to help lower Northwest's distribution costs by charging the airline less for each ticket transaction. NW pulled its inventory. A few days later an agreement was reached.

My guess is that with US, Expedia had to raise the booking fee paid by customers to cover a lower transaction charge to the airline at the request of US. US in turn decided to pull their inventory from the site. Kind of like a tit-for-tat or a negotiating ploy to see who blinks first. Except, in my mind, US needs Expedia more than Expedia needs US (seeing that Expedia is the largest online travel agency and represents a big distribution channel), so I don't know what US is thinking...


[This message has been edited by Arrzee (edited Dec 09, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by HPTunco:
Nothing on Expedia yet about this....but I tried to book a PIT - CLT trip.....no US flights were shown. Of course you can book on UA, which actually is US metal (at about a $200-$300 savings).</font>

I thought that the US web site said you could not claim mileage for flights booked on expedia?
--Alex

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by prh:
USAir has announced that its tickets are no longer being sold on Expedia. Seems like the dispute has to do with the fee Expedia wants to charge for USAir tickets. </font>

Wasn't there a similar issue with Northwest Airlines and Travelocity not too long ago?
--Alex

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ayb1:
I thought that the US web site said you could not claim mileage for flights booked on expedia?
--Alex</font>


I didn't see that in the release at all - where did you find that?

This really stinks - I book almost all my travel through expedia. I often found a lower fares on US on expedia then I did on usairways.com

BOOO!

Just got this email from BBB:

Dear NEHOPPER:

It is with great disappointment that I write this, knowing that many of our customers sometimes purchase tickets via Expedia. However, I felt it only appropriate to immediately notify you that US Airways tickets will no longer be available through expedia.com.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, Expedia arbitrarily raised the fee it charges customers to purchase a US Airways ticket (from $5 to $8.99). This higher fee only applies to US Airways and our customers. This action - taken without notice - unfairly puts our customers in the middle of discussions with Expedia about its desire to significantly increase the commission it charges US Airways for selling our tickets.

By taking the action it did, Expedia also represented to the public that our fares were higher than those of our competitors because Expedia factored in its higher fee for US Airways tickets.

As a result, we have notified Expedia that, effective immediately, US Airways tickets will no longer be available for sale online through expedia.com.

Customers have every assurance that travel already purchased through Expedia will not be affected. If you need any other assistance with your reservation, please call our reservations department at 1-800-428-4322 and one of our professional sales representatives will help you.

I want to remind you that there are other convenient choices for purchasing US Airways tickets online, including through http://www.usairways.com, where there are no booking fees, where low fares are always listed, and where customers earn bonus Dividend Miles with their purchase.

In the event we can work out an agreement with Expedia that is mutually beneficial, we will quickly restore Expedia's ability to sell US Airways tickets. Meanwhile, like some other carriers, our fares will not be available through Expedia.

Your interests are important to us and we will do everything possible to make our fares and schedules widely available.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

B. Ben Baldanza
US Airways Senior Vice President
Marketing and Planning

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by steve100:
There must be a reason that Expedia did this.... I am looking forward to hearing the explanation from Expedia as to why they raised their fee just for USAirways and nobody else.</font>

BBB referred to ongoing negotiations so I'd guess the "tit for tat" theory is probably pretty good.

But it's also possible that Expedia did it "because they can". US is #7 -- Expedia may have figured that they have more leverage to apply with US than with, say AA.

Maybe they're right but I think BBB is doing the right thing in this case. Of course his case would be stronger if the US website wasn't so horrid to use...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ayb1:
I thought that the US web site said you could not claim mileage for flights booked on expedia?
--Alex</font>

You're thinking of sites like priceline. Expedia is more like a travel agent.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">. . . . Of course his case would be stronger if the US website wasn't so horrid to use... [/B]</font>

Tom,

I'm just curious as to what the deficiencies of the US Air web site are as compared to other airlines.

Thanks,

Barry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jerseyfinn:
Tom,

I'm just curious as to what the deficiencies of the US Air web site are as compared to other airlines.

Thanks,

Barry</font>


Inability to see all reservations simply by logging in with one's frequent flyer number (regardless of where reservation was booked); awkward booking mechanism that is: (a) slow; (b) inaccurate; difficult process to complete reservation; no instant or prompt ticketing of e-tickets (don't try to book an e-ticket reservation for that Shuttle departing in 1.5 hours); etc.

I have given up on the US site after several attempts. I'm pretty computer literate, and would certainly like to get their booking bonus (oh yeah, that is weak too), but the site simply cannot be navigated by one trying to book reservations.

inability to change seats on a ticketed reservation.

I've had little problem using US Airways own website for booking (although I never need to do "last minute" bookings), and the 1000 bonus is nice. Only occasionally have I had to use Orbitz or United's web site to get the lowest discount fare on the particular combination of flight connections that I wanted (versus other connections offered on the US Airways website).

This week I was trying to use US.com to book flights for Christmas. It was showing nearly all of the flights to RSW sold out when res had lots of seats for cheap! It just won't take your money! Go BBB!

So for a measly $4/ticket US is cutting off its nose to spite its face? Another boneheaded move on US's part! They should have just informed customers of the higher service charge, and put some kind of "but in the interest of providing our customers with the most booking flexibility, we will continue to offer our flights through Expedia while we attempt to work out a mutually beneficial solution" spin on it. Then offer 100 bonus miles for booking on Expedia to compensate. This would have been a perfect opportunity for US to come out of this smelling like a rose, and they blew it!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SS255:
So for a measly $4/ticket US is cutting off its nose to spite its face? Another boneheaded move on US's part! They should have just informed customers of the higher service charge, and put some kind of "but in the interest of providing our customers with the most booking flexibility, we will continue to offer our flights through Expedia while we attempt to work out a mutually beneficial solution" spin on it. Then offer 100 bonus miles for booking on Expedia to compensate. This would have been a perfect opportunity for US to come out of this smelling like a rose, and they blew it! </font>

This is a tough situation with no easy 'right answer'. While we can all probably agree that US did a "five year old's" response by taking their toys and going home - there are some big issues.

The main one is that when you look for fares on any of the online sites, the default sort is by price. All fares at the same price will come up first. If US does what it does in most markets and matches lowest prices, this $3 will make them not show up in the 'first cut' of fares. Even though its only $3, it could be on the second or third page of options on a site like expedia. most people have probably already booked the flight before getting to that third page.

on a site like orbitz, it would be less of a problem because of the way it displays fares. but the competitive response of removing the flights is a lame threat but hopefully just a step in resolving the problem. there has to be more to the story than has been said so far.

On the flip side, not having the fares in there at all means people will never see a US option. for the occasional traveler, this strategy leads to zero incremental revennue. thats a big problem.

Anyway dont want anyone to just jump to conclusions that BBB made an idiotic move on this one.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jerseyfinn:
Tom,

I'm just curious as to what the deficiencies of the US Air web site are as compared to other airlines.

Thanks,

Barry</font>

Click on the "back" button.

Try to do anything even slightly complex.

Try to book anything except except the sites idea of the lowest fare.

Book a ticket at SWA then come back to US Airways and try to convince yourself that the US Airways site is "ok". Or at least not actively offensive...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SS255:
So for a measly $4/ticket US is cutting off its nose to spite its face? Another boneheaded move on US's part! They should have just informed customers of the higher service charge, and put some kind of "but in the interest of providing our customers with the most booking flexibility, we will continue to offer our flights through Expedia while we attempt to work out a mutually beneficial solution" spin on it. Then offer 100 bonus miles for booking on Expedia to compensate. This would have been a perfect opportunity for US to come out of this smelling like a rose, and they blew it! </font>

That depends -- if they aren't getting much business from Expedia then it doesn't matter so much. If they are getting a lot of business then it depends on if Expedia has viable alternatives to put customers on.

All thats on their website:

Q: I can’t find/book US Airways on Expedia.com. Why is that?

A: Effective December 8, US Airways has ceased offering inventory on Expedia.com.

Please be assured that your current reservation(s) are intact and will be honored by the airline.

If you'd like to exchange a ticket you've already purchased, you will need to call US Airways directly at 1-800-428-4322 to exchange your ticket. You will be unable to use Expedia's online exchange wizard.

We are currently engaged in discussions with US Airways and hope to reach an agreement that will allow us to resume selling their tickets. In the meantime, you can still purchase tickets on other major carriers and access our world-leading array of hotels, packages and cruises.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by steve100:
There must be a reason that Expedia did this.... I am looking forward to hearing the explanation from Expedia as to why they raised their fee just for USAirways and nobody else.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SS255:
So for a measly $4/ticket US is cutting off its nose to spite its face? ....... </font>

I agree with this. The extra $4 is paid by the PASSENGER, not USAirways! I can make the choice to either pay it, or not. US must have an underlying reason in doing this.

I for one have saved THOUSANDS of dollars using Expedia versus usairways.com for travel booking. Sometimes I have to take a circuitous route, but to save $500 on a trip it's worth it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by HPTunco:
I agree with this. The extra $4 is paid by the PASSENGER, not USAirways! I can make the choice to either pay it, or not.</font>

Yeah, but when you look at the page with all of the airlines and their prices listed, US is always going to be $4 more than everyone else, which sounds like what Expedia was going for.

That said, I can imagine this is going to be worse for US than for Expedia.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
Yeah, but when you look at the page with all of the airlines and their prices listed, US is always going to be $4 more than everyone else, which sounds like what Expedia was going for.

That said, I can imagine this is going to be worse for US than for Expedia.

d</font>

US is NEVER the lowest fare, Expedia or not, flying out of Fortress PIT. The $4 would be negligible.

This is obviously a reaction by Expedia to something that US did.......I'm sure we'll find out soon what it was.

Seems to me like everybody loses with this move. People who want a US ticket specifically will book on Travelocity or US's own site, meaning lower revenue for Expedia. Casual travellers using Expedia will not be booking on US, so US loses. Time to kiss and make up methinks.

On a seperate note, I think part of this has to be driven by the fact that some of US's competitors own Expedia. I'm not sure which group of airlies owns expedia....I think it's DL, NW, and CO, but I could easily be mistaken. Maybe even BA has a piece of it. With that said, it's understandable why Expedia would give US a hard time.

One more point....I'm pretty sure that Expedia only listed published US fares, and no consolidator fares on US. So, any fare you could get on Expedia, you could get on any other site, assuming that you knew exactly what to ask for. No big loss for flyers loyal to US.

[This message has been edited by notam (edited Dec 09, 2003).]

Sounds like there's a good old-fashioned p***ing contest going on here. While singling US out for this fee is not a good move on Expedia's part, perhaps a temporary solution would be for Expedia to list US's flights first, if their site is designed to recognize and list a higher priced fare before lower-priced fares. At least this way the customers have a choice as to whether or not to pay the extra $4 for the "privilege" of flying on dirty planes and drinking from plastic cups.

Edited to add: Maybe this debacle will give US a long overdue kick in the pants to revamp its website and woo some of the Expedia expats.

[This message has been edited by SS255 (edited Dec 10, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by notam:
On a seperate note, I think part of this has to be driven by the fact that some of US's competitors own Expedia. I'm not sure which group of airlies owns expedia....I think it's DL, NW, and CO, but I could easily be mistaken. Maybe even BA has a piece of it. With that said, it's understandable why Expedia would give US a hard time.</font>

That is not correct, Expedia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barry Diller's InterActiveCorp, which is a conglomerate of the old USA Interactive and a gaggle of other recently acquired internet properties, including Expedia.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
That is not correct, Expedia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barry Diller's InterActiveCorp, which is a conglomerate of the old USA Interactive and a gaggle of other recently acquired internet properties, including Expedia.</font>

You are correct. notam is thinking of Orbitz, which is owned by AA, UA, DL, NW and CO, IIRC.

I sent USAir an e-mail about this subject and they did the usual response that they are sending the message to "management." I would suggest that a little "customer feedback" may go a long way in getting this bottleneck reopened. Hopefully, if they get the message that their on-line booking feature does not work as well, especially for multiple cities/destinations, and that they are losing $$ that they will move sooner rather than later.

It's my understanding that the US booking website is built on the Travelocity engine, so I think there's another stream in this pissing contest.

From Ghostbusters: "Don't cross the streams!"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
You are correct. notam is thinking of Orbitz, which is owned by AA, UA, DL, NW and CO, IIRC.</font>

Apparently US wasn't invited to play with the cool kids, when Orbitz was created. Ashame too -- they'll all be getting a great return on their investment from the upcoming IPO.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by haveric:
Apparently US wasn't invited to play with the cool kids, when Orbitz was created. Ashame too -- they'll all be getting a great return on their investment from the upcoming IPO.</font>

I think AA initially turned up their nose at the offer to join, but later thought the better of it and became a stockholder several months later.

Nothing compares to the billion dollars DL realized from its sale of Priceline warrants. DL and Shatner did ok with that investment. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

According to USA TODAY on Monday:

US Airways reports that Expedia produced 2% to 3% of the airline's sales — about $280 million — in the 12 months ended Sept. 30.

So if only 2-3% comes from Expedia it seems like US is not taking much market risk if they can offset with usairways.com or Orbitz or Travelocity or their own agents (assuming you can get through). Not using Expedia, I do not know if US would be at a price disadvantage in displays if the fee is added in as on Orbitz but it sure would make sense that if US went along with the fee, the fares would be listed after others or appear to be higher. The price sensitive may pass over US (we cockroaches are a little price sensitive but I think I would still take US over DL at most price ranges) or the cockroach types check a variety of sources. I have booked on Orbitz more frequently due to big price differences along with the well known, code share on US metal is cheaper, issue that drives me crazy.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by haveric:
Apparently US wasn't invited to play with the cool kids, when Orbitz was created. Ashame too -- they'll all be getting a great return on their investment from the upcoming IPO.</font>

Actually I think they were part of the initial group but decided not to because of the pending UA merger -- it would have been redundant.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by biggs:

So if only 2-3% comes from Expedia it seems like US is not taking much market risk if they can offset with usairways.com or Orbitz or Travelocity or their own agents (assuming you can get through). </font>

You are making the assumption here that these customers go to Expedia with the intention of buying US Air tickets; were that the case, then US wouldn't lose much revenue. If, however, most cusotmers go to Expedia to buy a ticket on any carrier, and then choose carriers from the fares offered; then US are in big, big trouble (This is not an airline that can turn its nose up at $250m in revenue).

I would suggest that most expedia users are in the second group, putting US in a very bad position.

Regards,
Alex

BTW....I had to change a US ticket that I booked on Expedia (did also notice that I was charged a $8.99 fee) a few weeks ago.

Spoke with them, no problem...they made the change and I'm good to go. They basically had to book me a whole new ticket......no problem!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by alexwuk:
You are making the assumption here that these customers go to Expedia with the intention of buying US Air tickets; were that the case, then US wouldn't lose much revenue. If, however, most cusotmers go to Expedia to buy a ticket on any carrier, and then choose carriers from the fares offered; then US are in big, big trouble (This is not an airline that can turn its nose up at $250m in revenue).

I would suggest that most expedia users are in the second group, putting US in a very bad position.</font>

US was in big trouble with those customers anyway because Expedia made their fares look higher than the other airlines ... that's the whole point. Either a customer wants to fly US, so they'll go to a site that offers US, or they are only interested in the cheapest ticket, meaning that they wouldn't have bought US on Expedia anyway because their fares look higher on Expedia because of the higher fee.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
I think AA initially turned up their nose at the offer to join, but later thought the better of it and became a stockholder several months later.
</font>

It had nothing to do with AA "thinking better" of it, there's no way in heck that AA would have been allowed to be an owner of Orbitz while they still owned a significant portion of Sabre and Travelocity. If AA now owns a part of Orbitz (which I don't know is the case), it's only because they've divested themselves of those other interests since then.

Wash Post travel reporter Keith Alexander discusses this and BBB's desire to sell more tickets on usairways.com in his weekly column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3382-2003Dec15.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Alysia:
[B]Wash Post travel reporter Keith Alexander discusses this and BBB's desire to sell more tickets on usairways.com in his weekly column:
</font>

To go from 10% of sales to 20% of sales on their own site is going to require them to drastically improve the system. Their reservations pages are so clunky!

I cannot believe that US seems to have such a low precentage of sales coming in from the internet.

Not only is the site so difficult to use, but I actually found that Expedia regularly quoted lower fares than the usairways.com. In addition, Expedia came up with interesting routings that either could not be booked on usairways.com or cost many times more.

Example: PHL-STL-PHL would cost $900, but somehow PHL-BOS-PIT-STL-PHL would run $278. Sometimes, despite the extra segments, I went for those creative routings.

(then again, many on this board would jump at the opportunity to add extra segments!)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Epsilon359:
Example: PHL-STL-PHL would cost $900, but somehow PHL-BOS-PIT-STL-PHL would run $278. Sometimes, despite the extra segments, I went for those creative routings.</font>

And this, my fellow cockroaches, is the real reason that BBB gave Expedia the boot http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif.



------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Epsilon359:
.......Example: PHL-STL-PHL would cost $900, but somehow PHL-BOS-PIT-STL-PHL would run $278. Sometimes, despite the extra segments, I went for those creative routings.
......</font>

Absolutely! I booked many flights like this, routing PIT-MCO-PHL-BDL to save $500. You never see these routes on USAIRWAYS.COM, but Expedia mined the most cost effective way to get there.

US can ban Expedia, but can't do anything about SW in PHL. It's time to rationalize fares before it's too late!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
And this, my fellow cockroaches, is the real reason that BBB gave Expedia the boot http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif.

</font>

This is also the reason that SWA removed itself from all of the travel web sites. So for once US has decided to follow the leader instead of wandering aimlessly.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PineyBob:
This is also the reason that SWA removed itself from all of the travel web sites. So for once US has decided to follow the leader instead of wandering aimlessly. </font>

Actually, in the case of Southwest, it had nothing to do with fare transparency. It had to do with actual fare availability and distribution costs. Southwest has *never* published their fares on GDSs and almost sued Orbitz to get them to stop displaying their flights. The reason: Southwest flights and fares were not displayed in "real time" but were based on what was loaded to legacy host systems. The inventory shown would invariably be unavailable, which would prove counterproductive when trying to sell it.

Well I seem to recall that you could price and book SWA on Expedia when I started flying for work 2000. I also remember several public statements regarding their decision to withdraw from the travel sights and force customers onto their website which served the dual purpose of reducing fare transparency AND driving customers to their website.

The point was regardless of SWA's reasons, backing out of Orbitz, expedia and the like it lowered their cost of distribution and further hid the fact that in many cases they aren't even close to the cheapest fare.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PineyBob:
... further hid the fact that in many cases they aren't even close to the cheapest fare.</font>

SWA is always close to the lowest fare even if they are rarely the actual lowest fare. And SWA is never the highest fare because they lack the concept of "if I say it's $1,900 to SFO and you need to be there tomorrow then you'll pay $1,900".

Their customers know this and because they know that they don't expend energy elsewhere trying to squeeze an extra couple of dollars out of the transaction -- it isn't worth it when they know that they can buy a ticket that is within a few bucks of the lowest fare using the most focused and streamlined web site of any airline or travel site.

Their customers also know that they won't be placed in a strait-jacket in exchange for that couple of extra dollars and then raped when they need to change something. Unlike the legacy carriers.

If SWA flies your route the only reason to fly a legacy carrier is for the chance of an upgrade. Without that upgrade there is simply no value proposition -- in fact there is significantly negative differentiation between the products if the upgrade isn't available or is so debased as to be worthless.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TomBascom:
If SWA flies your route the only reason to fly a legacy carrier is for the chance of an upgrade. Without that upgrade there is simply no value proposition -- in fact there is significantly negative differentiation between the products if the upgrade isn't available or is so debased as to be worthless.</font>

I couldn't agree more. If you told me today that US was getting rid of the DM program and removing all of the 1st class seats from its planes, there would be ZERO reason for me to continue to fly US, unless I was going somewhere that is only served by US.

I have been in KC for almost two months now, a big WN city. For every trip I have been checking to see if WN could save me money. Not once has their ticket price been lower than everyone elses. In every case but one, they were not the least expensive option. In fact, in the only instance I was inclined to purchase a ticket on WN (MCI to MDW for X-mas) I did so only because they have more frequency than anyone else, because it's only an hour flight, and because their FF program is very rewarding on such short and cheap trips. I could have just as easily bought a ticket on UA for the same price as WN (I had no preference of MDW or ORD in this case) and flown in E+ with my US status and earned status miles on US, but in this limited instance, WN's FF program (and the fact I didn't need the miles on US this year, though I could have rolled them over) led me to fly on them (1/4 of a free ticket vs. 1/10 of a free ticket).

Of course, WN is devaluing it's FF program somewhat 1/1/04, so their value proposition is actually worsening too ...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Arrzee:
Actually, in the case of Southwest, it had nothing to do with fare transparency. It had to do with actual fare availability and distribution costs. Southwest has *never* published their fares on GDSs and almost sued Orbitz to get them to stop displaying their flights. The reason: Southwest flights and fares were not displayed in "real time" but were based on what was loaded to legacy host systems. The inventory shown would invariably be unavailable, which would prove counterproductive when trying to sell it.</font>

Southwest is displayed on itn.net.

------------------
"The minute a Bundy has good luck he immediately starts building up an equal amount of bad luck." -- Al Bundy, Married With Children

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
It had nothing to do with AA "thinking better" of it, there's no way in heck that AA would have been allowed to be an owner of Orbitz while they still owned a significant portion of Sabre and Travelocity. If AA now owns a part of Orbitz (which I don't know is the case), it's only because they've divested themselves of those other interests since then.</font>

When Orbitz was formed in early 2000, AMR had already begun the spin-off of Sabre, which was completed March 15, 2000.

Prior to today, AMR and UAL each owned 25.45% of Orbitz. Following their sales today, each owns 18.33%.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
I have been in KC for almost two months now, a big WN city. For every trip I have been checking to see if WN could save me money.</font>

People work just as hard, perhaps even harder, at not being made fools of as they do at saving every penny. A point that the legacy airlines have completely missed...

Lots of SWA customers take significant comfort in knowing that they don't have to worry that the person sitting next to them paid 1/10th of what they did. Or that they won't get home after their vacation and have their neighbor regale them with tales of super-low fares purchased on SWA while they paid extortionary fares on US (or whoever).

It's a lot like you and PineyBob working so hard to prove that it's possible to buy a lower priced ticket than an SWA ticket. You want to show that your decision to fly US is a rational and reasonable thing to do. Of course you still have to ignore the risk that you take with every one of those cheap fares -- change anything on just one trip and a years savings are wiped out in one swell foop...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Not once has their ticket price been lower than everyone elses.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In every case but one, they were not the least expensive option.</font>

Make up your mind... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

If you couldn't upgrade your US flights and didn't have fun places like the islands to take vacations to would you still favor US? Or would that ratio of free trips to flights sway you?

The fact that SWA thinks it can safely scale back Rapid Rewards in that manner says a lot to me about how far they think the legacy airlines have devalued their programs.


[This message has been edited by TomBascom (edited Dec 17, 2003).]

SWA, by hanging the double credit thing for so long and then yanking it away, is making a fairly "not nice" move.

Just like a drug dealer to a kid: "The first few are free..." but then you're addicted! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Back on topic, I do believe their website is still excellent overall. I especially love how you can take unused monies and pay for trips with them.

[This message has been edited by nawlinsdoc (edited Dec 19, 2003).]