Air France Frequence Plus - Competition update: Easyjet becoming yet a little bit more civilised...

Easyjet will switch from the 'fight for your seat' system (combined with optional speedy boarding) to a system of seat allocation for all. Passengers not wishing to pay any extra will be randomly assigned a seat with Easyjet saying that they will endeavour to sit people travelling together next to each other. Otherwise, people can pay between £3 and £12 to pre-assign a seat or change their randomly assigned seat to the seat of their choice (£12 is for front row and overwing exits, £6 for rows 2-5, and £3 for anything else).

So far, the 'boarding mess' has tipped the balance of 'civilised competitors' quite a bit when comparing with Easyjet so AF and the others will now lose one of their implicit advantages over U2 and it remains to be seen whether AF changes to their medium-haul offer as part of Transform 2015 - whereby AF clearly say that they want to compete head to head with low cost airlines - include any changes to seat allocation/choice procedures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/05/easyjet-allocated-seats-all-flights

Easyjet will switch from the 'fight for your seat' system (combined with optional speedy boarding) to a system of seat allocation for all. Passengers not wishing to pay any extra will be randomly assigned a seat with Easyjet saying that they will endeavour to sit people travelling together next to each other. Otherwise, people can pay between £3 and £12 to pre-assign a seat or change their randomly assigned seat to the seat of their choice (£12 is for front row and overwing exits, £6 for rows 2-5, and £3 for anything else).

So far, the 'boarding mess' has tipped the balance of 'civilised competitors' quite a bit when comparing with Easyjet so AF and the others will now lose one of their implicit advantages over U2 and it remains to be seen whether AF changes to their medium-haul offer as part of Transform 2015 - whereby AF clearly say that they want to compete head to head with low cost airlines - include any changes to seat allocation/choice procedures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/05/easyjet-allocated-seats-all-flights

I'll take an AF boarding area in 2E or 2F anyday over the boarding pen for U2 at SXF and ORY, but then, that's just me ;)

I'll take an AF boarding area in 2E or 2F anyday over the boarding pen for U2 at SXF and ORY, but then, that's just me ;)

But SXF will soon be a thing of the past as both AF and U2 will fly to BER, and to be honest, the U2 boarding area in ORY South is no worse than the AF boarding area in ORY West. I like AF facilities better than U2's at CDG, but the experience is comparable at many other airports: NCE, TLS, LIL, LYS, BCN, BOD, etc and I explicitly prefer U2 airport facilities over AF's at GVA and if I remember them correctly at BSL.

There are things I prefer on AF (the fact that I get free drinks and food on longer flights, the fact that I get FF benefits such as lounge access, the fact that I feel more protected - rightly or wrongly - in case of irrops, etc) and things I prefer on U2 (the seat is more comfortable than AF's NEO seat, I can fly on an earlier flight for free if I finish work earlier than planned) and I would personally make my decisions on a case-by-case basis, but it certainly is one thing that I was very much disliking on U2 which is now disappearing.

EasyJet have been running trials on the pre-allocated seats recently, and it seems now that they think it will work.

I witnessed one of these trials at GLA: I was actually waiting to board a KL flight when I heard the call for a nearby gate for easyJet pax in rows x thru y to approach the gate ... I thought I must have been dreaming! Also, I received an email survey today for a U2 fligth I took a few days ago, and one of the questions was whether or not I was on one of the pre-allocated seat flights.

Anyway, when I do (occasionally) travel U2, its generally because of the route availabilty, and no other reason: last time was a day trip, Glasgow to Cambridge, and U2 are the only option for GLA-STN (which is pretty near Cambridge).

But £6 for row 2/3/4 sounds OK to me - far better than the ridiculous amount they currently charge for Speedy Boarding (sometimes more than the actual flight)! However, it won't switch me from AF/KL when they are a decent route option - I'll even take the train to EDI and use AF's EDI-LCY, rather than Squeezy, when I'm down in Cambridge for a few days: a bit more travelling but nicer treatment ... and Elite Qualifying Segments, of course!

-- Henry

I explicitly prefer U2 airport facilities over AF's at GVA and if I remember them correctly at BSL.


I hope you do not remember correctly.
I did not fly AF out of BSL yet. I did U2, BA, BD (God Bless) and LX.
U2 was by far the worst. Given what you wrote I do not dare to imagine...

Ciao
Ulxima

I hope you do not remember correctly.
I did not fly AF out of BSL yet. I did U2, BA, BD (God Bless) and LX.
U2 was by far the worst. Given what you wrote I do not dare to imagine...

Ciao
Ulxima

It was years ago so let's assume I don't indeed ;) - but I mostly just meant the Swiss part of the airport as opposed to the French one. In the GVA case, that is particularly relevant as the Swiss part is nice and airy and the French part is, well, a dump. In BSL they are definitely of roughly equal sizes and comparable services.

Orbitmic, you keep using U2 as the airline code of Easyjet, but they now use EZY as prefix, at least they do in Europe.

As far as NCE, TLS and GVA are concerned, EZY use the same kind of boarding areas as AF.

I find this new development very interesting. Boarding was the negative aspect of EZY, but I find their inflight product better than AF especially on French domestic segments or when AF uses a small plane. I understand the advantage of getting a FB qualifying segment, but the amount of miles earned is ridiculous and if I can save €100 or more per flight, the tiny FB benefits becomes a moot point.

Orbitmic, you keep using U2 as the airline code of Easyjet, but they now use EZY as prefix, at least they do in Europe.



Actually, each airline has both a two character and a three character code given by IATA (typically respectively used for reservations and air traffic control). Easyjet is still U2 and EZY (Air France is AF and AFR, British is BA and BAW, Lufthansa LH and DLH, etc). Easyjet never liked U2 (and in fact tried to claim EZ for many years, but 'sun air of Scandinavia' is not giving that one up!) and so they always put 'EZY' if you book your ticket through them, but their two letter IATA code remains U2, and if you book through a travel agent, itinerary will still show U2 xxxx. As we use the two letter airline code for every other airline, I don't see any reason to change just to please Easyjet. After all, I'm sure that Cityjet would also have preferred something slightly more glamourous than WX if given the choice.

At GVA, I mostly use them on the Swiss part which is much nicer but indeed it is generally comparable. To be honest, even at CDG where I said I tend to prefer AF's airport product, Easyjet at 2B is perfectly acceptable and not nearly as bad as what it used to be before. And I fully agree with you that I would never hesitate to fly Easyjet rather than Air France when there is a significant price difference (right now, I'd chose AF at equal prices or even for an extra €10-20 but there might be a snobbish element in my choice)

Hi Orbitmic, I dont know where you are currently located, but it is 8:30 HKG time, so must bit 02:30 in France, a nice time to post on FT.
U2 is the IATA code for the UK company and EZY its ICAO code. Easyjet has now decided to use its ICAO code. This is the code that appear on the tickets they issue and also the code that is used by many airports to show the flights (Aéroport de Paris uses EZY and Aéroport de Nice uses U2). I like to refer to EZY rather than U2, because it is better understood by newbies and what appears on my tickets. But this is just for the fun of discussing.

Note that Easyjet, as we refer to it, is a mixture of companies in different countries. For example, Easyjet Switzerland was using a different IATA code (DS) and now uses its ICAO code of EZS.

Note that Easyjet, as we refer to it, is a mixture of companies in different countries. For example, Easyjet Switzerland was using a different IATA code (DS) and now uses its ICAO code of EZS.

That's right too - and indeed I was in France and I posted on FT till about 3am, but that is not altogether unrelated to FT: back from the US again, and I've decided a while ago that my best way to fight jetlag is: I don't even try and force myself to sleep before I'm tired (which usually occurs around 3am) but force myself to wake up in the morning (not too early but, say around 8). After a couple of days of that routine I'm getting close to absorbing the jetlag! :)

I like AF facilities better than U2's at CDG, but the experience is comparable at many other airports: NCE, TLS, LIL, LYS, BCN, BOD, etc It has been a while since I flew Easyjet out of LYS but the last time they were still in that ghastly low-cost hangar. Ditto at MRS ("MP2"). I do not know what it is about some French airports that results in them feeling that you need to be actively punished for daring to fly an LCC and therefore feel that cattlepen chic is an absolute must for LCC departure areas.

On the original point, to be honest, for those who do not want to pay extra for seating, I am not enitrely sure that I would regard the prospect of being forcibly allocated a random middle seat in the middle of the plane a sign of progress and civilisation compared to self-seating. I can see how, from a commercial perspective, it makes sense for the airline as it creates a much stronger incentive to pay for a better pre-allocation. But that does not make this more civilised per se.

I know that people always mention scrums but, IME, a significant aspect of the scrum aspect is cultural more than anything else and those airports where boarding on LCCs is a scrum tend to be pretty much the same where boarding on full service airlines is also a scrum. I have never felt the boarding on Easyjet as particularly scrum-proned. What really annoys me about Easyjet is their tendency to round passengers for boarding eons in advance and then keep them standing for unnecessarily long periods of time.

On the original point, to be honest, for those who do not want to pay extra for seating, I am not enitrely sure that I would regard the prospect of being forcibly allocated a random middle seat in the middle of the plane a sign of progress and civilisation compared to self-seating. I can see how, from a commercial perspective, it makes sense for the airline as it creates a much stronger incentive to pay for a better pre-allocation. But that does not make this more civilised per se.


I think an interesting point of reference would be to see how many people unilaterally assigned a seat by AF's auto-check in actually change it? I know AF theoretically take your aisle or window preference into account but I wonder if many people will care. If they do, I also think that £3 to get the seat you want on most of the plane is an actually 'insurance policy' to pay so that can make it a win win game. At least, one advantage of the new system is that regardless of whether you face scrumming people or not, the part of U2's boarding you don't like will become irrelevant: presumably people mostly obey the airline's invitation to line up ages before it is needed because they care about getting a good seat. If you have an assigned seat, you can ignore any announcement and stay comfortably sat wherever you are (priority pass lounge or boarding area I guess) until you see that boarding has well begun or whenever you would go for any other airline.

Fully agree on MP2, it is a dump. I believe rationale was that a 'low cost' terminal with inferior facilities would allow for cheaper airport service bills (e.g. airline pays less if passengers walk on the tarmac to the plane rather than have direct access to the terminal, etc) and was thus a Ryanair request in many airports it earmarked as potential hubs. I personally think they were silly to accept but I can see the temptation. I thought LYS was ok but admittledly that was over a year ago that I used it.

I think an interesting point of reference would be to see how many people unilaterally assigned a seat by AF's auto-check in actually change it? I know AF theoretically take your aisle or window preference into account but I wonder if many people will care. I agree that the parallel with AF's auto-CKI is apposite. I hate the latter with a passion and, quite consistently, I equally hate the apparition of its functional equivalent on Easyjet. What would be a really civilised move would have been to introduce an ordinary OLCI process where you can choose your seats at T-24 (with the possibility to chose other seats at a fee earlier than that). Instead they have fone for the Ryanir-esque tactics of making the non-purchase of an additional extra more unattractive than necessary so as to increase the incentive to pay for the extra. In effect, they have copied what bmibaby does/used to do. And if there is/was an LCC which is/was big on out-Ryanair-ing Ryanair, that sure is/was bmibaby.



the part of U2's boarding you don't like will become irrelevant: presumably people mostly obey the airline's invitation to line up ages before it is needed because they care about getting a good seat. Well, if that was the case, there would never ever be a queue of more than a couple of people on traditional airlines. I think that we will al have noticed that to be very far from reality :). One reason why you might still want to board relatively early is finding room for luggage, especially given the enlightened policy of Easyjet on hand luggage, which, as someone who will always avoid checking luggage if possible, I applaud with both hands.

Fully agree on MP2, it is a dump. I believe rationale was that a 'low cost' terminal with inferior facilities would allow for cheaper airport service bills (e.g. airline pays less if passengers walk on the tarmac to the plane rather than have direct access to the terminal, etc) Yes, I know the official rationale for LCC terminals that but it seems to me that some airports went out of their way to design the LCC terminal to be as ugly and unwelcoming as possible rather than just merely cheap to build, use and maintain.

I agree that the parallel with AF's auto-CKI is apposite. I hate the latter with a passion and, quite consistently, I equally hate the apparition of its functional equivalent on Easyjet. What would be a really civilised move would have been to introduce an ordinary OLCI process where you can choose your seats at T-24 (with the possibility to chose other seats at a fee earlier than that). Instead they have fone for the Ryanir-esque tactics of making the non-purchase of an additional extra more unattractive than necessary so as to increase the incentive to pay for the extra. In effect, they have copied what bmibaby does/used to do. And if there is/was an LCC which is/was big on out-Ryanair-ing Ryanair, that sure is/was bmibaby.



Well, if that was the case, there would never ever be a queue of more than a couple of people on traditional airlines. I think that we will al have noticed that to be very far from reality :). One reason why you might still want to board relatively early is finding room for luggage, especially given the enlightened policy of Easyjet on hand luggage, which, as someone who will always avoid checking luggage if possible, I applaud with both hands.

Yes, I know the official rationale for LCC terminals that but it seems to me that some airports went out of their way to design the LCC terminal to be as ugly and unwelcoming as possible rather than just merely cheap to build, use and maintain.
Basically agree with all your post. Proper olci would have been much better than this copying of the jet2/bmi baby concept but I guess their condition was maintain or increase ancillary income. In that context while far below olci, to me it's still a step in the right direction. And as you say hand luggage will still mean queue but hopefully closer to other airlines than current easy jet (just hoping anyway).

I am not enitrely sure that I would regard the prospect of being forcibly allocated a random middle seat in the middle of the plane a sign of progress and civilisation compared to self-seating.


What about "forcibly allocated a random middle seat in the middle of the plane" following an indecorous (to say the least) scrum?
Does it still look the same as a random, surely not great, yet secure location?

Ciao
Ulxima

BTW, totally OT, but I guess the value of the change will depend on how Easyjet implement the new system. If they truly try to allocate people flying together together, and if we believe that the most likely group size is 2 (couples), the hopefully many of the middle seats will go to the 2nd in a couple and single pax will have a greater change of getting a window or aisle? groups of 3 are easy too as they take the full half row, and if families of 4 are allocated 2+2 rather than 3+1, then again, they would absorb some of the 'bad seats. Alternatively, if Easyjet wanted to maximise ancillary revenue, I suppose they could try and allocate the 'worst' seats possible - those that people would want to pay to change from. Finally, if they wanted to get a faithful clientele, they could create a genuine frequent flyer programme at last which would not lead to free flights but could give free seat selection to standard seats at elite level (i.e. for people flying over x flights with the airline each year) or sell it like their current card. I guess the question is how many seats would people pay to move out of. I'd probably keep any window or any aisle I'd get, that's already two thirds of the plane. I would probably also keep a middle seat close to the front, and if going towards an airport where U2 routinely disembarks the plane from both ends (e.g. LTN, god forbid...) I would probably also keep a middle seat at the far back. So that is not that many seats on which they will get my money. Lastly, I'm not entirely clear how they will organise the buy your seat change concept. Will they only assign seats at the time people check in? If so we'll soon find out if they start from the 'best' or the 'worst' seats available. Or will they preassign people as they book in which case at the time people check in they may find it hard to find many seats to move into? And will U2 keep their possibility to check in months before a trip (again, in which case will it be better to do it early or late) or will they limit the time for which it can be done as to afford for aircraft swaps etc?

But SXF will soon be a thing of the past as both AF and U2 will fly to BER
Well, it is at least a year from now, and even that could be overly optimistic ;)

Well, it is at least a year from now, and even that could be overly optimistic ;)

I think you mean it might be pessimistic: I actually much prefer staying at TXL (and very badly miss Tempelhof!) than flying to that far away place so as far as I am concerned the 'worse' the schedule becomes the 'better' ;)

With a clever seat allocation algorithm Easyjet should be able to extract much of the surplus value of having a better seat.

What about "forcibly allocated a random middle seat in the middle of the plane" following an indecorous (to say the least) scrum?
Does it still look the same as a random, surely not great, yet secure location?

Ciao
UlximaI do not know how often you fly on Easyjet but if what you describe is supposed to reflect Easyjet's current system, it certainly bears no relation whatsoever to my own experience of them: there is (or rather was) no forcible allocation since it was free seating nor was the boarding process particularly scrum-like.

I do not know how often you fly on Easyjet


I flew enough U2 metal to take the decision this year to stop flying with them unless there is no other option.

Ciao
Ulxima

I do not know how often you fly on Easyjet but if what you describe is supposed to reflect Easyjet's current system, it certainly bears no relation whatsoever to my own experience of them: there is (or rather was) no forcible allocation since it was free seating nor was the boarding process particularly scrum-like.

Indeed.
Always had an orderly line for boarding. Pax might line up early because of no seat assignment, but orderly. No more a scrum than a typical boarding on AF where pax line up to be sure to get space for their luggage, but longer lines. However, boarding is very fast on EZ as there are fewer "special" cases that need to be checked on the computer, especially for French domestic flights (families, senior, etc..).
Ulxima might refer to an old experience when EZ used some kind of boarding sequence. And on flights that are typically quite full, use of speedy boarding was convenient. Yes it costs money, but when you make a huge saving compared to AF, you just have to factor in the cost. Also, frequent users of EZ, especially business pax, typically subscribe to EasyjetPlus.

Ulxima might refer to an old experience when EZ used some kind of boarding sequence.
when you make a huge saving compared to AF, you just have to factor in the cost.


Ok Guys, let's put in this way.
To me and to 70% of U2 passengers (figures are on U2 website) allocated seating is a smart move and from November this feature will be available on all U2 flights.
Let us not call it "civilized" if it hurts you so much.

Cost is important, hassle free travel is important too, especially in business. I do not like to board a plane without knowing where I am going to seat, I hate it. Allocate me a B or E seat and I will be much happier.

Ciao
Ulxima

PS. Brunos got one of the issues I had with this airline in the past. ^

Ok Guys, let's put in this way.
To me and to 70% of U2 passengers (figures are on U2 website) allocated seating is a smart move and from November this feature will be available on all U2 flights.
Let us not call it "civilized" if it hurts you so much.

Cost is important, hassle free travel is important too, especially in business. I do not like to board a plane without knowing where I am going to seat, I hate it. Allocate me a B or E seat and I will be much happier.

Ciao
Ulxima

PS. Brunos got one of the issues I had with this airline in the past. ^

Hi Ulxima, in quoting me you are pasting two of my sentences out of context. Speedy boarding or Easy+ card come at a cost. So you have to factor in that cost when you compare with AF flights where full fare pax and elite pax have access to the front rows of a plane. To me, paying for speedy boarding made Ez no more hassle than AF for business pax (and others). I was just suggesting that your experience that you describe was quite old.

I am not critical of EZ new seating plan. As always it will depend on execution. EZ has been improving its services constantly and execution has been quite good. Hence, I expect them to do well on this one.

As a side note, I think that the appellation LCC can be misleading. There are some really "bad" LCC who only care about cost. Ryanair would fall in the category of VLCC (very LCC). As far as French domestic travel is concerned, EZ will be no more LCC than AF, in terms of service. For the airports I use, there is no difference; the seats are much better and you have food service; you do not get a free newspaper and the patio lounge. As most old guys, I am used to inclusive prices, but I have learned to factor in itemized costs and compare prices. My numerous domestic experiences on AF and EZ in the past 18 months make me prefer EZ currently, for both quality (always) and cost (sometimes).

in quoting me you are pasting two of my sentences out of context.


Sorry Brunos, I did not mean it. I apologize.
I wanted just to keep quoting short. ;)
I got your point and I agree with it.
Again, I like U2 and the product they offer.
However allocated seating to me is important and a discriminating factor and Speedy Boarding does not fix this issue. Cost? I rather postpone my trip if necessary, I mean it and I do it.
If I cannot, well I will not die. I flew U2 once this year.
Thankfully starting November things will change and I am looking forward to it.

Ciao
Ulxima

Sorry Brunos, I did not mean it. I apologize.
I wanted just to keep quoting short. ;)


Nessun problema.

Ciao
Brunos

Very infrequent Easyjet user here. Once in my life only so far.

I have used them once on Geneva-Bristol because I was in Geneva and wanted to go to Bristol and their schedule did fit perfectly into my plans. No snobbery or mileage earning in the world could have justified passing through LHR instead or flying with a legacy carrier via AMS or BRU. I do not remember whether the flight was expensive or not (that was not the reason to take it, destination/schedule was), but I do remember that as an easyjet newbie I was afraid of wasting time and energy in some collective rush to grab a seat so I paid for priority boarding. I also remember that I wondered who in the world would fly from Geneva to Bristol, but the flight was actually pretty picked. Maybe I underestimate the importance or atttractiveness of Bristol ;)

So having more organized seating for a price which I find bearable takes away one hurdle to use them. But this is not what kept me from flying them in the past. It was simply a matter of not seeing any advantage. First, they do not have any route network advantages for me, I don't go from Dortmund to Thessaloniki, from Murcia to Bristol or from Belfast to Krakow. Interestingly enough I have found myself checking Ryanair a couple of times to reach places that only they go to: I almost found myself on London-Dinard (but then schedules didn't work out), or on La Rochelle-London (ended up not going), or Karlsruhe-Roma (considered the tradeoff between Ryanair experience and First Class Terminal experience on Lufthansa FRA-Roma). Who knows, maybe one day.

But easyjet do serve some of the routes that I use frequently (Paris-Nice, Paris-Biarritz, Paris-Geneva) but then when traveling for work I prefer legacy carriers and the greater comfort/maximising productive time I get from arriving late at the airport, using the lounge, not having to worry about my seat, having a free seat next to me (mostly guaranteed because of class of travel or status); when traveling with the family fare is also a consideration but so is schedule, we obviously want to maximize the time around our free days - which means we travel to say Nice when everyone else also is. Result: easyjet is expensive, and often more expensive than simply taking a family fare on Air France, plus we get some of the comfort perks of having myself + Madame as FB Platinums, especially when flying from CDG.

So the end result is that I even have the easyjet iPhone app on my phone (which by the way I find pretty well designed), I am open to using them, but I just haven't found a reason yet.

So much for a case study in purchasing behaviour.

And regarding "cheap" terminals in places like MRS or LYS: it's all a matter of differentiation. If the objective was to make the experience not as good as that when traveling with a legacy carrier then the bar under which they had to pass was CDG 2G. Given that 2G is already worse than other airports' LCC terminals the result could obviously be only quite horrible.

Come on San Gottardo, now you are getting snobbish about destinations and status :)

No one is asking you to fly from Murcia to Bristol just to try EZ. Nor to alter your usual travel patterns to go to le Bourget for the ultra-cheap Ryannair.
But this forum is about AF, so the discussion ought to focus on routes where AF and EZ compete head to head. Like you, I had never thought seriously about using EZ many years ago, eventhough the fare differential for a single pax was sometimes huge. But the reason I have posted extensively in this thread is basically that I have changed my mind and that I suggest that others will do it in the near future.

To take your example of French domestic routes like Paris-Nice. The quality of AF has gone down dramatically. I fondly remember the time when Air Liberté and AOM were flying the route with intense competition. But even if we take the past couple of years, AF has moved down:
- awful fixed seats
- no food
- higher "special" fares than a couple of years ago
- reduction in the possibility of getting "special" fares (couples don't get them anymore)
- automatic checkin
The last point defeats one of your argument (which is a strong one and which I share) that elite+ can keep a middle seat empty. I have never been able to get one since AF introduced automatic checkin. BTW, I do not think that the "arriving late" argument is a valid one. With EZ priority boarding, you had to be there at the start of boarding, but with their new seat assignment you will be able to board last and still get your front seat.

On the other hand EZ has gone up in quality to a point where I marginally prefer EZ over AF everything else equal (seat is a big "health" factor, food availability another one). I agree that everything else is not always equal. The fare differential could be big or small, positive or negative; AF might offer better schedules because of its frequency; lounge (although I value the Patio at no more than €10 and factor in the cost). And frankly when you take transversal routes like NCE-TLS where AF flies airliner and its uncomfortable propeller plane, that is a nobrainer.

There is no doubt that a Plat/Gold has relative benefits flying AF because of the lounge. But the front-of-the-plane seating can be purchased on EZ. Of course, buying C on European route offers you the guarantee of an empty middle seat and might be an acceptable corporate expense for some of its top people, but that is not really comparable in terms of price.

I am not saying that one should always prefer EZ to AF, that would be stupid. But so many frequent flyers do not even have EZ on their radar screens. And I think that the uptrend at EZ combined with the downtrend at AF would justify a change in attitude and include EZ in the airlines considered in their decision process.

Come on San Gottardo, now you are getting snobbish about destinations and status :)

No one is asking you to fly from Murcia to Bristol just to try EZ. Nor to alter your usual travel patterns to go to le Bourget for the ultra-cheap Ryannair.
But this forum is about AF, so the discussion ought to focus on routes where AF and EZ compete head to head. Like you, I had never thought seriously about using EZ many years ago, eventhough the fare differential for a single pax was sometimes huge. But the reason I have posted extensively in this thread is basically that I have changed my mind and that I suggest that others will do it in the near future.

To take your example of French domestic routes like Paris-Nice. The quality of AF has gone down dramatically. I fondly remember the time when Air Liberté and AOM were flying the route with intense competition. But even if we take the past couple of years, AF has moved down:
- awful fixed seats
- no food
- higher "special" fares than a couple of years ago
- reduction in the possibility of getting "special" fares (couples don't get them anymore)
- automatic checkin
The last point defeats one of your argument (which is a strong one and which I share) that elite+ can keep a middle seat empty. I have never been able to get one since AF introduced automatic checkin. BTW, I do not think that the "arriving late" argument is a valid one. With priority boarding, you had to be there at the start of boarding, but with their new seat assignment you will be able to board last and still get your front seat.

On the other hand EZ has gone up in quality to a point where I marginally prefer EZ over AF everything else equal (seat is a big "health" factor, food availability another one). I agree that everything else is not always equal. The fare differential could be big or small, positive or negative; AF might offer better schedules because of its frequency; lounge (although I value the Patio at no more than €10 and factor in the cost.

There is no doubt that a Plat/Gold has relative benefits flying AF because of the lounge. But the front-of-the-plane seating can be purchased on EZ. Of course, buying C on European route offers you the guarantee of an empty middle seat and might be an acceptable corporate expense for some of its top people, but that is not really comparable in terms of price.

I am not saying that one should always prefer EZ to AF, that would be stupid. But so many frequent flyers do not have EZ on their radar screens. And I think that the uptrend at EZ combined with the downtrend at AF would justify a change in attitude.

Oops, if this came across as an attitudinal issue then I clearly mis-expressed myself. I was only giving the examples of Dortmund-Palma etc. to say that for my personal travel patterns Easyjet - unlike Ryanair - doesn't have any network advantages. They either go where legacy carriers also go, or they go to places which are not part of my travel pattern.

So the comparison for me is purely on the routes where both easy and legacies fly. And there, whilst absolutely recognizing the cheapening of the AF product on domestic and European routes (is there anyone crying out more loudly than me against that? Maybe you, but just maybe ;)) there are other factors:

- schedule/frequency: usually more choice on legacy carriers on the routes that I take
- fare, which matters especially when taking the family to BIQ, NCE, VCE, BCN, etc: on domestic French routes the family fares offered by AF are usually as attractive if not more than AF; on European routes we might have been lucky but I always found AF or other legacies as attractively prices as easy for the dates that we needed. But that has to do with the fact that our family travel is on dates when all airlines are expensive
- free middle seat: as I wrote, this happened on "most" flights, AF obviously being the one airline that is unable to offer that to its status customers. But I compare easy not only to AF
- comfort: admittedly, at ORY which has no proper lounge, sardine seating for domestic flights, no Acces No. 1, no food on board, and no prio boarding for elites on domestic flights, there isn't any point. At CDG, where these things exist it is a different story, especially when I travel for work

But as I said, I am very open to using them, that's why I have their app on my phone, but the situation/justification simply hasn't come up yet, neither in terms of route, fare or other factors. The fact that one can pre-reserve seats is one more factor pushing me in their direction.

For me easy is something like Air Berlin or Niki, which I also take without any hesitation. And yes, I have been on Niki flights for instance between ZRH and VIE when I could have taken the LX flight with all the bells and whistles and HON treatment at both ends of the journey. But schedule was better on Niki, fare was good, and I didn't see any great disadvantage in comfort. HAd it been easyjet instead, I would have taken them as well.

So who is the snob, Monsieur "I was blown away by Korean A388 in J on a shorthaul flight?" ;) Just teasing you.

Just to put things back into perspective, I don't think that there would be a case to say 'Air France always better' or 'Easyjet always better'. Both brunos and San Gottardo's points above are perfectly valid: depending on your route, how you travel (alone, as a family, adult or 'senior' by AF new criteria), when you book and how you book (one way or return), how you pay, whether you need to check luggage etc, whether you have a Priority Pass which gives you lounge access in most airports U2 flies from, etc, whether you like to have plenty of water for free on a flight and reading Le Monde and Le Canard Enchaine or just can't be bothered, hate propeller plane or think that they remind you of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, whether you are travelling with infants or not, etc, you might find Air France or Easyjet the 'better alternative'. To be honest, I don't think there is enough between the two to have an overwhelming 'priority' that would not include a reference to price and schedule on most domestic and short haul European routes. My point is mostly that Easyjet is just turning that little bit better in terms of offering a relatively stress-free travel experience.

I acknowledge the point also made earlier that before if you enjoyed queuing from 1 hour before your flight, or if you bought Easyjet's speedy boarding or their card you could already very much have that, but don't worry, the Easyjet people are not stupid and I am sure that they will find ways of ensuring that they don't upset the customers who used to have the said card. I am sure they will offer some sort of reason to continue buying it, probably a possibility to select seats for free, maybe even in the front rows, or maybe a guaranteed middle seat if loads permit (which would be a big trap as, as mentioned by San Gottardo, they seem to manage loads near 100% on the most unlikely routes anyway!).

I'm somewhat amused that this appears to be the only place on FT where this news generated more than a couple of replies.

Is EZ really now that much of a competitor/threat to AF?

So who is the snob, Monsieur "I was blown away by Korean A388 in J on a shorthaul flight?" ;) Just teasing you.

I was teasing you too ;)
After decades on flying non-LCC, I now have to cope with my beautiful wife who request her Starbuck café and gateau on every flight!

I'm somewhat amused that this appears to be the only place on FT where this news generated more than a couple of replies.

Is EZ really now that much of a competitor/threat to AF?

Glad that you are reviewing FT so extensively :)

More seriously, AF management keeps repeating that they are losing money on shorthaul (sorry short and medium to use their weird terminology) because of LCCs. So they clearly see them as more than a threat.

Ryanair is also a competitor, but they have a different business model (cheap, cheap, cheap) and have very few French domestic routes except from their Marseilles base. Many of the airports they serve are small ones or inconvenient alternatives to the main one (e.g. Paris-Beauvais). Then there are many LCCs with a few flights to France and no domestic flights; AF made sure that they took over all the regional competition.
On the other hand, EZ competes head on with AF on its main routes. It also has an extensive French network. There are two important (from a traffic perspective) French cities where the TGV competition is weak; and EZ has strong presence in TLS and NCE, in addition to CDG and ORY. With the exception of UK, there are no other countries where EZ has such a domestic network, in addition to offering a large number of European destinations.

I'm somewhat amused that this appears to be the only place on FT where this news generated more than a couple of replies.

Is EZ really now that much of a competitor/threat to AF?

Obviously this thread is very active. This is because this is always the same people (brunos, orbitmic, me, etc) meeting up in the same threads and we find it a nice platform to repeat always the same story and spread that same theme that we feel about passionately, namely the frustration about how deep AF has sunk. It can be looked at from a thousand angles, and this thread gives us the opportunity to look at it from the easyjet competition angle. We are boring, repetitive. I am sure if we had an in-person fireside chat we'd also come up with other topics such as wine, politics, music, whatever. (As a matter of fact there are a couple of people on this forum I'd really like to get to know in person and have a fireside chat with)

Obviously this thread is very active. This is because this is always the same people (brunos, orbitmic, me, etc) meeting up in the same threads and we find it a nice platform to repeat always the same story and spread that same theme that we feel about passionately, namely the frustration about how deep AF has sunk. It can be looked at from a thousand angles, and this thread gives us the opportunity to look at it from the easyjet competition angle. We are boring, repetitive. I am sure if we had an in-person fireside chat we'd also come up with other topics such as wine, politics, music, whatever. (As a matter of fact there are a couple of people on this forum I'd really like to get to know in person and have a fireside chat with)

Sorry to disagree.
Your posts are NEVER boring and always fun to read :)

PS: Just had a nice Shiraz for dinner (Hugh Hamilton, The Rascal, 2004, McLaren Valley). Served cool, because it is still 28° tonight. I have come to like Shiraz after many years in Asia, but my French visiting friends find it overpowering and usually dislike Shiraz. So there is room for changes, in my tastes as well as in AF products.

Sorry to disagree.
Your posts are NEVER boring and always fun to read :)

PS: Just had a nice Shiraz for dinner (Hugh Hamilton, The Rascal, 2004, McLaren Valley). Served cool, because it is still 28° tonight. I have come to like Shiraz after many years in Asia, but my French visiting friends find it overpowering and usually dislike Shiraz. So there is room for changes, in my tastes as well as in AF products.

What can I say... I was typing all the above from seat 7A on board EK 073 from Dubai to CDG (upper deck on the A380). WiFi on board was great, food less so. Clearly the weakest point of their onboard product. So the debate about how overpowering Shiraz is looks like a luxury discussion for me when I think about the first part of my day ;)

I know that this is an AF forum, but EZY is getting more aggressive in its competition with AF. Just got an email about a 5-day sale from France (and Switzerland). It is listed on its main page:
http://www.easyjet.com/fr
Of course, the offer is quite limited. But I wonder whether AF will respond or not.

I know that this is an AF forum, but EZY is getting more aggressive in its competition with AF. Just got an email about a 5-day sale from France (and Switzerland). It is listed on its main page:
http://www.easyjet.com/fr
Of course, the offer is quite limited. But I wonder whether AF will respond or not.
AF has its own ongoing sale for domestic flights. It is not specifically about responding to U2, but it is one of the traditional waves of promotions, just as they usually have one before the end of the year for medium-haul flights flown in the first quarter of the following year.

AF has its own ongoing sale for domestic flights. It is not specifically about responding to U2, but it is one of the traditional waves of promotions, just as they usually have one before the end of the year for medium-haul flights flown in the first quarter of the following year.

So it may be EZ responding to AF :)

Is EZ really now that much of a competitor/threat to AF?

I really think it is. The reason why this thread is more prone is that France is, I believe, the only country where Easyjet is competing head to head with the national legacy carrier on many key domestic route, using the exact same airports and reasonably regular schedule. You can fly from CDG and/or ORY to NCE and TLS, as well as smaller routes such as Brest, Biarritz, Ajaccio, Bastia, etc. It also works on many transversal routes such as NCE to BSL, BOD, LYS, TLS, NTE, LIL.

This is very different from the UK where U2 flies fewer domestic routes and mostly from LGW rather than LHR or LCY, or Italy where it flies some domestic from FCO but not as many as AZ.

San Gottardo - feeling is certainly mutual, and indeed, I don't think that I would have felt uninspired adding my admiration for last night's exceptional bottles of white Palette (Chateau Simone) and red bellet (Chateau Cremat) which were every bit as exceptional as should have been expected! :) Enjoy Dubai!

This is very different from the UK where U2 flies fewer domestic routes and mostly from LGW rather than LHR or LCY, or Italy where it flies some domestic from FCO but not as many as AZ.IMO, the competition that BA faces from Easyjet is far, far more significant than that faced by AF: they compete on many more numerous routes. Sure, there is a segment of the people who fly BA to LHR for whom Easyjet is no competition but that it true of AF at CDG too. For the majority of the short-haul O&D traffic that Easyjet targets, the fact that they fly out of LGW/STN/LTN whereas many of BA routes are ex-LHR is a relatively minor factor.

The best sign of how much more of a competitive threat Easyjet is to BA than to AF can be seen in fare structures as well as fare levels: BA offers cheap oneways across the board on its European network whereas AF has managed to hold on to the traditional minimum stay model. If AF was subject to much more intense LCC pressure than BA, the reverse would be true.

IMO, the competition that BA faces from Easyjet is far, far more significant than that faced by AF: they compete on many more numerous routes. Sure, there is a segment of the people who fly BA to LHR for whom Easyjet is no competition but that it true of AF at CDG too. For the majority of the short-haul O&D traffic that Easyjet targets, the fact that they fly out of LGW/STN/LTN whereas many of BA routes are ex-LHR is a relatively minor factor.

The best sign of how much more of a competitive threat Easyjet is to BA than to AF can be seen in fare structures as well as fare levels: BA offers cheap oneways across the board on its European network whereas AF has managed to hold on to the traditional minimum stay model. If AF was subject to much more intense LCC pressure than BA, the reverse would be true.

I certainly agree that BA faces a bigger low cost pressure than AF for many reason: (1) for BA, Easyjet is only 'one of many' LCCs targetting the British passenger (Flybe, Ryanair, and the odd Monarch, TUI etc), (2) bigger networks as you point out. For example as I mentioned elsewhere, BA is facing U2 on nearly every European route they have from LGW, etc.

However, the difference between airport is perhaps more significant when targetting the business traveller, and in a totally unscientific way, I must say that I typically see more 'suits and ties' when I've flown Easyjet in France than in the UK. So perhaps, given the 'business bias' of FTers that could explain why we commented on this more on this forum than on the BA one?

PS: Regardless of how much I agree with your general point, I think that the second point you make is partly caused by 'pressure levels' indeed, but also by a difference between BA and AF. You may or may not agree with me on that but my sense is that BA is generally a far more reactive and competition-conscious airline than AF. A very good illustration has to do with the two airlines respective answers to the LH long haul business class promotions last Autumn: for a week or so, LH offered long haul business class flights from pretty much all of Europe to select destinations for €1111 or £1111. When they did, on flights ex-UK, BA matched them pound for pound on many destinations (notably all the North American destinations included) with exact same sale period etc. AF did not match a single fare for ex-France fliers.

I certainly agree that BA faces a bigger low cost pressure than AF for many reason: (1) for BA, Easyjet is only 'one of many' LCCs targetting the British passenger (Flybe, Ryanair, and the odd Monarch, TUI etc), (2) bigger networks as you point out. For example as I mentioned elsewhere, BA is facing U2 on nearly every European route they have from LGW, etc.

However, the difference between airport is perhaps more significant when targetting the business traveller, and in a totally unscientific way, I must say that I typically see more 'suits and ties' when I've flown Easyjet in France than in the UK. So perhaps, given the 'business bias' of FTers that could explain why we commented on this more on this forum than on the BA one?

PS: Regardless of how much I agree with your general point, I think that the second point you make is partly caused by 'pressure levels' indeed, but also by a difference between BA and AF. You may or may not agree with me on that but my sense is that BA is generally a far more reactive and competition-conscious airline than AF..

Well, Air France does face a strong competition on its domestic network, which is not present on the UK market: the TGV high-speed train. Given how AF's market share has gone down, especially on its MRS/SXB routes, I would not agree that AF is or can be less reactive than BA on its domestic network. With the planned extensions to the TGV network, the TGV competition will increasingly hurt Air France on its medium-haul network with additional German destinations beyond Cologne, especially FRA, or destinations like BCN.

IMO, the competition that BA faces from Easyjet is far, far more significant than that faced by AF: they compete on many more numerous routes. Sure, there is a segment of the people who fly BA to LHR for whom Easyjet is no competition but that it true of AF at CDG too. For the majority of the short-haul O&D traffic that Easyjet targets, the fact that they fly out of LGW/STN/LTN whereas many of BA routes are ex-LHR is a relatively minor factor.

The best sign of how much more of a competitive threat Easyjet is to BA than to AF can be seen in fare structures as well as fare levels: BA offers cheap oneways across the board on its European network whereas AF has managed to hold on to the traditional minimum stay model. If AF was subject to much more intense LCC pressure than BA, the reverse would be true.

Possibly mixing up two points here, but AF has responded to the LCCs on its London-centred network. Technically, it's CityJet, but that's AF, really. They now offer the one-way fare structure, in the same way as EZY: no minimum stay, no Saturday requirement, etc. - simply a fare for each 'leg' on a one-way, point-to-point basis.

I'm not sure how much the French domestic subsidiaries are doing the same, but there are certainly some cheap fares coming up on sites like Expedia.

-- Henry

Given how AF's market share has gone down, especially on its MRS/SXB routes, I would not agree that AF is or can be less reactive than BA on its domestic network.

I agree with the "cannot" (should not?) be but not with the "isn't". I just think that for structural and historical reasons, AF is a less reactive, less rapid, less flexible machine than BA. Reforms to working conditions of the magnitude of mixed fleet or of what has led to the severe social movements of two years ago at BA are simply implemented more radically, more drastically, and more quickly at BA than they are at AF where negotiation is by nature (and to some extent by law) slower and more 'equal' (I'm not saying that it is good or bad, just that these are two different traditions and conceptions), seat changes typically happen much faster on BA than on AF, and changes to network or pricing structure of the importance of moving to one-way pricing for all direct short and medium haul flights were ultimately implemented very quickly and very suddenly by BA. I think that for better or worse (and it has occasionally been both), AF likes to do things the AF way and takes time before admitting the extent of external pressure. All of us have heard/read in the past that not all business passengers wanted fully flat bed and it has taken so long for AF to admit that they were wrong on that. BA by contrast created that trend - as they created the trend for premium economy (a class I really don't like myself but never mind) in its modern form (ie like AF's PV, not like AF's Alize) well before AF decided to copy it. Let's say that in my view, reactivity is not AF's strong point and yet I fully agree with you that it very badly needs it (which, in my view, among other things does really mean moving to one way pricing).

which, in my view, among other things does really mean moving to one way pricing.

I believe that AF has moved to one-way pricing in an opportunistic fashion on specific markets, building on experience gained through pilots. I am not sure there would be a major revenue growth if Air France were to allow one-way pricing on cheap, not fully flexible tickets, across the entire medium-haul network, but that's up to AF revenue management to decide. Furthermore, at a time when the airline apparently wants to enhance its premium offering on the medium-haul network, allowing cheap one-way tickets in Y would cheapen the premium product, especially for companies with corporate contracts IMO. Cheaper, non-flexible one way tickets in Premium could generate a greater increase in revenue, though.

With respect to the BA approach to labour relations, I would say it can be ruthless. Whether it shows that the airline reacts in a better way or that AF should have the same approach in a different social context is debatable.

Now that travelers book trips themselves, they don't want to get annoyed with "old system" rules (designed for experts = agents selling the tickets). Why should one way be only flexible and costs more than a restricted return etc. Average travelers don't understand the concept: the fare structure is not adapted to the current distribution.

Example of a fare structure that would make sense to me, CDG CPH CDG, taxes from CDG = 30 EUR. taxes from CPH = 20 EUR. Fares include fuel surcharges.

Cheapest fare R class: 150 EUR + taxes, return trip, min stay 3 days or saturday,
One way R class: 100 EUR + taxes
return R class: 200 EUR + taxes (return trip, no minimum stay, non ref)

Middle range economy, K, 300 EUR + taxes, return trip, min 3 days or saturday.
One way K class: 225 EUR + taxes
Return K class: 450 EUR + taxes (no minimum stay)

I agree with the "cannot" (should not?) be but not with the "isn't". I just think that for structural and historical reasons, AF is a less reactive, less rapid, less flexible machine than BA. Reforms to working conditions of the magnitude of mixed fleet or of what has led to the severe social movements of two years ago at BA are simply implemented more radically, more drastically, and more quickly at BA than they are at AF where negotiation is by nature (and to some extent by law) slower and more 'equal' (I'm not saying that it is good or bad, just that these are two different traditions and conceptions), seat changes typically happen much faster on BA than on AF, and changes to network or pricing structure of the importance of moving to one-way pricing for all direct short and medium haul flights were ultimately implemented very quickly and very suddenly by BA. I think that for better or worse (and it has occasionally been both), AF likes to do things the AF way and takes time before admitting the extent of external pressure. All of us have heard/read in the past that not all business passengers wanted fully flat bed and it has taken so long for AF to admit that they were wrong on that. BA by contrast created that trend - as they created the trend for premium economy (a class I really don't like myself but never mind) in its modern form (ie like AF's PV, not like AF's Alize) well before AF decided to copy it. Let's say that in my view, reactivity is not AF's strong point and yet I fully agree with you that it very badly needs it (which, in my view, among other things does really mean moving to one way pricing).

This is indeed my view of AF reactivity to changes in the marketplace. Probably for historical/cultural and structural reasons.

Rather than adapting quickly to the market, AF has often come up with great "exceptional" ideas. AF has sometimes taken a somewhat arrogant view that their customers will adapt to their magnificent ideas, rather than trying to follow what customers wanted or what competition was doing. Let me take two examples of these "exceptional" ideas:

- First is longhaul premium cabins. I still remember when they decided to introduce the "Espace" concept with conventional pair F seats reclining full flat (Espace 180) and cradle J seats with little recline (Espace 127), both having exactly the same food service. So the F product was business class with a 180° flat seat. They started losing their F pax, so they added a minuscule sealed terrine of foie gras!!! At the same time BA introduced solo new-generation F seats and flat beds in J. AF timing was poor and it took them a long time to react but they finally matched the low-end competition (angled lie-flat in J). Three years ago, they had the great idea that what made the quality of a F product was to make it exclusive. That meant offering no discount on F fares (only full fare) and making F outrageous for awards. An exceptional idea that backfired.

- Second is mediumhaul premium cabins. AF used to have decent food service in C. Then they had this great idea of three cabins, with premium economy (whatever the name at the time) having C food service but 3x3 seating; at the same time they downgraded the food service drastically. Then they were almost decided to remove C on mediumhaul (I still remember a FT meeting where they stated it explicitly). As the majority of those C pax were longhaul pax connecting in CDG, there was pressure not to do it. So, they kept it, but reduced C service to a bare minimum (leading to the infamous white box). They now feel, or at least claim, that they need to improve their C service. It took them a lot of time to react to competition. Competitors have often taken another route. For example BA and LX offer you to upgrade a Y ticket to C for a reasonable price. For example, I was flying CDG-ZRH on LX a few days ago and there were 14 C rows (almost full) with a real dinner, wines served from the bottle (5 choices), etc.. AF has recently followed the lead of many airlines and started to offer paid upgrade on longhauls (again in an "exceptional" fashion); and they might do the same on mediumhaul but with a serious lag to other airlines.

My point is that AF has followed the market leaders in adopting some of their measures, but usually with a slow reactivity (e.g. one-way pricing). In other cases they have tried to become market leaders by introducing "exceptional" ideas. I might be wrong, but I think that all these exceptional ideas failed and AF had to retreat and adapt to the market.
The new management seems to have a more professional view of the market and of competition, so there is hope. But one should never underestimate the cultural and structural constraints.

I believe that AF has moved to one-way pricing in an opportunistic fashion on specific markets, building on experience gained through pilots. I am not sure there would be a major revenue growth if Air France were to allow one-way pricing on cheap, not fully flexible tickets, across the entire medium-haul network, but that's up to AF revenue management to decide. Furthermore, at a time when the airline apparently wants to enhance its premium offering on the medium-haul network, allowing cheap one-way tickets in Y would cheapen the premium product, especially for companies with corporate contracts IMO. Cheaper, non-flexible one way tickets in Premium could generate a greater increase in revenue, though.

With respect to the BA approach to labour relations, I would say it can be ruthless. Whether it shows that the airline reacts in a better way or that AF should have the same approach in a different social context is debatable.

I think that what you mention about cheapening the premium product is only true if you think that what corporate tickets value in the current system is the one way effect, not the flexibility. My impression is that it is not so otherwise people would keep buying cheaper returns and throw away the return part saving lots of money. I would argue that what the corporate enjoy is the possibility to change the ticket at the last minute because the meeting finished early regardless of whether there is availability in R or V and without having to pay a change fee. By contrast, when you think of your typical leisure traveller (who is equally needed to make the flights profitable) I think that the impossibility of the one way could be make or break on many trips. AF has acknowledged it in a way but have entered the one way domestic pricing very timidly imposing significant constraints (for example the diso....ed domestic one way fares have a drastic advanced purchase condition of 28 days!) while obviously this is not the case with Easyjet or the SNCF. They also have other 'pilot' one way schemes (Cityjet and Bases de Province AFAIK) but no comprehensive one-way pricing strategy not even in a given market (e.g. UK it is only for Cityjet flights not for AF ones).

We know that AF are losing money on their short and medium haul operations - a lot of money and that is from their own discourse. Now moving away from all the previous posts and entering a gentle caricature of what we are as the FT community, we have three possibilities, all of which correspond to the traditional triptic of Flyertalk reactions mine included ;) :

Option 1: first FT prototype - the trusting reaction: "Revenue Management must know what they are doing, if they do it that way, it is probably their best strategy to maximise profit". If it is so, and that as we know they are losing a lot of money, then perhaps AF short and medium haul operations are simply doomed, due to lose money permanently in order to feed a long haul sector that would be the only profitable one but whether they should just become (even more) Paris airline, relying almost exclusively on direct Paris long haulf traffic, Paris corporate clients, and seriously scale down their owned short/medium haul network (indeed, partly what they seem to believe given what we have heard about in terms of network aspects of the transform 2015 plan).

Option2: second FT prototype - the grass is greener in the neighbour's garden reaction (I would cynically say, probably where my comments fit): why isn't AF imitating BA on European flights: one-way pricing on all direct flights (hence an incentive to fly the routes that cost BA least) and 100% miles on their FF programme, in Y sandwiches above (approximately) 1h30 (since the recent improvements) and hot meals above 3 hours, seats that still recline, and seat pre-assignments for elite passengers as well as full bar. In C, oshigori and aperitif service with nuts, hot meals (or in the summer, for lunchtime, a choice of a hot or cold meal) for anything above approximately 1h30, full bar, vestiaire service, seats that recline and more spatious seats than on AF thanks to a 2+3 configuration (in addition to the middle seat blocked).

Option 3: third FT prototype - the apocalyptic vision: things are bad but will get worse, the future is for the end of FF programmes as we know them, the end of free meals and drinks as we know them, train-like (worse, SNCF-like) services on European routes at least in Y and pretty much the same on long haul, combined or not with ultra-luxury upfront if upfront is maintained.

So I would say that most comments we can make on 'guessing' the future of AF short/middle haul will fall into one of those three patterns. All three potentially make sense so we can each take our pick! ;)

You seem to be missing the 4th option. The optimistic one where AF would become better than SQ on longhaul (the airline of reference for de Juniac) , better than BA/LX on short/mediumhaul (the airlines of reference for frequent posters here) and French laws/Government would manage to get rid of ME airlines and Easyjet.

You seem to be missing the 4th option. The optimistic one where AF would become better than SQ on longhaul (the airline of reference for de Juniac) , better than BA/LX on short/mediumhaul (the airlines of reference for frequent posters here) and French laws/Government would manage to get rid of ME airlines and Easyjet.

:D Ah ah, yes, that is definitely a view some at AF express - but I was only proposing a typology of FT comments, and for better or worse, from the most AF-sceptic to the most AF-enthusiasts, I haven't seen many who believe that AF will indeed be to the late 2010s what TG was in the 1990s, SQ in the 2000s or EY in the early 2010s. Quite a few of us believe in some level of improvement of J products or indeed even convergence with some other airlines, but it seems to come with a rather 'toned down' level of expectation without echoing the grand claims of making Oman Air come across as glorified Ryanair in comparison ;)

PS: I think we posted the previous comments at the exact same time but agree with your analysis above, hence my reference earlier to "business travellers don't really want fully flat" and "the future is in full fare economy". In terms of AF exceptionalism I would however, list a few very modest exceptions: offering Champagne in long haul Y, they were among the first in Europe to introduce espresso machines in long haul J, AF magazine (one of the few remaining onboard magazines with a slightly artsy feel to each which I find better than most competitors' equivalent), Planete Bleue - and generally a very positive attitude towards children, and Saphir (the disability programme). As I say, all very modest and weighing peanuts as compared to a fully flat bed in long haul J or seats that recline in short haul, but still worth mentioning.

Second is mediumhaul premium cabins[/I]. AF used to have decent food service in C. Then they had this great idea of three cabins, with premium economy (whatever the name at the time) having C food service but 3x3 seating; at the same time they downgraded the food service drastically.

That's not my personal experience. I don't remember when Tempo Challenge was introduced, but I used it pretty much from 1999. The food service was similar to Tempo (hot meal above 2 hours)+ Champagne + liquors. Ground service was similar to Affaires. Affaires food service was better than in Tempo Challenge, including hot meals for flights above 1h40.

It was in 2004 that, in effect, the Affaires food service was downgraded to the previous Tempo Challenge offering, while liquors were scrapped.

And NEO completed the downgrading of the Affaires product with the merger into a Premium cabin.

So Tempo Challenge was (and in some ways still is) a great and consistent idea when it was introduced. It was downgraded overtime, but the belief that the customer paying full fare should be rewarded with better services than the one travelling on discounted fares is a good one IMHO. When paying a fully flexible fare in economy between FRA & CDG, I'd rather be in Premium with AF than in coach with LH (BTW, the one-way fares on LH between CDG & FRA aren't really cheap, either). Same for most of European destinations from CDG.

That's not my personal experience. I don't remember when Tempo Challenge was introduced, but I used it pretty much from 1999. The food service was similar to Tempo (hot meal above 2 hours)+ Champagne + liquors. Ground service was similar to Affaires. Affaires food service was better than in Tempo Challenge, including hot meals for flights above 1h40.

It was in 2004 that, in effect, the Affaires food service was downgraded to the previous Tempo Challenge offering, while liquors were scrapped.

And NEO completed the downgrading of the Affaires product with the merger into a Premium cabin.



In the early 2000s, AF probably had the best medium haul food proposition across all major European competitors, all cabins included. It has, sadly suffered a lot in the two stages that you describe, and by now it is really quite weak. Premium Eco is in principle something good to propose to full fare paying passengers, but the huge disadvantage of it is that it means that the resources that BA or LH splurge on C is 'shared' between the C pax and the full fare Y pax (now A, W, S) on AF. Now AF are talking of redifferentiating but my guess is that it can basically only be done at the expense of W, which I expect will turn more into the equivalent of SN 'economy flex' (salad or hot snack like a pizza slice). The big (cynical) question is whether Tempo Challenge/Premium Eco has been a sound investment for AF in terms of bringing extra revenue. My guess is that of all three classes of service, it is the most dependent on corporate contracts which are, in many way, captive and thus conceivably the least elastic to service quality. In C, at the moment, AF is probably the single worst legacy carrier in Europe. In Y, it is the only one that went permanently downhill while BA, LH, and LX recently slightly upped their game at least in terms of food.

That's not my personal experience. I don't remember when Tempo Challenge was introduced, but I used it pretty much from 1999. The food service was similar to Tempo (hot meal above 2 hours)+ Champagne + liquors. Ground service was similar to Affaires. Affaires food service was better than in Tempo Challenge, including hot meals for flights above 1h40.

It was in 2004 that, in effect, the Affaires food service was downgraded to the previous Tempo Challenge offering, while liquors were scrapped.

And NEO completed the downgrading of the Affaires product with the merger into a Premium cabin.

So Tempo Challenge was (and in some ways still is) a great and consistent idea when it was introduced. It was downgraded overtime, but the belief that the customer paying full fare should be rewarded with better services than the one travelling on discounted fares is a good one IMHO. When paying a fully flexible fare in economy between FRA & CDG, I'd rather be in Premium with AF than in coach with LH (BTW, the one-way fare on LH between CDG & FRA aren't really cheap, either). Same for most of European destinations from CDG.

You are quite right. I should have said "progressively" rather than "at the same time".
I have no doubt that pax paying full Y fare prefer to sit in a premium section rather than being mixed with the other Y pax. But, I was rather taking the business viewpoint. If the three-class cabin is such a good business idea for an airline, why was it not adopted outside of AFKL? I do not fly on LH so cannot comment on their product. Turning to today's situation, I would rather pay a cheaper business fare with acceptable C service (as on BA or LX), than a more expensive Y fare on AF and get their minimal service.

Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the grass is always greener elsewhere and I would criticize LH as extensively if they deserve it. Their old longhaul J seat certainly deserved it and the delay in 787 delivery is a lame excuse. Actually, I do more that criticize and vote with my feet. I avoid AF & LH longhaul product (but not their F product;) )

There is a fifth category. Not so much with a vision on future positioning and strategy and less based on numbers and market analyses. They are the opposite to the second ("the grass is greener on the other side") type. Every factual description of shortcomings in AF offering is countered with "they are not the only ones", "that is widespread now", "airline XY is even worse", etc. They seem to be optimistic on AF's future based on the conviction that passengers are attracted to AF based on a view "it ain't great but it's not better elsewhere". I think there were many people adhering to this school of thought in AF's management during the PHG years. The same people that in the face of losing market share to ME carriers cry foul (subsidies, exploitation of labour, etc) without imagining for a second that the actual customer experience could be superior and thus explain the gains in market share.

On a different topic, I keep on reading that AF will improve its European business class offering, just as I had read that they had supposedly improved the catering on European flights in business class (which turned out to be not true). My question is: what is really behind it? Will they really make real improvements to C class or cheapen down A/S/W? And when?

Time for Mods to change the subject of this thread.

Interesting comments, I am keeping reading from the seat 6C of an AF Airbus.
What are they going to serve this evening on the infamous "white box"? I will tell you later...

Ciao
Ulxima

There is a fifth category. Not so much with a vision on future positioning and strategy and less based on numbers and market analyses. They are the opposite to the second ("the grass is greener on the other side") type. Every factual description of shortcomings in AF offering is countered with "they are not the only ones", "that is widespread now", "airline XY is even worse", etc. They seem to be optimistic on AF's future based on the conviction that passengers are attracted to AF based on a view "it ain't great but it's not better elsewhere". I think there were many people adhering to this school of thought in AF's management during the PHG years. The same people that in the face of losing market share to ME carriers cry foul (subsidies, exploitation of labour, etc) without imagining for a second that the actual customer experience could be superior and thus explain the gains in market share.

On a different topic, I keep on reading that AF will improve its European business class offering, just as I had read that they had supposedly improved the catering on European flights in business class (which turned out to be not true). My question is: what is really behind it? Will they really make real improvements to C class or cheapen down A/S/W? And when?

Ah, good point - with all airlines fora on FT, a variation of the 'it is all going to collapse' model are the supporters of the 'it is already poor everywhere' model and airline Cassandras and bath-water-with-the-baby-throwers are indeed far from rare. You are right about the recent AF years and it had both (falsely gloomy: 'passengers don't expect free meals any more' and 'all FFPs will have to lower earnings and increase cost of redemption'). Of course, they were wrong on both accounts.

You might also call them the "downward benchmarkers". Everything is acceptable and nothing is a bad strategy as long as others are doing the same thing or worse. Not being worse than the last in class is equivalent to being good. Of course the billions of losses proved them wrong

The problem with the "downward benchmarkers" is that they compare to the worst student in each topic, not only the worst student in the class. So AF is OK because X is as bad on "this" topic. Yeah, but X is much better on "that" topic: well AF is OK because Y is as bad on "that" topic.