PremEx
Nov 6, 98, 12:09 am
There have been some interesting posts going on lately on various threads, the most recent being a post today (10/5/98) by Msg53 on the Delta board (see L Fare), that makes me want to bring up this old question...just what is a Frequent Traveler Program and who should it benefit most?
By their own marketing, the airlines consider these "loyalty programs." But what is "loyalty?" Should the priority go to the Full Fare customer who flys just a few times a year, or to say, another customer who flys a tremendous amount, but on low fares?
I'll start with my own personal view. If these truly are loyalty programs...that is whose goal is to get you to call and fly with them as a prefered airline...then I don't understand why and how the airlines seem to be shifting towards a "revenue" status rather than a "frequency" status. The way I see it is that (in my case) United, for a variety of reasons, has become my airline of choice. I call them first and fly with them almost exclusively now days...even when the routing and price may not always be the best. They have earned my loyalty.
The reason I would be very upset if they (or any other frequent flyer program) started to give preference to the occasional customer who, on those few trips, payed a higher rate, is that it seems to me to fly in the face of the "frequent" in Frequent Flyer. The airlines THEMSELVES set the fares. I have no control over that. The best that they can expect from me is that I call them first and fly with them often. I do not control the fares...THEY DO! I simply call them and, OF COURSE, ask for the lowest fare. Which, I might add, they themselves are promoting and want you to buy. I don't think it would build loyalty or be very wise to expect a customer to activly seek out and pay a HIGHER fare when a lower one is available!
My point is that these programs are, by the airlines own design, built to reward the "frequent" flyer. I don't think it's right to start to mix in a "revenue" wild card into these programs. Especially since I can't control the price I pay...only the airline I chose to fly. If the airlines want to stroke a full fare passenger who is miffed that he is sitting next to a FF'er who paid alot less, then they should come up with separate perks of some sort (full fare lounge, free limo, peanuts instead of mustard pretzels)....something that does not conflict with the priviledges and perks already earned by the Frequent Flyers.
And in a related way, for this reason I also don't think it's fair to restrict upgrades to "certain fares". If the airline is promoting it and selling it, it should be good enough for their best customers! And therefore upgradable using miles/certs.
Thankfully United for one, has recently removed the fare restriction on upgrading Domestic flights. Now I would like to see them do this across the board on International routes as well.
I know all the arguments about how the airlines are a business and how they are entitled to make money and how it only makes sense to give something to the poor schmoe who has paid more. But the airlines are big boys. They set up these programs because it benefits them. They just want to have it both ways within only one program. And that's not right, IMHO.
Whada you think?
By their own marketing, the airlines consider these "loyalty programs." But what is "loyalty?" Should the priority go to the Full Fare customer who flys just a few times a year, or to say, another customer who flys a tremendous amount, but on low fares?
I'll start with my own personal view. If these truly are loyalty programs...that is whose goal is to get you to call and fly with them as a prefered airline...then I don't understand why and how the airlines seem to be shifting towards a "revenue" status rather than a "frequency" status. The way I see it is that (in my case) United, for a variety of reasons, has become my airline of choice. I call them first and fly with them almost exclusively now days...even when the routing and price may not always be the best. They have earned my loyalty.
The reason I would be very upset if they (or any other frequent flyer program) started to give preference to the occasional customer who, on those few trips, payed a higher rate, is that it seems to me to fly in the face of the "frequent" in Frequent Flyer. The airlines THEMSELVES set the fares. I have no control over that. The best that they can expect from me is that I call them first and fly with them often. I do not control the fares...THEY DO! I simply call them and, OF COURSE, ask for the lowest fare. Which, I might add, they themselves are promoting and want you to buy. I don't think it would build loyalty or be very wise to expect a customer to activly seek out and pay a HIGHER fare when a lower one is available!
My point is that these programs are, by the airlines own design, built to reward the "frequent" flyer. I don't think it's right to start to mix in a "revenue" wild card into these programs. Especially since I can't control the price I pay...only the airline I chose to fly. If the airlines want to stroke a full fare passenger who is miffed that he is sitting next to a FF'er who paid alot less, then they should come up with separate perks of some sort (full fare lounge, free limo, peanuts instead of mustard pretzels)....something that does not conflict with the priviledges and perks already earned by the Frequent Flyers.
And in a related way, for this reason I also don't think it's fair to restrict upgrades to "certain fares". If the airline is promoting it and selling it, it should be good enough for their best customers! And therefore upgradable using miles/certs.
Thankfully United for one, has recently removed the fare restriction on upgrading Domestic flights. Now I would like to see them do this across the board on International routes as well.
I know all the arguments about how the airlines are a business and how they are entitled to make money and how it only makes sense to give something to the poor schmoe who has paid more. But the airlines are big boys. They set up these programs because it benefits them. They just want to have it both ways within only one program. And that's not right, IMHO.
Whada you think?