N965VJ

The same could be said when Parker was dreaming about his next merger deal instead of dealing with the operation at hand. Case in point the QIK/SHARES fiasco.

guyindasky

It would appear than other carriers besides US are making changes to their FF plan.

http://consumerist.com/5034743/ameri...ally-worthless

masonuc

I wonder if these changes are US Air's way of making its frequent flier program the least generous in the industry so it becomes more attractive to merger partners. I.e., the acquirer won't have to worry about "matching" US Air's FF program -- it will just implement its own policies and US elites will be thrilled. Because some of these choices I don't see as cost savings, like elite bonuses. I simply don't buy that was a huge expense.

dankyone

Yes...as a Gold I have been 100% on upgrades in the past 2-3 months, and usually I am able to switch my seat to a non bulkhead aisle...last year I was probably less than 50% on upgrades and could rarely switch my F seat if I was lucky enough to get one.

guyindasky

As evidenced in the article associated with this link, US is not the only carrier making changes to their FF program that many seem to think is unfair.

http://consumerist.com/5034743/ameri...ally-worthless

GadgetFreak

Yea, they all are, you posted that before. And yes, people are generally not happy with the changes. On the other hand I dont think that other carriers are canceling bonus miles, the topic of this thread. And AA raising the price on copays for international flight upgrades isnt really a disdvantage to US since you cant even upgrade on those fare classes with a copay on US from what I can tell. In terms of domestic upgrade AA has always "charged" more for upgrades than US, and people are willing to pay it because it is a much better first class product.

spin88

I'll bite on the second post.... totally different magnitude of change. A lot of airlines have added FF redemption fees (NWs is one of the more radical) and this is just one of them. Since a bunch of airlines had "fare pay up fees" on milage upgrades on international flight before this as I recall - flame me if I'm wrong and this is the first (I seem to recall even CO does this (don't call it nonepass for nothing ) - I see this as a typical change.

taking away bonus miles to elites is not typical.

I live in SF, fly out of SFO, and fly UA. Having bounced arround when they totally POed me in 2000, I can, and would in a heartbeat leave them over dropping bonus miles, I would not over adding a co-pay for redeming milage upgrades on international flights.

martin33

they don't have a single quote in the article, much less "many", to evidence that members feel the system overall is particularly "unfair". moreover, AA has made sure that most of those changes do not affect its most frequent or most profitable customers. There is no fee, for instance, on upgrades from business to first or from Y/B coach to business. There is also no fee on top-level members' VIP ugrades. Every last seat in the AA system remains claimable for awards at their AAnytime level--- that's a feature DL eliminated last year but is now reviving. The changes are on balance unpleasant, but do they devalue the program to the point where there is no noticeable difference between elite levels? No. They are changes at the margins leaving the heart of the program intact.

ClueByFour

So? Evaluate the product as a whole, and unless you happen to live in CLT, PHX, or PHL--who comes out on the bottom?

The logic of "well, everyone else will do it" is exactly what the boys in Tempe are hoping. It has not happened yet.

LogansRun469

Discusssion needs to be focused on the large poulation of US Air Credit Card holders that make money for US Air but punish real frequent flyers by over issuing miles for CC spending and driving the demand up for FF seats at a time when seats flying are decreased and fuel charges are higher....they need to address this...but they won't because their margins are higher on their debt programs than their actual business.

martin33

credit card (and other earned-partner) miles are profitable to the extent US can encourage them to be redeemed for award tickets of small value which the redeemer would not otherwise have spent more buying. That 25K award is no bargain for US at $250 revenue, if the redeemer would have been willing to buy a $300 or $400 ticket instead for the same trip. That tradeoff doesn't show in the balance sheet though. The one that does is the partner-redemption imbalance, that has to be settled in cash.

kudzu

Would you know if this is what Travis Christ meant when he said "the elimination of bonus miles and the subsequent reduction in the number of free tickets issued — currently more than 1 million a year — will save the company tens of millions of dollars"?

On the fact of it, it doesn't seem like much of a savings to me, and little justification for the elimination of bonus miles

BoeingBoy

An "It depends" answer is warranted.....

If the number of outstanding miles drops or doesn't increase as fast, savings result (mostly from OAL award redemptions that don't happen).

However, if the same number or more miles remain outstanding - decreased BIS miles offset by partner merchant generated miles - and the redemption pattern stays the same there will be no savings. There will be additional revenue from the partner generated miles, however.

The reasonable best case, from a bottom line for US perspective, is for most/all miles to come from the partner merchants and all reward redemptions be domestic - max income from miles at lowest cost for redeemed miles.

Worst reasonable case - all miles earned from BIS on deeply discounted tickets but redeemed on OAL, especially high-end OAL international tickets like business or first. Least revenue for miles given out (the ticket revenue from BIS may not even cover cost) and highest cost of redemption.

Jim

martin33

yep, that's the primary level effect. the secondary effect is what happens with the people formerly piling up BIS+bonus miles. if there were a lot of low-fare "scavenger" Platinums and CP's, then the secondary effect of decreasing their redemptive ability would be positive. if instead most Platinum/CP flyers were big yielding spenders, then replacing any business lost from them would be a negative. They must think the latter category is either small or consists of people stuck with using US.