US Airways Asking Frequent Flyers to Abandon Express Flights
The new US Airways policy asks passengers who must fly a filthy, bumpy, no-frills Express Flight in and out of the hubs to do so without the small bonus of some extra preferred miles that used to make the flight seem almost tolerable.
In effect, US Airways is asking us to abandon the Express Flights and either drive to the hub or find another airline.
Has anyone in management ever taken a TA flight into PHL, waited for a late Express Flight at the far end of Terminal F, where there is no food, not able to go to the Club, because they tell you, no, you must wait by the gate, and then boarded the flight hungry and thirsty with no hope of getting even a glass of water on the flight, during your 18 hour trip, because "due to the shortness of this flight there will be no beverage service"--no service for the next hour--and even if there were beverage service the little plane is bouncing like a bronco, as it almost always does during the low-altitude flight to upstate New York.
US will be the ONLY carrier in the world that I'm aware of with this policy. It's shocking how clueless these people can be.
Japanese airlines have this policy. It's kind of a bummer considering that most Japanese domestic flights are under 500 miles. The only saving grace is that they give double EQMs for domestic flights.
Programs: US Airways Gold; AA Usedtabe; UA Never Was; Delta Never if I can help it
Posts: 1,012
I've supported US on many things... but this is just stupid and bad business. People like me who go for elite status on US with miles now have no reason to pay a little extra on those short haul flights just for the mileage.
So next time I have to fly from BOS-LGA I won't care about the 500 miles and elite status - I'll fly the lowest price possible. Previously i would have spent 20 or 30 bucks more on a US ticket for the 500 miles, the bonus miles and a first class seat (and Biscoff cookies.) Some extra Biscoff (and Delta has them too) just don't matter...
US, this was a stupid decision that I suspect you'll regret. I think they're overestimating the value of segments to short-haul flyers vs. the need to give them miles too.
Incidentally, Air Canada's lowest fare category you get 25% of the mileage - that's it. You also have to pay $20 to book a seat in advance, $150 for same day airport changes, $25 to have your ticket serviced at the airport...
BUT they will take $3 off your ticket if you check no bags, $3 off your ticket if you don't take Aeroplan miles and $5 off your ticket if you promise not to change your ticket.
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 8,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonMark
Incidentally, Air Canada's lowest fare category you get 25% of the mileage - that's it. You also have to pay $20 to book a seat in advance, $150 for same day airport changes, $25 to have your ticket serviced at the airport...
BUT they will take $3 off your ticket if you check no bags, $3 off your ticket if you don't take Aeroplan miles and $5 off your ticket if you promise not to change your ticket.
AC's domestic competition is exclusively provided by LCCs. US has other legacy carriers to deal with. Apparently, their line in the sand is to stop trying.
I predict that DL's shuttles are going to be a lot busier.
Like others, this makes absolutely no sense to me for the following reasons:
- This will provide zero additional direct revenue - the miles are carried as a liability on the balance sheet until redeemed, when they show up in the P&L as an expense.
The number of "unflown" miles/segment is relatively small (from 1 to 410 using DOT mileage) - it would take a lot of short-haul segments to earn enough "unflown" miles for any type of award.
- This will affect the short-haul elite who is often providing a high yield already (as has been said) and also often on a RJ or turboprop without the "normal" perks of elite status - a few "free" miles is a small bone to throw them.
- At the end of the day, US controls the expense of miles redemption - award availability.
My hunch, and that's all it is, is that they're seeing a disturbing redemption trend - a higher percentage of miles being redeemed on *A/codeshare partners. I suspect that those redemptions are about the most expensive for US (other than possibly lost revenue from otherwise being able to sell an award seat on US). I'm guessing that they see this as an easy way to lower award redemptions going forward - short-haul is a smaller percentage of traditional HP flying than it is of the East operation plus most of the West short-haul is in competition to real lcc's and thus low yield. Just another example of their universe only existing west of the Mississippi.
This will provide zero additional direct revenue - the miles are carried as a liability on the balance sheet until redeemed, when they show up in the P&L as an expense.
Yes, and with fewer miles awarded, less expense = higher profit. (Not counting any effect of lost business otherwise - just looking at the static picture.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
The number of "unflown" miles/segment is relatively small (from 1 to 410 using DOT mileage) - it would take a lot of short-haul segments to earn enough "unflown" miles for any type of award.
If your point is that they won't be saving themselves many miles awarded, then the flip side is that the customers won't be losing many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
I'm guessing that they see this as an easy way to lower award redemptions going forward
Being almost exclusively a US-longhualer, I'll be happy if redemptions competing with mine decrease. Not everyone loses here - like most things - it is a question of *who* loses and what the net effect will be. Probably a positive effect for them for my part.
Yes, and with fewer miles awarded, less expense = higher profit. (Not counting any effect of lost business otherwise - just looking at the static picture.)
First, the picture is never static (unless you're in charge of government revenue/cost projections). Second, as I said, there is no expense until the miles are redeemed. Only if these "bonus" miles make the difference between being able to get an award redemption or not, is there any expense. Then the expense varies depending on the redemption.
Quote:
If your point is that they won't be saving themselves many miles awarded, then the flip side is that the customers won't be losing many.
No, my point was that in the great scheme of things US we're talking about a relative few miles. For the individual short-haul customer, it can make a big difference - especially if that customer primarily flies Express without any of the "normal" perks of their elite status.
Quote:
Being almost exclusively a US-longhualer, I'll be happy if redemptions competing with mine decrease.
And therein lies the rub - a transcon passenger theoretically creates 6-20 times the mileage liability (and potential expense) of the short-haul passenger, yet often provides a fraction of the profit that the short-haul flier provides. It the bottom line is so important, which one would you screw? The low-yield or high yield passenger?
Programs: US1, UA1K, Hilton/Hyatt Diamond, SPG Plat, PC Gold
Posts: 2,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooper
Yes, and with fewer miles awarded, less expense = higher profit. (Not counting any effect of lost business otherwise - just looking at the static picture.)
See my analysis below - there's no way this policy change will increase profit if even a few FFers walk out the door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooper
If your point is that they won't be saving themselves many miles awarded, then the flip side is that the customers won't be losing many.
How about this example - PRC-PHX is 88 miles and let's say $200 r/t. Works out to $100 per segment.
If you're paying $1.14 or more per mile when US' CASM is around $0.10, is it really worth pissing you off by eliminating the $4.12 in bonus miles (@ $0.01 each) that you'd earn on that? After all, you're paying more than ten times the cost per mile to US, which increases to $0.11 if they factor in a very generous (to them) cost for miles. I can fly PHX-MUC in the off-season and pay $0.03 per mile - they're losing $0.07 per mile on me, but I'm "valuable" enough to get full mileage.
This new policy is a logical fallacy of the highest order, and I say that as someone who flew only 37 segments on US last year and made CP (read: transcon and TATL almost exclusively)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooper
Being almost exclusively a US-longhualer, I'll be happy if redemptions competing with mine decrease. Not everyone loses here - like most things - it is a question of *who* loses and what the net effect will be. Probably a positive effect for them for my part.
It's a positive until they go out of business because their high revenue, low cost, short segment flyers leave them.
Whether you fly US short or long-haul, this policy will affect you negatively.
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Posts: 8,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClueByFour (Post #14)
This is going to piss off a number of high yield markets, particularly the shuttle.
It also really only works if everyone else does it. If US is the only major that pulls this crap, it's really unlikely to stick.
US is capable of sticking to a bad decision for a long time. Recall that US Airways Club life members must still pay extra annually for Red Carpet Club or Star Alliance club access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClueByFour (Post #14)
Not bloody likely. The only question worth knowing the answer to here is if one still gets 500 miles to credit a Star alliance partner (notably United). If that's the case, I predict a whole slew of new 1P/2P/1K this year and next.
I agree, the latter is the big question. I doubt US would give 500 miles to UA flyers, or allow UA to do so, less US disincentivize travel on their short-hauls even more than this decision will do.
Programs: US1, UA1K, Hilton/Hyatt Diamond, SPG Plat, PC Gold
Posts: 2,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
I agree, the latter is the big question. I doubt US would give 500 miles to UA flyers, or allow UA to do so, less US disincentivize travel on their short-hauls even more than this decision will do.
So I'm guessing that the answer is "no."
I could be wrong, but US doesn't have anything to do with UA's determination of who gets miles for what. It's up to each individual airline.
US may give only actual miles, but UA is free to give whatever they want for a US flight credited to them.
LH is a good example. LH gives their members 50% credit for an S-class fare. US only gives 50% credit. UA gives 100%. I have no idea how it works within the alliance - if you fly LH but credit to UA, does LH "pay" UA for the miles? Or do they figure it nets even over the course of a year?
Regardless, different carriers can have different policies.
Interestingly enough, US got their *A mileage accrual chart updated right away - in small bold print at the bottom it mentions the change to actual miles flown is effective May 1, 2008.
