That's a fair question. They offered to double to $50, and I felt that, given their lack of sympathy to my issues, it was still fairly thin. I think, had they offered one of two things, when I'd gotten on board, I would have been satisfied:
A) $100 or more in vouchers
B) A free upgrade from coach to F that could have been booked in advance and without capacity constraints (obviously, assuming a seat was available for sale....)
It's sad. I was actually excited to try out VX!!!! My lifetime value to them would have been way more than the expense of making me happy on this. That tells me that their operations or marketing folks aren't thinking straight. I'm also guessing that their folks aren't directly reading this board. Given that there were two of us in F that night, and I believe I was the only to call and complain on that flight, they have enough information to figure out who I am.
I'm guessing Branson's folks don't read this either. If they do, I travel premium class TATL quite a bit. My lifetime value to Virgin Atlantic is likely way more than $100 in vouchers.
Your VS travel doesn't mean anything to them. Branson doesn't run this airline.
I think your option "A" would not be equivalent to your loss, but option "B" would be perfectly reasonable. I would ask for that, specifically.
__________________
My profile only lists status I've earned (not Centurion amenities)
Once you try Red, you'll never go back to Ted
Programs: Various bits of plastic with names of noble metals on them
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
A) $100 or more in vouchers
B) A free upgrade from coach to F that could have been booked in advance and without capacity constraints (obviously, assuming a seat was available for sale....)
OK, well, consider that B) could be used for a transcon flight on VX, theoretically... the value of which which would have been FAR more than what you paid for your F flight from LAS to SFO.
A) is probably more reasonable to expect. One thing I'd note is your fellow passengers in Y got a free movie voucher for most of the same inconvenience you had (no IFE- though their seats don't have massager/power recline options that yours would have). So if your voucher should have been bumped in value from $25 to $100, should their vouchers have been bumped as well?
And yeah, I agree with the last poster- it's possible that you are an influential, but this is what EVERYONE says when they are trying to get something. Proof is helpful.
Honestly? I'd probably write to VX Customer Care at this point, in your shoes, and make my case. If nothing else, they should know about the poor experience you had with the representative you spoke with on the phone (and a letter on company letterhead might help make the point that you ARE an influential potential customer). Also, I DO suspect VX folks hang out here, from some of the comments I've seen. Any airline that has half a brain knows this is where a good chunk of high-revenue customers hang out... and from my experience, they do seem pretty smart.
As a final note... I'll be flying LAS-SFO-SEA in a couple weeks on VX. I will likely only try for F for $50 on the SFO-SEA leg, though. I'm not paying $50 for 400 miles of a dark VX flight.
If you knew how many people claim to have the potential to drive tens of thousands of dollars while looking for a credit, well...
If you had a bunch of advance booking with them and made the claim - see how much I've spent and will continue to spend, that claim holds a bit more water, IME.
My first flight with VX was a test to see if I liked it. The test failed. I tend not to commit to 10s of thousands of dollars of purchases of a product with a company until I test it out.
Quite frankly, it really isn't worth my time or effort to make a bunch of bookings on VX just to press the issue to get a voucher. I gave them one chance, and they failed. I started up this thread, which grew a life of its own.
I book my own travel, and I am not subject to corporate travel policies. I am an EXP on AA, with a EQP/EQM ratio well above 1. I am also 2MM, mostly from BIS and associated bonuses.
Regardless, the point is moot. VX seems to care very little. And, at this point, feeling is quite mutual....
Your VS travel doesn't mean anything to them. Branson doesn't run this airline.
I think your option "A" would not be equivalent to your loss, but option "B" would be perfectly reasonable. I would ask for that, specifically.
The flight was 2 months ago at this point, so this issue is over and done with in my opinion.
And, yes, Branson does not run this airline, and, based on their actions, that fact is obvious. But he does own, and is very protective, of the Virgin brand. VX, through its actions, has tarnished that brand.
OK, well, consider that B) could be used for a transcon flight on VX, theoretically... the value of which which would have been FAR more than what you paid for your F flight from LAS to SFO.
A) is probably more reasonable to expect. One thing I'd note is your fellow passengers in Y got a free movie voucher for most of the same inconvenience you had (no IFE- though their seats don't have massager/power recline options that yours would have). So if your voucher should have been bumped in value from $25 to $100, should their vouchers have been bumped as well?
And yeah, I agree with the last poster- it's possible that you are an influential, but this is what EVERYONE says when they are trying to get something. Proof is helpful.
Honestly? I'd probably write to VX Customer Care at this point, in your shoes, and make my case. If nothing else, they should know about the poor experience you had with the representative you spoke with on the phone (and a letter on company letterhead might help make the point that you ARE an influential potential customer). Also, I DO suspect VX folks hang out here, from some of the comments I've seen. Any airline that has half a brain knows this is where a good chunk of high-revenue customers hang out... and from my experience, they do seem pretty smart.
As a final note... I'll be flying LAS-SFO-SEA in a couple weeks on VX. I will likely only try for F for $50 on the SFO-SEA leg, though. I'm not paying $50 for 400 miles of a dark VX flight.
Like I said in a prior post, this flight was now several months ago, and, seriously, I'd rather just avoid VX. If folks from VX are lurking on this board, and would like to see my "proof", they need only send me a PM to get this all started. I could certainly provide plenty of proof to any VX employees who privately contact me. I'm certainly not sharing such information in a public message board.
But, in terms of writing a letter or complaining more to VX, I am done. Even for $100, just not worth my time, energy, or frustration. I would rather let it go, and just never fly VX again. Oh, and keep a two plus month old thread alive which lets all newcomers know that VX has some very (IMHO) sketchy business practices. I was not trying to play DYKWIA, I was just making a point that, with me, they had an awesome opp'y to score a customer with a high lifetime value, and they totally and completely blew it.
And, really, what VX should have done is not purposefully schedule and fly a dark A319.
Programs: Chuck, Heroes, Burn Notice and any of the Law and Orders. Wait - what? That's not what you meant?
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO 1K
let's get off the whole "advertising something and getting something else" bandwagon
Why? Because it's an inconvenient argument for you to counter?
Stop being a fanboy and face facts - VX attempts to sell themselves as being better than the competition based on their amenities, among which are IFE, even on short flights. When one of the aircraft in their small fleet lacks what they advertise, it makes for a very negative customer experience.
WN is consistently ranked high in customer satisfaction because they don't promise much, and customers know that going in. As the relative expectations are fairly low - just transportation from A to B in a timely manner - it's hard for customers to come away dissatisfied.
VX suffers from the opposite phenomenon - they attempt to gain business based on promising all these toys to their customers, not just A to B transport. Again, customers know this going in. So when they don't deliver on that, customer satisfaction is shattered. And it's hard to recover from that.
IMHO, they'd be far better served to take that A319 out of service entirely until it can be brought up to the same standards as the rest of the fleet. It will be costly, but they're doing far worse harm to their still-new brand by having this plane disappointing customers left and right.
Then again, VX needed a $100M cash infusion...and since analysts have projected their CASM at 2X to 3X times higher what their competitors' costs are, while getting lower RASM vs. their competitors at $114.00/bbl for fuel (with no hedges and anemic load factors), there's a good possibility VX will not last to the end of the year.
Why? Because it's an inconvenient argument for you to counter?
Stop being a fanboy and face facts - VX attempts to sell themselves as being better than the competition based on their amenities, among which are IFE, even on short flights. When one of the aircraft in their small fleet lacks what they advertise, it makes for a very negative customer experience.
WN is consistently ranked high in customer satisfaction because they don't promise much, and customers know that going in. As the relative expectations are fairly low - just transportation from A to B in a timely manner - it's hard for customers to come away dissatisfied.
VX suffers from the opposite phenomenon - they attempt to gain business based on promising all these toys to their customers, not just A to B transport. Again, customers know this going in. So when they don't deliver on that, customer satisfaction is shattered. And it's hard to recover from that.
IMHO, they'd be far better served to take that A319 out of service entirely until it can be brought up to the same standards as the rest of the fleet. It will be costly, but they're doing far worse harm to their still-new brand by having this plane disappointing customers left and right.
Then again, VX needed a $100M cash infusion...and since analysts have projected their CASM at 2X to 3X times higher what their competitors' costs are, while getting lower RASM vs. their competitors at $114.00/bbl for fuel (with no hedges and anemic load factors), there's a good possibility VX will not last to the end of the year.
Time will tell.
Well said, though I don't necessarily agree that there is a "good possibility" VX will not last to the end of the year. Good to see you posting again Snowdevil!
Programs: Various bits of plastic with names of noble metals on them
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdevil
Then again, VX needed a $100M cash infusion...and since analysts have projected their CASM at 2X to 3X times higher what their competitors' costs are, while getting lower RASM vs. their competitors at $114.00/bbl for fuel (with no hedges and anemic load factors), there's a good possibility VX will not last to the end of the year.
The cash infusion was planned, FWIW.
You might also find this discussion in the AS forum of interest.
But hey, everyone though Branson was crazy starting up the other Virgin airlines, too. I guess time will tell if he's stupid or a genius when it comes to the US market.
Why? Because it's an inconvenient argument for you to counter?
Stop being a fanboy and face facts - VX attempts to sell themselves as being better than the competition based on their amenities, among which are IFE, even on short flights. When one of the aircraft in their small fleet lacks what they advertise, it makes for a very negative customer experience.
Then again, VX needed a $100M cash infusion...and since analysts have projected their CASM at 2X to 3X times higher what their competitors' costs are, while getting lower RASM vs. their competitors at $114.00/bbl for fuel (with no hedges and anemic load factors), there's a good possibility VX will not last to the end of the year.
Time will tell.
Your point about fanboism as well as your point about advertising without delivering may be spot on, but you wrecked all of your credibility with your final paragraph, which is pure FUD.
Where do you get your "anemic load factors" numbers? If they are from February or ealier, you can't quote them as current. There's plenty of evidence that their load factors are actually quite good at the moment. There's also plenty of good discussion in this forum showing how they have an excellent chance of being around for quite a long time.
__________________
My profile only lists status I've earned (not Centurion amenities)
Once you try Red, you'll never go back to Ted
Programs: Chuck, Heroes, Burn Notice and any of the Law and Orders. Wait - what? That's not what you meant?
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by aviators99
Where do you get your "anemic load factors" numbers? If they are from February or ealier, you can't quote them as current. There's plenty of evidence that their load factors are actually quite good at the moment. There's also plenty of good discussion in this forum showing how they have an excellent chance of being around for quite a long time.
Regrettably I'm not at liberty to discuss it further, but let's just say that I have access to information that you do not and leave it at that. That information paints a dramatically different picture of VX's current situation than they'd probably like people to know.
But to since I can't discuss my information, let me point out something that's already public - would a carrier that is the picture of health and stability be fighting so hard to keep their Form 41 information from becoming public?
Regrettably I'm not at liberty to discuss it further, but let's just say that I have access to information that you do not and leave it at that. That information paints a dramatically different picture of VX's current situation than they'd probably like people to know.
But to since I can't discuss my information, let me point out something that's already public - would a carrier that is the picture of health and stability be fighting so hard to keep their Form 41 information from becoming public?
Sorry, but I'm not buying your "I can tell you, but I'd have to kill you" stance
The last couple flights I've had with them (within the last week), have been packed. And the only F seat that was free (on only one of the flights) wasn't sold because it was not functional.
But to since I can't discuss my information, let me point out something that's already public - would a carrier that is the picture of health and stability be fighting so hard to keep their Form 41 information from becoming public?
Yes.
Every carrier in the world would love to avoid giving out that information, no matter how it looks.
Sorry, you have no inside information.
Perhaps you work for United or Alaska, and that's why you're spreading FUD, but your bosses don't actually know what's going on with VX.
__________________
My profile only lists status I've earned (not Centurion amenities)
Once you try Red, you'll never go back to Ted
Programs: Various bits of plastic with names of noble metals on them
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdevil
Regrettably I'm not at liberty to discuss it further, but let's just say that I have access to information that you do not and leave it at that. That information paints a dramatically different picture of VX's current situation than they'd probably like people to know.
But to since I can't discuss my information, let me point out something that's already public - would a carrier that is the picture of health and stability be fighting so hard to keep their Form 41 information from becoming public?
So you're seriously asserting that on VX's transcon flights, well into their first year of operation, they are paying $500-1000 MORE in operational costs per passenger than the average carrier? Because that's what 2x-3x CASM over everyone else means, when you boil off the broth.
I could buy an argument that their RASM sucks- it would be expected given the introductory pricing and the economy right now. But your argument seems to be that Branson's a stone idiot and is flushing away good money after bad- because he basically signed off on a model that no way of EVER being profitable (because realistically, if your costs are going to be 2x-3x times everyone else's, and you can't find any operational efficiencies, you have no business running an airline). All things being equal, I tend to believe the billionaire who's actually done this before over the FT poster.
Programs: Chuck, Heroes, Burn Notice and any of the Law and Orders. Wait - what? That's not what you meant?
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
realistically, if your costs are going to be 2x-3x times everyone else's, and you can't find any operational efficiencies, you have no business running an airline
We agree on that part.
Look, I was asked to back up my info and as I've said, I'm not able to discuss it other than to simply say things are far worse for VX than they're letting on.
No one has to believe me if they don't want to - and in reading everyone's posts in this forum, I can certainly understand the desire to not believe what I say. There's a small, very proud "VX can do no wrong" contingent here that bashes or dismisses anyone who dares speak ill of them.
But I live in the world where things like FACTS are important, and the facts I have access to tell me VX is in a world of hurt and may not survive long term.
Look, I was asked to back up my info and as I've said, I'm not able to discuss it other than to simply say things are far worse for VX than they're letting on.
No one has to believe me if they don't want to - and in reading everyone's posts in this forum, I can certainly understand the desire to not believe what I say. There's a small, very proud "VX can do no wrong" contingent here that bashes or dismisses anyone who dares speak ill of them.
But I live in the world where things like FACTS are important, and the facts I have access to tell me VX is in a world of hurt and may not survive long term.
Snowdevil,
You've not presented any FACTS. In the absense of facts, you are spreading FUD. Obviously, I am not part of a contingent of "VX can do no wrong," as my first statement above is that you are correct about fanboism and the misleading advertising about the IFE (specifically with respect to the dark A319). Just to be clear about that, let me say "They have done wrong."
I am a fan of the airline, and want them to succeed, but will call them out on every bad thing they do. I told their executives when I met them on the inaugural SEA-SFO flight that the dark A319 hurts the brand. It was not easy for them to hear, I suppose because they feel that they would be worse off if they took it offline, but I disagree (especially when it seems that they apparently have enough planes to add another transcon flight).
Hopefully, I've convinced you that I'm not promoting fanboism. Now, come clean and admit that you know nothing of VX's financial status and are spreading FUD
__________________
My profile only lists status I've earned (not Centurion amenities)
Once you try Red, you'll never go back to Ted
