(Please note, this appears unconfirmed. I've yet to see a seconding of this from another DL Plat, and/or a scan of the documents. So let's all keep a level head about ourselves. Hopefully today, we'll get some more info on this one. )

This counterpoint is being brought to you by someone who's thought they're in the running for the least profitable Plat in the system. Ironically, this change effects me the least, considering I'm a K kinda pax. So this discussion is academic to me... until you come for my K fares. Yet, as a customer, it appears we've transferred from the moronic bus to the idiocy train... because in the words of a grifter... don't beach the whale!

Counterpoint:

Does 150% EQM on YB fares provide measurable providor benefit... aside from goodwill, customer loyalty, etc?

Is the unmeasurable potential lost revenue of unpurchased YB fares greater or less then the expense of the 50% EQM bonus?

Will this drive away more revenue then the expenses being saved?

Why do people buy a YB fare? Usually because that's the only bucket available, for what they want/need. Either because they want to be at a certain place at a certain time (late purchase, business need, personal crisis, etc), or they want a certain benefit from that fare class (YUP, PMUs, etc). Will this change be the X-factor to drive them to another carrier?

Point:

This breaks the charge-more-get-more, charge-less-get-less paradigm. Some pax can't buy F (legal, auditing, policy, etc), so 150% in YB should be considered a requirement. Very confusing.

They're gonna do what they're gonna do, We're gonna to do what we're gonna do. They can be holistic, we can be holistic. I'm still waiting for the TLK announcements. That's my X-factor, for MR all-in... or all-out.