Originally Posted by
avidflyer
You left out an important one: Mileage Upgrades.
I rarely buy anything above the lowest BUT...the 150% EQM is a kicker for me when deciding to cough up for the ability to give NW my miles for an upgrade TPAC or TATL. It takes a little of the sting out and is a bit of a balancing data point when I am making that decision. I bet this will impact the number of people who buy-up to a B for upgrades.
Yet how much sting has been taken out, and how much weight on that balancing point is being moved?
So I'm hearing you're buying your way into Coach the least expensive way possible (
V fare), or you're buying your way into Business the least expensive way possible (
B fare + miles). So the question is... if EQM for B went down to 100%, would you
still pay the V->B fare difference to sit in Business?
At the individual transaction level, I'd say 99.5% of people would say "yes", they would still buy B fare, add miles, and sit in C. The Business seat for 9-15 hours is more important then 2000-3000 EQM.
Yet what about
brand loyalty? My perception is that the customer would look simply at "I paid more, I want more". Yes, they get more by sitting in C, yet they want the EQM bonus. And when competing airlines still offer 150% EQM, that brand loyalty will be broken, and the customer will shift allegiances.
Short-term, this appears to be a winner. Long-term, this appears to be a loser (
if other loyalty programs continue 150% EQM!). IMO.
Yet this is all academic. Has anyone confirmed this report?