Alaska does the best job of creating the aura of customer concern, while, in reality, delivering less. They do such a good job of that, that this post will doubtlessly deliver strong negative comments about my assertions.
Is it really that impossible to believe other people might value different things than you do?
That said, let's look at the facts. On a comparative basis, AS fares, especially premium, are higher.
Welcome to being in a secondary market. Nonstop service when you have a monopoly on the nonstop is likely to run higher.
I think your point is well taken, though, that if you compare AS's EWR-SEA to CO's EWR-SEA or AA"s SEA-JFK, thanks to AS clamping down on upgradeable fares at the time of purchase, there's no real analogue to CO's M+ fare and AA's P fares (and yes, AS F is quite a bit more expensive than those, though pure F all the prices are comparable).
However, if AS is selling out F on SEA-EWR anyway and getting MORE revenue out of their F cabin by selling pure F... why would you expect them to leave money on the table?
We simply don't know if they've optimized revenue or not. That is the name of the game for selling fares to your F cabin, no?
Advance upgrades on longer routes are almost non existent, even when seat maps show the F compartment nearly empty.
I've flown in F on a G/T "hot Deals" fare during the last 12 months on ORD-SEA, DFW-SEA, SEA-MCO-SEA, and BOS-SEA (missing the upgrade only on SEA-BOS).
5/6 for upgrades on midcon/transcon on very cheap fares doesn't say to ME that upgrades are non-existent. I would believe, though, that EWR and DCA are pretty jammed.
Awards for premium seats are tough.
This also depends on the route.
RT transcons consume 100K miles, and shunt you to partner carriers.
Huh? How is this possible? AS doesn't have any access to partner inventory at anything other than 25K Y/50K F for domestic flights.
The supposed 50 off AS50, is capped at $250, meaning, unless you're going to California, it's really an AS20. On top of that, even though the use of that award can produce a ticket still costing $1000, awarded mileage for that trip is a fraction of what a coach ticket, bought for a third of that price, earns.
You're a bit out of date on that. As of February, it's $100/$200 off, 10K/20K, full mileage... and now more like an AS15. I won't argue with the value proposition being terrible, though.
They are the masters of asking you what you want, when they already know what they are going to do, while making it look like it was your idea. I know I'm just a malcontent, but the next time you take one of those free Gold lunches, figure what it really cost you.
Well, let's assume that we could implement things like opening up the U bucket at time of purchase and reversing the changes in the awards (I know, not bloody likely, but hear me out). Assume there's a substantial, non-trivial dollar cost to doing this (I think this is a safe assumption, given that AS likes making profits and probably did what it did because it was profitable for them to do so). Given that, what gets cut in order to get what you want? Where do you want to make tradeoffs? Do you think other flyers might want to make different tradeoffs?
It's not being a malcontent to realize you're not getting what you want out of a business relationship... but if you figure that AS wants profits
and satisfied customers, their motives are pretty clear. Maybe they just don't think what you want will make them as much money and lead to customer satisfaction as what they think will.