Monsters brought piles of drink coupons out of the drawers of non-drinkers of alcoholic beverages. Southwest was probably not collecting enough cash to cover even the raw cost of the drinks. This was very different from alcoholic drinks.
The options were to drop Monster, end coupon use, or eat the loss to make customers happy. Option 3 has been off the table for a very long time, if it was ever on the table. Option 2 is better for everyone than Option 1.
The fact that Option 3 was off the table speaks volumes about the change in Southwest's values and culture over time. In fact, the entire drink coupon issue speaks greater volumes to me about values than the entire RR2.0 change, even though the RR2.0 change represents a huge cost increase to fly WN whereas the drink coupon thing doesn't affect me personally one bit.
My reason is that the RR2.0 change can be justified purely on the economic laws that we accept in a fair marketplace. Demand exists at a higher price point, so Southwest is changing their system to accommodate that and part of that change is a new system to induce business travelers to migrate up to higher fares. It now costs a large amount more to fly Southwest but passengers continue to show up and fill the planes so how can anyone really complain? The drink coupon policies, on the other hand, seem petty, mean-spirited, and outright unfair to many.
Originally Posted by texashoser
Sorry, no. WN isn't under any contractual obligation to award drink coupons to their frequent fliers in the first place - they can end this program at any time. Because those coupons are given out free, for free drinks, WN can choose to stop giving them out, stop accepting them, or amend what can be gotten for free with the coupons any time they choose.
That's not the issue. Yes, I think everybody on FT is aware of the fact that airlines can change or discontinue their frequent-flier programs. But I disagree that frequent-flier awards are "free" - they are indeed paid for over the course of time, bundled into our previous flights, rental cars, hotels, credit card purchases, flowers, and other products. You're paying for a fraction of a future drink and future airline seat whether you use it or not.
So yes the airlines can legally get away with a lot - frankly, the absence of regulation over FFP's is probably good for us in the long run because our points/miles are not treated as assets, wealth, income, or property. That removes most taxation issues and enables redemption opportunities that wouldn't be possible otherwise. But how the airline chooses to handle the programs and treat its clients speaks volumes about its character.