Originally Posted by
pbarnette
Please explain how your "math" works when nobody would willingly pay the inflated price for F you propose.
Your "argument" is that DL should sell F at a price above which they could actually sell seats in F. Somehow, this is supposed to "protect" some sort of revenue in F. By this "logic" the optimal pricing strategy would be to price F at $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 or more per seat. Please explain how such a pricing strategy would benefit DL.
My point was not about protecting revenue... it was about protecting the product. I am just echoing back the same logic that DL management use in justifying not providing complementary UGs TATL or TPAC... it's to protect the integrity of the product.
They still maintain a $1600 F fare on a route that they flood with $400 P fares. Why maintain the $1600 F fare, other than to retain the ability to hose the last person who really needs a seat on that plane?
The $400 PP fare is a concession that F is not worth $1600. So, why should anyone ever buy an F fare?
One might ask, don't complementary UGs devalue the perception of what F is worth? It's hard to dispute that.
So why not do away with complementary UGs... apart from the obvious revolt that would cause in the FF ranks.
Answer... because not enough people are willing to pay the P fare required to keep FC filled. Yet, DL is holding back 24 of 26 seats on some flights, expecting a last minute sales miracle. Sort of like the old Peanuts cartoons with Charlie Brown on the pitcher's mound, in the pouring rain, begging everyone not to go home because "It might stop raining."
And loyal FFs are losing confidence in the value of SM as a result.