Originally Posted by
chinatraderjmr
I think you misread what I said. A > P, that makes sense BUT A < Z, This makes no sense. Both P & Z should be less then A, (all 3 are heavly restricted). only C & some D fares should be higher then some A fares. Right?
No, I see your point, and I don't agree. I think that cheapest F seat should always be more expensive than cheapest J seat, and this holds true in your
example. As for the details beyond that, who really cares?
Originally Posted by
chinatraderjmr
This is what you & I discussed a few weeks ago. I'll make 1K naturally or I won't but I certainly wont chase it & I certainly would no longer buy F or C fares again when P or super cheap A gets me the same seat. With GF TPAC fares < $5,000 & BF TATL fares < $3,000, who needs GPU's?
This is surely not a coincidence. I believe they have devalued GPUs to the point they are basically standby instruments with lowest priority to be used only for inventory that surely can't be sold.
And, I think you and I agree, with fares like this, it doesn't much matter.
Originally Posted by
chinatraderjmr
True, but imagine how ridiculous it is when a company has a NO first / business class policy so your forced to buy a Y tkt, only to learn there are discount C fares cheaper. In this day & ago of pricing, companies should get rid if no premium class restrictions & replace it with just "best fare". Many already do this but many don't
Corporate travel policies are often ridiculous and produce all sorts of insane outcomes.
This is why the X-UP and especially the TOD/HOD offers are great. If you have to buy "economy" then you can buy M-UP and qualify. If you have to buy lowest available, then do it, and exercise an HOD to get in front. Sure, maybe you have to pay for the HOD out of your pocket, but if you're in a business where you bill by the hour and you can use the space in F to get work done instead of being squished into a painful torture position in the back with no chance of working b/c you can't even open your laptop screen, then it's a sound investment.
I really feel bad for corporate travelers who are on a salary and forced into "cheapest available" and can't use the time for work and can't justify spending much on the HOD. I think that's the worst position to be in. That's when the UA-style CPU/RPU/GPU game becomes a life saver and that's where I can understand doing MRs to get status, except for the fact that the rewards have been cut so drastically that it no longer seems even worth the effort in that case.
Originally Posted by
chinatraderjmr
American carriers, yes. Some foreign carriers, not so much. What I don't understand is when American carriers charge more for F & C then world class foreign airlines. I just priced a one way SFO-ICN for next month in F. UA's price on the non stop is $2800 more then the SQ F price. What's up with that? UA's full F & C fares to DXB are higher then EK's in almost every market I checked. Most govt workers might be stuck w UA but they don't buy premium. Big companies get big discounts on UA but what's the point when that discount lowers the fare to the same thing you would pay on SQ w no discount?
Well, the corporate discounts apply to everything, so the company gets x% off all travel in exchange for a commitment to UA. In aggregate, the company is better off than if they committed less to UA, got less of a discount, and then let their employees fly on foreign carriers as the same price. The companies that sign these contracts don't care how good the service is in J or C, they just care about minimizing travel expense.
Originally Posted by
chinatraderjmr
Only in these markets I believe. Check LH's F fare from JFK-JNB & then shop around. LH/AF/BA have very similar fares on USA-AFRICA/ASIA 1 stop flights but they can't compete w the Gulf carriers & its KILLING their premium traffic. (LH is converting existing WB's to 2 class while EK awaits 100 more 380's). Both make good business sense but it's sad & its not the airlines fault there. I firmly believe that EK/AU/GF do not get unfair help from their Govts but these Govts also don't stand in their way. European & American carriers get hammered by their respective Govts. It's the only thing I agree w Smisek about (plus his choice in ties .
If we shift the conversation beyond *A, then it becomes more complicated, because it means giving up RDMs which means less free travel (and let's admit it, *A redemption is outstanding), and at the margins, it means giving up status, which still offers certain benefits compared with no status - I just question the incremental value of 75K or 100K levels over the 50K level at this point. So, UA and *A generally can charge more for less in exchange for the value of the *A network and premium status on that network. Honestly, I'm amazed how well I'm treated overseas as a Gold. For example, I recently got to the airport 15 minutes after gate close for LIS-FAO on TP, and they actually rushed me through and made an exception, and they told me they did it only b/c I was *G. So, if choosing EK means only being 25K vs. 50K level on UA, is that really best? I think the EK type discussion needs to be had in the context of what status one is giving up, and how that status affects other flights (i.e. US domestic) where there aren't such choices.