Originally Posted by
Stranger
Maybe. Maybe not.
All of this is anecdotal at this point. Limited to FT crowd, which may or may not be representative. Pure speculation, really.
Actually AC may even have decided that these bottom feeders while bringing in some cash flow are actually a burden rather than a benefit? Right or wrong... Indeed this sort of conclusion is always a function of costing models, which as all accounting, are more or less an exercise in creative writing rather than objective truth. But don't tell the accountants.
My sample goes well beyond the FT crowd. And "Bottom Feeders" are actually good for AC, or any airline. They represent a loyal group of customers who can be relied upon to purchase several thousand dollars worth of seats each year with consistency and regularity. Although they purchase the lowest upgrade eligible fare, when they are upgraded they create an additional economy seat that can be sold a second time, often at a higher price because the lowest inventory has long gone. They only take up a business or first class seat when that seat is determined by the airline to otherwise go out empty. The marginal cost of food and alcohol is minimal and more than made up by being able to resell the original economy seat. Similarly any costs related to lounge use is also recouped by the resale of the original economy seat. So "Bottom Feeders" are actually beneficial to the airlines, not a liability.