Originally Posted by
olivedel
Frankly, I can only agree with you. The only competitive advantage that AF has over U2 on TLS or NCE routes is the frequency. And that is not enough today for most leisure or business travelers to direct their choice to AF.
Extreme flexibility (and simplicity of the process of course) on the day of departure would be the logical partner of the frequency to make the shuttle service attractive and profitable.
On the other hand, I do not think that the cold meal option is a bad idea. We could imagine a place at ORY after security where you pick up a basket with your meal right before boarding. Or distribute the orders of people who change their tickets to Platinums, Golds or Silvers onboard.
That's fun .
Frankly I do not see how that cold meal basket system could be operated cheaply by AF.
If they have staff bringing a big bag of individual baskets (basically a sandwich r a nice pastry) to the gate. I can foresee cases where some ordered and paid baskets will be missing. And what if the flight is delayed and boarding only takes place 57min later? Will there be a well-organized team that will "fly" to the appropriate gate just on time? Organization at the shuttle Hall will be a nightmare and there is little extra space there. Even less space when boarding at most gates, so that will create additional delays for boarding. and the cost for AF will be huge. Anyway there is already a coffee shop there and that will be viewed as unacceptable competition for them (with probably higher prices). But maybe they will be the ones operating the service and the benefit for the pax is avoiding waiting lines at the shop. But if my flight is delayed, or I arrive early, I would rather eat before security then wait after security with my basket somewhere but unavailable
Frankly, I am 100% sure that it will be a mess.
I see no other way than having a la carte service on the plane, like Easyjet or Vuelling or old Air Inter.
Flexibility is a much more important issue.
IMO, the only reason why AF can still "beat" EZY at ORY is because they control the number of gates available to EZY. But even now, having six daily EZY flights to TLS or NCE (compared to 16+ for AF) is usually enough for most pax whose ticket is either unchangeable or made extremely difficult to change by AF. Sure, changes are easier (but still not easy) for full fare tickets but these have become a small percentage on most flights.
I remember the time when you simply went to the checkin counter and asked to be moved to an earlier flight if your flight was delayed and they would immediately issue the BP. On most tickets, you now need to go to the ticket counter (and there could be long lines), cancel OLCI, reissue the new ticket with a change fee and fare difference (and AF removes cheap fare buckets on flight day). This is not in the spirit of a shuttle and provides no benefit relative to EZY for most pax. And AF need those "most pax" to be profitable, so they need to introduce flexibility to take advantage of their frequency. It is a clear idea to prevent "most pax" to move to an earlier empty flight in case of delays, to make their high fares attractive. But it also means that AF is left to compete only on price with EZY for "most pax". They are not making their frequency to be an attractive benefit.
In order to "protect" their full fare pax, they have moved to increase the inflexibility of their tickets. But given the trend in pax travel, I think that it is creating a missed opportunity.
What comes to mind (as suggested by
Orbitmic) is to create a standby procedure for earlier flights. This is already what they implement for airline staff. But it could delay departures. However, anything complicated will be a failure. All that also runs against the cost-reducing trend of removing airport staff intervention.