Originally Posted by
pitz
To sample the product, perhaps? Eventually most students grow up, and they become AC's biggest customer base.
And its not like the student otherwise would buy the J-fare. So AC isn't depriving themselves of a revenue opportunity if they have available seats and would otherwise fly them empty or op-up someone. Unlike the case where, with the big spending customer, they might be able to get that customer to buy a J fare of some sort, whether as an upgrade from a higher-fare class ticket, a LMU, etc.
Based on the # of empty seats up front of the # of crew now sitting up front, I argue against your last premise. AC would rather those seats fly empty to protect the exclusivity of that cabin (not my words).
So in this case, while I can see your argument about the student, ultimately, AC knows that student would not buy the J fare. AC does not care at all about previous spend and/or loyalty, and AC probably wants a regular Flex paying passenger on a lucrative route like YYZ YVR to sit up front once in a while than a student. Since AC doesn't want that pax sitting up front without paying for it, it sure as heck doesn't want that student sitting up front.
Also, the student premise is off. You had said that a student is probably in a middle to upper class eschelon in a socioeconomic chain. In that case, I would expect that student to buy a LMU rather than to cheapen the product.
Case in point, when I was doing my undergraduate degree, I either flew J by redeeming AE points or I bought LMU's when my employer as part of my internship bought Flex or Tango. I fit into that bracket in the socioeconomic section that you mentioned. If I was offered a J upgrade for free, that's forgone revenue - and I certainly knew what it was like up front.
In that scenario, should AC offer me a J upgrade or that flex paying guy. I argue the latter, and even in that case, AC says no, pay to be up front or stay in the back.
Ergo, I disagree with your analysis, but I welcome additional feedback as usual.