Originally Posted by
ezefllying
Intuitively, most of us appreciate that when an airline claims it's introducing a new fee or restriction to provide customers more "choice," that choice is between paying more and getting less.
That's obviously the case with United's new Basic Economy fare level, which provides virtually no frequent-flyer benefits, offers no flexibility and transforms carry-on bags into a revenue source.
United (and Delta, which previously introduced the fare level) would like to pretend that Basic Economy is meant to help flyers "save" off usual discount-economy fares. But many of us figured that the Basic Economy fares would simply assume the price points of the formerly least expensive (but far more flexible and inclusive) fare classes -- and that those previously-cheapest fare classes would increase in price.
Proving that the introduction of Basic Economy fares simply means reducing service without lowering prices is difficult, since United could claim that price hikes for normal Economy fares following Basic Economy's introduction are the result of changes in demand, season or other unrelated factors. To prove Basic Economy's impact on Economy fares, you'd need to compare virtually identical flights -- say, two flights scheduled just minutes apart -- before and after the introduction of Basic Economy into the market.
But we can compare. For example: Today's and tomorrow's redeyes from LAX to Chicago, 78 minutes apart -- one before and one after the apparent introduction of Basic Economy into that route at midnight Tuesday:
Attachment 32188
What $114 buys you at 11:15 PM Monday night costs an extra $20 at 12:33 AM Tuesday. And your $114 gets you much less -- no carry-on, no changes, no advanced seat assignment, no upgrade -- in the post-midnight hour.
And United isn't just targeting the lowest price points for service reductions. Here's what $249 -- a fairly mid-level one-way fare for the route -- gets you Monday vs. Tuesday.
Monday (today):
Attachment 32189
Tuesday (tomorrow):
Attachment 32190
I realize this will seem terribly obvious and boring -- and un-scandalous -- to a lot of FTers. After all, the airline is simply taking advantage of its market power to maximize profit.
But I find something striking about being able to so clearly and undeniably prove the lie of the airlines' claim that their race to the bottom is simply about giving passengers "choices" or "what they want." Yes, passengers like low fares. But none of them asked to get far less tomorrow than what they'd get for the same price today.
So, firstly, UA has always said the goal of BE was to gain revenue. Why they would introduce a new fare class to let people fly on the same flights and make
less is beyond me (i.e. if someone was willing to pay the $114 to fly on that flight, why would they offer it for $100?) Maybe someone can find a quote where UA execs specifically mentioned BE would drop prices, I am not aware of any. They've certainly said it increases choice, which it certainly does..just doesn't add the choice that most on this board will like.
But another point is that fares are completely dynamic, and in an industry where prices are typically stable, then yes, it makes sense, and in that specific moment in time you booked, yes, it makes sense. But tomorrow, UA may add a different K fare basis at $114 (or maybe there is an existing one, but the conditions on your search don't match it) and the BE becomes $94, or maybe they open G space at those above rates.
Originally Posted by
dmurphynj
It is stupid, but an idea the airline industry keeps coming back to. The difference is that the last time we saw this, we called it Ted. Basic Economy is virtual Ted.
Disagree BE is like Ted in most ways. Sorry.
Originally Posted by
bearkatt
this would make me visit the southwest airlines website to compare. it pays to shop around now.
You probably should. IME, and as I wrote upthread, I've almost never seen WN cheaper than the majors, and at least for me, they are often less convenient and don't serve one airport on either departure or arrival area, and that'sbefore talking about the different models (i.e. no seat selection available in any case) Works for some people, and that's great, but they haven't for me. Maybe that'll change, but we'll see. Let's not forget the LCC moniker isn't about the fares you see, but at the cost structure for the carrier.
Originally Posted by
entropy
Look north of the border where AC has their "Tango" fares, and the "Flex" fares can (rarely) be tens of dollars, but are often considerably more for 100% earning and upgradability.
This. It's crazy the differences you can see sometimes between Tango and Flex. On the other hand, when these fares first rolled out (IIRC, in the early 2000s), the differences weren't that bad...I'm pretty sure when they first started they were pretty comparable to the difference between BE and regular fares. Maybe UA/AA/DL goes there at some point down the line, but probably much harder here given the competitive environment in the US vs. Canada.
Originally Posted by
BaltimoreZ71
But I believe his point is that N Class is not about saving money but rather a way for United to mask a fare increase for regular economy while making it seem like they have introduced a lower fare for the same flights.
Maybe, but this isn't limited to UA. Look at my example above on CVG-SFO, where the F9 fare I saw was $328 vs. $400 on UA (roundtrip), but when you need to say, check a bag each way, that's an additional $70 on F9 and the prices don't go up for an elite on UA, and its $20 less than F9 for a non-elite checking a bag on UA. Maybe many won't do enough research to notice, but at a minimum, you still get better pitch, free drinks, more options, etc. with UA. Based on my experience when I've compared LCCs/ULCCs to majors, on itineraries I've needed, when going all in, the legacy on a regular fare has always been cheaper, even if the upfront is more. That doesn't include convenience (which have been pluses for legacies, at least in my cases), and the risk in case of IRROPS of being stuck way longer on an LCC, which in almost all cases aren't able to interline onto other carriers, for example.