They've been sodomizing expectations for so long. It's been endemic with Air Canada for the past 30 years. You can't rape those people who are paying for first or business class, and then open it up to the world [with free upgrades]. There has to be a distinction.It's like two-tier medicine. If you pay for first class or business class, somebody should deliver on it--or don't do it.
Strangely enough, I don't disagree with this. Much. (
And you thought my language was nasty?) But I think the problem is not so much the upgrades, but rather the fares they used to charge for business class, and in some cases, still do. Riding in J in a domestic 767 is only marginally better that riding in coach. (Some would ask "Better?") It's one thing to upgrade from a low fare. But to upgrade from a very high Y fare, or worse, purchase a J class ticket, and then get stuck in one of those disasters is a certain way to burn off high fare customers.
Which led me to ponder on a recent flight if AC isn't missing the opportunity to charge for something else -- the equipment you are riding on. If you make clear the advantages of riding on certain planes (ERJs vs CRJs, A345s vs 767-200s) you might well be able to make more money by "selling" that equipment. I've said it before about the ERJ vs CRJ issue -- if people understood the differences, many would happily more for a better plane. Perhaps not $100, but probably at least $20. And it would be all gravy.
More important, those who didn't want to pay the extra $20 would get stuck on the "lesser" plane, and be happy that they saved the money, while those who paid the $20 would be happy that they got a more comfortable ride for a small premium. People are obviously paying $10 for advance seat assignments on a range of airlines, including AC, and some are paying $30 for an exit row. I dare say lots of people would happily pay $20 (or more) if they really understood how much nicer a ERJ is than a CRJ. You don't even have to disparage the CRJ. Simply say that the "new" ERJ offers leather seats that are 1¼" wider, with wider arm rests and much more underseat space, for carry on luggage or just to stretch out in. (Do that with the first ERJs to arrive, and who knows -- maybe they'll end up cancelling the CRJs altogether.)
As for upgrades, they are a competitive fact of life in North America, even in Canada. Good idea or bad (at least for the airline) they are here to stay. 'Cause the first airline to do away with them will die a quick and ugly death. Even if all the airlines were somehow able to simultaneously stop offering upgrades, it wouldn't be long before one of them (probably AA in my guess) would say to themselves "Ya know, if we started offering upgrades again, we could steal a lot of that high fare business back from our competitiors." And just like with FF programs in the mid-80s, and with the recent reintroduction of more generous upgrade policies in the competitive markes of the US, all the airlines would once again in lock-step formation, start offering upgrades.)
Air Canada has spent so much time focusing on the executive frequent flier--and it's a natural thing to appeal to your most frequent customers--but the fact is, when you go on the plane there is a ton of people who just fly two or three times a year. They are the bread and butter.
The solution is not to spend less on the frequent flier, but to start treating the two or three times a year (or even one time) flier as something more than just self loading cargo. If 10% of your customers are generating 44% of your revenue (or whatever the number is these days) you best give that minority special attention. But not at the cost of sub-standard service to the other 90%.
They can't win in the low-price game, but they can win in the best-value game. What they should do is simplify their offering and get into the better-value game, which is a combination of a good price and a good customer experience. They've poorly managed our expectations for years. They are in the gutter now, so they have to fix the experience.
Oh geez, doesn't this sound familiar.
One problem is that notwithstanding the new "simplified" fare structure, their fare structure is now more complicated than it ever has been, and seems to be getting more so with each passing day. They sometimes
seem simpler, especially for changes. But since they can be booked one way, they are booked one way, even on return flights. So now even the return flight has an advance purchase requirement. Advance purchase requirements that have only recently (and quietly) been snuck back in. And if you want to change both directions, you now pay the lower change fee, but twice. Finally there's the same day change fees. Seems old habits are hard to break. And making fare rules ever more complex with the intention of extracting every last possible cent from every passenger still seems to be in vogue.
As for adding value, it seems to me that there's a huge range of things that could be offered, if only they'd brainstorm, listen to their employees, or maybe even their passengers. Here's one off the top of the head -- because connections are so difficult to make in YYZ, and because a reduced number of flights to many destinations has made legal connections harder to come by, why not offer extended connection times for a small fee. $25 for an 8 hour connection, say. Or maybe $10 per hour up to 24 hours, which would mean a 24-hour connection for $200.
Yes, this might mean that AC wouldn't get the perhaps higher stopover fare. But it seems to me that people who would utilize this option are already circumventing the process using a number of techniques, like overnight connections. But more than just allowing a longer meeting in the airport, it would also allow people like me to take more convenient (read later in the morning) flights, that connect on to other more convenient (read those with upgrade space available, and not so tight) connections, perhaps on to planes that they charge more to fly on in the first place.
They're already charging for meals on some flights, but I think that's a mistake, for a number of reasons. The first is that people have come to expect a meal, at least on longer flights near meal times. The second problem, and it's a big one, is the logistics. How many meals do you take. Take too many, and you lose in the waste. Take too few, and you've give up revenue and profit, and maybe pissed off a few customers. Better to add $3 or $5 or $7 to every ticket, and have a meal available to
every passenger. Then advertise yourself as the airline the "feeds you on every flight."
Or if you insist on charging for meals, then a couple of things. First, make sure the meals are really worth what you are charging, in the eyes of the passenger. If you're charging $7 for a mini-box of cereal, a mini-tub of skim milk, a stale pastry, and a mini-glass of orange juice, it won't be long before
nobody buys the meals, and it all goes to waste.
Secondly, smooth out the logistics. Offer a meal at time of booking, perhaps for a reduced price, that is added to the ticket. This means you now have a better idea of what to board, reducing spoilage, and also that you've assauged the customers' expectations. When they get on and find there's no meal waiting for them, they won't be surprised, disappointed, or pissed off. (They might have been when they purchased the ticket, but chances are that will have worn off by flight time, and maybe they'll bring their own.) This process would also have the effect of expediting the meal service, because you'd already know who's getting the meals, and you won't have to worry about payment, making change, etc. Who knows, perhaps you could even board a reduced number of meals on spec.
-------------------------------
So much for page 1. Only 6 more to go. But not right now.