Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
What makes you think they're going to let you LFG/GARR and make sure you don't end up in BE? If the BE fare is the lowest fare in the market that's been filed, isn't that what you're going to get? Otherwise you have to do a bunch of special logic, and it's not at all straightforward ("but the website said the fare was $110, why is the LFG saying it's actually $150?").
Or you could... make the beancounters happy and eliminate LFG/GARR. I mean, if you're trying to make more money by pushing BE, why not capture more revenue that way by eliminating a way to take advantage of price drops? And in theory Gold+ can still do it by a cancel/rebook.
You can buy an F ticket now and LFG it, but still to F. It's the same product. BE is a different product. They will have to address this complexity. Or like you said, remove the LFG.
.
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
The LFG/GARR is part of customer satisfaction, though. It's part of AS competing with WN. And having a BE product is very much at odds with WN-style "hey, if the price drops, you can get some money back", since the entire point of BE is "no waivers, no favors, buy the ticket and take the ride in the back of the bus, or throw it away". This is why I think it's not long for this world once BE gets rolled out (again, note that AA/DL/UA don't offer a LFG that is competitive with WN). But hey. could be wrong.
But that's the problem. They're competing with WN, and they're also competing with AA/UA/DL -- which have no LFG, have BE, and charge a $200 change fee, and don't waive it even for their top tiers which spend a ton of money on them.
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
The reason they're doing that is AS aggressively matches WN pricing, and WN isn't messing around with defending their intra-CA turf and is going to happily try and bleed AS dry and try to chase them off of SFO/SJC-SAN/LAX/BUR the same way they're being chased off of SFO-JFK with low, low prices. WN is offering two checked bags, cancel and refund with no fee, on hour long flights. For the same $27.
And AA, UA, and DL also match the fares (at times) and charge more to upfare from BE, and have a $200 change fee (so even if you paid a bit more to avoid BE, the changeability aspect is moot as ticket is trash anyway if you need to change).
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
AS's response is going to be to degrade the product they offer in those markets (ALL of the products, Y, Y+ and F). You can't say that VX MCS/F wasn't a better product than anything offered intra-CA. What was the market's response? More WN, please (WN has more market share at SFO+LAX than VX does). So what's AS"s value proposition over WN intra-CA? A plate of pita and hummus on a 60 minute flight? Because it's sure not schedule or value. Ability to fly or redeem to Hawaii? That's probably gone in 12 months.
Sure, VX was a better product. But we also didn't see this type of price point when VX was flying it (from time to time we'd see $119 SFO-JFK, but $27 SFO-LAX was unheard of, despite some 10x frequencies by VX). The revenue erosion came when AS took over.
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
I suspect they will muddle along (hey, NK does just fine hosing customers). But offering UA/AA/DL's products without UA/AA/DL's reach against WN... it didn't work to keep WN out of California. Is the strategy to just bottom-feed their way to market share NK style?
An upgrade program, assigned seating, one of the industry's lowest change fees, and introducing a non-changeable class is not exactly going to NK's level across the board. Absolutely AA/UA/DL have better reach. Does AS deserve criticism for this? Sure. Is it a positive change? Of course not. But it's not exactly becoming NK or F9 either. Becoming "blah" airlines might be a better description of what they're doing.
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
I don't doubt it, but turning yourself into a clone of UA/AA/DL when you don't actually fly the big jets and the market you want to expand into is full of WN's unique value proposition (and also has UA/AA/DL) doesn't strike me as much of a value proposition.
No doubt. And layer that on top of the context in the Bay Area that they just killed one of the best products in many markets. They're certainly pressured by the revenue realities of operating in more competitive markets without the hometown loyalty they're accustomed to in Seattle. The more "blah" they become the more they have to compete on price. And I suspect BE is a direct result of their inability to retain and expand the California bustomer base.
Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
Good luck with the "leisure enthusiasts", AS. You're going to need it.
