Originally Posted by
San Gottardo
Now we have the conversation I was hoping we'd have
, i.e. not whether this works (it does), but why AFKL doesn't do it. See thread title. I personally cannot think of any operational reason: their business model of a network carrier with long haul and short haul flights is identical to the LHLXOS, their fleet is also of a similar composition with some heavies, a large Airbus/737 fleet for Euro traffic, and some regional jets. It must be exactly that: they have in the past that customers don't value it. Hence my post, suggesting that actually passengers *do* value it. Not very many in absolute numbers, but those that are among the most loyal and most lucrative; loyalizing them further and doing so while being paid full fare is a win-win for the airline and for the passengers who are in situations where they are price-insensitive when they need to be in a certain place at a specific moment in time.
I'm afraid you are arguing you know AFKLs business better than they do themselves.
The multitude of risks of overbooking J unintentionally has been raised, as has impact of keeping seats intentionally free "just in case". Also the fact that the routes where this guarantee would be most likely to be used are the routes where AFKL can least afford to either keep extra seats empty "just in case" or pissing off their existing customers. I can't see why AFKL would not have considered this and decided the benefits are not worth it.
As per comparison with LHG, the scale is a bit different in the end. LHG operates through 4 "main" hubs, of which 3 have at least some F service, of which 1 has F service on all longhauls, plus assorted other hubs and focus cities like GVA, BRU and wherever EW is parking its longhaul fleet today. Meanwhile AFKL has 2 "main" hubs, of which only 1 has some F service and none has full F service, plus 1 other minihub, which is also a co-terminal.
The potential for solving the overbooking situations by upgrading or rerouting is barely comparable. The potential impact of IRROPS or predicted IRROPS (potential for a larger amount of high elites to try and use the guarantee to get out/in before the meltdown) is also considerably higher.
I consider the comparison only very notionally valid.