<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fetchem:
An employee taking a BF seat and sticking the loyal customer in coach is no different than the bus boy stealing the best cut of prime rib--leaving the dry end-cut for the paying customer.
</font>
ENOUGH!!!
There are two issues here. We need to stop mixing them together.
Issue #1: Employees sitting in BF over Elites.
This one is clearly in the favor of the employees b/c of the reasons I, Avek, Jared, Benson and others have outlined OVER and OVER again in this and other threads (in more detail in other threads BTW). IT IS SIMPLY A BY-PRODUCT OF A POLICY CO BELIEVES INCREASES ITS REVENUE. This policy has two primary cash flows for CO. CO brings in extra revenue from the customers who pay for BF that would otherwise pay a lower fare and wait for an upgrade if the policy was like AMR. The negative cash flow would be the lost of SYSTEM WIDE $$$ of those who choose another airline for their Intl or ALL of their flying. How do the cash flows shake out? I dont know.
Airlines disagree about this policy and the stance that each takes dictates the quality of the Biz product. The only reason the empoloyees make out well is b/c the company makes out well. That is a sound policy if indeed the cash flows of the policy work in CO's favor.
ISSUE #2: Hokey/72 Hour Rule and its Implemantation
This could definitely be improved. Putting everything else aside, I think we would all like more definitive rules so we can make our travel choices with a higher degree of confidence.