Originally Posted by wanaflyforless
True...but the OP did say they like using their miles to upgrade transatlantic, so I was trying to point out the best way to do this. If they use a different program for domestic than transatlantic they will not make mid-tier status with one program, and thus not double their earning potential.
And you were correct to do so. But my rationale still applies since we don't know the OP's entire requirements for flying domestically or vacation desires. Your approach is to try and solve the OP's problem, my approach is to simply say what I do, and let the OP pick from that which is applicable to his/her situation. From a simple post one can not infer all required information IMO, so I just post my strategy. Your approach to answering, offerring a solution, is of course equally valid ^
In practice it has amounted to nothing. The seats are always available, such is not the case with major carriers. Just perusing through FT one can see that the major carriers just don't open their seats. SQ being the exception. WN seats are always there.
In my above post, I did not just state UA/AA were better programs. Rather I mathematically demonstrated how someone can get an unrestricted (=every seat available) ticket on UA/AA for less round trips than on Southwest (on the applicable route). Or two restricted round trips for the same miles. All Southwest offers now are restricted round trips; gone are the days of "all seats for redemption."
And I have no doubt that your math is correct. However, if there are no seats for redemption, then it's a no-joy situation.
Please show me the math that supports this assertion (using the relevant city pair). Sample dates: March 27-31
Southwest.com $436.70...all ATA code share connecting in CHI.
AA or UA both offer non stops for $369 at ideal business times.
Let's fly tomorow. LAX-LGA, and return the day after tomorrow. WN $634.70, UA Coach $748.70
True that Southwest turns a profit. How does this benefit the consumer? Southwest takes more from the traveller than it spends on its product; AA/UA don't.
One possible reason for their difference in operating costs would be the amount they spend on a superior product. If the revenue were equal and one spent more on a better product offering, it could affect profits. Profits don't help flyers; only investors. AA/UA are not going to cease service in the next year, so who turns a profit should not be a consideration here.
Southwest's program is very uncompetitive when it comes to trans-cons. If you disagree, please show me where my math is wrong.
No. UA is not bankrupt because they are sacrificing their profits to give the passengers a better product. They are bankrupt because they are poorly managed, as are most major US carriers. AA, DL, NW, and this list goes on and on. They also pine, whine, and snivel to the government for help. They suffer from the same disease as Detroit automobile manufacturers. In fact they give their management bonuses while in bankruptcy. Go figure.
Math has been shown with the fare example of LAX-LGA. WN is cheaper, and it is cheaper overall, if all cases are agglomerated.
Better run businesses offer cheaper goods/services for their customers and are proftiable. That's just basic business principles, and is axiomatic - like the law of gravity.
Martinis at 8, I respect your opinions, even if you are wrong.
Thank you. I respect yours too. That example you showed me in the background is just awesome! ^