Originally Posted by PIT_Flyer
CO is probably least swayed by its competitors and partners. As someone posted in a different thread, CO's fares seem to be consistently higher than other airlines.
While they may try and command a premium competitor/partner fares play a major part in the pricing structure. Granted they may not match the latest WN special if all they have left are three seats on a flight 9 days out but ones material actions will produce a result amongst others.
Originally Posted by PIT_Flyer
...CO is the only Skyteam member to maintain 50% EQM and other restrictions that fly in the face of consistency with regards to alliance partners.
Inconsistent? Yes. Material? No.
Originally Posted by PIT_Flyer
Again, if this is a business model that works for CO, great for them.
It appears to be so - and any loss due to customer attrition appears inconsequential.
Originally Posted by PIT_Flyer
I see CO opting for a 3-3-3 seating with 31" pitch, a la their 777s. If they can fill those birds with passengers willing to endure long hours in cattle class, I don't see why they should opt for a different configuration.
They should opt for a different configuration if passengers are no longer willing/paying to tolerate 3-3-3 seating with 31" of pitch. But as you have already pointed out, passengers are still paying for CO's Y product.
My comment about competitors/partners was this. A 12% capacity increase (going from 8 to 9) represents a material competitive advantage which would be formidable to overcome. Hence, if the majority of CO's competitors/partners realized this advantage no number of winglets, labor concessions or meals at meal time will bridge the gap.
Originally Posted by PIT_Flyer
...but if I had to choose between CO and most US based carriers, I'd go with CO as long as the price is competitive.
And therein lies the driving market force to offer more (or less) for less.
As I said before - time to (re)start the diet if I'm planning on parking myself there.