Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
Look - I'm not sure we can expect to pay 5-7 cents per mile to fly across the country any more. Oil costs more, unionized labor (
) costs more etc. Times change.
HOWEVER - I say UA starts to make the 'lower' fares non-upgradeable. Say everything W/S and lower is non upgradeable. Then folks who want to pay 350 to fly 4700 miles can get the price they want but not be allowed to upgrade to a seat that should cost 3 times that.
In turn, those of us that buy refundable fares, F/A or C fares can enjoy a higher quality FC because people on 350 buck XC tickets are not filling 1000+ dollar seats that COULD (and probably would) be sold.
People need to get over the idea of cheapo coach tickets being a right (despite market conditions) and almost expect to get a FC on that ticket.
US, NW, AS etc prove what this does to the quality of first class...
Didn't you 1Ks absolutely freak out when UA tried to do this to your beloved SWUs, force you to buy-up to more expensive fare classes?
Look, I see the logic in preventing
deeply discounted fares from upgrading -- like AA's "O" fare, right? -- but it's the very same 1Ks that will be hit hardest. Let's forget everyone else: You're the ones with all the confirmable upgrade instruments... How happy are 1Ks likely to be when it costs $100s more to use your CR-1s? Not happy at all, I'll bet. Or what happens when a last-minute, 2P leisure fare trumps your 1K cheapo ticket? Will 1Ks shrug and say, fine, that pax paid more, or will they say no way, I'm the more important customer so my u/g should come first? In any case, is the problem really that upgrading el cheapo transcons costs UA money? I would think not... They always hold back enough inventory to sell, and for the 1Ks who use CR-1s to u/g p.s. flights, isn't it considered one of hte perks of being so loyal to UA? Fine, the direct revenue gained for your seat is low, but if it keeps you flying UA, then the indirect revenue gained is greater...