What is the logic of offering Gold without flying A3/OA?
May 5, 2019, 6:16 am
#31
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Heraklion, Greece
Posts: 7,565
Let's see: I've estimated the revenue of A3 for 2018 based on the extra buggage sold to *A golds connecting from international non-A3 flights to domestic OA ones. All percentages are very rough estimates of mine, obviously they're based on my phantasy rather than any real data, but I think they're sort of logical.
6,122,000 domestic passengers in 2018 (A3 and OA)
of which 20% connecting from international flights= 1,224,400
of which 40% from *A flights (non M+B)= 489,760
of which 20% *G (non M+B)= 97,952
of which 50% with luggage= 48,976
average 20€ per pc.= 979,520€
% of total A3 revenue= 0.000824
Am I too wrong in my calculations?
6,122,000 domestic passengers in 2018 (A3 and OA)
of which 20% connecting from international flights= 1,224,400
of which 40% from *A flights (non M+B)= 489,760
of which 20% *G (non M+B)= 97,952
of which 50% with luggage= 48,976
average 20€ per pc.= 979,520€
% of total A3 revenue= 0.000824
Am I too wrong in my calculations?
May 5, 2019, 7:22 am
#32
Join Date: May 2017
Location: SIN
Programs: AS MVPG75k, AA Plat
Posts: 741
MI's getting integrated into SQ within the next two or three years - although the 737MAX issue will probably cause some knock-on delays to that end. SQ realised the poor brand recognition of MI beyond Southeast Asia isn't helping them.
I would hazard a guess that for OA, they probably could make off more money on the extra baggage to all the Greek Islands/Cyprus and lack of lounge access for lower-paying leisure customers, that make *A affiliate status for OA not ideal (from a profit-maximisation standpoint).
I would hazard a guess that for OA, they probably could make off more money on the extra baggage to all the Greek Islands/Cyprus and lack of lounge access for lower-paying leisure customers, that make *A affiliate status for OA not ideal (from a profit-maximisation standpoint).
To me, the case of SQ/ MI is more puzzling than A3/ OA because (i) as announced, they will end up merging, (ii) both were full service carriers and (iii) SQ-MI probably represents more traffic than A3-OA, and some of that is premium traffic to secondary cities in India and China, hence more impetus for *A benefits alignment, whereas A3-OA traffic is primarily leisure routes.
May 22, 2019, 2:44 pm
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
May 24, 2019, 12:29 am
#35
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: YXY
Posts: 3,506
You are assuming that 20% of passengers connecting from an international *A flight to OA are *G - or I misunderstand your post.
May 24, 2019, 1:20 am
#36
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Heraklion, Greece
Posts: 7,565
As I wrote in my previous post, the percentages were from my... fantasy; they're nor real. I used 20% for *G (instead of a lower figure that would be closer to reality) just to demonstrate that, even then, the money earned by A3 by excluding the domestic flights from claiming *G benefits amounts to a rather low sum. No real reason for anybody to spend any time thinking about the percentages: if I'm wrong (which is very probable), then A3 makes even less money by not accepting to grant the free piece of luggage on the OA flights that are flown by A3 planes and crews. At any rate, whichever the real reason, still a PITA for many.
May 29, 2019, 3:51 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,710
Look again:
Originally Posted by KLouis
6,122,000 domestic passengers in 2018 (A3 and OA)
of which 20% connecting from international flights= 1,224,400
of which 40% from *A flights (non M+B)= 489,760
of which 20% *G (non M+B)= 97,952
of which 20% connecting from international flights= 1,224,400
of which 40% from *A flights (non M+B)= 489,760
of which 20% *G (non M+B)= 97,952
97,952 people (the number assumed that are non M+B *G) is not 20% of 1,224,400 people (the number assumed as connecting from international flights).
It's 8% (which can also be reached by taking 40% of the 20% - you ignored the 40% - 0.4*0.2 = 0.08)
May 31, 2019, 3:45 am
#41
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: YXY
Posts: 3,506
You have misunderstood - and completely ignored the numbers given after each line!
Look again:
You skipped the intermediate step of weeding out the connecting pax who came from an international A3 flight.
97,952 people (the number assumed that are non M+B *G) is not 20% of 1,224,400 people (the number assumed as connecting from international flights).
It's 8% (which can also be reached by taking 40% of the 20% - you ignored the 40% - 0.4*0.2 = 0.08)
Look again:
You skipped the intermediate step of weeding out the connecting pax who came from an international A3 flight.
97,952 people (the number assumed that are non M+B *G) is not 20% of 1,224,400 people (the number assumed as connecting from international flights).
It's 8% (which can also be reached by taking 40% of the 20% - you ignored the 40% - 0.4*0.2 = 0.08)
I said: "You are assuming that 20% of passengers connecting from an international *A flight to OA are *G". What I meant: You are assuming that 20% of passengers connecting from an international non-A3 *A flight to OA are *G." The "non-A3"-part was obvious to me, because those who connect from an A3 flight to OA do not have an issue with additional A3 luggage charges in the first place. They are not relevant to the discussion.
Likewise, the total is number is not relevant. We are talking about one fifth of a lage groupe of travellers - and you have not picked them from the lounge.
May 31, 2019, 6:04 am
#42
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Heraklion, Greece
Posts: 7,565
I never thought that I would be the cause for such discussionsI I repeat here that I used the calculations with real passenger numbers and "grouped" them using potentially (actually, very, very probably) wrong percentages to demostrate that the denial of an additional piece of luggage, which was mentioned in the post that I answered a few weeks ago, would not lead to an immense sum of money flowing to the vaults of Aegean Airlines. I obviously did not include any "income"/"loss of income" from denying lounge access as these numbers would be very, very small and I equally used, as I stated earlier percentages that were rather high only in order to demonstrate my point. In reasoning, this is close, though not equal to reductio ad absurdum. I wonder whether Aristotle ever considered Greek airlines as a scenario for his work on logic and ensuing discussions! 