JOUY31

Update (in French, sorry)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/voyages/2014/...n-courrier.php

for implementation next April.

orbitmic

That's just fabulous. About a year ago or so, AF moved from multiple nomenclatures like Premium Voyageur vs Premium Economy because it was too complex and they wanted to simplify into four transparent classes of travel: La Premiere, Business, Premium Economy, and Economy. So far, so good. Now they are separating again between "Premium Economy" and "Eco Flex".

They also claim that the fares will be reduced whilst most obviously, we are talking about entirely different classes of travel. So now, thanks to AF's proposed changes, you'll be able to travel in Y for between 8% and 20% less... than you were able to travel in W!!!! yippee, I guess, if your IQ is below 20!

I also don't understand what is new about "Go Show": you can change your flight the day of the trip, you could already do that before with those fully flex tickets anyway, so if something is so revolutionary in the concept, I'll admit that it is lost on me.

Oh and fabulous, we move from "MiNi" and "Classic" to "Eco Mini" and "Eco Classic". The only thing I would say here is that if the Figaro is completely correct and someone has finally got rid of that completely idiotic capitalised N in "MiNi" then indeed, that is an improvement (from a nonsense baseline though).

On the Hop! Air France question, the article suggests that indeed, all the Hop! routes and all the former AF routes ex-ORY and bases de Province will indeed become "Hop! Air France" so "Hop!" is dead. This will be fascinating however considering that you now have some "Hop! Air France" flights operated by Hop! (the current Hop!) and "Hop! Air France" flights operated by AF (the current AF). So I am so looking forward to the next pilot strike when some idiot will try to explain to the public that if their Hop! AF flight is operated by a Canadair their flight will be maintained but if it is operated by an Airbus it is cancelled. Just fabulous, AF is making the Government's "choc de simplification" almost look real in comparison.

And in parallel, they confirm that La Navette will remain "Pure AF". So the new AF group offer on short and medium haul network will now include:

AF Business
AF Eco Flex
AF Eco Classic
AF Eco Mini
AF La Navette (name to be confirmed)
Hop! Air France by Air France (travel classes tbc, currently Basic, Basic Plus, or Flex)
Hop! Air France by Hop! (travel classes tbc, currently Basic, Basic Plus, or Flex)

If simplicity was an airline.....

bodory

I understand from the article that it will be possible to go show whatever the Flex fare. Unless I am mistaken, that feature is today limited to availibility in the same bucket (A, S or W). Example : you hold a S fare ticket and want to take an earlier flight for which only W is available and you have to pay the fare difference between S and W.


You forgot that it will certainly be possible to book a MiNi (or Mini) fare on a La Navette flight

Maybe they will create a "MiNi (or Mini) by AF La Navette" brand then.

orbitmic

The first point makes sense, maybe that is the difference, although it hardly sounds revolutionary to me but at least it would be a difference!

On the second, you are still an optimist, because conceivably, AF may also create an entirely new range of fares to differentiate that product from the rest, so we could have something like:

Le degre zero de la Navette
La Navette c'est pas Classic
La Maxi Navette
La Super Mega Navette la Plus Cool du Monde qui va tout casser!

bodory

Great naming

I am a die-hard optimist indeed and absolutely not cynic

olivedel

This is what we call... Le bordel !

So not only PAX connecting on a W long-haul ticket will lose the benefit of an enhanced meal, they will also loose the benefit of an increase mileage % on the medium-haul segment.

And now, this article talks again about the fact of keeping La Navette in the AF brand. Really confused.

PS: I am invited by AF to attend a press conference at CDG tomorrow morning on this matter. Please post here any question that would be worth asking Frédéric Gagey and Alain Bernard.

orbitmic

+1

"Do you have any sense?"

[ps: don't ask it is a purely rhetorical question ]

NickB

Is there any suggestion from AF anywhere that there will be a special tariff/product range for la Navette flights? If not, it should not be included in that list.

Secondly, it seems to me that we are somewhat over-egging the pudding. 3 broad fare categories for an eco product is not that exceptional. In a sense, BA would be more complex in having 4 categories (HBO, standard, semi-flex and flex) and I do nor recall seeing that many brains exploding in the streets of London or in Heathrow corridors owing to inability to process such complexity.

Hop, though, is another matter.

orbitmic

I would say that this is my assumption based on what olivedel reported before on the concept being reinvented (or whatever AF are calling it!). I might be wrong and they might also use the exact same fare categories are for other AF flights, but if that is the case, all I can say is that I really would not see the point of rebranding the La Navette operations.

And of course, you are right that I am making a caricature of the various new fares (assuming you are right and La Navette does not come with new fare types) but frankly, at the moment, every proposal emanating from AF sounds so absurd that I will confess to fearing the worst, and I guess that in this particular case, what really angered me is them spinning this into saying that the "new" Eco flex will be 8% cheaper than the former Premium Eco or whatever. This way of phrasing things (comparing new higher fares in a lower pre-existing class of transport to old fares in an entirely separate class of travel) is so openly dishonest in my view that they simply do not deserve any mercy because frankly, they should not be allowed to have it both way (ie be allowed to compare new Y fares to old W fares but then claiming that those are simply three categories of Y).

Goldorak

I agree for the ORY Hop AF / AF Hop or I don't know what but that's not the subject of this thread.
But for the suppression of the PE product on MH to/from CDG, I don't see where the "bordel" is There is nothing new in Le Figaro article. Just a confirmation of what has been already announced and I think, for once, the message is pretty clear. I'm among the ones who think it's not a bad idea knowing the evolution of travel policies in companies (forbidding PE for MH) and the more and more frequent use of self-booking tools. But we already discussed about that a few weeks ago in this thread. I know some people are pretty upset about this change, including our friend Jouy31, but the evolution of travel policies is irreversible IMO and the new AF offer is now more in line with those of its main competitors.

Why do you say this ? They didn't announce any change in miles earnings for Eco Flex vs current PE. I'm not saying it could not happen, but there has never been anything said about this.

This has been also confirmed to me by AF people.

orbitmic

I agree with the bulk of your post, but if I may make one small exception, actually, there is one small but not insignificant thing which is new. That the discontinuation of PE within Europe is not actually accompanied by a significant decrease in fares for those new flexible economy tickets.

As you may remember, I said that I too was not necessarily against the discontinuation of PE but was hoping that it would come with more attractive fares including discounted C, but sadly, now, I really cannot see it coming

Goldorak

Yes, I do remember and what you say is true. Decrease/ non-decrease and importance of the decrease in fares is entirely linked to the existence of competition (particularly from a LCC) on the same route.

JOUY31

I do note that, according to Le Figaro, Abonnés will enjoy a 40% discount on the most expensive Eco Flex fares, but the example of Zurich, as mentioned by Le Figaro, EUR 554 vs. EUR 579 would imply that the discount will be 'up to" 40%, rather than 40%.

I also note that the article would also seem to imply that there will now be a consistent policy for Abonnés fares, whether it is on a domestic or intra-European route, whereas in the past, the intra-European Abonnés fares were the same as the A fares, accessible to any customer, provided the ticket was bought early.

No mention is made of business class fares, especially for Abonnés. If a more expensive version of the Abonné card could grant a homogeneous 40% discount on the full fare business class ticket, it would be an interesting development.

orbitmic

That makes sense on the Y fares (although I strongly believe that over the years, there will be fewer and fewer major intra-European and domestic routes without LCC competition!) but I guess that my suggestion about more affordable discounted C fares would be a bit different, and effectively aimed at encouraging people to "buy up" for comfort reasons. To clarify, I do not think that there is a huge market for that but I think there is some, and since airlines (not least AF) keep looking for sources of ancillary revenue, I would find that a far less toxic one than many of the things that they have in mind. As it could come with restrictions to flexibility (just like LX and BA do it), it wouldn't cannibalise their full fare C market.

San Gottardo

Olivedel,

there are two questions that would be interesting to ask Mr. Gagey:

1. What about the A321 and A318 planes? Why don't they get the new seats? So on top of the somewhat complex fare/cabin situation, there now also is inconsistency between planes. A321 has the old seats, A320 and A319 the new seats, and A318 has the NEO seats.
2. How does Mr. Gagey feel that their "reconquering client confidence campaign" went? Many customers - not all! - are unhappy about how things were handled. And you may be free to cite my case of Air France not honouring their own commitment that they published and refuse to a Platinum for Life customer the promised compensation by arguing that Zurich is a city in France and not in Europe, and then not to reply any more at all. There are other similar cases, and the reputational damage is bigger than first thought.