Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air New Zealand | Air Points
Reload this Page >

Now Pay for exit rows - "Fly Customised"

Now Pay for exit rows - "Fly Customised"

Old Nov 29, 2012, 12:06 am
  #226  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: AKL
Programs: NZ*S & Koru, QF, VA, Accor, Marriot
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by MattNZ
Hey Sam / Balding Eagle, I think the standard is that if it's under two metres, it's a normal (but extra) bag


It's a bit confusing using a bike as an example of an oversized item, then listing it as something that "may" be a standard bag, I agree. the definition does seem to fall at the 2m mark though, so I would use that if you run into issues at check-in.
Sounds like you're probably right - which is great. I guess my feedback would then be: the website needs to be a lot clearer. In conjunction with the myriad of other pages on the topic, I took "standard" bag to mean treated just the same as any other piece of luggage...

I really didn't mean to dwell on the $30 extra charge, other than to point it out as a part of a trend - one which on occasion pushes me to fly with the competition. I don't specifically have a gripe with $30 dom or $95 intl (definitely not enough to wear a couple of weeks worth of ski gear on the plane, though got a laugh at the idea ), it just gets factored into my buying choices. But the assertion that there has been a decrease in costs for taking sports gear at any point is incorrect - there have been steady and significant increases.
samnz is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 12:27 am
  #227  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: AKL
Programs: NZ*S, UA, WN
Posts: 13
My concern with a bike is that anything with total linear measurements over 62" is treated as oversized, and a typical cardboard packing box definitely exceeds 62". Or did I read it wrong and a bike is specifically exempted from the linear measure rule?
baldingeagle is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 1:39 am
  #228  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Auckland NZ
Programs: NZ*E
Posts: 105
Ski bag will cost more

Originally Posted by AlastairR
Yes this has been removed. ...

In summary the charge used be 50% of the first bag rate which on the Tasman was $75 = $37.5, and on our Longhaul sectors was $115 = $57.5. Now that we have introduced prepaid baggage these rates have actually decreased to $55 on the Tasman and $95 internationally which you can now utilise for your sporting equipment or any other baggage you wish to carry.


I go from Auckland to North America every year just to ski, and take my skis with me. I booked and paid for an AKL - YVR flight months ago, when the baggage concession allowed my ski bag to travel for $57.50 each way. Now AirNZ has increased the cost to $95, thus increasing the price of my flight. How is this an "actual decrease" Alastair?
zoovet is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 1:53 am
  #229  
DCF
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Programs: Etihad Guest
Posts: 1,549
Alastair,
Thanks for your replies. Very sporting, and much appreciated.

Since you are responsible for ancillary revenue, but are new to this site, can I please make my argument for why Plusgrade aka OneUp isn't just antagonistic to HVCs, but is rank bad business too?

Many of us who are Gold Elites have always taken our families on discretionary additional leisure travel, and have tried to judiciously use the upgrade system to convert Premium Economy tickets into Business Premier travel where possible.

Until you axed Confirmed Upgrades from U class I used to buy 4 U class tickets for my family to Los Angeles every year as an additional discretionary trip, which delivered around A$15,000 in fare revenue and around $4,000 in Confirmed Upgrade revenue, although that was denominated in Airpoints. Now you've removed the Confirmed Upgrade incentive and for the same money we can get 1.5 Business Class (purchased, not upgraded) trips to Hawaii on Hawaiian or Virgin or Jetstar, and we do. I ask my wife if she'd like to play lotto with OneUp and she cannot conceal her contempt - she ensures that we just buy a Business Class trip to Hawaii on the opposition.

Your airline's accounting and departmental model means that the revenue appears not to have shown, but in my family's case I am certain that you used to get considerably more revenue than Plusgrade now delivers, it's just that it wasn't accounted for in a way that clearly showed it.

Confirmed Upgrades: which genius axed them?
Confirmed Upgrades made a lot of business sense.

Firstly, you needed a high-yielding ticket to be allowed to use them: Y or B or M or H or U. Not, for example, the lower 3 of the 4 Premium Economy fare buckets.

Secondly, they delivered a lot of revenue - at least twice as much as Standby Upgrades per sector long-haul.

Thirdly, they could only be used towards cheaper fare buckets in the higher class cabin - Z or O class.

Because Airpoints were used this was hidden in the Airpoints results. But it had the potential to deliver more revenue than Plusgrade, left higher fare buckets available for sale, could prioritise HVCs to their satisfaction and you didn't have to pay another company to run it for you.

Really, you shouldn't have been dazzled by Plusgrade and you needn't have paid them a cent.

How Confirmed Upgrades could have generated more profits then OneUp
You should have just:

1) increased all Confirmed Upgrade costs by 50%
2) introduced Cash instead of Airpoints payment for Confirmed Upgrades
3) Discounted Confirmed Upgrade costs by 35% for GE pax, 20% for G pax and 10% for Silver pax.
4) At 7 days before departure, allow any passenger to pay for a Confirmed Upgrade into Z or O class provided they have a YBMHU class ticket.
5) At 2 days before departure (after G upgrades have cleared) allow any passenger with any ticket to apply for a Confirmed Upgrade into any unsold premium seats, but at 150% of the normal cost.

Job done! Forget Plusgrade, forget auctions, just do it yourself. A GE wanting a Trans-Pacific Confirmed Upgrade from Premium Economy into Business Premier could pay $800 provided they had bought a U ticket. A G could pay $1000, a S could pay $1100.

And then, at two days out, anyone could pay $1500 for an upgrade from Premium Economy into any unsold Business Premier seat.

It's simple, there's no external company to share the profits with. You get to sell as many C and D class seats as you would have anyway. And you provide elites a motivation to buy U or YMBH tickets in the first place.

You sell your cheapest premium inventory, but your HVCs get first bite of the cherry - the only bite from Days -355 to -7. And you get payment in cold, hard cash.

There is a reason why this matters. My family has 4 GEs (well, currently 2 GE and 2 G, but only because you are driving our business away so successfully).

We book these trips 355 days out, and where there used to be 4 R class seats to upgrade into, we took them. When there were only 2 R class, we took them AND we paid for dearer tickets (U class) for the other 2 passengers to buy Confirmed Upgrades into Z class.

When you axed Confirmed Upgrades you drove us to downgrade from U class Confirmed-Upgradable tickets into cheaper A or O class ones.

There are many, many of the reductions in Gold Elite and Gold perks and introduction of rigid ancillary charges which have driven HVCs away or driven us into cheaper fare buckets.

If you'd just talk to us here first, we could come up with suggestions which would satisfy us but deliver you the revenue you want.

Honestly, subcontracting out to Plusgrade instead of optimising Confirmed Upgrades is monumentally dumb business.

And Alastair, every single one of us on this board will tell you the same story about every recent change. We are the HVCs: we understand the system. You think we "game" the system to freeload something for nothing, but it's not that - we just weigh up the rewards for our loyalty that a range of airlines is willing to offer, and when we pick a program we make sure that we use the fruits of our loyalty. I live in Australia, and Air NZ's loss in my custom has seen me acquire elite status with Qantas and Virgin and Hawaiian Airlines.

We know when changes are neutral to us or negative to us. And for two years, the airline has been kicking us in the nuts, then has had the cheek to spin it to us as good news we should be grateful for.

It is the spin and the lies that really piss us off the most. For example, you take away seats in Premium Economy for us on a 777-300, then replace them with the same number of crappy super-narrow 10-abreast seats in Economy, and you tell us that we have the same number of premium seats.

We're not stupid. We fly on the airline all the time.

Last edited by DCF; Nov 29, 2012 at 2:17 am
DCF is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:03 am
  #230  
Moderator, Hilton Honors
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,419
Originally Posted by mad_atta
The idea of any seat on a B1900D being 'premium' is of course laughable... and yet there were seats 2F and 3F with a little $5 tag on them (I'm Australian-based, and there was an NZ*G on the booking). And yet, oddly, 2A and 3A were not premium. The upshot: you can't sit across the aisle from each other on a BEH without paying a fee or moving further back.

What kind of genius makes one side of the tiny plane premium and the other not?!?
Obviously the view is better in 2F than 2A
Kiwi Flyer is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:12 am
  #231  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Programs: NZ*G ELT, VA-G
Posts: 3,580
Originally Posted by DCF
Confirmed Upgrades: which genius axed them?
Confirmed Upgrades made a lot of business sense.

Firstly, you needed a high-yielding ticket to be allowed to use them: Y or B or M or H or U. Not, for example, the lower 3 of the 4 Premium Economy fare buckets.

Secondly, they delivered a lot of revenue - at least twice as much as Standby Upgrades per sector long-haul.

Thirdly, they could only be used towards cheaper fare buckets in the higher class cabin - Z or O class.
Because the same genius invented Onesmart which allows anyone to buy Airpoints without limit and the end result was anyone could buy a high bucket economy fare and upgrade to confirmed Business. Who is going to buy Business fares then? The confirmed upgrades (or any old Airpoints functions for that matter) used to be earned not bought, whether it be through flying or hotel stays or credit card stays. The root of all the problems is the concept of "Earn to Fly" and the Onesmart Top up.

Now slightly OT, the root for the need of these new "ideas" is probably the introduction of dollar based programme instead of distance based. How many years have Airpoints Dollars been invented and which other airline has followed suit? None. Because other airlines usually want your loyalty and the dollar system does not work.

Last edited by Xiaotung; Nov 29, 2012 at 2:21 am
Xiaotung is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:35 am
  #232  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,332
Great start AlastairR..

So.. it costs NZ GBP 50 to transport firearms into the UK...

That is currently around AUD$ 77... so again... Charge the punter $200? Still doesn't fly. (Pardon the pun)

Cost recovery is fine... not going to argue with that. It does however have to be COST recovery.. not rampant overcharging and profit taking.

I imagine also that the UK is your highest figure for such handling... not only due to their particularly stringent import requirements and laws, but also as that would be the reason you choose to quote it.

And yes, I realise that assumption is cynical of me but given these developments.. the weasel wording on "Premium seats" etc and the sudden backtracking or incompetence (on domestic firearm charges) are you actually surprised about that?
trooper is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:44 am
  #233  
DCF
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Programs: Etihad Guest
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by Xiaotung
Because the same genius invented Onesmart which allows anyone to buy Airpoints without limit and the end result was anyone could buy a high bucket economy fare and upgrade to confirmed Business. Who is going to buy Business fares then?
Sure, but my proposed model would tidy that up neatly without abandoning the good business aspects of Confirmed Upgrades or the encouragement of loyalty.

I repeat, in my adaptation of Confirmed Upgrades (which would only allow a 1-class upgrade):

a) You need to buy a YBMH return in Economy to be eligible to upgrade to Premium Economy - and they cost around A$3000 to the USA

b) You need to buy a U return in Premium Economy to be eligible to upgrade to Business Premier - and they cost around A$4500 to the USA.

c) The one-way Confirmed Upgrade would cost $800-1100 for passengers with status (in advance), and $1500 for passengers without status (at the last minute).

So a high economy fare couldn't be upgraded to Business Premier.

And a Premium Economy return plus Trans-Pacific Confirmed Upgrades would have a minimum cost of $6100 for a Gold Elite or $6700 for a Silver.

So the pricing is close enough to Business Premier as to not cannabilise that market, plus of course Z inventory is limited.
DCF is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 9:18 am
  #234  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NZ
Programs: NZ Gold, BA Gold, QF Silver, IHG Platinum Elite Ambassador, Accor Diamond
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by AlastairR
Hi All,

First I would like to introduce myself, my name is Alastair Rhodes and I look after Direct Ancillary Revenue for Air NZ.
Welcome Alastair, as others have said, regardless of any concerns, you are very welcome here to engage and discuss the many matters people have, although I am sure that you are not responsible for many of the Airpoints issues people have (e.g. I agree with DCF's model which makes a lot of sense, but I am guessing this is outside your remit).

My simple gripe is the loss of being able to pre-select what are now preferred/exit row seats on long haul flights as Gold or Gold Elite. That IS a loss of value, as no longer is it first come first served (with HVCs able to select such seats when booking), but it's money with HVCs getting what's left over.

As a Gold or Gold Elite (I have been both with NZ for 16 years barring one year at Silver) I've always just liked to select my seat at booking and forget it. Now you're effectively saying "pay some more" or else wait until 48 hours beforehand.

I have BA Silver status which enables me to select preferred seats when I book, for free, indeed my Star Gold status still gets me access to preferred seats on Lufthansa Group flights for free.

I don't object to monetising good seats in economy or even premium economy, but this is a drop in privileges. Particularly grating if one is Gold Elite. Could it not be staggered so GEs can select for free at time of booking?

It's also grating that you price differentiate all of the seat select according to country of booking. I understand yield management all very well, but charging Australian and UK bookings so much more (when people travelling from those countries have plenty of alternative options) seems counter-intuitive.

Finally my pet peeve is that my partner is in an exit row on a long haul flight in Y, booked months ago when we were travelling together (I'm G, she's S), and wants to move to the row behind because we are no longer travelling together (and she is short and prefers a seat in front when alone), and despite several attempts, Air NZ wont shift her there without charging her, even though it can make more money with her abandoning the exit row seat so it is for sale (she isn't keen on the offer of moving 25 rows back). That just seems ridiculously bureaucratic in handling a transitional issue.

On the plus side, do I understand correct that if I travel alone I am offered an unsold Skycouch if I am G/GE and one is free 48 hours in advance? That is a plus.

Best regards, hope you can remain on here and find it a challenging but interesting experience!

Last edited by libertyuk; Nov 29, 2012 at 9:28 am
libertyuk is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 11:34 am
  #235  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: TRG, SBA
Programs: NZ*GE, A3*G, UA Prem, QF, AA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by baldingeagle
My concern with a bike is that anything with total linear measurements over 62" is treated as oversized, and a typical cardboard packing box definitely exceeds 62". Or did I read it wrong and a bike is specifically exempted from the linear measure rule?
Yes, bikes are specifically exempted from the 62" rule... if you click through a maze on the pages regarding baggage, you'll find this site
, which was linked a few pages back. Sporting equipment (bikes, surfboards, ski+boots, etc...) is subject to the 2m rule to determine if it is oversized.

Bike boxes are well under 2m, and nearly all skis made since the turn of the 21st century are less than 2m. Hence Alastair is correct that the 2m sports equipment rule was chosen to tag large surfboards/Stand Up Paddleboards with the extra charge.
kaimanawa is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 1:00 pm
  #236  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: NZ GE, QF
Posts: 386
I have been reading these with interest and feel it is time to make a comment.

As a shareholder I cannot understand this move to a complex system of extra payments for pre-allocated seats. It makes sense in a LCC such as Jetstar, but makes no sense at all in Air NZ. In particular it makes no financial sense. You have to sell a massive number of these seat allocations to cover the loss of a single HVC from an international flight, and there is no doubt that this will drive away HVC's from Air NZ. This has been poorly conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed, and the communication has been abysmal. This is made even worse by the computer system obviously being unable to cope with the change.

As a GE Air NZ customer for a number of years this move is very bad. There has been a steady decrease in benefits to GE customers over the years, particularly the last 2 years as Air NZ tries to move to a LCC model. The staff are great, but so many other aspects of the service have gone downhill.

Regardless of how this has been portrayed there is a definite decrease in benefits to HVC's from this move, we have not been told the truth in this. We can no longer select the seats we want, they are not available to us. Whilst this doesn't matter to most customers, it matters to people who fly a lot. HVC's are generally clever people, high up in whatever business they are in, and can quickly understand when something is taken away from them, regardless of any amount of obfuscatory language.

The attempt to charge for seat allocations on turboprop aircraft is very poorly conceived and executed. I have to pay for my favoured seat, 16B, but I can request the seat across the aisle 16C!!!! That is a 50% reduction in allocation of my favoured seats. Who in their right mind would pay any extra for a seat on an ATR? They are all equally bad. Who would pay extra for no-window 2F on a (often cancelled, usually late) Beechcraft?

The answers are 1. An apology to the HVC's. 2. Scrap this new system, or if not make large changes to it. Sell only exit row seats on jets. Give GE customers (only) the right to ANY seat in their class on all aircraft at no extra cost. Forget about any charges for seats on turboprop aircraft.
edmm is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:18 pm
  #237  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: NZ Elite
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by edmm
I have been reading these with interest and feel it is time to make a comment.

As a shareholder I cannot understand this move to a complex system of extra payments for pre-allocated seats. It makes sense in a LCC such as Jetstar, but makes no sense at all in Air NZ. In particular it makes no financial sense. You have to sell a massive number of these seat allocations to cover the loss of a single HVC from an international flight, and there is no doubt that this will drive away HVC's from Air NZ. This has been poorly conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed, and the communication has been abysmal. This is made even worse by the computer system obviously being unable to cope with the change.

As a GE Air NZ customer for a number of years this move is very bad. There has been a steady decrease in benefits to GE customers over the years, particularly the last 2 years as Air NZ tries to move to a LCC model. The staff are great, but so many other aspects of the service have gone downhill.

Regardless of how this has been portrayed there is a definite decrease in benefits to HVC's from this move, we have not been told the truth in this. We can no longer select the seats we want, they are not available to us. Whilst this doesn't matter to most customers, it matters to people who fly a lot. HVC's are generally clever people, high up in whatever business they are in, and can quickly understand when something is taken away from them, regardless of any amount of obfuscatory language.

The attempt to charge for seat allocations on turboprop aircraft is very poorly conceived and executed. I have to pay for my favoured seat, 16B, but I can request the seat across the aisle 16C!!!! That is a 50% reduction in allocation of my favoured seats. Who in their right mind would pay any extra for a seat on an ATR? They are all equally bad. Who would pay extra for no-window 2F on a (often cancelled, usually late) Beechcraft?

The answers are 1. An apology to the HVC's. 2. Scrap this new system, or if not make large changes to it. Sell only exit row seats on jets. Give GE customers (only) the right to ANY seat in their class on all aircraft at no extra cost. Forget about any charges for seats on turboprop aircraft.
wholeheartedly agree with the above.

The problem is even worse on a wide-body flight to Aus. for example:
A non status passenger books a seat only fare this saturday on the 773 to Sydney, and pays $20 for a 'premium' seat to sit in the 1st row of premium economy. This person has no loyalty to airnz & pays hardly anything for what is a pretty good perk in my opinion.

If a GE books a works fare on the same flight, they also have to pay $20 for that seat (but yes, could sit in PE for free on works in a different row).

??

The value to Airnz of these customers is vastly different, and yet they are both treated the same by this system.

I would echo the sentiment that GE should be allowed to select whatever seat they want for free, based on fare & aircraft type - and that's coming from a Koru memeber who has very little chance of achieving GE.

Hopefully as it's only version 1.0 of this system, our feedback will go into revisions that make it a bit more logical. But I've always been an optimist...

Last edited by MattNZ; Nov 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm
MattNZ is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:20 pm
  #238  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BLQ / TRG
Programs: NZ*E, UA*1K, QF Plat
Posts: 1,071
Originally Posted by edmm
I have been reading these with interest and feel it is time to make a comment.

As a shareholder I cannot understand this move to a complex system of extra payments for pre-allocated seats. It makes sense in a LCC such as Jetstar, but makes no sense at all in Air NZ. In particular it makes no financial sense. You have to sell a massive number of these seat allocations to cover the loss of a single HVC from an international flight, and there is no doubt that this will drive away HVC's from Air NZ. This has been poorly conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed, and the communication has been abysmal. This is made even worse by the computer system obviously being unable to cope with the change.

As a GE Air NZ customer for a number of years this move is very bad. There has been a steady decrease in benefits to GE customers over the years, particularly the last 2 years as Air NZ tries to move to a LCC model. The staff are great, but so many other aspects of the service have gone downhill.

Regardless of how this has been portrayed there is a definite decrease in benefits to HVC's from this move, we have not been told the truth in this. We can no longer select the seats we want, they are not available to us. Whilst this doesn't matter to most customers, it matters to people who fly a lot. HVC's are generally clever people, high up in whatever business they are in, and can quickly understand when something is taken away from them, regardless of any amount of obfuscatory language.

The attempt to charge for seat allocations on turboprop aircraft is very poorly conceived and executed. I have to pay for my favoured seat, 16B, but I can request the seat across the aisle 16C!!!! That is a 50% reduction in allocation of my favoured seats. Who in their right mind would pay any extra for a seat on an ATR? They are all equally bad. Who would pay extra for no-window 2F on a (often cancelled, usually late) Beechcraft?

The answers are 1. An apology to the HVC's. 2. Scrap this new system, or if not make large changes to it. Sell only exit row seats on jets. Give GE customers (only) the right to ANY seat in their class on all aircraft at no extra cost. Forget about any charges for seats on turboprop aircraft.
Welcome edmm.
I agree with all your well thought out comments.
As a long term GE I do not like the fact that I have to pay to get a seat I have been able to access before at no extra extra charge.
So AirNZ, you will be happy to know that the $12k I have spent this week on flights to Europe return are not with you. Well done.
How many $5 seats will you have to sell to make that up? About 2400 by my calculations......
And of course this is only one of my upcoming trips.....
WLGNZ is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 2:31 pm
  #239  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: QF Gold
Posts: 1,242
Originally Posted by AlastairR
In terms of Exit rows - previously the Air NZ policy was very inconsistant - some were available for HVC's, some for all of our passengers and some blocked out for Airport use only. The introduction of paid seating has changed this to make them all paid seating, however the entitlement for HVC's was always about an allocation of premium seats - not actually specific seats. As such, this entitlement has not changed.
Actually, at least on the 777-200, the methodology around exit row seating for the last few years prior to these changes was EXTREMELY consistent-53B and 53J were always available to G/GE/Koru at the time of booking, while the slightly impeded 53A and 53K were only available <48 hours prior to check-in.
Now, that consistent offering has been taken away and the entitlement for G/GE has been reduced.

It would be nice to get some honesty, instead of fluff about "premium seating zones" that on long-haul are identical to every other economy seat on the plane, given the stripping of exit row selection.
Shazzadude is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2012, 3:09 pm
  #240  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: AKL
Programs: NZ Silver
Posts: 1,814
Originally Posted by edmm
I have been reading these with interest and feel it is time to make a comment.

As a shareholder I cannot understand this move to a complex system of extra payments for pre-allocated seats. It makes sense in a LCC such as Jetstar, but makes no sense at all in Air NZ. In particular it makes no financial sense. You have to sell a massive number of these seat allocations to cover the loss of a single HVC from an international flight, and there is no doubt that this will drive away HVC's from Air NZ. This has been poorly conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed, and the communication has been abysmal. This is made even worse by the computer system obviously being unable to cope with the change.

As a GE Air NZ customer for a number of years this move is very bad. There has been a steady decrease in benefits to GE customers over the years, particularly the last 2 years as Air NZ tries to move to a LCC model. The staff are great, but so many other aspects of the service have gone downhill.

Regardless of how this has been portrayed there is a definite decrease in benefits to HVC's from this move, we have not been told the truth in this. We can no longer select the seats we want, they are not available to us. Whilst this doesn't matter to most customers, it matters to people who fly a lot. HVC's are generally clever people, high up in whatever business they are in, and can quickly understand when something is taken away from them, regardless of any amount of obfuscatory language.

The attempt to charge for seat allocations on turboprop aircraft is very poorly conceived and executed. I have to pay for my favoured seat, 16B, but I can request the seat across the aisle 16C!!!! That is a 50% reduction in allocation of my favoured seats. Who in their right mind would pay any extra for a seat on an ATR? They are all equally bad. Who would pay extra for no-window 2F on a (often cancelled, usually late) Beechcraft?

The answers are 1. An apology to the HVC's. 2. Scrap this new system, or if not make large changes to it. Sell only exit row seats on jets. Give GE customers (only) the right to ANY seat in their class on all aircraft at no extra cost. Forget about any charges for seats on turboprop aircraft.
Welcome edmm

Great first post and I think you hit the nail on the head with many of your statements. Over the last 1-2 years, it has been very obvious on FT the large number of flyers who have defected to other airlines; some of these people no doubt were spending in excess of $100000 p.a each on airfares and it seems odd they would compromise that with all this new penny pinching. So much for "the airline whose fares have nothing to hide", it's now more complex than a cryptic crossword
brenrox is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.