williwaw

I am still trying to see how this fare will help or hinder me. For my work travel (federally funded or state funded) we have policies in place that prohibit or at least don't require basic economy. BE tends to turn into a reimbursement nightmare as fees get attached by unassuming travelers. So for work I think I am not impacted as I will be Main (normal economy.)

Now on family travel where I have the kids in tow, my elite benefits are already limited. Same day changes and upgrades are not possible with my non-elite kids (come on, pull your weight.) And they are too young for exit row, so I end up in a normal pitch seat usually. With that in mind, I might go saver just because it doesn't matter as much. Back of the plane versus ahead of exit row is a PITA but not a deal breaker. I am pretty sure (tho its on an assumption of good faith) AS doesn't want to spread young kids all over the plane away from parents. But if they do, then we know they hit the big leagues. EDIT: Yeah, they will split us up. So if I want to use saver I need to make sure there is a block of seats together....

Clearly I want to keep it the same as the past, but for me it seems to come down only impacting family travel choices and not business travel. YMMV.

ucdtim17

I was going through the same thought process explaining the new fares to a friend who flies regularly OAK/SFO-SEA but not enough to get status. For him, if he doesn't care about middle of the plane or back, it's not really going to be a big difference. The only pain is forced on elites.

diver858

About 1 week ago, I received an email from Tilden, talking about his recent visit to my home base (San Diego), thanking me for my business. As a lowly MVPG, I assume hundreds if not thousands of other San Diegans received the same letter. After reading this thread, I decided to reply to the email, voice some of the concerns included above. Will report back on what if any response is received.

fly18725

You are presuming elites always/mostly buy the lowest fare. I don't think that's the case, particularly for business travelers. Ultimately, AS know the purchase patterns of its elite members and the expectation of major corporate customers. AS may be knowingly forgoing the business from elites that primarily buy the lowest fare.

Eurynom0s

I still don't really get killing the 60+ day cancellation policy. The refund was in the form of "My wallet" funds, not a refund to your original form of payment. So you were locking in money with Alaska when you did a speculative booking (money which could expire and go right into their coffers if you weren't a frequent Alaska flyer who'd make use of the money one way or another), whereas the change is going to make people more reluctant to lock in money with Alaska and therefore more likely to wind up spending money with another airline. It sure seems to me that it's in Alaska's interests to give you an incentive to lock in money with them...

ucdtim17

It makes me thankful to be done with my three year PDX-OAK/SFO commute (on my own dime). Every previous cyber Monday I could fill up my winter flight schedule with $49 full benefit flights. Those would be $89 now.

GimmeLegRoom

Whelp, I have not been paying attention to this Saver X fare development, and the unintended consequences just hit me; I booked travel through my corporate online tool, and when I went to add it to My Trips, I saw the lack of seat selection available. This is ludicrous for an MVPG. I have no way of changing the fare to regular coach when I book.

I'm cancelling my reservation and letting Alaska know

nsx

I've been commuting weekly on my own dime for many years on Southwest. I buy the lowest fares by the dozen and change them quite often. I'd like to believe that my business is important to Southwest. They have given me no reason to doubt that. This year I gave some of my low fare business to Alaska. Now they've made it clear they don't want my kind of customer. A $30 premium on every $50 flight is too high a price to pay for the changeability that Southwest gives me for free.

Alaska's management acts as if one mistake, overpaying for VX, requires another, driving away frequent low-fare customers.

lalala

I'm trying to convince my TH (who also commutes every other week ) to try SW for the same reasons. She's still not convinced, but may one day humor me.

tom911

We've seen a lot of posts on the AA and UA forums the last few years from travelers whose corporate travel portals won't let them buy those basic economy fares because of the restrictive rules as to flight changes and refundability. Can't imagine it's going to be any different with Alaska.

On a separate topic, noticed on the Monday cyber fares that OAK/SFO-KOA is $45 extra one-way/$90RT for the "main fare deal". So much for my thinking they'd cap the advance purchase fare difference with full elite benefits at $60RT.

notquiteaff

VegasGambler

This is very logical and well written. I would suggest sending it (verbatim) to customer care and copying some executives.

Contact information for execs of several airlines (including AS) is available at elliott.org: https://www.elliott.org/company-contacts/alaska-airlines

bmvaughn

Just tried booking through Concur at work.. there's no warning about these fares, and there's no way to exclude them. Going to be awful trying to fly for work in 2019 with these fares.

xliioper

Someone who admits to buying the cheapest fares (and changing them frequently) is unlikely to make much of an impression. It's just basically playing the guilt card (WN loves me, why don't you?). Now if you were someone who bought a mix of cheap advance fares along with pricey last-minute fares, that would far more likely draw attention from AS.

xliioper

I would fully expect most employers to eventually exclude them from display, just as they have done with the other legacy carriers.