Originally Posted by Mr.Ushooz
(Post 13722507)
This make business sense to me. I've flown on 70+ different carriers around the world in the past few years, and it takes 3 times longer to fully board a plane in the U.S. than it does a similar sized plane overseas. That's because Americans carry so much cr*p on the plane with them, have to find space to cram it, haul it down the isle bashing people already seated as they go, etc. Spirit is probably trying to shave 10 minutes off the boarding time. Do that on 4 to 5 short flights per day, and you might be able to squeeze in an extra flight with the aircraft in your schedule, thus maximizing revenue.
|
Originally Posted by Mr.Ushooz
(Post 13722507)
Spirit is probably trying to shave 10 minutes off the boarding time. Do that on 4 to 5 short flights per day, and you might be able to squeeze in an extra flight with the aircraft in your schedule, thus maximizing revenue.
And I'm not sure Spirit's fleet is large enough to see any huge benefits from shaving a few minutes off boarding time, if that does actually happen. IMO, it's a revenue generator, pure and simple. |
At some point, airlines will start weighing passengers. (Passenger + baggage) weight allowance.
|
Originally Posted by thedoorchick
(Post 13723650)
The first thing I started wondering about when I read this was, what about someone who claims their carry-ons are all to fit under the seat, then places them in the overhead bin anyway? Is the FA to then collect the fee after boarding?
Probably a somewhat silly question, as I realize this is doubtless intended for rollaboards and the like, but the issue of who/what decides which bags require a fee and which are free, is a very real one. There can be quite a fine line. I have a travel bag which is clearly not a computer bag, briefcase, or tote - it's a real overnight bag, but can easily fit under a seat. I could see someone arguing that as it's not a "personal item," it would require the fee. |
Originally Posted by videomaker
(Post 13724888)
First, I don't think AA will follow suit in charging for carry-ons.
And I'm not sure Spirit's fleet is large enough to see any huge benefits from shaving a few minutes off boarding time, if that does actually happen. IMO, it's a revenue generator, pure and simple. My take is if Spirit can get away with less with no real backlash (other than lots of bad media) and oil continues its slow but steady upward price one of the legacies will go with this and then of course all the legacies will. That $20-$45 per bag will start to look like very attractive to airlines if oil hits over $90, bad press be damn. |
I wouldn't be surprised if the legacies eventually adopt this, although I'd expect AA to exempt Plat/ExPlat and anyone in F or C.
Meanwhile WN seems to be going nicely without charging to check a bag, and as a result they seem to have fewer problems with carry-on's... which helps them turn around aircraft faster. |
Nickeling and diming your customers is not a sustainable business model. Spirit will probably be out of business in a few years. Have you ever check the cost of their flights? They are not cheap by any means. Case in point, R/T between BOS and LAX on Spirit is $581 vs $504 on AA. Tack on the charges for baggage, $50 R/T and you have to start questioning why even fly Spirit.
|
Er, they offer more than one class of service, lounges, intercontinental flights?
As for domestic coach, it never was what some crack it up to be; I was there when it was invented. (Shoot, even the so-called "First Class" cabins in the so-called old days were uncomfortable for most - better food, etc. but costs were kept artificially high and were rigidly controlled by the government, so meal and cabin services were the differentiating factors. The people voted with their wallet again and again - they don't want service, or MRTC - they want cheap. Now airlines are unbundling what people thought was the flight experience, and the only question is how far the legacies will go. FR certainly leads the way - the unbundled a la carte stuff can cost much more than the actual so-called fare. How far will AA go? It will depend on this current "I'll look at you whilst you look at me" method of airlines proceeding to change fares and service concepts, and what passengers will allow. The day when the DOT will step in like the CAB of old and regulate to a fine point is probably - over. Fortunately, I can use the LCCs on some shorter routes, and use AA (or other legacies) for intercontinental and longer routes - as an FF I personally do prefer them to WN/VX/B6 with their better Y cabin (well, in many cases) and limitations. (Not to mention, have you noticed unbundling at WN? Fees for preferential boarding and early seating, etc. Guess what else is coming?)
Originally Posted by holtju2
(Post 13719456)
Differentiating significantly by providing worse service/product than US LCC's WN/VX/B6?
Originally Posted by Halo117
(Post 13719489)
Please explain your statement. What does AA do that is "significantly" different from the likes of WN and B6?
Your right AA differs significantly so much that a couple weeks back I started the thread of "why should non FFs choose AA in Y":rolleyes:. Most responses came back with sadness for the demise of AAs Y product domestically speaking. |
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 13719926)
...part of the reason the coach and non-elite experience sucks on AA (and many other pre-deregulation airlines) is because of the existence of elites and loyalty programs. You have to have something to distinguish them from hoi polloi, so the argument becomes a case of socking the infrequent/less frequent traveler first...
Originally Posted by farrish11
(Post 13720615)
This is the tail wagging the dog. As an example, checked bag fees were not instituted to differentiate between elites and kettles. Checked bag fees were introduced as a revenue grab, and elites were merely exempted to prevent their defection.
How have frequent flyers reacted to changes [re unbundling], thus far? Positively. Now that there is a price tag associated with many of the services that our most frequent flyers receive for free, it is becoming easier to place a value on maintaining loyalty to a single carrier. Unbundling has given us a new way to reward customers for their loyalty, and I think that has paid off for both them and us. |
!!!!!
|
Originally Posted by farrish11
(Post 13728293)
In an interview linked in this thread by miamigrad, Cory Garner, AA's Director of Merchandising Strategy, says:
(emphasis added) Quote: How have frequent flyers reacted to changes [re unbundling], thus far? Positively. Now that there is a price tag associated with many of the services that our most frequent flyers receive for free, it is becoming easier to place a value on maintaining loyalty to a single carrier. Unbundling has given us a new way to reward customers for their loyalty, and I think that has paid off for both them and us. Still, I don't see AA going with Spirit's charge for carry-ons. If it was an airline besides Spirit starting it, I might have a different opinion. |
Well, I have to say that seemed pretty self-evident to me. Part of the way to reward elites is to spare them from the crappy experience you dole out to everyone else.
The problem is, if you fly a legacy that punishes you for not flying them frequently... what's the incentive to fly them frequently? Which leads to... How far will AA go? It will depend on this current "I'll look at you whilst you look at me" method of airlines proceeding to change fares and service concepts, and what passengers will allow. The day when the DOT will step in like the CAB of old and regulate to a fine point is probably - over. Also: yes, indeed, AA does provide intercontinental service. The problem is a lot of that service depends on them competing with WN/B6/VX et. al. in the domestic market, and thus they have to provide a domestic coach product. I guess the question is: how far can you degrade it before you lose so much domestic traffic to competitors who offer better coach experiences you're in a death spiral? |
I hope AA will follow with fee like 99 dollars.
|
I agree, I am an exec plat., it's great not to have to worry about anything relative to that. Loyalty should be rewarded!!
|
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 13727567)
As for domestic coach, it never was what some crack it up to be; I was there when it was invented. (Shoot, even the so-called "First Class" cabins in the so-called old days were uncomfortable for most - better food, etc. but costs were kept artificially high and were rigidly controlled by the government, so meal and cabin services were the differentiating factors. I would say your take is more reflective of the early 707s and DC8s in the 60s. It was definitely much better in Y in the 70s than today. And of course the airport experience was a breeze for the most part. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:54 am. |
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.