normcpa

I've been in shock for several days now. My wife and I (both AAdvantage members since 1981) generally fly about twice a month, including a couple of international trips a year. (Annual travel about 65,000 miles, about 90% on AA.) No doubt these rules will apply equally to American Eagle as well. One of the most delightful aspects of using AE has been the standby flexibility, given the numerous flights available. At least three or four times a year we will get out of customs earlier than planned, or finished our work early. It is inconceivable that we are going to have to sit in the AE terminal and watch one or two flights home go out with empty seats if we are unwilling to cough up $200. For what?

It seems the entire premise of a team approach (AA and the elites enjoying a mutually beneficial relationship) is at risk.

Frankly, the standby issue is troubling me much more than the loss of value of a discount ticket. (I can't even deal with that now; I'm so upset about the standby changes.)I can envision enormous stress on gate agents who must try to enforce the standby rules. Who would want that job? Talk about thankless. Don't ask employees to enforce a rule that they simply won't agree with! It is unfair, counterproductive, and will definitely cause passengers to rethink virtually every move they make, as if travel were not stressful enough already. It is an ill-conceived policy which is brewing enormous resentment.

I have read comments from people who "don't stand by" that the policy isn't that bad because it helps curb some ticketing abuses where passengers are able to get cheaper fares. Even if this were true, this doesn't change anything. This is a very small part of the issue.

I just booked a flight from SAN to the east coast in October. AA.com sold me and my wife tickets for about $400 each. If we're done early or late on the way home, it would be great to stand by for a different flight. The suggestion by some that we simply buy a Y fare ($2,500 each) isn't really that realistic.

The frustration and outrage on the board the last few days has been palpable. How do we let AA know in an organized fashion about our concerns? I love the AAdvantage program and want to continue flying AA. Nevertheless, I'm concerned about stress levels that will continue to mount with each trip. (It's not that $200 is a king's ransom, but there is something FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG with the concept, especially for frequent fliers.)

Can Randy organize a petition within the confines of flyertalk, or can the AA rep who monitors the board give us some hope? We've got to do something! If a lot of people abandon AA, it's certainly not going to make things better for those who don't.

Thanks for listening to this rave.

avek00

What's wrong with the new policy? If there's a flight that you REALLY need to get on, simply pay the published asking price. Why should AA continue to cheat itself out of additional revenue from customers who book cheap "undesirable" flights and then use that same ticket to get on a flight that commands a price premium?

It's about time that AA (and UA, for that matter) puts the screws to customers who aren't helping to pay the bills.

aceflyer2

AvwkOO, I agree with you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this policy. Sure, its going to hurt and inconvenience me too. But AA is trying to do everything it can to stay afloat and if we want convenience and preference, we're now going to have to pay for it. If we don't cooperate there might not even be an AA!

thepla

I never fly stand-by. But I sure buy many tickets that I do not fly on and use for a later ticket. That is a MUCH bigger problem for me, a problem that will force me to any carrier that does not have that rule. I do not get reimbursed until I use the ticket plus $100 change fees where applicable. I can't give my clients these unused tickets and rarely know my next destination within the couple of days between knowing that I will not be making a trip and my trip time.

As far as stand-by. If I know I will be able to leave early or have to fly later on the same day I'd rather pay the $100 and confirm the change and not take the chance of not getting on the flight or getting seat 30E. SOmetimes I get to the airport so early that there is another flight, always the gate agent asks me if I'd rather take the earlier flight and I do make that decision on a decent seat in coach or availability to upgrade to first.

SST

Better duck, AVEK.

My electronic wrath just whipped right past you, and I'm sure there are dozens more coming over the wire.

What AA has done is nothing more than declare war on its best customers, those of us who fly A LOT, and who really appreciate the ability to change flights.

Really, friend, if this crapola continues, there won't BE an AA to fly on, because we'll all just go to the cheapest darned airline. Don't believe me? Think about it. If they have to compete on price--- AA doesn't stand a chance. Just look up the costs per passenger mile.

aceflyer2

Seems to me AA is going to have to come up with some innovative ways to cater to we frequent travellers. Remember people pay more for premium (luxury) products all the time. Unfortunately, AA seems to be going in the wrong direction here; they need to re-think this strategically and do a better job communicating this to frequrnt travellers.

ElmhurstNick

avek, I've got no problem with AA enforcing the rule that the standby flight has to have inventory in the same bucket as the fare class I've bought, or else I have pay the $100 for a confirmed change. That would be only fair, and get rid of your point, right?

But you and I both know d*** well that AA won't try that because the gate agents can't, don't know how to, or just plain won't check the inventory. So, instead, they've overreacted to the fact that I'll check the seat map and as an EXP if I see 5 aisle seats free I'll take my chances standing by instead of paying the $100 for the confirmed change.

[Side note - if same-day confirmed changes within the same fare bucket were something nominal, like $10, AA would get me to confirm the change every time...]

But, how about this scenario - your connecting flight choices at ORD for your L class DCA-ORD-GRR are at 31 minutes or 110 minutes. Yes, 31 minutes is a legal connection, but good luck trying to make it from K14/G21 in 31 minutes. So, you book the 110 minute connection. Of course, your DCA-ORD has a ton of padding in it, and wonders of wonders:

1. Your DCA-ORD flight gets in 10 minutes early;
2. The DCA-ORD arrives at H1 and ORD-GRR departs from G1 - the shortest possible walk, about six minutes if you stroll; and
3. ORD-GRR has 18 people booked on it out of 50 seats.

Please explain to me exactly how does AA get screwed by letting you stand by for the earlier GRR flight??

FAAA

There is a AA rep who monitors the board???
I thought that was just a rumor. Well I am with you guys. I think what my company is going to do is worse then thinking about taking food off the aircraft. Hope some of you can get in touch with AA before you all jump ship.

Dave Noble

"But, how about this scenario - your connecting flight choices at ORD for your L class DCA-ORD-GRR are at 31 minutes or 110 minutes. Yes, 31 minutes is a legal connection, but good luck trying to make it from K14/G21 in 31 minutes. So, you book the 110 minute connection. Of course, your DCA-ORD has a ton of padding in it, and wonders of wonders:"

So what you do is book the legal minimum connection of 31 minutes. If the connection is missed then they will be responsible for getting you onto a flight to ORD. If on time/early you get the earlier flight, if not, then you should be on the next one.

I see no issue

Dave

Warrenlm

These common new policies cannot have been cooked up overnight. They must have substantial amounts of data that told them there was big money involved and they must have known the standby, change fee and no value policies would kick up a storm. Wish they had shared some of that data when they announced the changes.

avek00

My point exactly. AA is trying to close the loopholes that have been exploited to the detriment of the company.

avek00

Revenue-generation/protection measures like the standby charge will allow AA to devote less resources towards low-yield pax and more efforts towards improving the overall experience of high-yield frequent travelers.

aceflyer2

I agree. There needs to much better communication here. You would think that an established company like AA would be aware of such a basic management principle.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Warrenlm:
These common new policies cannot have been cooked up overnight. They must have substantial amounts of data that told them there was big money involved and they must have known the standby, change fee and no value policies would kick up a storm. Wish they had shared some of that data when they announced the changes.[/QUOTE]

aceflyer2

Well said! Sometimes it is hard for us to look beyond the short-run. Again, communication would help here.

ratnamg

Avek00, How many flights do you take a year?
To be honest, this whole standby thing is pissing me off!! What AA is telling me is this:

1) We dont care if you are frequent flyer, I'd rather have flight leave with empty seats than put you in it.

2) We rather you pay $100 than keep you a frequent flyer happy.

BTW most of my flights are in B. But I also book K and N. I like to have the flexibility to fly standby on an earlier flight.

I personally fly AA for the flexibility and the service. It is a fullservice airline and not a WalMart of the Airline industry. I expect the service to be like a Nordstrom or Marshall Fields not like WalMart. We have Southwest for that!!!

All other changes are fine, but do away with the "Standby Change"!!

This one is a