brp

And often very much less. I'm travelling from the Bay Area to Lon for $337 several times this winter (taxes are extra, but that money doesn't go to AA, so it's irrelevant). Dirt cheap. Hawai'i? I have some tix on hold SFO-HNL for $234 each, RT. That's what trips2win is talking about, and what I'm talking about.

We can all whine away, but these are ridiculously cheap fares, and the airline has to make money somehow.

Cheers.

brp

EXACTLY. It's still considerably less than actually buying the class we want to fly in!

Cheers.

justageek

Europe in the low season isn't exactly a typical fare... By definition, most people travel to Europe when the fares are much higher.

There are more holes in trips2win's story than there are in Swiss cheese (not Emmi brand, of course). He's not talking about international, and he's not talking about Hawaii, either -- sub-$200 tickets to Hawaii don't exist, and if they did, the odds of getting an X upgrade as a non-EXP are slim. Nobody is routinely flying round-trips to/from Hawaii for less than $200 and a handful of stickers.

justageek

C'mon, we both know that published J fares are completely artificial. Most of the people flying in J are on corporate discount fares (30%+ off of J price is typical, from what I've heard) or on upgrades. Very few people buy J fares, and the airlines have no expectation of selling a lot of J fares.

And if you really want to open a can of worms, let's talk about the marginal cost of a J seat on a flight where that seat will otherwise go out empty (which is in theory the only kind of seat that will be allocated for awards or upgrades)...

nako

I fail to see how the cost of a fare has anything to do with the odds of an X upgrade.

Mike

justageek

There's no connection.

My point was that the details in trips2win's post imply he is talking about non-Hawaii non-international flights--sub-$200 fares and routine sticker upgrades for non-EXPs (which he cited as the reason we should love AAdvantage) don't happen on Hawaii or international flights. And this thread isn't about those flights--it's about international flights. (I don't even think most people have a problem with the Hawaii co-pay...)

So my point is just that the scenario he describes has nothing to do with upgrading on international flights, which really the topic of this thread...

brp

Ok, you win. Have no idea what I was thinking.

Cheers.

GUWonder

I think he's saying that the odds of an X upgrade on that route are slim for most frequent flyers even if there was a sub-$200 fare.

I don't think this is a big deal by itself, but that's because I don't use AA miles for upgrades.

justageek

I'm not saying that $600+miles is necessarily too much for an international upgrade, especially compared to what other FF programs require for international upgrades, but I don't think most people are upgrading from "ridiculously cheap fares" either. Sure there will always be cases like your low-season $300 trip to Europe, but I know that all the Europe flights I've upgraded have been at least $600, and some more than $1000.

A few people will still make out like bandits, true, but a lot of us are paying a lot of money even before the $600 is tacked on, and at some point we have a right to complain that the co-pays have become too expensive. Have we reached that point yet? Probably not, I'll agree, but I think we're getting pretty close.

rkdahl

I suspect this will be just like the $250 copay. Lot's of complaints, disgust and whining by FT'ers. But people in general start paying it and it works for AA and their business. I suspect if no one paid it at all they would consider other options or withdraw it. But people do in fact utilize the copays because they feel it is a value to them.

I've never used a copay and I certainly never will now. What particularly irks me, no difference for elites, many who do everything they can to fly AA and non-elites who shop around when they fly.

It just yet another reason for me to not dedicate my flying to AA.

brp

Well, it is different for some elites- EXP get eVIPs and can bypass the copay. I'd consider that a difference for those that really devote their flying to AA. I always upgrade on international flights and have not paid a copy to date.

Cheers.

DataPlumber

Furthermore, the cost of air travel when adjusted for inflation has gone down dramatically. I had a recent illustration of this when going through some old boxes of stuff at my parent’s house. I found a receipt for the first plane ride I ever took, ORD-HNL in 1977. The cost of that fare was a bit more than $500 roundtrip. (Thanks Uncle Bobby for inventing the "supersaver"). When you adjust for inflation that fare today would be around $1650. The lowest published fare offered today from ORD-HNL is $604.00. I know with our booming trade with China and others, the market is flooded with cheap goods. It just feeds societies expectation that you should get more for less.

PMMMColonel

I think this is the better issue. Discounts to select business. They should create a real small business site IE CX or even better. This could gain much more rev if fares for these customers where more in line with other programs.

I fly other oneworld J for less than AA and under $1k more than upgrades and miles.

trips2win

My point is the airline has to make money somewhere, and if we are going to have the extremely low cost travel (yes, non HI and non-intl for me; but I also think all travel is relatively low cost) and miles thrown at us for everything we do that we (or in this case you) will be paying for it elsewhere.

"I don't even think most people have a problem with the Hawaii co-pay..."

right, probably those that don't fly to HI just to europe

I will admit that this has little impact on me, if any, and I would be more bothered by an increase in the $30/sticker cost. But I won't be complaining when that happens as I fully expect it to happen. It is just a question of how much and when.

venk

If cheap fares were the reason for the co-pay, then of course as suggested when the co-pay was first instituted, the co-pay would only apply to cheap fares. It makes no sense for people who make bookings without a lot of advance purchase (more business travelers than leisure) pay very high fares and then have to pay the co-pay.

So the argument of using the prevalence of cheap fares to justify the co-pay for everybody is bogus. Especially when it coms from EXPs who don't need to pay...

The rationale for AA is simply that they are leaving money on the table by allowing upgrades with miles only and the market can bear to pay more for an upgrade that brings revenue as opposed to reduce mileage liabilities (especially when they "print" miles like nobody's business).

AA is shooting itself in the foot compared to airlines that may have thresholds for upgrades (UA) or none or smaller co-pays at higher coach fare levels (CO) because they become a lot more attractive for people that don't book months in advance (the kind that airlines need to attract and keep).

AA is betting that the loyalty program has made them vested enough that these people don't switch easily to other airlines because of this factor but it is a dual edged sword. When people jump, it is not easy to get them back.

The biggest problem with the co-pay for business travelers is that it is very difficult to expense this in most companies because the accounting systems/policies are not set up to do this so in many cases it would have to come out of the traveler's own pockets for business travel. This is a serious problem in establishing loyalty

Nevertheless, the trend to make these frequent flyer programs less and less generous is there and irreversible (even if we enter recession). Add possible consolidation of airlines and it will get even less competitive.

Glad I got out of this FF "rat race" at the right time.