scubadu

Wow... this is perhaps one of the most insightful, intelligent, well stated and grounded posts I've seen in the Amex forum in a very, very long time.

Couldn't agree more.

Regards

kirkwoodj

Sometimes airports and lounges are crowded, sometimes they are not. This happens. There is no reason to keep complaining and suggesting massive changes that will put many people out. If the lounge is too crowded for you, don't go!

scubadu

You say that rather nonchalantly, but IMHO that is becoming a big problem in this game and frankly, IMHO, rather deteriorated the value of FT forums over the years. I get folks enjoying some of these benefits, but it's gotten, way, way out of hand. Thus you are seeing airlines doing things like minimum spend requirements for elite status, etc. (which is in effect is managing demand). More, rather than less, of that to come in the future I suspect.

Somehow a large percentage of FTers seem to have convinced themselves that they all "deserve" rarefied access to the highest end of travel experiences at an incredibly low cost. That just doesn't scale, I don't know how to say that any more clearly.

Think about it, the annual fee for the Amex Platinum card used to be like, $395 per year, without a $200 travel credit, and didn't even offer airport lounge access. And still, people carried the card. Today, we have a card with an effective annual fee of $250 (after the travel credit), offering access to airport lounges and people come on FT to complain about the brand of champagne on offer.

What I'm about to say is likely going to sound elitist and it's going to torque some people. That said, if people here saw how my wife and I live, relative to our means, I don't think anyone would accuse me of being elitist. But the cold reality is that if everyone is "special" then no one, by the very definition of the word, is special. The model of these lounges just doesn't scale to servicing everyone in today's world that can afford a $250 annual fee credit card, it just doesn't work. The business model won't scale and Amex won't invest in the physcial space required to meet that capacity. For example, you aren't going to see Amex build multiple lounges at DFW to cover multiple terminals, likely just not to going to happen.

So, it's a supply/demand issue and clearly there is a large percentage of posters here that believe trying to artificially restrict demand (i.e. limit guests/limit visits) will fix it; count me a skeptic on that front (for reasons to long to explain in this already long post). I suspect the most effective way to manage demand is through the same method it's done in almost every other area of business and the economy, the same way it's done by many of the companies employing FTers that allow them to travel around the world and enjoy airport lounges, and that is through pricing discipline, plain and simple. That is raise the annual fee and/or eliminate the travel credit until demand for lounge access more evenly matches physical supply.

Then why haven't they? This isn't a new problem. This specific thread started approximately two years ago and prior to that the problem was being discussed in several of the individual lounge threads (e.g. DFW crowding) much further back than that.

So, if Amex has the data, and the path forward to a solution is as crystal clear as many in this forum believe it to be, why haven't they acted?

Regards

scubadu

Conversely, if you don't think it's a problem, you of course don't have to read and/or participate in a thread about said topic. Perhaps consider applying your style of advice to yourself, no?

Regards

notquiteaff

Lots of good points in your post that I agree with.

But I am not so sure about this one. If we were to believe that the average Plat card holder visits the lounge once per year, then would those average members not be "punished" for no reason? Certainly it might eliminate a lot of over-consumers of lounge services, but they might also be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Or perhaps those members are simply not price sensitive and wouldn't care if the price doubles. If so... more power to Amex. As I said, it is just business for me. If they can successfully extract higher fees, that is fine.

I don't know. But having observed large companies from the inside, I know that these organizations often aren't the most nimble and agile when it comes to decision making.

Or perhaps they just believe they have addressed the "problem" sufficiently by ensuring that Centurions always find a seat and letting the rest of the membership simply fight over the remaining scraps. Those of us who use the lounge the most are probably also the ones who facing crowding issues most often.

cmd320

I actually kind of disagree.

I guest people in all the time, however I do think that's a big part of the problem. When we look at the locations that are severely overcrowded (MIA), it's easy to tell the big problem is guest access being so easily available. Even though I regularly guest people in, I don't think my guests should have priority over people who are actually cardholders. If limiting guest access/charging for guest access solves the problem, I'm more than willing to see that changed.

scubadu

Honestly, I'm not sure anyone here has any significant insight into lounge usage by cardholders. I mean many folks in this thread make stuff up by trying to use the "Destinations" magazine subscription numbers as a guide, then they throw in a ton of their own "assumptions" but as for me, I simply don't have any data to have an informed opinion on how many times the average cardholder uses the lounge per year. Certainly though, you are correct, Amex could take a course of action that would effectively throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that's why I continue to posit that the course of action for them is not so clear. No matter which path they choose they are going to anger a percentage of cardholders. The question is which path angers the absolute lowest number and (hopefully) least profitable ones.

Completely agree with this and I've stated it many times over the years in these forums. It's part of what I find frustrating with so many of the whining threads in this forum regarding card benefits. I've always said that the moment I don't believe I'm extracting more benefits/value from the card than it costs me I will cancel the card, immediately. Period. Full stop. And I won't look back. I won't start a thread here in this forum to whine about it, it will just be gone.

So far I generally find that one of our FHR stays per year almost always more than covers the $250 effective annual fee. The rest just becomes gravy.

I completely agree with that observation and that aligns with my own experience as well. That said, as they are continuing to spend money to build more new lounges, it would seem to be in their interest to solve this sooner rather than later.

It's possible, though that might be a risky approach as well. A lot of folks do indeed hold the card for Cent Lounge access. And though Centurion cardholders would never hear of it, the reality is that there are far, far more Platinum cardholders than Cent cardholders and I suspect, in aggregate, Platinum cardholders generate far, far more revenue than the Cent user base.
I suspect this is one reason they have not attempted to restrict Platinum cardholders yet (not saying they won't, but clearly they haven't taken that step) as the financial fall out from that step could be much more significant than an angry Cent cardholder that can't find a table...

Regards

scubadu

So, would you agree that the American Airlines Admiral's club has almost identical guest guidelines as Amex Cent Lounges; 2 guests or your immediate family? (meaning that Dad or Mom can bring their entire clan of ankle biters, no matter how many, into the Admiral's Club)

https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/...nge-access.jsp

Why do you suppose that AA is able to manage that and Amex can't? @:-) (I believe I have answer to that question, but I'm curious to here yours)

Regards

United747

More locations at the same airport. There are 3 at ORD, IIRC 4 at DFW, etc. That doesn't even include Flagship lounges

scubadu

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! Completely agree ^

And I'd throw in that many of the Admiral's Clubs at larger airports also have substantially larger footprints (square footage wise).

This is why I keep yelling in the wind in this forum that the Amex model just isn't going to scale. "Tweaks" here and there around the edges likely won't be enough. One small lounge in a large, high traffic airport that needs to serve ALL Amex Plat/Cent cardholders and their guests/family, flying all airlines, just isn't going to scale.

Regards

Steve M

Is the crowding problem really that bad? I've been to the IAH, DFW, LGA, and LAS lounges now, and although they've been crowded at times, I've never not been able to get a seat for myself, somewhere. And I've never seen the buffet picked clean where I couldn't get something to eat. I have no doubt that some of the lounges, at some times, get to 100% capacity, I'd be interested to know how often this is really a problem.

But to get to my main point: Even if crowding is a problem, I don't see it as a scalability issue. It's not as if as they add lounges in other cities, that demand for the current ones will go up substantially. I suspect that what we see now is more or less the "steady state" of affairs.

I do wonder how much the use of the space could be tweaked. For example, how often is the children's room used? If that were to be converted to regular seating, that would make room for several more 4-tops at least.

Steve M

Well stated. But with that last part, I think that makes you in the minority around here!


By "regularly guest people in," do you mean that you bring in people that you are traveling with, or random people you've met in the terminal or on a "guest meet-up" thread online? Regardless of whether or not you do it, that's certainly something that could be stopped in order reduce crowding. Since Amex is already checking boarding passes, there could be an additional rule that all guests must be traveling on the same flight. That would virtually eliminate guesting abuse, and have no effect on most bona-fide guest situations.

scubadu

Fair question but certainly many in this forum feel it is. That said, FTers struggle to realize they are but the tiniest, smallest sliver of the traveling public (or Amex cardholder base) so it's hard to know for sure. Clearly, we do have some anecdotal reports of people stating lounge attendants have acknowledged the crowding problems in conversations during check in. And clearly, the fact that they needed to put signs on tables to reserve space for Cent cardholders would seem to support the issue, else there would have been no reason to do that. I do suspect that business travelers doing the "Monday morning, Friday afternoon shuffle" certainly experience "peak" lounge crowding and I can certainly see why they care.

As for me, my wife and I have definitely experienced peak crowding in DFW, where we did in fact have to "hover" for quite a bit to find seating (we actually almost bailed for the Admiral's club, then in fact did after eating just to get some "space"). Additionally, one of the rare times that I flew UA last year on a business trip, I stopped into the SFO lounge and it was indeed a complete zoo. I started out standing to eat and pounced aggressively on a small table the moment I sensed the person was about to leave.

Sorry, disagree on that one. I definitely believe it's a scalability issue, but I suppose it depends what you mean by scalability. I'm not taking about adding lounges in other cities, but rather scaling the capacity at airports they are already in order to meet the demand they have created there. As I've mentioned, American Airlines has four separate clubs, one in each of DFWs four terminals, all of which are substantially larger physical spaces, they offer essentially the same generous guesting policies as Amex and I've never not been able to find a seat at an Admirals Club in DFW.

Oh, and by the way AA charges more for an Admiral's Club membership than Amex charges for the Platinum card and all they offer is club access. No FHR, no elite status in hotel or rental car programs, no priority pass membership, etc. etc. On the other hand, Amex has one relatively smaller lounge to support ALL Platinum/Cent cardholders, across all four terminals and airlines at DFW. That, by definition, is not scaling to meet the demand you have created through marketing the benefit.

Now, just map that logic across other airports. As another poster mentioned, AA has 3 Admiral's Clubs at ORD (plus a Flagship Lounge). That means just American Airlines has the same number of phyiscal clubs, at just two different airports, to service just their fliers (and alliance members) as Amex has in the entire system (all of which have smaller physical footprints) to serve ALL Amex Plt/Cent cardholders, their guests, and families, in the entire system.

Fair question and one they may have to consider, but again given the square footage of Cent Lounges, not sure that is enough space to make a meaningful difference.

Regards

scubadu

I'm almost always the minority in this forum.

Regards

cbn42

I think I'm even more of a minority on this, because I don't think this is a problem for either cardholders or Amex.

From my perspective: If I can get a seat 95% of the time, I'm happy. I would not find it worthwhile to pay a higher fee, give up my guesting privileges, etc., just to ensure that I can find a seat the remaining 5% of the time.

From Amex's perspective: It's better to have full lounges than empty lounges. Empty lounges mean lost revenue from people who might have been willing to pay for that space if it were cheaper. Overcrowding during peak times is better than limiting access and having unutilized space during the rest of the day. This is the same logic by which airlines overbook flights. It's better to occasionally deny someone boarding than to have empty seats on every flight.