BearX220

That is very well said! I know exactly what you're driving at. But I don't think getting to 40 should require a pulldown from 100. ^

sbm12

Indeed. And it does on every carrier that offers a tiered program. The extent to which it manifests itself in various scenarios will necessarily differ based on the program rules and implementation; there is no reason to expect that they will all be identical. If they were there would be no concept of competitive advantage, right?

Agreed, but I'd like to see the 10 become a 40 before I worry about the 90 becoming a 100. I'd love to have it all, but that's not going to happen so it is necessary to make decisions on where to focus limited resources.

Since they were wholly theoretical I'm not sure that they are supposed to represent reality.

And yet they still have to make a choice. There is no reason to implement policies - or encourage employee behavior - that actively shun such customers. That's what a "10" performance would be relative to a "40" where the customer is made to feel welcome, not just another piece of self-loading cargo.

One does not have to be a FT member to realize the difference in the products out there. And since most of those infrequent customers are going to have a choice between relatively similar price and (in)convenience points on their trip there should be a motivation on the part of the carriers to make it worthwhile for those customers to pick the carrier. It is possible to be a profitable airline without focusing all your efforts on just the business customers who fly every week. There's something to be said for that.

channa

I understand, but this is a unique event. We have two distinct sets of processes here, and if they're going to tout this as "best of both worlds," I think we should at least push for that.

If that means raising the bar for CO's Elites in some customer handling situations, then we should do that. Just like we should raise the bar for UA's GM's. If that means we should push for UA to relax some arcane MP redemption rules, we should do that too.

I understand it may take time, but no need to let up on the pressure. After all, I never said "best of both worlds," they did.

bseller

Like when you're holding Y tix, op-upped to C, and then get stuck in LHR for 48 hours owing to 2 separate and distinct mx delays??
Yep, agreed.
Ok, fair point! That defines pain to me!
That sounds like a good thing to me!!
Interesting conjecture but I'm guessing that it's just a tad bit too Machavellian to be true??
I suppose that it isn't a DESIRE to do as you suggest, but rather an unavoidable consequence or outgrowth of the fact that elites DO have access to special Res numbers. We DO pay for that privelege, however, in terms of loyalty, IMO.
OK, I'll take your word for it.
As a UA (exclusive) flyer, I have no reason to do anything other than accept your viewpoint and wait and see.

Dave

bseller

OK, we can agree on this. I suspect that both UA and CO have employees/stations/management layers where BOTH give 10s and other places where they BOTH give 40s.
Surely no one could argue this point.
This is where we'll have to ATD. In my reasonably extensive interraction with friends, family and colleagues who fly on whatever plane gets 'em there "cheapest" - I don't believe that the carriers do have such a motivation as you suggest.
YEP! How long do you think it'll be before you fly WN??

Dave

gawhite411

I think there is. Head over the UA board. Watch a general member post. Before they even think of saying anything they will bow in the direct of the almighty 1Ks/GS's. The airline has a culture and it is reflected on that board that by definition only top tier are worthy of anything.

BearX220

If that were true, there'd be no point in branding airlines at all. Just send elites a nice packet with the logo on it; for everybody else, paint the planes white with the 800 number on the tail.

But there is a point in mass-market branding because airlines do have back stories and narratives which do influence buying behavior. A standard feature of Thanksgiving dinners everywhere is the Airing of Travel Grievances, concluding with everyone around the table vowing never to fly American or United or whatever, ever again. That kind of discussion X 100 million affects an airline's bottom line, and it's in a carrier's best interest to minimize them with better service.

bseller

You again, unknowingly, make my point for me. You are talking about a UA GM who is also an FTer - or they wouldn't be posting here. @:-)
FTers are a miniscule, minor, unimportant, and statistically insignificant part of the flying public.
I am talking more generally about the flying public - almost all of whom have never heard of FT, much less post on it.

Dave

bseller

Fair nuff! I think, in fairness, you may have missed that "sarcasm" smilie that I am SURE I put on that post!!
Yes, agreed. But OF COURSE, the very next time that American or United or WHOEVER is the cheapest, most convenient method of getting to Grandma's - they FLY them again!!
Better service? YES. Ability to influence the Airing of Grievances discussions? Not so much, IMO.

Dave

channa

Right, and different types of customers have different expectations in similar situations.

A once-a-year flyer hit with an ORD snowstorm may take it in stride and accept whatever the airline does to him, so long as it's done with a smile.

Meanwhile, I'll take the same snowstorm in stride, but if I find a way to get through or around it, I expect that I should be able to propose it, and the airline will work with me to accommodate so long as I'm being reasonable (e.g., alternate airport, reroute around potential weather on your metal, or whatever the case may be).

I was surprised on my recent DL misconnect (it was a significantly late inbound with probably 100% of the connectors misconnecting) how many people just accepted what the computer gave them. I'm always looking for reroutes/alternates/etc. to either avoid the problem or improve what the computer can do to the same area.

Carolinian

As a recent CO elite, comped over as a refugee from the DL takeover of NW, I watch all of this with a sense of foreboding. Mergers can be viewed as it was for DL/NW as an opportunity for ''enhancements'' that screw customers. I hope that will not happen with CO/UA but the possibility certainly has my attention.

The big concern I have in this is UA's person heading the loyalty program. I fear this may spell *Net blocking, which would be a deal killer for me.

As I watch the negative news of a UA person announced to head the new loyalty program, it comes with news on AA that makes that airline more attractive, the JV with BA and 3 other airlines which may improve milage earning on partners and the addition of Air Berlin to OW which will give an alternative European gateway to the miserable LHR. At least if *Net blocking stays with the new UA, then AA seems to be a much better alternative than it was.

The question is whether to give the new UA a chance for a year or bolt to AA after the first of the year? Since the places I fly to in Europe are rarely the gateways, *Net blocking is a huge issue to me. I hope I can get an answer on that before I have to make the decision. If *Net blocking is gone at the new UA, I will stay. If not, it is probably off to AA. The one thing I know is that DL is certainly not a viable option.

channa

How would it be a deal killer? I know StarNet blocking gets a lot of attention here on FT, and yes it's annoying, but many who talk about it don't understand it. The vast majority of partner awards are still available. I've redeemed several hundred thousand UA miles on partners' premium cabins at the Saver level, on good carriers like LH, NH, OZ, SQ, and TK.

That aside, CO's and UA's philosophies on loyalty program are night and day, and I think that a UA person heading this is actually a good thing. I'll expand on what J.Edward said earlier, by saying that CO has historically been stingy with benefits, to the point that only with the UA partnership did they actually fix some of the ongoing issues with the OP program.

Also if you follow them, you'll see how they act in situations. In addition to having weaker award availability than most on their own metal, CO had been extremely stubborn with first year annual fee waivers for years on their credit card products (all while AA, UA, and DL were gaining CC customers to feed their loyalty program). They've changed their tune a bit, but again, that's only been in the last year or so since the UA partnership.

Promotion-wise, UA has historically been stronger, offering not just things like CR1s to its 1Ks, but Elite Choice, and matching competitor offerings like year-end rewards last year. UA matched both of AA's DEQM promotions last year, while CO only matched the second one (that was only after the UA partnership was in full force).

In other words, I think UA understands how to utilize the program to drive business and offer competitive response, whereas CO sometimes behaves like they offer a program because they feel have to.

I think this selection was a good one, and what we can shoot for is that the combined carrier can build on UA's mentality with the program, yet eliminate nuisance items such as *net blocking as well as employ some of CO's more liberal mix/match policies on award tickets.

sbm12

I agree that it is probably not a deal breaker but to suggest that people don't understand it might be a bit off. I think that many folks understand the concept but overestimate the blocking level. Still, the fact that it exists is annoying, especially since there is nothing to prevent the carrier from making it worse as they see fit. The fact that they are on record as supporting the concept is troubling as a business process.
Not true. CO ran DEQM in both the spring and fall last year.
This would be quite nice indeed.

channa

Agreed. I think the impact is what people overestimate. That said, I'm with you, I don't like it as a concept. OW has a policy that prohibits such blocking. Star, unfortunately, has no such policy.


My bad. That was a really late match, IIRC.

BearX220

Also, accurately or not, CO for years felt it had less to compensate for re: its hard product. UA has used loyalty tools to try to erase customers' memories of labor issues, operational meltdowns, crappy aircraft, etc. CO hasn't.

I have read plenty on FT about StarNet blocking, and I'd be very unhappy to experience it myself, but as I have no direct experience I'll hold my fire and just say I hope such things are not in our future. I certainly am not going back to DL and can't see myself starting over with AA, so here I am for the duration.