A OnePass case study: Geared toward top-tier elites
 

Although much has been discussed in this forum ad nausea, in preparation for the meeting with CO’s top officials in April, I decided to perform a little case study of my own. My case study centered on the costs and benefits of being a top tier elite with any given [major] airline. Now most of this stuff is common knowledge for FT-ers. However, I have never seen a complete compilation in one place, so I’m sure there will be a common retort of “I knew that” and “Yes, I knew that too”.

I did not want to go to the meeting with a bunch of rants about EQM’s, upgrade capabilities and other things which I’m sure will be addressed anyway. However, I did want to find out just how OnePass stood up to other airlines’ top tier status, from a matter of fact point of view.

Being based in SFO, I definitely do a lot of transcons every year, and hence part of my study is biased by this fact. For those who live in hub cities, options are sometimes cut and dried. Additionally, it is obviously up to the individual flyer to determine where there is value added and where there is not.

A disclaimer about upgrades: Since upgrade rates are impossible to determine without some serious industrial espionage, I left out any sort of conjecture regarding freebie upgrades.

In any event, my study provided me with some unsettling results. Here’s a few of the major high points of what I found out:

(1) All major airlines (except UAL) offer unlimited complimentary upgrades to their top tier elites. DL and AA are the recent additions, I think US started a while back. UAL is the only hold out that still charges for the privilege. It seems as though OP has lost it’s edge in this area

(2) CO has the least economy seat pitch of any airline I studied: 31”. Even Jetblue offers 2-3 more inches of legroom !! AA and UA both offer increased seat pitch in economy, worthy of note for lower level elites not getting good upgrade %.

(3) In comparison to DL, AA and UA, CO is the only airline that doesn’t offer ANY powers ports on ANY Transcon from SFO (actually ANY flight from SFO for that matter). UA offers it’s new P.S. service on transcons with power at every seat. AA has power at every Bus seat and lots in eco. I noted this morning that widebody EWR-LAX is gone in May, so add LAX to the list of transcons with no power.

(4) Of the four majors doing transcons SFO-NYC area (CO, AA, UA, DL), CO offers the second-fewest big seats. Note DL only ops 3 flights per days whilst the others all op 5. UA: 190 seats, AA 177 seats, CO 94 seats, and DL 64 (on the 3 flights). Note that AA Explats have free access to those 177 seats.

(5) NW and AA both offer upper-tier elites CONFIRMED companion upgrades at the time of booking, separate from SWU’s they offer to top-tiers. CO and NW are the only major airlines that don't offer complimentary SWU’s to top-tiers. US, AA, UA, and DL all offer SWU’s confirmable at time of booking.


The second part of my study focused on the costs to get a big seat on an international routing using the upgrade process. I took the big 6 (AA,UA,CO,NW,DL and US) and made mock bookings, mid-summer, from their hub-city to CDG. AA, UA and DL all from JFK. NW from DTW. CO from EWR, DL from ATL and US from PHL. All bookings were made in the LEAST EXPENSIVE UPGRADEABLE FARE. All costs included both out-of-pocket expenses, and mileage expense computed at the rate of $.05 per burned mile, based on a round trip upgrade.

Once again, CO AT BEST, was in the middle of the pack if not closer to the bottom. Here’s what I found out:

(1) CO had the HIGHEST out-of-pocket expenses @:-) (before mileage expense) of any airline, coming in at $1737 including the co-pay :td: . At least in my case, it’s the out-of-pocket I need to sell on my wife as miles are intangible to her. NW was lowest @ $1100 ^ , followed by: US $1162, AA/UA $1350ea, and DL $1582.
(2) However, factoring in mileage @ $.05/mile, CO did much better. NW led the pack @ $3100. CO came 2nd @ $3737 :rolleyes: . Followed by DL $4082, US $4162 and AA/UA at $4337 each (the most expensive of the bunch).

(3) HERE’S THE REAL KILLER: US, AA, UA and DL all offer top-tiers SWU’s ^ . Factor that into the mix and the results change DRAMATICALLY. Since there’s no miles to be burned with SWU’s, actual COSTS for getting the big seats becomes:

US - $1162
AA - $1337
UA - $1347
DL - $1582 (yes it was an M fare, upgradeable with SWU’s)
NW - $3092
CO - $3737 :mad:

Here’s my gut-feeling analysis of the results:

N.b. I consider US to be a bit of a question mark, so I really haven’t included them here.

If you’re going to fly 100K+ miles/year, AA has EVERYONE beat. CO doesn’t even come close. AA, DL and UA have power on tons of domestic flights. Come May, CO will operate only a handful, and none on transcons.

Since AA, DL, NW and CO ALL offer unlimited top-tier [domestic] upgrades, CO doesn’t look so good anymore. Couple this fact with AA’s, UA's and DL’s offerings of SWU’s and CO is in the dust….And NW offers [domestic] companion upgrades confirmed at time of booking.

Since AA, UA and DL operate wide bodies on many domestic routes, it would APPEAR that access to big seats on domestic flights would be greater :confused: . I know that my upgrade % has dropped significantly over the last few years. To re-iterate, however, I really don’t know !! I do know that CO seems to be moving toward flying 757’s and 737’s for ALL domestic routes, save perhaps IAH-EWR.

Overall, I’d rank them as follows, from best to worst: AA, DL, NW, CO :( , US, UA (I'd still rank UA at the bottom for the terrible domestic upgrade policies, others may differ)

What happened to my beloved CO being a no-brainer choice ? :rolleyes:

EDITED TO ADD FLEET FACTS.

Some further analysis and fleet facts

I was hoping to keep this thread dedicated to quantitative discrepancies between CO (and onepass) and other airlines services and products based on tiered elites (primarily upper-tier elites).

That's why I didn't really provide any analysis on food, pillows, friendly faces, or otherwise since it's up to you to decide the important things. For me, it's more seat for the dollar, staying productive in the air, and the ability to take a fancy trip once a year.

In concert with this paradigm [insert fancy buzzword here], I've compiled some stats on the big-five fleets and so-forth. Here goes:

SYSTEMWIDE FLEET FACTS (mainline only. sorry commuters, your SOL !!! ):

% OF PREMIUM SEATING AVAILABLE (F & J combined for this exercise):
UA: 14.97
AA: 14.66
NW: 14.42
DL: 14.21
CO: 12.45

Conclusion: That might not sound like a big difference, but 2% points means 2 extra big seats on a 100-seat aircraft; i.e. 2 more upgrades

% OF SEATING OFFERING POWER (either std 120V or em-power):
AA: 40.96 (WOW)
DL: 23.03
UA: 11.13
CO: 8.97
NW: 3.42 (ONLY THE NEW 330'S I'm afraid :( )

Conclusion: Well, it depends on the user. AA may get a bit tougher for laptops once MRTC is removed on most planes. However, CO only offers the chance on 9% of seats....and almost none domestically.

Seat Pitches (note I didn't worry about widths since the permutations become endless):

BEST AVAILABLE PITCHES FOR ELITES, ECONOMY SEATING:
UA: 34, 35 and 36" (economy +)
DL: 31, 31 and 33"
AA: 31, 32 and 33" (reflects removal of MRTC)
NW: 31, 32 and 33 (34 in some seats on 742's)
CO: 31 accross the board (conflicting reports of 32" and 33" on some 76's and 77's)

Conclusions: Perhaps CO's new articulated seats FEEL more spaced apart ?? However, little options exist for better legroom on ANY domestics op'd by CO

FIRST CLASS SEATING PITCHES (please note where 3-class aircraft exist [read UA and AA], only business class has been listed):
AA: 39/40 for narrow bodies. 50/60/62 for widebodies op'ing domestics, all int'ls
UA: 38 accross the board for domestics (however, some offer 3-class with better). 55 and up for int'ls
DL: 37 thru 40 for domestics. 37" on shorts only. 55 for int'ls
CO: 37/38 for all domestics (note very few @55). 55/78 for int'ls.
NW: 34/37 :td: for all domestics. 60/70 for int'ls.

conclusions: I'm gettin' squeezed baby :D . !!! CO now offers very little international tidbits on domestic routings. AA and UA flyers could get creative on certain routes and get a taste of the good life.


EDITED TO ADD THOUGHTS:

After performing the research, based on personal preferences, I'd gauge the airlines' as follows:

Lowest-level elites (ie Silver, AA Gold or United Premier):
UA (best)
NW / CO / DL (mid)
AA (worst)

rationale: If you're a lower level elite, with a poor upgrade % go for UA in a heartbeat. Until they start talking about removing ECO+, then you'll be happier with your seating in the long run. With ECO+ seat pitches approaching that of other carriers Biz seats, you can work on your laptop or simply stretch out. Waiting on an upgrade that comes only occasionally may be hurting your overall comfort. If your upgrade %'s are OK with CO/DL/NW why change? AA's upgrade policy for silvers isn't that great, and removal of MRTC will mean closer pitches approaching CO/DL/NW anyway......



Mid-Level Elites (ie Gold, AA Plat or UA Premex).

Hard to call. Not an easy answer so......


Upper Level Elites:
AA (best all-round)
NW/DL (middle)
CO (middle-bottom)
UA (worst)

Rationale:

AA offers the best all-round performance for upper-level elites. Although it takes 25K more miles to make it, AA simply offers more to their highest level elites than any other airline. Unlimited domestic upgrades coupled with SWU's make AA a clear choice... You may even get an occasional open seat beside you in biz. Creative planners on domestic routes also find themselves with power ports at premium seats and better seat pitches if you get yourself on a widebody operating a domestic route. These facts and a good worldwide partner system all make AA atractive to the top-tier flyer.

Northwest and Delta get good marks for unlimted upgrades and the ability to take an international trip without breaking the bank. While DL offers SWU's upgradeable from certain fares, NW has no international co-payment for upgrades making them a step ahead of CO in this respect. Both offer economy seating at worst equivalent to CO's economy. However, NW's domestic first is maybe lacking in seat pitch.

CO gets dinged for economy seat pitches, domestic biz class seat pitches and lots-o-cash to get the big seats on Int'l upgrades. While BF may be a great product, I find it hard to beleive it stands up to AA's and UA's first, which are attainable at 100/125K miles repectively (note CO charges 100K for BF). I also have a hard time grapsing that it's much better than DL's biz elite, or NW's WBC, although this fact is debatable. DL's bizelite and NWA's WBC come for 90K and 80K miles outright for awards respectively.

United is a wild card. It all depends on the traveler's habits. If you fly primarily internationally, then US is a pretty good choice. I'd much rather sit eco+ on United than economy CO if international. However, the domestic flyer still gets burned by UA's archane upgrade policy. For example, a trans-con flyer on a $400 purchased eco ticket will pay $500 for e-certs to upgrade round trip. With a $900 ticket, why not simply purchase a FC ticket on another airline? Flyers who fly mostly domestic routes would find themselves sitting in the back on a lot of flights to get the shot at international bliss.

Interesting analysis. I think we all know that CO's OP program has fallen quite dramatically in the past couple years. Add to that my recent dismal upgrade percentage as a plat and I'm seriously considering defecting to AA.

The one intangible plus that CO generally does have is, IMHO, "the most professional men and women in the air." I have to say that, with very few exceptions, CO takes pretty good care of me, especially when there are problems. I have found the service on AA (the other airline on which I'm elite) to be much more hit or miss (with a lot of surly employees). Of course with AA, I'm always upgraded (albeit at a cost, as a mid-tier elite).

Cheers,
Brooklynflyer

IMHO, one factor that may affect your analysis is the quality of the airline "underwriting" the FFP - CO has nearly all of the other airlines beat in this regard, both domestically and internationally, AA's F Suite excepted.

The airlines should remove number of miles flown as a criteria for elite, and combine it with some formula using dollars paid for fares. EUA should have a data base that lists some combination of cents per mile paid and dole out upgrades on that basis. I would have no problem upgrading a Silver who paid $3,000 in fares for his 25,000 miles, over a Plat who paid $2,999 for his 75,000 miles. But, I havent put much thought into how and what the limits would be. With $48 a barrell oil, miles alone is an overrated milestone to determine who gets upgraded

Interesting analysis.

Another pro for DL is that they offer free CRC memberships to top tier. ^

However, a big con for DL is that there will no longer be premium seats on transcons, as they go to all Song in a few months. :td:

I'm not sure counting the sheer number of seats in a market is indicative. CO is a smaller airline than others and one would expect them to have fewer F seats. Now if they have fewer F seats as a percentage of seats or market share, then that might be an interesting number to look at.

Chansbody, ever lurk on the DL forum? They might have some advice for you $$$/elite ratio.

Anyway, another factor to consider is that AA offers a lifetime Gold and Plat status. CO offers none whilst the others (AA, DL, UA, US?) do.


PS: Great Post Climmy! :) ^

In the end, it will be decided by the FF passengers and where they head. CO is clearly headed in a mode of ticking off its most FF - like DL did the year before.

To some extent CO's direction of RJ's is limiting its growth and tying up valuable slots at EWR with lots of 50 passenger jets.

The correct way to allocate upgrades is of course to work out which kind of customer, the $3000 Silver flier or the $2999 Platinum flier, will give more marginal revenue to Continental from receiving upgrades. Average fare paid is irrelevant - airlines are about trying to maximize profit, not 'fairness'.

My guess is that the Silver flier paying that much is presumably booking last minute and flying nonstops, and would probably keep doing that anyway when Continental is the most convenient option for them. So to a first approximation, the marginal benefit of giving them upgrades is zero. Whereas the Platinum paying $2999 is clearly maximizing their miles to earn upgrades, so if they had no chance at those upgrades because high fare low status fliers were ahead in the priority list, then they might well switch all their flying to another airline where flying lots of miles got them upgrades. So the marginal benefit to Continental of offering this Platinum flier upgrades is probably pretty close to $2999 (less what they would have sold any seats on full flights for, but since most flights are not 100% full, this isn't that much). So it makes a lot of sense to give the upgrades to the cheap fare Platinum.

Actually what this analysis suggests is that it would be best to reward those who fly a lot and pay very little, since they're probably the most fussy customers. That is, FTers should get upgraded ahead of all other fliers... :)

(All of this assumes that other airlines keep offering status according to BIS miles. It might well be that if airlines could (illegally) collude and all offer status based only on fares paid, then they would all be better off. The analysis above wouldn't apply because the $2999 Platinum who gets no upgrades wouldn't have anywhere to defect to. But that ain't how the world works yet, thankfully for FTers!)

That was a very interesting analysis. CO may come out at the bottom of the categories, but that only piques my interest more. CO transcons have been almost completely full on all but one of my last 18 flights. From your analysis they're more expensive and yet they're also losing less money than the others. While I agree that CO's competitive edge is gone, they are obviously doing something right.

CO offers Elite Access to infrequent flyers who buy Y tickets. I have been told that they can upgrade for a $50 fee, in advance (at time of ticketing).

The upgrade system is a courtesy to FF when there are unsold FC seats. If the high fare infrequent passenger wants an upgrade - let them buy a Y fare and pay the $50. The possibility of an upgrade, when FC seats are unsold, is an advertised benefit - a courtesy to those that spend a lot of time in CO seats, regardless of fare.

Infrequent high fare passengers - are either those that fly another airline most of the time - and only need to fly CO for this one non-stop, or are such an infrequent traveller - that in the long run - there business is not significant. Now if a large percentage of passengers fell in this category - it would be great for CO, however, this is a very small number of people.

Wow what a great analysis. What a nice pretty objective way to look at things that i thinks does confirm a lot of what gets talked about here.

A couple of thoughts:

Don't think NW has power on any domestic (maybe even int'l flights--maybe new airbus does).

Also some airline offer entertainment of some sort--CO--NW doesn't.

These are minor clarifications.

I don't think airlines will got to $'s over miles. To confusing for everyone. It's easy to track miles. Not so easy to track $'s. Also, I can't see CO going after corprate business with pay more for your flights and we'll upgrade your employees. This won't solve revenue issues. As someone who flys close to 100K per year, I know I fly all kinds of fares (although never full Y of FC). I fly the fare the airline offers me on the route I am seeking to fly. I would never buy up to have status nor could I argue that to my boss. I might and do occassionaly pay more for conveince or because I have to be somewhere at a given time on short notice but still pay lowest fare I can find.

Loyalty is a two way street. I am loyal to you fly your airline as much as I can at prices you offer. You reward as you see fit for that business.

As an AA elite (getting my EXP this year), I'm happy with your results, but I'm not so sure that AA is as great as you make it out to be.

If you jump over to the AA forum, you'll find us complaining about AAs continuing quest to move mid- and trans-con flights to MD80s,737s and 757s, so the widebody advantage won't be as great in the future. In addition, AA is eliminating pillows (soon to be blankets, we've heard) from almost all of their domestic flights (except trans-con). They are also significantly curtailing meal service - including in F.

Taking all of those things into consideration, AA may be cheaper and get you into the front more often (and for free), but their amenities are quickly going bye-bye. That's fine if all you want is the bigger seat, but if you're looking for more than that, you may be out of luck.

Nice analysis. Just a couple additional points of clarification:

I believe that NW only has power on its 744s and 330s in WBC and on the 330 in coach. Those are only used for international flights.

I don't think NW offers its Plats SWUs automatically (at least if it does I never got mine). Last year they did a promo where plats could earn SWUs, but they were almost impossible to obtain. In the beginning of your analysis you noted that NW, DL, and AA offer SWUs available at the time of booking (point 5) but later note that NW doesn't offer SWUs (point three under the mock booking...if they did, the total price would drop dramatically)...a bit confusing.

Again, a great overall analysis. You bring up some interesting points. This would be really nice if you could try to incorporate the premium product information (e.g. seat width, pitch, etc) for both domestic F, and international BF/B/F. It may give us a better idea if we are getting what we pay for ;)

Nicely done. I agree the coach seats leave a lot to be desired. I have not flown any of the other major lines but I do prefer Southwest and JetBlue seats to CO's coach.

UA does offer SWUs to its top-tier 1Ks on most cheap international economy fares. When factored in, where would UA stand in your cost comparison?