Guess again.

This time I disagree; not all supply is created equal and while any airline can fill all their seats at $1 fares, chances are they won't quite run into an abundance of high fare (say K+) customers.

What the industry's doing with the pull downs is to chopping off the lower end of the demand curve by raising prices (and thus loosing the cheap customers.)

Loyalty will still play as large a role as it previously has, maybe a greater one, as there's not going to be an abundance of full-fare fliers anytime soon. And that's what an airline will need to compete for such customers assuming there's not a pricing or scheduling advantage.

If AA hosted anything on par with what CO has done at the DOs you would be better informed.

Serious question (and I apologize if this was covered already, I read through most of this thread) -

Do non elites have to pay the $15 if the overheads are full and their "carry-on" bag has to be checked at the gate?

But isn't the problem that CO (and most US FF programs) has gone out of their way to reward the wrong type of loyalty? A 50% bonus for BF or paid F? No differentiation among the vast majority of fare classes? Full bonus miles on partner airlines? It isn't a program that is exactly designed to drive incremental revenue.

And then they exacerbate the problem by introducing the 50% EQM thing in the exact wrong way. If you were given the choice between privileging corporate accounts or privileging casual fliers, which would you choose? CO chose to chase minor cost savings and created a system that penalizes those customers most likely to give them real revenue premiums.

I don't like the changes, but I disagree that CO is somehow chasing away a pot of gold. If OnePass is meant to drive incremental pax revenue (I'm not convinced it is), then dropping the elite bonuses is the least of their obstacles to accomplishing that goal.

Funny. Did you know, in advance, that this was coming? Did CO whisper this in everyone's ear out in Vegas? They didn't even do that when it was good news (the new BF)!

I'm sure everyone enjoys the DOs and they sound like a great time. But... let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they are letting us all in on some great secret that isn't readily available from their press releases, earnings calls, filings, and the like. If it is important, it is material. If it is material, then they won't be announcing it at a DO.

And, even if the communication is nice (and I respect the hell out of Scott for posting the bad news, not sugar-coating it, taking the heat, and answering questions), it still doesn't make the news any better. Objectively, an AA FFer has endured no more devaluation to their program than a CO FFer. LK may be a genuinely great guy. But, he is not your friend and I doubt/hope he doesn't make business decisions with the feelings of anybody here in mind.

Maybe my business travel is different, but since I seem to book all my travel 3-10 days prior to the trip (10 is really really pushing it), I pay a higher cost than the average budget consumer. I'm assuming that I pay a higher cost since I doubt the average family of four is paying $1500 for a ticket to Memphis or Chattanooga. Of course my cost for bigger cities is less, but I'm still sure that given the times I travel (peak business times) and the lack of preparation (i.e. 21 days in advance or something like someone planning a vacation), I'm sure I pay the higher than average fare. Given that most of the business travelers in my industry sit in the same boat, I feel that we should be rewarded with FF systems- we are paying the premium. In fact, I read somewhere that as the seat price/mile increases, it's the business traveler who picks up the greater majority of the cost. CO and all the other airlines depend on us 100K+ flyers, and they should reward us for our loyalty.

Like I said before, since I live in central Texas and I have a choice as to the hub I fly to, I will continue to fly AA. At least they provide me with 1000 miles Aus-DFW- even if the mofos won't open up my Toronto seat for an eVIP!

Welcome to WN.

No charge for gate checking your bag.

I agree that people like you are picking up a disproportionate share of the cost. And, as such, it would be logical to make the FF program more rewarding to people like you (i.e. make it like hotel programs where you get points/dollar). However, if airlines were to cut capacity enough that the cheapest fair for your route was actually $1500, would you keep flying? Likely, you would have no choice. But the family paying $199 for the trip would stop doing it. Thus, if the airlines cut capacity enough, they will keep those high-fare passengers (who MUST fly) and lose the low-fare paying ones. And once the airlines have reached a supply-demand equilibrium (where they can charge what they want b/c there is no excess supply), they have lost the need to lure people in with benefits (at least in my mind). 100 individuals who fly on 1 $1500 ticket per year each are worth no less overall than 1 individual who flies on 100 $1500 ticket.

J. Edward -- I agree that the industry is trying to cut off the lower-fare part of the demand curve. And when they do that enough, all they will have left (in theory, at least), is the high-fare part of the demand curve. They will eventually cut supply until it meets demand at a reasonable price-point for them.

While I'm with UA now, I do think that (other than the nasty old md80s they fly) that at this point AA has the best loyalty program. They give the most, and this may have something to do with hubs that (other than DFW) all are quite competative. even DFW used to have (DL) lots of competition and still does if you count WN.

I wonder what CO thinks its doing, I expect a migration of SAT and AUS fliers to AA. If I were in TX I would move on

hotels are far different. I can stay in a four points, a westin or a W or St. Regis, and if I get a suite its more. What I pay in many cites is my choice. With airlines the fares are set and (other than buying ahead) out of my control. I qualify for elite on stays, but my rewards are based upon my spend. This model could be applied yes, but only if status was untied from the goodies, as it is to some extent with those who fly the most getting the most miles.

There are also trade offs. What CO has been good at is getting revenue out of every seat by e.g. pricing Y a few bucks higher than the available H, or pricing F discounted at a few bucks more than Y. The result is higher fares get paid for the few Seats. However, then someone like me catches on, and moves over to UA which protects its F cabin (much greater price difference) and spreads the benifits arround more... Eventually these type of policies catch up to you. Folks eventually notice...

It is regrettable that my first post will be a negative one. I've lurked, learning many things from regular posters, and for that, I will say thank you. I haven't felt I've had much to add, so I've waited.

For the last year I have been flying Continental regularly, including many short segments. To many friends and family members, I have been remarking how much better Continental is -- that they're not stooping to most of the negative changes other legacy airlines are, and have management that must realize what a mistake that would be and what an opportunity they have to differentiate themselves in this market. Further I recognize that what Scott does, in terms of customer relations, is remarkable and unusual.

I shall not make those recommendations so quickly now, because I am quite disappointed by these decisions. The first bag fee is foolish (most passengers need to take one), and could have been used in advertising as a significant differentiator. The 500-mile minimum compensated for the hassle of using an airport for a short distance (the time spent to fly is longer than the flight), and taking the risk of a delay -- when US Air did this, I vowed not to fly with them again. The reduction in the Silver bonus is just a kick to those who fly a moderate amount and try to be loyal for the perks that do come with it.

Continental Management -- I think you've made an error going down this path. It would be wise to reconsider. You have reduced my loyalty and goodwill today.

Most of us in Texas probably feel like we've spent all the time in DFW that we ever care to already. I sure as hell do.

ETA, plus AA beat even UA to implementation of 1st bag fee; they might be last to minimum miles, but they'll be there eventually.

As an AA Plat I am batting 100% upgrades this year on the routes I fly. I cannot say the same thing as a CO Plat. Of course on some routes ERJs are the only thing offered on CO so upgrades are out of the question. This year when weather and mechanicals have caused delays AA has brought me home on the same day, CO has taken an extra day. So, I will gladly ditch them. I will continue to fly AA domestic and pacific flights, after all as an AA PLAT I get lounge access, I need to be a PLAT on CO to do it, and switch to LH for European flights. As an FLT (*A silver) I get lounge access, on time flights, an occasional op-up, and complementary drinks on TATL trips. Plus I am really close to the 2 million mile mark on AA to have PLAT for life.

It has been fun.

However, airlines have large fixed costs. There are aircraft leases, corporate overhead, etc that can't be cut just by reducing the number of flights. If there are 20 people willing to fly a route at $1500 a piece, do you think they want to offer 20 seats? It might be affordable to fly an RJ at that leg, but who would pay $1500 for an RH? So they need a mainline AC, and is 20x1500 enough to cover the mainline AC? No, they need to fill up another 140 seats at $150-700.

I thought AA started it all with the first bag fee? So they didn't just beat UA....they started the whole mess.

I have no doubt AA will drop with 500 miles min.