gawhite411

Harrumph. If this kind of thing happens even once a year, it is totally unacceptable. I would proposed a 1 year moratorium on Non-revs in F, with every single GA who did an illicit upgrade in the last 5 years publicly outed in the newsletter to EVERY CO employee.

A little peer pressure on GAs might help end this problem.

bocastephen

I don't want to see this either - non-revs should be upgraded into empty F seats once Elites and companions clear. That is fair, and how it's always been.

Obviously, the problem here is the perceived low risk of getting caught and the possibility of little to no punishment if one is caught.

If CO management takes upgrade integrity seriously, they should be an equally serious effort to make sure employees involved in the process are perfectly clear on the rules and what can happen if they play games.

The PDA site is a great help and the gate display screens will help even more - but as we know from the Delta forum, agents can always find ways to circumvent that level of transparency as well.

TWA Fan 1

Hmm....

I don't know about this.

On the surface, I actually think the non-revs have a stronger case for FC than upgraders.

Clearly, non-revs should never displace a customer who pays for FC (this could very well incude Y-UP's and B-URPS, while we're at it).

But flying on a coach fare and getting an upgrade is a perk, it's nothing more than a freebie.

For the average hard-working airline employee, working the trenches and, for the most part, making a paltry living, this is one most prized portions of the benefits package.

That's the key: For airline employees it's not a freebie the way it is for an upgrader. For airline employees it's part of the benefits package. It's one of the main reasons they're wiling to bust so much hump for so little cash. They're working for it and have a reasonable expectation of it as one of their in-kind benefits, in lieu of actual salary.

I think the idea of setting aside a small number of seats per year purely for non-revs is a fantastic one, it's a real world solution to a real world problem.

Sure, you can insist on a zero-tolerance policy and 100% compliance, but the only outcome of making the rules unreasonable is the greater likelihood they will be violated.

Think about it the next time you're flying on a $250 rt ticket, upgraded to FC for free: What about that non-rev stuck in a middle seat in CO's signature E- who makes less than $30k a year and would love to be able to enjoy one of the perks he or she has earned?

Anglo Large Clawed Otter

On airlines like UA, where the loyalty program is based around instruments, where SWUs are offered, where almost all fees are waived for top-tiers, and where the airline offers E+, I would tend to agree. CO's entire loyalty scheme is largely based around the concept of EUA. If they killed off EUA in favor of seating non-revs up front, then CO's program becomes extremely uncomptetitive when compared to its peers. Barring an overhaul of the entire OnePass program, your suggested solution would only be beneficial for a short while... as the customers who keep CO afloat would begin leaving in droves.

pptp

Wow, just the suggestion from our clients that CO employees should be given limited, guaranteed access to FC based on benefits is refreshing to hear. I think something fair would be 1 or 2 upgrade certs per year per employee that expire yearly (this is my "balanced" viewpoint because given my choice, I would ask for much more than that). So you're talking 25,000 - 50,000 +/- certs per year that are actually excersized, all contingencies considered. Spread throughout the whole system/year, what kind of impact would that really have?

xzh445

Excellent Point TWA Fan. Also, as some of my CO friends have told me, employees pay an additinal service charge fee for F/J calss seats, on top of the pass charge. This charge is waived after 25 years of service, so most non-revs are indeed paying a service charge to sit up front.

To blame not getting a seat up front on the vast, overwhelming majority of folks out there, who patiently wait behind paying customers on the list really is a bit unfortunate. Pass riding didn't create this issue. Someone not following the standby clearing process (we think) caused it. Suggesting that there not be any non revs allowed in F/J is about as silly as suggesting that there be no battlefield upgrades......hmmmmmmmmm.

sbm12

(emphasis mine)

It is part of the "benefits package" for the frequent fliers, too. Yes, it is a "freebie" just like free travel opportunities are available to employees. But to say that elites don't deserve the upgrades and that the employees do because they work at the company is ridiculous.
They ARE enjoying a perk that they've earned - pass travel. I'd consider giving up EUAs for an employee travel pass.

There are many different ways to provide benefits. To say that employees traveling in Y are unable to enjoy that perk because they are not in F is ludicrous.

channa

I think the additional fee for F is common at other airlines.

I recently witnessed a GA for an ATL-ORD segment (UA explus RJ with F) try to get the nonrevs to spring for F. Y was over, but F was under, so they were definitley getting on the plane, the question was where. This is one of those routes that's really not worth upgrading in the UA program (2 x 500-milers for a 606-mile flight). So Elites don't want it, and with the extra fees, non-revs don't seem to want it either.

None of the 4 non-revs was willing to take it, so she ended up op-upping some Elites (including us).

TWA Fan 1

Clearly if getting an upgrade to FC is a perk to an upgrader (who is not paying for FC or in any way working for it) why wouldn't it be at least as much of a perk for a non-rev?

Second, if we agree that the perk is equally enjoyable to both groups, then who do we think has greater merit in receiving the perk, a group that works for it, busting hump, or someone who just buys enough economy class tickets to reach an artificial threshold of loyalty?

Mind you, I am not suggesting that non-revs take precedence to frequent fliers, who are clearly important to the airline (and, therefore, the employees themselves), simply that a limited number of seats be set aside so that this is a benefit to which employees can reasonably have access.

channa

This is very true. Also with the very low EUA upgrade rates that some of us experience (mine at 33% as Platinum included), further reducing upgrade rates even marginally across a program whose major benefit is upgrades, would be very bad.

TWA Fan 1

No one ever suggested scrapping EUA.

Let's not get our panties in a bunch...

We're simply discussing setting aside a limited number of seats for non-revs.

Think of it like this: EUA is a killer perk for all you elites out there, often or constantly flying FC without ever paying for it. Let's not lose track of that.

In fact, the more you EUA, the more, in essence, you're "taking" money away from the airline and, by association, its employees.

A few seats set aside every year would be but a humble gesture of gratitude to the hard-working and long-suffering employees of CAL for so much free privilege, don't you think?

bocastephen

Ummm no. For the average hard working airline employee in the trenches, one of the most prized portions of the benefits package is free or reduced cost travel - there is nothing in the benefits package that states F or J travel is a key benefit.

Upgrades to F or J are simply one of the available options an employee can select for their travel perk if a seat is open in that cabin. A nonrev employee on personal travel can not displace a Y customer, so why are people suggesting they should displace someone who is being put in F by virtue of their frequent flier program benefits?

bocastephen

Oh, come on now. Let's be serious here

xzh445

Well....you know that......if we were to have a "tax inclined" Congress and Administration, that thought that a revenue stream were to be had: they could view an unpaid upgrade as imputed income. So that, if someone were travelling on a $250 ticket, and got upgraded to First, valued at $750, they just received $500 imputed income. 30% of that would be $150.00. And of course, the government ALREADY views airlines as a collection branch of the Treasury Dept, and would have them collect it on the spot.

"Mr Jones, you are cleared for First Class. The imputed income tax will be $150.00. What credit card would you like to pay that with? Could I have your Tax ID number or a copy of your W-9? You get the Shakesphere seat today.....2B. Have a great flight"?


Think that it can't happen?
Forget the Kool Aid ----------- Tea Bags anyone??

sbm12

It is easy to lose track of this since it is just plain wrong. No, I do not pay a for a F fare every time, but that doesn't mean that over the long term I haven't paid enough for an F seat on that flight based on the metrics that the airline has defined for acquiring that seat.

Where did you come up with this one? What money is being taken away? If CO sould sell the seat for real-time money they would. They upgrade elites into seats that are not otherwise sold. And it allows them to sell more Y seats in many cases. So where is the money that is being "taken" from the carrier and the employees?

I agree that the vast majority are hard working. I disagree that they are long-suffering. And it would be a nice privilege for them but there is the other side of the argument to balance it against - the efficacy of their loyalty program and its ability to draw repeat customers that provide cash flow to the carrier over a long term.