dilbertsdaddy

I am sure I will get flamed for this, but here goes.....

I read these strings and it never ceases to amaze me.....

You complained the SC was too crowded.....and they are trying to address it.

You complained that the elite ranks were swelled.....and they are addressing it.

You complained that the award chart was not released and they released it. The bottom and top tiers are the same. Granted, we will not know until next year how hard or easy it will be to get low, but from my view, anything would be an improvement.

IS THERE ANYTHING DL CAN DO TO PLEASE YOU PEOPLE?

I will not argue the fact that not releasing the award chart when the earnings were changed was a major blunder....maybe they only released it now because of the backlash, we will never know. Not releasing it all together seems like a bigtime rookie mistake.....

I am not a DL apologist and I enjoy the miles but the main reason I fly DL is because they get me where I need to be ontime with my bag, on a clean, well-maintained airplane. The rest of it is gravy.

No one likes it when they are adversley affected, but the bottom "elites" must be pushed out, it has gotten out of hand and this is business. You can vote with your feet just like I did with Hilton. I'm sorry this has happened, but please move on.

Yeah, I know, easy for me to say since I already have enough MQD for DM in 2015....but I have a long way to go for MQM. I had double spend for what I needed last year and I still don't consider myself one of DL's top customers (140K MQM).

And, yes, the website sucks, I'll certainly give you that.

Just my two cents, flame away..........

WhiskeyBravo

Level 2 IS the new saver!

luckypierre

This internal fact about Delta's (and United's) explains a lot about management choices. Improvement in the financial statements is first priority; the effects on passengers is secondary. It is my understanding that the Deferred Revenue Method allows considerably more management discretion in assessing their actions than the Cost Method.

kettle1

Let's see what UA does. Lately they follow DL on almost everything DL does.

AA may wait a little longer, as the merger with US just took place.

I agree with this statement.

What do you want DL to do? Leave everything the same like it was still 1990 or 2000. Things change. How much is that loaf of bread, milk, cigs or a 6 pack of Bud Light? Prices go up and things change.

Welcome to 2014 and DL is giving options. Love it or leave it. For me this was Christmas in March.

And as a side note: I pay out my pocket for travel, unlike about 95% on FT.

DL did not have to release this news on Thurs, ahead of schedule by about 6 months, but they did. Perhaps to cut the crap by several hundred people that would Sh** if DL or any other carrier offered a free trip anywhere in the World - but you would have to pay the taxes.

The response would be that Sh** DL did not pay the tax. Gripe, Gripe, Gripe. Give me a break.

For those 95% that do not pay on their on dime, try UA or WN. Happy travels.

GUWonder

Congratulations on conducting a survey of the travel-payment habits of FTers. I doubt that 95% of FTers don't pay out of their own pocket for travel.

Repeating a fantasy doesn't deliver reality -- nor does it even result in a realization of the desires rooted in wishful thinking.

kettle1

OK. I'll drop this "survey" to 90%. So I am in the top 10%.

GUWonder

You're in the top 10% of FTers posting to FT.

I would highly doubt that only 10% of FTers pay for their own travel -- it's almost certainly way higher than that. Most all of them will also get burned by DL's 5-tier redemption shell game, in much the same way as hit people with the transition from DL's 2-tier to 3-tier redemption shell game.

CJKatl

You know this how?

You know this how?

You know this how?

A consumer who feels "fleeced" should do business with a different company. If this were so, why wasn't DL prosecuted? There is a difference between fleecing and changing a program to something you personally don't like. The first is a crime, which you've accused DL of committing. Using hyperbole evidences an over emotional response to an airline's marketing program.

How is awarding free travel an attack? How is aiming your marketing program at profitable customers rather than cheap seaters an attack? It's a funny kind of attack: giving people free travel for using the airline. Are you somehow entitled to more free travel for using the airline more while spending little? Is that one of those inalienable rights mentioned in the US Constitution? Or is that some fiction from the mind of the over-entitled?

This is the first thing you've written that makes sense. Of course DL did this with a profit motive. That's the purpose of a marketing program. The only reason to reward loyalty is to drive profit. Paying cheap seaters to purchase tickets at the same rate those purchasing more expensive fares makes little sense. The present system actually encourages less profitable customers more than more profitable customers. Bravo to DL for taking care of correcting that. DL isn't your family, a charity or the government. It's a private company with a mission to drive profits. How they can owe anything to anyone other than owing the shareholders profits is beyond me? You seem to imply they owe you perks (RDM) over profit. DL can explain to shareholders that investing in profitable customer's loyalty brings in more money, but it must be getting difficult to explain why money is being diverted to encourage unprofitable customers. For them, the cheap seat purchased should be enough award.

CJKatl

Yes, but DMs who spend as little as ~$0.28/mile can redeem for Level II for the same amount of flying as would presently be needed to redeem presently for Saver. Anyone spending more than this minimum comes out ahead if the assumption that Level 2 is the new Saver pans out.

At other levels, the conversion is below $0.28/mile. For customers bringing DL more cash, this still winds up being a win.

GUWonder

Easily, easily, easily having seen numbers before and knowing that some kind of changes don't happen so fast in some ways.

It happens. Less than completely when the market is an oligopoly where the big cartel players are living high on the hog from governmental waivers and favors.

Because not every customer-unfriendly, unethical action is illegal. And not every illegal action is prosecuted.

There may be a difference, but there isn't in this matter, especially given I know better how I used the term.

Where did I accuse DL of a crime in this thread? Feel free to make it up.

An apt characterization -- as I've done -- is not hyperbole; nor is it an indication of an emotional response. Rather it is an indication of a pursuit of rational interests.

Playing shell games to reduce the value that customers get out of miles already earned while claiming that the value is not being reduced for the customers in the main is an attack on the customers and a play for the gullible.

The devaluation of the SkyMiles program hits "profitable customers" and "cheap seaters" who may or may not also be profitable customers.

SkyMiles tickets are not "free travel" -- they are revenue tickets.


False.

Given how the pre-2015 SkyMiles system has come with DL having record profits, your claim about what the program currently does may be in some doubt.

CJKatl

Who cares if it's fair? The metric is driving profit to DL. As long as it's not illegal, DL should do whatever is necessary to drive the most profit.

People need to evaluate individual needs against what is being offered by each airline and make a rational business decision when it comes to purchasing airline tickets.

CJKatl

Hysterical. I agreed with you, but you indicated what you originally wrote is false? Are you really that turned around in your thinking?

GUWonder

"This is the first thing you've written that makes sense."

No, it's not the first thing I've written which makes sense. That is why your quoted sentence above is best characterized as "false".

The answer to your first question above is as follows: "no".

The answer to your second question above is as follows: "no".

GUWonder

If the perception becomes that the program is managed in such a way that its changes are widely perceived as unilateral, frequent, generally negative and excessively unfair to already vested consumers, then the program will go the way of the Green Stamps. Do you think that is good for longer-term DL shareholders, DL employees, DL suppliers and beneficiaries/relatives of such persons mentioned previously in this sentence?

CJKatl

Yes. Green Stamps stopped making sense. Companies realized they didn't need to purchase and offer stamps to be profitable and make customers happy. Being able to sell product without freebies would make DL shareholders very happy. It's not likely to happen right now.

Gas stations were big on Green Stamps, as were supermarkets. People were going to buy gas and food without incentive, much like people will continue to fly without incentive. Shareholders would be thrilled to just sell flying and to no longer have to run these side businesses, putting aside the AmEx piece, which drives its own profit. Sunoco, Exxon and Kroger seemed to do just fine without Green Stamps.

In fact, DL has expanded what it is giving those who drive more profit. This indicates DL still thinks giving away freebies is necessary to drive profit, but drive profit is the important thing here. If passengers aren't driving profit, who cares about upsetting them? Giving freebies to passengers who aren't profitable doesn't make sense. Kudos to DL for realizing that and doing something about it.