Originally Posted by buckbuck
(Post 31337167)
Overcrowding in the JFK SkyClub has gotten so bad over the last year has gotten so bad (and it's not just because of construction), it is almost impossible to find a place to sit down. I asked one of the managers about it on my last visit (I'm there at least three times a month). She told me it's mainly driven by Amex Platinum card holders. Considering the overcrowding I've seen here and at many other SkyClubs seems that cost of entry is too low. I'm personally happy to see limitations based on day of travel. I'd also like to see an increase in cost for guests. Something has to be done. It's gotten so bad, inside the club is just as noisy and uncomfortable as outside the club. That's NOT what we're paying for.
It's a little bit of a specious argument to suggest that cost should be used to manage capacity (the Disneyland solution - jack up the prices until only those who can *really* afford it can get in). In reality, Delta should be either expanding capacity to support the number of passengers that they are extending access to - or limiting the number who have access. |
Originally Posted by Qwkynuf
(Post 31337494)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wonder what you mean by "limitations based on day of travel"? To my knowledge, all methods of entry except grandfathered lifetime memberships require same day travel on a Delta flight (or certain international SkyTeam flights).
It's a little bit of a specious argument to suggest that cost should be used to manage capacity (the Disneyland solution - jack up the prices until only those who can *really* afford it can get in). In reality, Delta should be either expanding capacity to support the number of passengers that they are extending access to - or limiting the number who have access. In referring to my point of view which is subjective as "specious" (therefore not wrong or misleading), you've got me stumped. Generally like it or not, airport lounges are meant to be somewhat exclusive, otherwise everyone would be lining up for free champagne and snacks. Heck, in Germany, Lufthansa has increasingly exclusive lounges based on class of service. For a very long time I was unable to afford the annual fee for the Red Carpet Club until my company started paying for it. I was okay with that. Airlines can only expand capacity so much before they run out of room. The lounge at JFK is huge and it still can't support the number of people that enter every day. So...yes, I support raising the prices especially for guests. As far as Disneyland is concerned (not the best comparator), that is a whole different story. It should not be limited to those with means, corporate sponsored beneficiaries, etc. There are lots of other ways to control crowds to theme parks. I agree with you there. |
Originally Posted by Qwkynuf
(Post 31337494)
It's a little bit of a specious argument to suggest that cost should be used to manage capacity (the Disneyland solution - jack up the prices until only those who can *really* afford it can get in). In reality, Delta should be either expanding capacity to support the number of passengers that they are extending access to - or limiting the number who have access.
2) why is using cost to manage capacity bad but "limiting the number who have access" ... not bad? |
Originally Posted by WillBarrett_68
(Post 31338201)
1) there's only a finite amount of space in most airports
2) why is using cost to manage capacity bad but "limiting the number who have access" ... not bad? 2) I would say limiting access would be more beneficial for those that still have access because it would be all upside. Increasing costs would mean those that still have access would now be paying more, and there is no guarantee it would work (Disney was a good example, now it costs a fortune and is still packed). So "bad" in this case depends on which side of the limited access determination you fall. |
Originally Posted by Qwkynuf
(Post 31337494)
<snip>Delta should be either expanding capacity to support the number of passengers that they are extending access to - or limiting the number who have access.
Not saying I'd pay continued cost increases, but it's a very legitimate way to control demand. Contrary to another posters comment, not all airports are going to invest in a capital expansion just because an airline club has become overcrowded. It might be possible at some airports, particularly if an expansion is already in the works, but the idea that airports should just "expand" because FTers want to get into uncrowded airport lounges cheaply, probably isn't in the cards. Regards |
Originally Posted by scubadu
(Post 31338265)
And of course one way to "limit the number who have access" is... wait for it... COST!
Not saying I'd pay continued cost increases, but it's a very legitimate way to control demand. Contrary to another posters comment, not all airports are going to invest in a capital expansion just because an airline club has become overcrowded. It might be possible at some airports, particularly if an expansion is already in the works, but the idea that airports should just "expand" because FTers want to get into uncrowded airport lounges cheaply, probably isn't in the cards. Regards But if the goal is to make the place *even more* of an upper-middle-class-white-guy-club, then by all means.... |
Originally Posted by defrosted
(Post 31338234)
1) Space can be added at airports (expansion),
2) I would say limiting access would be more beneficial for those that still have access because it would be all upside. Increasing costs would mean those that still have access would now be paying more, and there is no guarantee it would work (Disney was a good example, now it costs a fortune and is still packed). So "bad" in this case depends on which side of the limited access determination you fall. |
People who get access to the clubs are already paying quite a bit in some way (tickets, membership, elite flyers, entry fees) or they are affiliated with AmEx, Delta’s key partner. None of those ways to get access is that easy, not everyone can get an AmEx plat, and they pay AmEx a lot directly or indirectly, the club fees have gone up a lot, the benefits down, similarly getting elite status is much harder than it used to be...
Despite this the Clubs remain overcrowded, at this point I think a lot has been done to increase the cost to the user but not enough to increase the service. A crowded club for me is not really worth it and if I see this issue perpetuating I simply will not care about it, it won’t be a reason for me to pursue elite status or pay for business class, etc. DL should be well aware that the club offering is less valuable than it used to be. First and foremost the club should be spacious, second the food and drink offering should be good... fighting through a crowd to get a glass of plonk and cold noodles in a paper plate is not a valuable experience. |
Originally Posted by Qwkynuf
(Post 31338287)
<snip>
But if the goal is to make the place *even more* of an upper-middle-class-white-guy-club, then by all means.... Regards |
I like the SkyClub changes. Good move.
Originally Posted by andrewk829
(Post 29067818)
Requirement to be traveling on Delta or a partner as a condition of lounge access seems reasonable. That is a de facto requirement in some airports where different airlines' gates are isolated from each other with respect to security checkpoints.
But, losing access to partner lounges kind of sucks. Is it possible that some people were gaming lounge reciprocity by, say, buying a club membership from the partner that had the lowest membership fee, even if that partner's lounges would get little or no use from that person? |
As usual, this is a case of "Delta needs to tighten up on access, but not the access method *I* personally use, it's the other access methods that are out of control"
|
Originally Posted by WillBarrett_68
(Post 31338354)
uh, well, yeah, obviously
You asked. No need to be snarky.
Originally Posted by WillBarrett_68
(Post 31338354)
How crowded do you think disney would be if they lowered prices? You can't just say "Well it's crowded" and conclude "raising prices has no effect on demand"
Originally Posted by WillBarrett_68
(Post 31340977)
As usual, this is a case of "Delta needs to tighten up on access, but not the access method *I* personally use, it's the other access methods that are out of control"
|
Many airports are doing a terrific job at improving amenities. In some cases now, the concourse experience is better than the sky club. Especially when the club is overcrowded - I'm looking at you JFK and SLC. I've discovered I'd rather sit at the restaurant by my gate at DTW than walk all the way to the sky club to fight thru the crowd to make my own cocktail.
|
In case it wasn't mentioned, Lifetime Skyclub Members still have access when flying ANY airline (not just DL or partners). I'm posting this here because I didn't realize this and was pleasantly surprised to stumble on it (https://www.delta.com/us/en/delta-sky-club/house-rules).
|
Originally Posted by pfreet
(Post 31353786)
Many airports are doing a terrific job at improving amenities. In some cases now, the concourse experience is better than the sky club. Especially when the club is overcrowded - I'm looking at you JFK and SLC. I've discovered I'd rather sit at the restaurant by my gate at DTW than walk all the way to the sky club to fight thru the crowd to make my own cocktail.
I got so frustrated with the Skydeck not being opened at JFK in 2018 that I have avoided JFK in 2019; I've gone through LGA instead. The new club at SLC is supposed to open next year. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:11 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.