Troppy

When the economy tanks, things will change. It is, however, amazing that in the era of record profits, they keep making things worse for consumers. I wish we had 4 more carriers actually competing for business. Airlines aren’t the only industry that has consolidated to the disadvantage of the public.

gitismatt

I've been saying this for a while. they aren't loyalty programs anymore, they're more like the Starbucks rewards program. curious to see what happens to the revenue component if there's a sustained downturn in the economy

BudgetJetsetter

United uses a certificate based system currently for international flights. They're switching to a points system in December but international upgrades aren't just given if there is an empty seat.

WillBarrett_68

Why does everyone work from the assumption that the OLD programs were correct in who they rewarded and the new programs are therefore WRONG?

One day they'll be sorry! OK.

defrosted

Human Nature, that is why, all old curmudgeons operate with this logic. Change is EVIL!

ATOBTTR

It amazes me how a forum filled with so many people who supposedly travel frequently for business don't seem to understand business, the laws of supply & demand, or understand that the goal of a business is to maximize revenue and achieve profits. Instead they think airlines should return to the business models the airlines were employing when they were losing billions of dollars and when operational reliability was often far worse. These people also only complain about things that were "better" back then but have gone away but think the things that have improved about airline travel should still be given away for free to "loyal" customers. Take for example business class products today. Maybe international business class upgrades were a little more common 20 years ago as a courtesy, even if still unofficially, but business class hard products also sucked 20 years ago compared to what they are today so it's no wonder the airlines are less hesitant to give away the product to customers who aren't willing to pay.

This doesn't mean one has to like the changes or can't be upset at them, but they at least need to come to grasp with terms that airlines are a business and not a charity and that an airline is only going to extend perks to people if it thinks it will achieve more revenue and profits by offering those perks than save by not offering those perks and obtain revenue through other channels.

bennos

If you put aside the loyalty program (which has been covered endlessly), DL is arguably making things better for consumers by improving its product:

• Operational reliability
• Baggage tracking
• Generally usable app
• Reintroducing meals on select TCON Y routes
• Improved Y meal service on INTL
• One of the first to have satellite wifi on almost the entire fleet
• AVOD across almost the entire fleet
• Direct aisle access at almost every J seat

Sure there are some fails too (the 739 in almost every respect), but for the most part the product has been improving across the fleet.

Often1

Bottom line is that OP believes that DL ought to sell him an UG for less than DL is quoting. DL, on the other hand, is betting that it will either sell a couple of last minute D1 seats (hardly unusual on TPAC) or that if it can't, it will let the seats go empty to protect the premium brand.

DL does offer "buy ups," e.g. somewhat discounted upgrades to D1. But, one can't count on them because doing so regularly would simply mean that the people who do pay for D1 would pay some given Y-ish fare and wait for the D1 upgrade.

OP is free to see what he gets on UA or AA, but as others note, the benefits of elite status which people who have status tend to glance over, mean that the experience for the lower ranks can be truly awful. If you can afford to fly in F/J and have a high-end TA with 24/7 backup, this can be more manageable. But, that is a big "if" for many.

priyarainelle

I don’t love any airline’s rewards program at the moment but I choose DL and stick with them because a) they seem to be the best of the big 3 domestic airlines b) flying without status sucks and c) I want to be able to utilize my AMEX platinum skyclub perks (which can only be used if you’re flying Delta).

Like any consumer, I wish businesses were more generous in how they reward loyalty but the reality is they have to make their money and can’t give people free or discounted products left and right.

You are, however, spot on in your complaint about the lounge access.

dalehill

The airlines' use of the word “loyalty” is a stroke of marketing genius in the first place.

I feel no sense of faith, commitment, allegiance or obligation to DL.

I choose DL whenever feasible not out of loyalty but because (a) my experience has been that DL provides better service all around than the other options, and (b) I'm not a frequent enough flyer to attain meaningful status with multiple airlines, and having flown both with and without status, I know with is better than without. The minute any of that changes, I will switch my “loyalty” to another carrier in a heartbeat. That’s not loyalty, that’s me making a calculated, informed decision, which is what DL and every other business does and should do.

I understand this, so on the few occasions where I might feel a bit miffed at DL for one reason or another, I’m not further irritated by the false belief that the perceived transgression is somehow made worse due to DL’s lack appreciation for my so-called loyalty.

I realize that many here travel so much that they can attain meaningful status with multiple airlines, but for anyone with high status with 2 or 3 of the main carriers where ff miles no longer matter, do you choose one over the other out of a sense of commitment, obligation or allegiance, i.e. loyalty, or do you pick the one that offers the best combination of scheduling, convenience, reliability, service, comfort and price?

If “loyalty” programs didn’t exist, nobody would be loyal to an airline. That’s why airlines have loyalty programs.

defrosted

Semantics?

I mean to have status you have to make a commitment, you have an obligation to meet the requirements. I mean it isn't loyalty in a human sense, but in some interpretations it is loyalty. Also brand loyalty is a thing, some people buy Fords because they are loyal and no other reason. Some people by Crest toothpaste because they always have. Some people fly Delta just because they are loyal.

I get that some people are considerably more calculated, but I don't understand your issue with the term loyalty or I have missed your point.

dalehill

Yes, quite possibly semantics, but then again, semantics are part and parcel to marketing. If the meaning of “loyalty” has morphed to simply mean ”brand preference”, then what happens if the product/brand (Crest toothpaste or Fords or whatever) is no longer preferable? Would you pay $20 for a tube of Crest out of loyalty? Or keep buying Fords regardless of quality or price or reliability?

The use of the word “loyalty” in marketing is an attempt to convince us to keep buying Fords even if it turns out there are better, more reliable, more stylish, more comfortable, more affordable vehicles available elsewhere.

But more to the point, I was responding to the idea that “loyalty” should be a 2-way street, and I think it generally should be, but to get angry at a huge corporation like DL when they don’t show loyalty is, in my opinion, misunderstanding the difference between a rewards program and loyalty. Semantics, yes, but DL owes me no loyalty, imho, for attaining PL. It only owes me the rewards promised to PL.

defrosted

I think many people would make purchase decisions based solely on loyalty, more than one might think. I think this is true despite other factors such as price, reliability ect. Many purchase decisions are far more emotional than logical, so we agree that it is a marketing ploy to capitalize on that behavior.

But I understand your point better now, indeed in the context of business loyalty is only as good as the contract behind it as far as what is owed between parties.

VFR

From the airlines point of view, "loyalty" means "lock-in". If you are flying 30k miles/year, your travel experience will be better if you fly most/all on Delta and get Silver than if you split them between carriers. Once you have silver at 25k miles, you are locked in to Delta for the next 5k if you want the silver benefits. If you are flying 50k miles a year, then the incremental value of the GM benefits makes continuing to fly DL worth it. It goes on to the higher status levels, mostly in the form of upgrades as benefits.

It's not just status. Most people only have one or two credit cards, so if you are a relatively infrequent flyer and want to check a bag, you get a Delta credit card, and then you are locked in and Delta becomes $60/trip cheaper in your mind. Same deal for a business traveler buying a Delta Wi-Fi subscription.

Overall, the amazing thing about loyalty programs is that they have made customers behave irrationally, and take less ideal routings (or choose a worse product) to fly a specific airline or accumulate credits in a certain program. It seems like it works -- seems like most people in this thread are committed to and/or geographically stuck with Delta. But Delta is a huge company, it's tough enough to get customers to feel that "Delta cares about me when I am traveling," it's even tougher to get frequent fliers to feel "Delta is loyal to me."

HDQDD

Yes many UA LVCs are jumping ship. At the same time HVCs at OA are realizing that at UA they don’t have to play games flying extra segments and miles to get recognized for their spend. Win-win for UA and it’s HVCs. Notsomuch for UA LVCs.

We can love or hate it all we want, but at the end of the day recognizing spend makes a lot more sense than counting segments or miles which have extremely variable values. I fully expect the rest of the legacy airlines will follow eventually.

I completely agree with the last sentence, loyalty is dead.