![]() |
Originally Posted by fti
(Post 12147407)
:confused::confused:
You first state that both are profitable (some moreso, some less), then your conclusion is "overall losses." Doesn't add up. The airlines have customers who allow them to lose a lot or to lose a little. So maybe the "more profitable" really are those who help the airline lose the least? Doesn't sound like profits to me. Only the airlines and the government could run such operations!! Passenger A costs $100 to transport/maintain (including upgrades, bonus miles, etc.) but gives the airline $120 for the service: hence profitable. Passenger B costs $100 to transport/maintain, but gives the airline $90; not profitable. Passenger C costs $100 to transport/maintain (including upgrades, bonus miles, etc.) but gives the airline $80 for the service; not profitable. Overall, Revenues = $290; Costs = $300. Loss = $10. |
Originally Posted by ClipperDelta
(Post 12147437)
it is possible to have some profitable customers and yet still have overall losses simply because there are more loss-generating customers than there are profitable ones...
Passenger A costs $100 to transport/maintain (including upgrades, bonus miles, etc.) but gives the airline $120 for the service: hence profitable. Passenger B costs $100 to transport/maintain, but gives the airline $90; not profitable. Passenger C costs $100 to transport/maintain (including upgrades, bonus miles, etc.) but gives the airline $80 for the service; not profitable. Overall, Revenues = $290; Costs = $300. Loss = $10. |
Also airlines that focus on "B" tend to be profitable.
Most "A" passengers tend to become "C" passengers when they're flying on their own dime & bringing their families along, so a lot of that "profit" will disappear in the wash. |
Originally Posted by thepla
(Post 12147394)
This also begs one of my questions, who in the right mind would buy an upgradable fare and not know their PMU would work, for those people in my opinion should be going to a rubber room.
Originally Posted by ClipperDelta
(Post 12147437)
Passenger C costs $100 to transport/maintain (including upgrades, bonus miles, etc.) but gives the airline $80 for the service; not profitable.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 12146216)
Whether you knew it or not, hadn't the upgrade already been cleared before the day of departure based on ATL's timezone and processing?
Just want to avoid misinformation. ;) I also remember posting in old threads about this where other people reported the same thing ---- the PMU's are not unusable DoD, they are only unusable once you have checked in with the upgrade not cleared yet. IOW, you have roughly up to 2 hours before the flight to call in and beg, ask, plead to get the Z cleared but once checked in without the upgrade cleared, you are SOL as no standbys allowed. Not many people new about this (or only found out after checking in and requesting to be put on the upgrade list and for the first time hearing "no standby allowed DoD"). A little searching will find the older threads, but I've got to catch a plane (TPAC, so no gogo) :) |
Originally Posted by Gargoyle
(Post 12147818)
To complicate that is the issue that the airline might lose less by flying a passenger for $80 then by flying with the seat empty...
In most cases they're better off taking the passenger for the incremental income. When airlines choose to cut prices below costs for marketing purposes (e.g. so as not to lose market share), that's their problem. I've no qualms about buying the tickets.
Originally Posted by Gargoyle
(Post 12147818)
... grounding the plane and still paying the lease costs. A rough business.
|
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 12147796)
Also airlines that focus on "B" tend to be profitable.
Most "A" passengers tend to become "C" passengers when they're flying on their own dime & bringing their families along, so a lot of that "profit" will disappear in the wash. Sounds to me like Bullpucky statistics that you are inventing. |
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 12147944)
When airlines choose to cut prices below costs for marketing purposes (e.g. so as not to lose market share), that's their problem. I've no qualms about buying the tickets. Yet you scream to high heaven over any change in the FF program that you see as detrimental to it's value in your eyes. You want the cheap tickets, and all the benefits currently in the FF plan, plus additional FF benefits. Does that sum it up? |
Originally Posted by PMMMDL
(Post 12147948)
Sounds to me like Bullpucky...
|
Originally Posted by bwhite
(Post 12147988)
Bullpucky... isn't that the stuff that comes off fleeced sheeple?
|
Originally Posted by PMMMDL
(Post 12147948)
Source please?
Sounds to me like Bullpucky statistics that you are inventing. |
Originally Posted by PMMMDL
(Post 12147977)
Yet you scream to high heaven over any change in the FF program that you see as detrimental to it's value in your eyes.
You want the cheap tickets, and all the benefits currently in the FF plan, plus additional FF benefits. Does that sum it up? |
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 12148085)
"B" is airlines line Southwest, Virgin Blue, RyanAir. All profitable, I believe. Cheap passengers, cheap tickets, low margins, profits.
|
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 12148085)
"B" is airlines line Southwest, Virgin Blue, RyanAir. All profitable, I believe. Cheap passengers, cheap tickets, low margins, profits.
The bigger point is I was looking for your source for the statement that the A flyers become C flyers when flying on their own dime and that eliminates the A flyer's profitability? |
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 12148090)
Is an op-up to WBC/BE a possibility here?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:35 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.