Just a topic to promote conversation for a slow Sunday morning.
 

Since the NFL doesn't kick-off today for another three hours I'm bored.

On several of the previous threads airline tickets have been compared to tickets to sporting events etc.

I was wondering, in relation to the new stanby $100 fee policy, does anyone know of any sporting event or similar things where you buy a ticket for a certain date, performance, time slot, etc. but if an earlier one is not full you can "standby" for an empty seat?

The only thing I know of is my local multiplex movie theatre. Of course it's not something promoted, advertised, or something they really allow. But if you purchase a ticket for the 9:00 showing of the latest movie and then go into the theatre at 7:00, you can probably catch the 7:15 showing of the same movie, unless it it a brand new blockbuster type movie where the will then check ticket stubs upon entrance (usually on the opening weekend only). But if the movie has been out for a week or more there usually are no problems. You can even buy a ticket for the first showing of the day and stay all day watching 3-6 movies if you can take it that long.

I just want to remind everybody that I was just as unhappy with the new ticketing/standby policies as most of you were. I am not trying to start an argunment here, merely tring to be enlightened of other service providers that might offer a standby type option where tickets are involved.

I'm pretty sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) that I can't buy a ticket to the Brave's game on Saturday and then go to the park Friday night to see if they haev open seats.

[This message has been edited by diesel33 (edited 09-08-2002).]

[This message has been edited by diesel33 (edited 09-08-2002).]

I'm also pretty sure that the Braves don't play the Phillies eleven times a day. But DL does fly ATL-IAD eleven times a day. Your analogy is flawed.

diesel33, your example is not a fair comparison. How about comparing airline tickets to traveling on the Long Island Railroad, Metro North or New Jersey Transit? They have peak & off-peak fares. I believe that the tickets have a one year expiration date on them. You can use that ticket for travel to destinations in the "zone" that it was purchased for whenever you wish. The only restriction is that an off-peak ticket be used for a off-peak train (peak tickets can be used anytime).

These commuter railroads compete against commuter bus lines, people driving their own cars to work, and to a lesser degree the NYC subway system.

Now what would happen if these railroads were to just sell tickets for individual departure times on a certain date, and you had to pay a service fee to take another train on that date? Or if you didn't use that ticket at all and lost the value of it. I for one, would be seeking a more user friendly and less expensive mode of travel. This is exactly what the major carriers have done. Southwest, Airtrans & Jet Blue are laughing aloud right now and they cannot believe the stupidity of these moves. This is going to backfire and result is a large number of elite flyers switching to the no frills discounters. There is only so much that individuals and companies are willing to pay for travel.

[This message has been edited by Rssrsvp (edited 09-08-2002).]

AGAIN, let me state that I don't liek these changes any more than you do. I am just asking about other "purchase a ticket for a specific event/time slot" and be able to standby for another one.

I'm sure the Phillies are thankful they don't have to play he Braves 11 times in one day. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

You make a good point re: if the metro were to sell tickets for a particular departure time then you would find other means of transportation.

As far as my example of airline tickets vs. sportign events etc., I just mentioned that because it has popped up in serveral threads as a comparison. It's not my "original" idea.



[This message has been edited by diesel33 (edited 09-08-2002).]

Diesel, I think that the issue at hand is that DL is approaching this from a rather broad standpoint, while we pax are approaching it from a more narrow one. DL's position is that once we purchase a specific itinerary, we have made a contractual obligation with the airline and must take the flights we have purchased. If we do not, then we should pay for the "privilege" of making changes.

Pax such as myself, however, approach things from this angle -- the ability to stand by on different flights (without added charges) is a distinct value-add, since it allows us to adjust our travel plans with one less stress inducer in the mix. If a meeting runs long or if a systems emergency pops up 15 minutes before I am to walk out the door, I have always known in the past that I stand a darn good chance of getting on another flight as soon as I get to the airport. If DL demands that I either pay for a more expensive ticket or pay a standby fee, then I shall have to pass the cost along to my clients, disappoint my clients by departing as scheduled (in effect passing along the inconvenience to my clients rather than accepting it myself), or I shall have to pay the higher cost and curtail my travel. None of these are particularly desirable to me, but one -- pay higher fares but fly less -- would probably run counter DL's aim. I suspect that the DL bean-counters expect to see the same load factors, plus an incremental increase in revenue from both standby fees and higher fare class purchases.

I'm sorry, folks, but I don't see that happening. If there's a way to keep the price down (so it doesn't get passed on to the client) and to reduce the inconvenience of standby travel (so that doesn't get passed on to the customer), then the pax are going to take the path of least resistance. And that appears to be defections -- where possible -- to other carriers like Southwest, JetBlue and AirTran.

Do some individuals abuse the system by buying cheap fares on inconvenient flights and then standing by on the flights they really wanted? I am sure they do. But consider this -- they filled a seat that would otherwise have departed empty. DL received revenue from them, and they got the seat they wanted. I myself sometimes connect at CVG in order to take advantage of slightly lower fares. But if it looks like foul weather's a-brewin' near CVG, I'll stand by on a nonstop. This helps me, DL, and other pax. It helps me because it gets me to my destination. It helps DL because there's one less misconnect to deal with and an extra open seat to sell (on the flight I would have connected to). And it helps other pax because there's one less PM clogging up the rerouting queues ahead of them.

Simply put, DL is asserting a privilege for itself that it does not concede to passengers. If rerouting, rescheduling and equipment changes can be done at DL's discretion (at times with little or no compensation to inconvenienced pax), then it seems that same-day standby can be permitted to pax with no charge.

If not, then perhaps it's time for reregulation of the airline industry.

[

[This message has been edited by JJM36 (edited 09-11-2002).]

Not at all. If there's a value-add in the mix that other carriers aren't offering, it differentiates the service, attracting more customers. You no doubt noticed the folks on the U, CO and AA boards asking questions about DL and NW service as soon as their new policies were announced.


If they're both coach seats, why shouldn't I? Airlines have long claimed that fare differences were the result of yield management, not amenity management. By your logic, ALL pax wanting to fly standby should pony up $100 when they arrive at the gate. Or else none of them should have to.


You're arguing the difference in Y and F, not the difference between T, U, L, K, Q, H, M, B and Y.

While I'll admit to not reading all the posts recently. I knew this would inflame the FT members. I have 1 or 2 questions for DL.

1) Why, when you have a chance to stand out from the rest of the airlines, a chance to not nickel and dime every customer (business and leisure) did you have to follow the others? Did you not realize the backlash against the other airlines would drive corporate accounts your way? That you would see an increase in revenue and flight loads just by being different?
2) What kind of an airline are you Delta? Nofrills or full service? No frills.. then yes, charge me for everything (and I'll probably go Airtran or Southwest). Full service, then offer a product which you don't ding the passenger for everything. Build it into your overhead costs (fares). With brokerage accounts, you can choose. One expects more from a full service brokerage than a self service one. One is customer service oriented (FS) vs pay as you go (internet).

Still trying to figure out why Delta followed the others off the cliff????

I just wanted to restate it in case anybody forgot. I am not trying to argue the logic or right vs. wrong of the new policies, I am just trying to find out if their are other service providers who offer standby opportunities if a specific date/time slot has been purchased.

I have said many times that I didn't think the changes were the best thing to do.

[This message has been edited by diesel33 (edited 09-08-2002).]

I really haven't, and don't want to read the entire rule but can't we still pay 100.00 and change the return as long as we do so before the end of the scheduled return date?

Everything quoted says "departure" date but I think it can apply to the departure of the return as well.

If correct it would just mean no free standby and forfeiture if you just blow off calling in its entirety.

I've spoken to several SMS agents about the new rules (I'm actually trying to figure out how they're being told to apply them), and the one answer I'm hearing the most is because of "abuse." One agent told me that there were FFers out there with "dozens" of unused tix who never bothered to cancel their itineraries, but who expect to be able to reclaim the value of those tickets whenever they got around to it.

Now, taking this with a grain of salt, I can see where DL's coming from. But do you really need a sledgehammer to swat a few flies? How many of us are actually doing that? Is the practice so rampant as to require the response that DL's put in place? It seems like an overblown response to a potentially small number of abusers.

So I guess everybody justs wants to argue the policy instead of answering my question?

Thank goodnes for football in 15 minutes!

[This message has been edited by diesel33 (edited 09-08-2002).]

Because the old system was a win-win. The passenger stood by for an otherwise empty seat, and the airline filled that empty seat, freeing up the later original seat for resale, mitigation of an oversell situation, accomodation for misconnects and pax from weather dealyed or mechanically delayed flights, and lastly, space for NRSAs. Lots of times, when weather was expected, DL would waive the change fees if I was travelling home a day early to be an expected New Englaqnd snowstorm etc. It was always a win-win.

But those pax had to pay $100 per ticket for the privilege of applying the value to a future ticket. That's certainly a fair (fare) payment.