This might be true for execs of Enron or Worldcom.... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif but I think I have flown on a Y fare once for biz. Its either H,K,V fares on short hops or F/B trans-*. If im paying for F/B I don't need status to upgrade, I already am. If I'm flying on the cheap.... US isn't gona be it. And if I'm flying up front... it will be on AA, laptop power in a FC seat.. what a novel concept...

[This message has been edited by jcrb (edited 08-27-2002).]

Maybe US Air finally figures out the math they can cut 37% customer (which translate to a much lower percentage of revenue) and 37% capacity and still come out ahead...

For biz travelers on cheap fares, now the perks are gone. I guess they will compete on the schedule and route system instead. If all majors follow suit, the effect will be just even out...

After all, business travelers will still travel. Leisure travelers will still go places. The only ones who got screwed are just mileage runners...

I dont think it is that simple. Yes, if they all do it there will be an evening out. I think this might be good for American or others but bad for US Air. US Air doesnt serve as many markets with direct flights it seems to me. Also, I think a real impact will be to fly less and to consolidate. I fly two airlines, if all airlines do this I will consolidate to one, and it wont be US Air because I cant fly non-stop to the west coast and only limited to Asia and Europe. I do enough M and Y to be elite on 1 carrier and that will be United or American so I can fly to Asia and Europe in business. Also, flying is becoming a generally horrible experience, and videoconferencing is improving a lot. Business people will more and more decide to not take that trip. That is a lot bigger problem than mileage runners and this doesnt address it, it makes it worse. Simple, reasonable fares and decent service are what they need. I would pay 400 for a ticket instead of 200 for good service, but I cant pay 2000, and fewer and fewer people or companies will

This biz traveler now flies AirTran more often then any other airline. I get a cheap business class seat (no fighting for upgrades), an incredible award promo (buy 3 RTs - get 2 free with your Amex), free drinks and a growing number of cities that they fly to.

Gee, you don't happen to work for an airline, do you?

All this is going to do is push people toward the discount carriers at a time when no carrier can afford to lose business.

I honestly don't know what your beef is with mileage runners or those who somehow earn their status on the cheap but it seems extremely petty and directed towards only a tiny percentage of the population. I sincerely hope that USAir and any other airline that adopts this policy ends up filing for Chapter 7. After all, the whole world with be WN as far as most of us are concerned.

To be honest, I don't work for any airlines. I am either a lowly or no elite on all airlines. All I want is that I can travel at a price that I can afford with some reasonable rights such as requesting a window seat and seat assignment when I travel with my kids.

I said it too many times that mileage runners will be running the full service airlines to the ground if such changes are not imposed - and nobody cares. Major airlines rely on the business travelers who pay premium fares for their flights. If the FF programs becomes dilutive because of the the runners, there'll be just fewer and fewer incentives for biz travelers to pay premium. 'Nuff said?

As for deflections to other airlines, it doesn't seem the major airlines care. It all comes to a full circle at the end. SWA can become the #1 airline in the world; but I still don't see myself flying SWA.

Maybe with the new changes, majors can operate more competitively against both the foes on AirTran for business pax and Southwest for the cheapies, who knows?

Air Canada has been doing something like it for many years: Non-ref. coach earns only half of actual mileage or so, while full Y earns full mileage.
I believe that connecting flyers get mileage flown because the airlines want to compensate for &or encourage PXX to tolerate inconvenient connections. Why fly nonstop PIT-ORD when you can earn double miles xCVG or xDTW? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Remember NW's 500-mile connect bonus?

------------------
Play the travel game 3 vacations into the future! :)

I don't want to say "I told you so," but ....

As I mentioned near the top of this thread, I think the enlightenment on the part of the airlines that certain fares should count more than others towards FF status is long overdue.

Unfortunately, the way in which U has chosen to act out the policy is sheer idiocy. I mean -- and I'm normally not one for ad hominem attacks -- it takes a special kind of stupid to come up with this plan.

What if their announcement were instead to have read as follows?

"As of January 1, 2003, qualification for Silver, Gold, or Chairman's Preferred will be earned based on qualifying points, rather than miles.

One point per dollar spent, plus one point per mile flown, will be earned for paid trips in First and Business class.

One point per dollar spent, plus one-half point per mile flown, will be earned for paid trips in refundable Coach.

One point per dollar spent will be earned for trips in non-refundable Coach.

In one fell swoop, you've effectively ended the practice of qualifying for status via cheap, non-refundable tickets, just as with today's announcement. The math would be simple: You could drop the requirements from 25/50/100K down to 15/30/60K and still ensure that practically every elite had spent at least $15,000 per year with your airline.

Is there something I'm missing with this approach?

Mook

How in the world are you doing your math? You seem to think that 99% of all elites are mileage runners, screwing it up for everyone else. Not true!!! Mileage runners (and most are not pure 'runners'; they also travel for other reasons and pay for it) make up an extremely small percentage of elite travelers. They ARE NOT diluting other elites' benefits, unless you count the occupation of something like one seat out of maybe 10000 per day as 'dilution'.

FT wannabee, you live in a warped and demented world. Here on FT there is a very very small percentage of mileage runners. Even if EVERY person on FT WAS a mileage runner it would still be a fraction of a percentage of fliers. Get it??

Actually, FT Wannabe sounds like a poor parodie of an Ayn Rand novel. A real Free Marketeer here. Perhaps, given the few posts, he is just a trial balloon from USAir or another airline, to see what the reaction is here. That, I suppose, is at least probable (sorry if I have mistaken you, FT; we're just looking to explain why someone would be on this board dissing the rest of us for our "hobby travel".)

Now the real announcement: if this news from USAir sticks, say bye to my business old friend. I once had 200,000 miles on USAir, earned from PSA and Republic I think, with a another good dash on USAir itself, and am down to about 30K today. Mrs SSt has about 30K too. (I've earned and cashed in probably 400,000 over the last 10 years on them)

We both dumped our BofA USAir credit cards immediately, and we're looking for our next and last free flight to Martha's Vineyard.

It's been fun, old friend, but why on earth should I waste either my company's or my own money to get your "miles" is beyond me. Ah well, my guess is you won't be grieving for me, or for any of us for that matter, because you'll never be a legitimate moneymaking business again. Give my regards to PanAm & Eastern!

You wouldn't be another one of those people who thinks that upgrades are breaking the poor misunderstood airlines backs would you?

Your analysis is laughable -- the number of people making "mileage runs" is trivial. And even if it weren't all that they're doing is buying those very same affordable fares that you're so interested in.

Here are a few figures....

Number of FTers : ~25,000
Number of Mileage runners : 0

Tell me the name of one FTer on this board who has not travelled for business, nor for leisure and has flown 100% for miles three years running.

We may book extra segments or snag cheap fares but we still get counted in one of the two categories more than 50% of the time.

FT Wannabe, get your facts straight.

The only fact that I know is...

All big 6 airlines are losing money with the current business model (should I say OLD).

Maybe that is because of all the cheap fares... Maybe USAir is doing the right things...

I also know that today is the day that all cheapie flyers and those works so hard toward the upgrades can get infuriated by the "necessary" changes. Just think, without these changes, there'll be fewer airlines to choose from in the not too distant future - and that directly translate to high ticket price.

The problem isn't "cheap" fares. There are several fine examples of airlines that are profitable with a fare structure that is lower than that of any of the majors.

"Mileage runners" (whoever they are) aren't flying for less money than anyone else -- nobody is offering a special discount for mileage runs.

US Airways isn't increasing fares with this move -- they're just punishing people who fly a lot when they happen to fly on lower fares. People who hardly ever fly (apparently you would be such a person) aren't impacted -- they don't earn elite status anyway. People who fly a mix of business and leisure (and what VFF doesn't?) are being told that their leisure travel no longer counts.

People who fly exclusively on the cheapest fares and who do so enough to qualify for elite status are also being told to get lost -- imagine that $15,000/year and your money is no good?

This helps the airline how?

Am I supposed to tell my clients that well, actually, I'm going to have to charge you $2,000 for what cost you $200 last week? Not too likely.

Are companies suddenly going to say to their business travelers "we understand, sure go ahead and book that $2,000 ticket -- those $200 tickets were too good to be true!" Not on your life -- it's about as likely as corporate IT saying "yes, macs are better. windows was a big mistake we'll switch tomorrow."

Yes, the model is broken. But these are the wrong changes -- the customer is not the enemy. If they want more money from the business customer then they ought to be talking to the business customer about what that customer needs and values instead of having this lame jack*** mouthpiece spout off about how this is the right thing to have done or making imbecilic comments in their press release and FAQ implying that customers somehow requested this by virtue of purchasing lower fares.

I think you're right -- if they had taken an approach along those lines it probably would have had all of the positive effects described without the downside of po'ing so many people.

But what you might be missing is that those positive benefits may not be what they're trying to achieve -- the fact that this announcement has not been coupled with any revision to the fare structure suggests that its sole intent is to try to force certain people to buy the existing sky high business fares. Someone believes that there is a market for that and that a stick like this will drive customers to higher fares.

What they are missing is that business fares are passed on to customers -- and customers are keenly aware of these costs. Nobody has been flying on cheap fares and pocketing the difference -- customers aren't going to say "ok, go ahead charge me more" they're going to say "oh, that's a shame. southwest is cheaper anyway why haven't you been flying them?"

The choice isn't between flying cheap fares on US and business fares on US. The choice is between flying US and flying someone else -- the cheap fares have allowed a lot of people to continue flying US Airways. Take them away (or take away the reason to buy them) and you lose the business.

Maybe the bet is that that's ok -- if we lose 3 out of 4 it's still a net gain so long as we drive the 4th one back to a "full" fare. I doubt that will work but maybe it's what they're trying...

Apparently someone is an MBA wannabe as well. This one's pretty easy. First, one of the Big 6 airlines is profitable. That's Southwest. The remaining 5 losers (AA, UA, NW, CO, DAL) are the ones with the bloated cost structures, inefficient operations and maddening pricing complexity.

Why is it that JetBlue, SWA and AirTran are profitable?

If $15000 were to spend on 75 $200 C-C RT, then USAir might have said "Screw them, we can't profit from these people anyway." Since with the 75 RT, you will earn 750000 (2x bonus, 2x 2500 distance) miles along with your flights. 750000 means a lot of free seats promised in the future, and potentially lost revenue.

One thing that most people on FlyerTalk overlooked is what is coming next? I have to say reduced capacity. Who knows how small USAir need to be in order to survive. When the supply meet demand, that'll be the time tix price will rise.

There're many ways people rank airlines. My way of doing so is by the seat-mile. I believe the last time I saw the stat, USAir is still the #6 while SWA is only #7. When you rank the passenger count, SWA is #3 I believe.

Anyway, the main reason why SWA and JetBlue are profitable is due to the lower cost structure. Many factors contribute to the cost - and surprise enough FFP is actually one of them. Nobody can award double miles (and above) for sub $200 C-C RT. Not even SWA.

JetBlue doesn't even have a FFP until a couple months ago. And IMO, even after the cut, FFP on the majors are still better than the Rapid Rewards and True Blue. ATA's FFP, which directly ties to the revenue, also caters to the higher paying pax.

For all I care, USAir can now reduce its capacity to 0, and preferably via Chapter 7 so that such an unfortunate experiment can never rise from the dead again. They are worthless to me and I will never fly them. If USAir wants only full fare passengers, they can turn those lovely Dash-8s into corporate aircraft.

Whether they offer 2000 flights a day or 1 flight a day, my butt will never be in one of their seats, regardless of the fare I'm on while they have this rule.

Thats the dumbest things I've heard all day....

Thinking that US can raise prices when it's future supply decreases to less than the current demand, assumes (incorrectly) that they have the only supply, and there is price inflexability of demand, neither is true. They will reduce capacity and increase price and lower demand because we will be flying other airlines.

Bye

Um, Mr. Math Genius,

Southwest awards flight credits not miles. It is possible to earn a free trip every 3-4 round trips (help me out here folks, I don't fly WN) regardless of fare paid on those 3-4 trips. One can then use that free trip for a flight that is potentially more expensive than the sum of the three-four cheap trips.

I don't know why you feel the need to beat this thing to death, but you're going to get zero support from the folks here on your unfounded and short-sighted (and caluclated) assumptions. Why not just get over it and get on with your life?

I just got onto this site recently, and enjoy it. Don't even respond to someone like FT Wannabe - he is just trying to incite you, and seems to be successful.

Don't fly him, and he'll go out of business.

At this point I am convinced that FT Wana works for either US or UA and is trying to make a good show of this to avoid FT generating bad press for them, as such he must be countered fully. Look at his first post in this thread, he comes from nowhere and fully predicts a week in advance exactly what kind of changes would occur. It was an attempt to "get us ready" for the anouncement. Well guess what, it didn't work.... nor will it.

But US can profit from a $200 fare. So do your heros at SW and so forth.

Where does 2,500 miles come from? Most of US' traffic is short haul east coast stuff...

But at any rate 75 trips probably only bag me 150,000 miles -- not 750,000. Maybe 250,000 if the bonus environment is "rich".


Perhaps you've missed it -- US' load factor is around 75% -- paying customers are not being displaced by "free trips." No revenue is "lost" when someone redeems an award.

There you go again advocating a rise in ticket prices -- I thought your interest was in attractive fares?

Ticket prices are on a one way road -- and it isn't higher. The sooner the majors come to terms with that and rationalize their fare structures and start focusing on the value that customers expect in exchange for their money the sooner they'll become profitable. They'll discover that business travelers are not the same as leisure travelers (even when they're traveling on leisure) and that policies designed to treat business travelers like leisure travelers won't work.

Right, and wrong.

Ticket prices are going higher. For leisure travelers used to $200 trans-cons, that is. There won't be enough capacity left in 12 months' time to support those sorts of fares.

But at the same time, there's no way airlines can justify, or people will support, paying $2,000 for that trip in coach. The majors might like to think so, but with hateful policies towards their elites such as US is trying to introduce, is anyone going to be able to justify flying them vs. WN or J6?

What I think we'll see instead will be a compression of fare buckets, potentially into 3 or 4 instead of the 15+ we see now. Grandma and Grandpa will be paying $400 instead of $200 to fly SFO-MIA, while the last-minute traveler will pay $800 or $1,000 instead of $2,000 to fly the same route.

At least, that's what airlines will have to do if they hope to stay in business. Or they can follow US's route, and fly non-stop to Hell, with a short layover in Chap. 7.

Mook

We'll see. I wouldn't bet on that though -- SW just cut their top fare. I agree with most of the rest of what you said except I think you're too high... The spread won't be that wide when it's all over.