Many FT topics during the past week have centered around the imposition by major carriers of standby restrictions and fees on nonrefundable tickets and by US Airway's failed effort to deprive such tickets of status miles. In light of this, many postings have lamented that our carriers no longer are "loyal" to us and we should not be "loyal" to them. Some have complained that the airlines' changes were unjust because they could not be justified in terms of costs proportional to fees.

(1) Airlines are our business partners, not our children or spouses. Does "loyalty" among business partners mean more than that our long term interests coincide, so that we should give and take a little in the short run to keep the relationship on an even footing?

(2) Major airlines cannot survive on consolidator fares and cannot get many passengers at refundable fares. "one fare" pricing doesn't seem to work, either. They thus try to "segment" passengers so that passengers for whom the trip has high value will pay more and those for whom it has low value will fill up the remaining seats. The object is the charge each group as much as it is willing to pay, regardless of costs. Saturday night stay requirements are the classic way for carriers to distinguish the trips for which passengers place a high value(business) vs. low-value (tourism). To be sure, passengers for whom extra services (decent food, drink, treatment, space) are of substantial value also will be provided with it (at high markups). But now airlines are being torn between increased costs (salaries, security and delays) and fare resistance (transparency of fares on the web, business slowdown, low-cost competitors).

(3) For me, loss of status miles for nonrefundable tickets would be the deal breaker. I would loose elite status and the little perks that make me choose my main carrier when disparites of time and cost aren't very large. I would then "bid" each flight on its own merits, using three or four web-based travel agents. For some others, the extra $100 for a standby might be the deal breaker. I certainly understand.

(4) The reason I post this message, however, is my stong sense that, for a substantial number of FFs, the issue isn't $100 on a trip now and then, but really boils down to "they don't love me anymore." Something like "If they charge me a hundred bucks for something that costs them almost nothing, or that helps them out by filling a seat on an early flight on standby, and possibly allowing them to sell an extra ticket on my original flight, then they are disrespecting me, gouging me, and don't value my business." Is that what we mean by "disloyality?"

(5) Putting the shoe on the other foot, were I to decide that I now am better off playing the field or moving to airline B when airline A has served my needs for several years, is this "disloyal"?

What are your thoughts?

Everyone's perceptions will be different however for business, I generally only fly 1-2 airlines due to corporate arrangments and by choice. As long as the airline looks out for my interest of getting me where I need to go by rebooking or putting me up for the night, I am okay with that and that counts alot more than if you can standby for earlier flight or not get miles on a ticket.

But because I do enjoy elite status (or grown used to it), I use my own dime to purchase discounted tickets or take up a whole weekend doing mileage runs simply to have a back up on another airline with status. I used to have a couple but with the way things are going, I think everyone will begin to focus on simply 1-2 airlines as opposed to trying to become elite on all.

The ridiculous policies that have been instated will not necessarily make us be loyal or not but it will make us decide which airline is our first choice and in many instances, also give us a reason not to fly on other carriers. For example, as much I have loved USAir, I think my relationship with them will be terminating. What was the last straw? Actually I had 3. First was I have never received my requalified Gold elite card for this year although in the computer it shows it. Second was the apparent doing away of System Wide Upgrades and not allowing me to extend the ones I hve expiring last mmonth. System Wide Upgrades earned even at the Silver level differentiated this airline from others but now they have taken that incentive away. Third I suppose it was either the bankruptcy announcement or the no miles for leisure fares.

As for which carrier will I stay with, it will be AA. MRTC and OneWorld are great and after awhile, being Lifetime Gold and 10 years flying with them means something.

------------------
"Fly me to the moon and let me earn alot of miles."

I'm not looking for love or even a long-term relationship. I was just hoping that they would respect me in the morning.

I don't see how we can avoid a significant increase in leisure fares. The business climate just doesn't have room for travel costs that aren't really necessary, and after 9/11, many found that "necessary" stopped far short of what was thought before. Also, business travellers found that flying wasn't fun anymore-it wasn't easy and it was somewhat scary.

The idea of charging 4 or 5 times as much for essentially the same product based on time of purchase is a flawed pricing approach. People will learn how to not be goosed (eg back-to-back tickets, etc) and maybe worse, they will have no hesitation to goose back.

Since whacking the business traveler is no longer enough, I expect a year from now we'll see much fewer leisure bargains, and a real drive to cut all possible costs.

ROTFL....you only get a shower in the morning if you went the distance...otherwise "see ya."

But the problem is that leisure travel is even less "necessary" than virtually all business travel, and probably even more price sensitive. And "not being fun" is just as likely to impact the leisure traveler. Sure the major airlines can, and may, raise leisure fares, but only at the certainty of a major loss of passengers. And it is those leisure passengers, even at reduced fares, that add enough incremental income to make even the high business fares possible.

US, UAL, AA and the others simply have to bring costs down to perhaps 10 or 20 percent above WN and JetBlue. That may mean revisions in schedules, service and FF plans that would make all of us long for the changes that US just junked.

Bruce

And, incidentally, why isn't this thread closed. It has nothing to do with earning FF miles.

Bruce

Brucemcal,

I agree with your observations that costs and FF benefits will have to come down.

I guess my focus on revenue is driven by all the attention placed on costs. A post says costs must come down, another says
employees are the biggest costs, employees start posting about the wages they gave up in 1994, more employees start whining about the CEO and I head down to the Hilton board.
But nobody posts that we should pay more to fly. I'm not pushing that either but I do think we're going to have to pay more.

For some people, air travel is not discretionary. Over the last year, who those people are and how much they'll travel has become much clearer. The current pricing scheme essentially tries to yank the last dollar out of the business traveler, including the US "use it or lose it" plan. At the same time, I read where the average leisure fare is actually down 20% in the past few years.

I see a world where the fare that's $250 today rises to $325 or $350, and that won't leave too many folks at home or taking Greyhound. I see a world where there's 3 flights a day to where you're going instead of 5 or 6 and you get there a couple of hours early or late. I see FF benefits being dramatically reduced, not so much on the earning side which Randy and we can measure, but on the benefit side, which we can't (eg. capacity controls). And yes I see costs coming way, way down.

Wake up everyone!!

FF programs have already been affected:

1. AA 21 day ticketing for truly "free" travel.
2. Change fees for re-routing
3. Diminishing seat inventory that we never know about.

I suggest that everyone starts using their miles, while they still exist. After these Fare Rules, the Airlines have nowhere else to squeeze.

Loyalty? That depends on what you mean by it. Does it mean that when my preferred airline is in the same ballpark when it comes to fares, I'll take it?

Sure. Especially if it is more convenient than other airlines.

However, does that mean I'll just say, nah, it's 100 percent more to fly airline x than it is to fly airline y, but I am loyal to airline x so I'll fly them?

Nope. Not unless it's for business and the time difference is significant enough that it makes sense for me to do it.