At this rate, I'm not sure what would balance out all the changes they've already made. I'd settle for a crew ID that let me non-rev...

In a Twilight Zone episode, that might work out. This is real life.

but remember... in a month or 2, all non-rev status goes to DOH, so you'ld be outa luck to most places, unless you'ld have been with the company since 1955...

Fiddlesticks! This is one of my worst fears coming true. Reducing YB fares to 100% EQM sounds like a very good start to reducing mileage lower fares (LUT/LTK). (The minute I found out about the changes in the FB program I thought they may try a FlyingBlue-ation (TM) of WP/SM as well.)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



Say it ain't so...

What a terrible time to be waiting to start my 1st job Ipost graduation) as a consultant in Atlanta .

(Please note, this appears unconfirmed. I've yet to see a seconding of this from another DL Plat, and/or a scan of the documents. So let's all keep a level head about ourselves. Hopefully today, we'll get some more info on this one. )

This counterpoint is being brought to you by someone who's thought they're in the running for the least profitable Plat in the system. Ironically, this change effects me the least, considering I'm a K kinda pax. So this discussion is academic to me... until you come for my K fares. Yet, as a customer, it appears we've transferred from the moronic bus to the idiocy train... because in the words of a grifter... don't beach the whale!

Counterpoint:

Does 150% EQM on YB fares provide measurable providor benefit... aside from goodwill, customer loyalty, etc?

Is the unmeasurable potential lost revenue of unpurchased YB fares greater or less then the expense of the 50% EQM bonus?

Will this drive away more revenue then the expenses being saved?

Why do people buy a YB fare? Usually because that's the only bucket available, for what they want/need. Either because they want to be at a certain place at a certain time (late purchase, business need, personal crisis, etc), or they want a certain benefit from that fare class (YUP, PMUs, etc). Will this change be the X-factor to drive them to another carrier?

Point:

This breaks the charge-more-get-more, charge-less-get-less paradigm. Some pax can't buy F (legal, auditing, policy, etc), so 150% in YB should be considered a requirement. Very confusing.

They're gonna do what they're gonna do, We're gonna to do what we're gonna do. They can be holistic, we can be holistic. I'm still waiting for the TLK announcements. That's my X-factor, for MR all-in... or all-out.

You left out an important one: Mileage Upgrades.

I rarely buy anything above the lowest BUT...the 150% EQM is a kicker for me when deciding to cough up for the ability to give NW my miles for an upgrade TPAC or TATL. It takes a little of the sting out and is a bit of a balancing data point when I am making that decision. I bet this will impact the number of people who buy-up to a B for upgrades.

[QUOTE=avidflyer;11133106]Yes, me being one of them as you well know my friend. I honestly still think this is a misprint in the packets, but if it is not, this really (and I mean really) is so an example of the classic "penny wise pound foolish" behavior these jokers seem to manifest. Geesh .....

Safe Travels.

Most changes to the program I can deal with but I buy most TATL fares as B and enjoy the 150% EQMs plus the chance for an upgrade (~50% last year).
Not sure this will be worth it for me anymore...

Bought a fare for March with the expectation that I would earn 150%. I guess I am likely out of luck. I hope this is a mistake...

Because they can, or at least think they can. They figure that most people buying those tickets have to, so they are stuck. What they haven't figured out is that those same pax can comp over to another airline, buy those fares on them and get their miles. Very shortsighted.

Does customer loyalty provide measurable providor benefit?

I occasionally get B fares - mostly because I have no choice or it's from a consolidator, but if I were short by a few EQMs, I'd possibly consider buying a B fare to push me over the top. No status means I'm gone.

We have to fight back on our way out.

http://www.saveworldperks.com/

For a minute I thought you meant I'd only be able to non-rev to Doha, and I thought, well, gosh, my friend's sister lives there and wants me to visit, but... then I realized that wasn't the DOH you meant. D'OH!

Yet how much sting has been taken out, and how much weight on that balancing point is being moved?

So I'm hearing you're buying your way into Coach the least expensive way possible (V fare), or you're buying your way into Business the least expensive way possible (B fare + miles). So the question is... if EQM for B went down to 100%, would you still pay the V->B fare difference to sit in Business?

At the individual transaction level, I'd say 99.5% of people would say "yes", they would still buy B fare, add miles, and sit in C. The Business seat for 9-15 hours is more important then 2000-3000 EQM.

Yet what about brand loyalty? My perception is that the customer would look simply at "I paid more, I want more". Yes, they get more by sitting in C, yet they want the EQM bonus. And when competing airlines still offer 150% EQM, that brand loyalty will be broken, and the customer will shift allegiances.

Short-term, this appears to be a winner. Long-term, this appears to be a loser (if other loyalty programs continue 150% EQM!). IMO.

Yet this is all academic. Has anyone confirmed this report?

All indicators seem to be pointing to the fact that Skyteam's FFPs will continue to be increasingly harmonized in the coming year into more HCP's: High Contribution Programs not intended to influence or incentivize buying behavior as much as to reward loyal customers with a more profitable contribution margin.

Consider this: If DLNW's TATL JV partner and only other significant part of ST only offers a maximum of 100% on full-flex Y fares and only 125% on the most widely favored business class fares (Z), it seems quite obvious that the 150% on economy tickets would disappear sooner rather than later.