Actually I think I've figured it out -- KCFlyer is really Herb Kelleher spreading disinformation in an attempt to convince US Airways management to to accelerate their tailspin...PineyBob said:
Here We Go Again
- Thread starter tadjr
- Start date
KCFlyer
Veteran
Sorry, not Herb. Only trying to point out that when costs...any costs....need to be cut, then you've got to look at where you haven't been. Delta is doing this with their FF program. American is doing this with their FF program. America West has implemented value pricing (on all cabins) and tweaked their FF program quite a bit. I needn't remind you that AWA has reported a "surprise" profit. One has to wonder how much longer US can remain "competitive" in the FF arena while losing money.TomBascom said:
Tweaks are one thing -- US is doing those also. Some make sense, others do not. But you go a lot farther than "tweaks".KCFlyer said:
I whole-heartedly agree that some variation on value pricing is very much what is really needed to turn this thing around.
JS
Veteran
Speaking of value pricing on US Airways, I sort of make my own. The last time I had to pay a high fare, I bought two fares (i.e., end-to-end) -- one high and one matching AirTran. Result? Twice as many segments for only $79 more.
Bob -- JS has done nothing wrong. Even by the airline's silly definitions. He used two airlines not a "back to back". It's only against the rules when both tickets are on the same airline...PineyBob said:
Actually now that I re-read it again maybe you were right 
It is kind of ambiguous... Yet another thing that SWA does right.
It is kind of ambiguous... Yet another thing that SWA does right.JS bought two US tickets. One high end and the other that mathed AirTrans fare. He got more segments for only $79 more. This, as a result, gave him more segments toward preferred status. Passengers do this all the time - even though they think they are being sly - we know. By "we" I mean those actually booking the reservations.
I don't agree with fare structure and encourage the management to restructure fares for all compartments. The fare rules are sometimes meaningless and cost the company more time and money when we have to decipher what fare applies to what type of travel. Simple is better. As far as I am concerned, whomever creates these things have no idea of what the employees go through daily booking them and the frustration the passengers feel buying them.
I don't agree with fare structure and encourage the management to restructure fares for all compartments. The fare rules are sometimes meaningless and cost the company more time and money when we have to decipher what fare applies to what type of travel. Simple is better. As far as I am concerned, whomever creates these things have no idea of what the employees go through daily booking them and the frustration the passengers feel buying them.
JS
Veteran
Guys, this was END ON END, not back to back. This is legit. I have no problem with going after back-to-backs, because that cuts into revenue at no cost to the passenger (the cost being travel time).
Details -- I needed to fly AVL to LGA with no Saturday night stay. AVL to anywhere is expensive, especially with no Saturday night stay, so I found the cheapest fare out of AVL that will take me someplace that is cheap to LGA (unless LGA was the cheapest, which it isn't).
AVL-CAK was about $200 or $300 less than AVL-LGA, and CAK-LGA was the AirTran $79 match.
Most people won't do this, because it takes longer (see "travel must be via the fare combination point" in the fare rules). However, I like flying, so I welcomed the end-on-end opportunity.
What's interesting is that if US had value-priced AVL-LGA all by themselves rather than just matching discount carriers, I would have bought the cheap AVL-LGA and paid less. So, at least in this case, value pricing would have decreased revenue for US.
Details -- I needed to fly AVL to LGA with no Saturday night stay. AVL to anywhere is expensive, especially with no Saturday night stay, so I found the cheapest fare out of AVL that will take me someplace that is cheap to LGA (unless LGA was the cheapest, which it isn't).
AVL-CAK was about $200 or $300 less than AVL-LGA, and CAK-LGA was the AirTran $79 match.
Most people won't do this, because it takes longer (see "travel must be via the fare combination point" in the fare rules). However, I like flying, so I welcomed the end-on-end opportunity.
What's interesting is that if US had value-priced AVL-LGA all by themselves rather than just matching discount carriers, I would have bought the cheap AVL-LGA and paid less. So, at least in this case, value pricing would have decreased revenue for US.
Similar threads
