I believe the change in pitch is the same as west, but I'm not sure. If so, its already in place and proven successful.
LESS First Class, MORE Coach
- Thread starter SKY HIGH
- Start date
Yeah, it'll be real successful after all the elites who can't get upgraded anymore and don't feel like getting stuck in a mediocre and utterly uncompelling economy product go find other airlines to fly on.
Do you enjoy making statements which dismiss and antagonize elite frequent flyers, or what?
The unlimited elite upgrades are about all this program has to offer... fewer of those and tighter coach pitch, yeah, ticket to success there.
I was thinking the same thing. A great PR move. Focus everyone's attention to the overall reduction of F seating while the real travisty is the reduction in Y seat pitch when they assimilate all the A319/320s.
Fewer F seats, a coach that has less room than WN, F fares that are out of line with the product, competitors that offer more.
If Doug and the boys and girls in Tempe ever paid for a flight (or sat in coach instead of displacing their FFs) they'd see why this sucks.
If Doug and the boys and girls in Tempe ever paid for a flight (or sat in coach instead of displacing their FFs) they'd see why this sucks.
legacy-to-LCC
Veteran
- Feb 20, 2004
- 778
- 2
doug and the coed team see nothing but numbers and the dollar signs those numbers point to...
Travels2mch
Veteran
Well it should get easier for them as the numbers will get smaller if they proceed with this. We wouldn't want the number crunchers to break a sweat now would we????
- Thread Starter
- #22
Sky high states: With load factors near or at 80 PERCENT, isnt "upgrading" a challenge already? FFOCUS? Art? With that said, who sees any EMPTY First Class seats on a transcon/A321/320? How many ELITES does this airline have?
Anyone have statistics on how many First Class seats on this aircraft go out EMPTY, on average? Or is this decision based strictly on yield?
The rationale for providing FF perks has always been that it is cheaper to keep good loyal cutomers than attract new ones. That presupposes any cost involved in attracting new customers vis a vis a bonified marketing plan. Therefore, by sticking with the primarily internet-based ticket distribution (Travelocity, etc. )which is apparently the cheapest way to sell tickets, there is little incentive to jeopardize revenue to satisfy FF's. Keeps costs low enough to weather any potential competition, but fares high enough to charge the maximum the public will bear.
Econ 101
Econ 101
luvn737s,
While I see your point, there is a potential flaw to your logic. If elite travelers left en masse, it would take between 5 and 10 time the number of itinerant once a year fliers to make up the same revenue. Regular every week fliers who spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on air travel make up a disproportional part of the revenue pie. I think it was said that just under 20% of an airlines frequent fliers provide about 40% of the revenue. So while the cost of customer acquisition may be lower than it was before, the potential loss of a regular revenue stream could be substantial.
Assuming (and today it basically is the case) that very few people actually PAY for F, it costs very little to put a loyal FF in the F seat. PLUS now you have an extra coach seat to sell.
There are arguments on both sides, but I fear that moves like this will be more costly than Tempe thinks.
Like I said I am trying to be fair and willing to listen to both sides here, but with a dysfunctional web site, and other customer unfriendly moves of late, I think the handwriting is on the wall for hte high yield customer, at least on the east side of things.
While I see your point, there is a potential flaw to your logic. If elite travelers left en masse, it would take between 5 and 10 time the number of itinerant once a year fliers to make up the same revenue. Regular every week fliers who spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on air travel make up a disproportional part of the revenue pie. I think it was said that just under 20% of an airlines frequent fliers provide about 40% of the revenue. So while the cost of customer acquisition may be lower than it was before, the potential loss of a regular revenue stream could be substantial.
Assuming (and today it basically is the case) that very few people actually PAY for F, it costs very little to put a loyal FF in the F seat. PLUS now you have an extra coach seat to sell.
There are arguments on both sides, but I fear that moves like this will be more costly than Tempe thinks.
Like I said I am trying to be fair and willing to listen to both sides here, but with a dysfunctional web site, and other customer unfriendly moves of late, I think the handwriting is on the wall for hte high yield customer, at least on the east side of things.
US1YFARE
Veteran
- Mar 31, 2004
- 3,932
- 54
This is just my 2 cents. I buy fares that are immediately upgradeable...B or Y fares. When I do transcons, I purchase A or YUP fares. I don't like to do the upgrade dance. However, when I purchase transcons last minute, it is VERY VERY VERY DIFFICULT if not IMPOSSIBLE to get into FC no matter what fare I purchase--even if I wanted to pruchase a full F ticket. I am going to LAX next week and 8 days ahead I couldn't get in FC on the flights I wanted. I hope that if they reduce the size of the FC cabin on the 321, they reduce the number of FC award tickets on those flights as well. I find the cabin filled with award tickets when you could generate some revenue in that cabin if you had a decent product. Rumor is that UA is considering PS service out of PHL... My last trip to SFO had just 3 US1's in the FC cabin...not sure if they are losing customers or giving away those seats to mileage upgrades. I don't remember the last time I was on a transcon where the 321 went out with empty seats.
UW,
While some of the changes may be necessary, some of the planned moves are just boneheaded. As I have been saying all along, the F seating in the 321 is a symptom of a larger disease if you will, and that is the total disdain for high yield frequent customers (or PERCEPTION thereof).
You are contemplating changes which make you LESS competitive with other airlines, yet you are equal to if not MORE expensive in price. UA, AA, DL and CO all have 22-24 F seats in transcontinental aircraft, and you want 16 or in the case of the east 757 8? I don't think that is competitive! UA and DL have GREATER seat pitch in coach (35 plus for economy plus, and DL is about 33 inches in 757's). Again, you're not competitive. Even WN and B6 have greater pitch than 30-31 inches. To me that means reduced value, and if you take value out of the equation there is no reason to fly US any more.
It can't all be one way, UW---you need to listen to your customers and at least explain WHY certain changes need to be made. If you continue to ignore us, we will go away, and the revenue lost will surprise you!
It is sad to me that you have taken such an anti customer tone. I repeat my offer to talk to you off line, I am no further than a PM away--
I would love to know where the "anti customer tone" has been displayed in my posts. I only state facts, information the like. Never an opinion (other than towards a single individual or two). Just take a look at my posts, before you accuse me of the "anti customer tone"...you could not be anymore wrong about that.
Yes, the high yield customer is key to profitability, but let's not confuse them with the high volume customer, many of whom are low yield. The fact of the matter is that most of these customers will not leave. Most of them are captive because of particular hubs or routes. Some of them (perhaps including you) seem to enjoy complaining about the abuse but keep coming back for more. I suspect that Tempe has a pretty good idea of how many captive high yield customers they have and how much inertia there is in the rest. Then the rest is simple math. What is the revenue maximizing number of F and Y seats? Clearly, the answer is that there has been too many F seats in the past.
UW,
I have been given the opportunity to meet with some in Tempe, and I will be taking them up on that offer. Again, perception is reality to most, and since you APPEAR to try to explain the logic behind all Tempe's moves (almost all of which remove value from the customer), it APPEARS that you represent a group in Tempe who does not care what the customer thinks.
That said, you are right that there needs to be a balance found, but unless you are willing to at least consult the customer, especially your frequent customer, you will never find that balance.
We are realistic, but you also must realize that many of the changes you have made make you a LESS favorable choice for travel for the frequent flier than many of your competitors--and at prices equal to or more than the competition.
IF you want to be a true LCC, or even a hybrid, you need to go all the way-if you want to pull perks and benefits, you need to give something back. If fares were rationalized (they are not!) in the east it might help, but all Tempe has done is take, and given nothing back. I don't know how you can call that balance.
I hope I get the pleasure of meeting you when I visit Tempe. PM if you want more details.
Lots of rumors on PS, but PHL seems as unlikely as the others. PS only works with lots of paid F and C customers. There just aren't that many paid F tix bought ex-PHL to justify PS.
Similar threads
