Service Adjustments
- Thread starter hharotz
- Start date
I would think it would be better to have a "US specific brand identity" on these things ie (Attache, Envoy) vs the generic brand unless you just want to say/use USAirways (fill in the blank for whatever) ie Magazine/Business Class/Club so the name is out there.
I dont see how changing a name is going to save any $ and it just makes it seem like we're going to be like the rest with NO US branding.
Anyone know who uses World Traveler and Club World complete with their own designs and logos? (rhetorical no need to answer)
Cheap doesnt have to mean cheap and generic.
I dont see how changing a name is going to save any $ and it just makes it seem like we're going to be like the rest with NO US branding.
Anyone know who uses World Traveler and Club World complete with their own designs and logos? (rhetorical no need to answer)
Cheap doesnt have to mean cheap and generic.
jimntx
Veteran
insp89 said:
I'm not obsessed with US Airways. I'm just enjoying all this "We know better than Doug Parker how to run an airline; how dare he try to change anything" conversation.
I was a consultant in the IT field and I frequently would have to listen to business people reject a suggestion with "We can't do that. We've never done it that way before." I would point out to them that if you do what you've always done, you will get what you've always gotten. After 2 trips to bankruptcy in less than 4 years, I would think you people would be open to some suggestions of a different way to do things.
Oh, and winning an award in 1991 or whenever it was, doesn't prove a thing today. Your routes and ours used to be run with wagon trains, but that was then and this is now. You don't keep (or increase) customers by what you did last year or the year before. Wow, backatcha.
Art at ISP
Veteran
One thing that has to be realized is that the yields on transatlantic are MUCH higher than on domestic, and they are mostly profitable at past and current service levels. While domestic first really can't get any worse than it already is (US side, and product only, not the people), someone has to realize that no one will be willing to pay full fare for less than a full service product.
There is a substantial risk that reducing the service on transatlantic any more will result in a significant loss of revenue. While I have confidence in the new management, they need to realize they have no experience whatsoever with the transatlantic market, and that there is a significant risk in cutting service even more up front.
That said, its time for the RATIONAL fare structure to kick in. I just paid $522 ISP-BOS on a puddle jumper....if I wasn't meeting a group of 5 in BOS and didn't need a vehicle bigger than my own, I'd be drivin'.......
There is a substantial risk that reducing the service on transatlantic any more will result in a significant loss of revenue. While I have confidence in the new management, they need to realize they have no experience whatsoever with the transatlantic market, and that there is a significant risk in cutting service even more up front.
That said, its time for the RATIONAL fare structure to kick in. I just paid $522 ISP-BOS on a puddle jumper....if I wasn't meeting a group of 5 in BOS and didn't need a vehicle bigger than my own, I'd be drivin'.......
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
jimntx said:
Jim you just like us because we're more fun than the skynAAzi crowd. 😛
jimntx
Veteran
EyeInTheSky said:
Well, that's true for sure. Our board is boring most of the time. No matter what the topic--say Flight attendant attrition, for instance--certain people manage to change it into a TWU vs. AMFA b*tch fight. Neither union represents the flight attendants.
Hey Tex, That's all fine and dandy, Hopefully Doug Parker will be open to suggestions.jimntx said:
Just seems to me you should be concerned with AA and the problems over there. Do you think American is immune to a trip to Bankrupcy ?
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
jimntx said:
Jim,
You are way off base. 95% and I MEAN 95% are glad the "old" AWA management team is running things, but you are sadly mistaken if you think 3/4 of the new US Airways is going to roll over and just shut up and be thankful. We've done that too many times You see, this management team isn't as cruel as AA as to basically fire or furlough everyone.
May I also remind you that it was the financing know-how of Lakefield that raised the money. THAT money was because AWA didn't have crap to buy and survive themselves. Makes no difference on any statement who the legal owner is, but that 49% majority ownership is NOT AWA, but private investor makes this a merger...period. So please give it a rest.
There will be good changes and not so good changes, but that is life.
If Doug decides to keep the customers first and the employees a very close second, he will have an airline that many will soon fear. If he becomes the airline ceo status quo, we'll be back to the courts.
I for one could careless about the changes, Just treat your customers and your employees with respect and give us the tools we need to accomplish that. It's pure and simple. I believe in this man.
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
sorry, a slip...we had a ceo that was called only by his first name. it will be a PLEASURE to correct that. thanks for pointing that mistake...oooo, yuk, I can't believe I did that.desertgal said:
jimntx
Veteran
firstamendment said:
Oh? BoeingBoy, a US employee whose posts can always be depended upon to be truthful just posted these numbers on another thread.
July 2001:
US - 44,502
HP - 12,507
Total - 57,009
July 2005:
US - 21,715
HP - 11,941
Total - 34,656
I guess that 52% reduction in US staff over the last 4 years was all just happy retirements at full retirement pay.
ClearedToPush
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
I wonder if the reason for the name change is to simpify things. Most of the flying public is familiar with the term Business Class not Envoy.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 4,964
- Reaction score
- 455
As I have worked the Transatlantic division for some time before it was disolved in May, I think the service in "Economy" and "Envoy" are good products. I do believe that Star requires a certain level of service and ammeneties. If they want to change the name from Envoy to Business fine as long as you maintain that service level. With all of the int'l expansion we have done we are still FAR from being the leading carrier across the pond. Unless your frequent to US-Airways you may not know what the hell "Envoy" is. I always wondered though why they call the coach cabin "Economy" on transatlantic and "Main Cabin" on domestic. If changes are made to the service, rest assured that the voices of travellers paying "BIG" dollars to fly on us to europe WILL be heard. As for "Attache", ya know, the "award" winning (cough, cough) magazine PAAAAALEASE ! ! ! ! It should be called what it is, "US-Airways Magazine. Some can't even pronounce it correctly. I could see them yanking the first row out of the A-330. No need for it to be divided anymore. I also can see them taking out row 6&7 (our crew rest) LOL 😉
My thoughts exactly! The service, not the name is what matters. I understand what some people are saying about branding, but we have to worry about the USAirways brand before we worry about Envoy, Attache, etc. We have to ensure all passengers (first, business, coach) know & trust the USAirways brand.Travelpro72 said:
I do hope we dont' decrease service dramatically on first & business-but some changes will probably happen.
Similar threads
