I just don't get it. If you don't like the product that is offered, then don't buy it.
Calling ALL Cockroaches - Customers Only
- Thread starter longing4piedmont
- Start date
And this statement pretty much sums up the multiple pages why US is in trouble
Art at ISP
Veteran
Singleflyer,
You nailed it. Now that some of you have had a field day bashing Bob and me, let me explain myself fully.
First of all, I have been a Preferred flyer with US since 1999. A Chairman's Preferred flyer since 2000. I perservered flying out of ISP (with just about the best express crew of people of any station I might add), and the experience of ALWAYS going through PHL for years and years. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. When it didn't, I would receive a proactive call from my "angel" in Deborah Thompson's office who would make it right. (In those days they had some executive consumer relations agents who would keep track of high volume and yield travelers and make sure they were happy). To this day I still hear from that lady even though she is long gone from US.
In 2003, the year AFTER we started FFOCUS (then known as the US Cockroaches), I was invited by Ms. Thompson herself to join the Consumer Advisory Board, and attended my first meeting in Washington DC with the executive team at the time, which briefly included David Livingston Seagull himself. I spent a significant amount of time talking to Ben Baldanza, who as we all know, is the reason for our group beginning (the DM change reversal in 2002 was our first win). We had an enlightening discussion of fares. He told me if he could raise the lowest fares charged by $20 he could lower the top by $300. I told him to do it--he backed off said it wasn't that easy.
It is that easy. For Bear's benefit and that of those who think we mean that "rational" means "cheap", here it is. There is no place in today's environment for fares of $99-$199 on transcons, or even Florida for that matter. What Ben was saying is that people who pay the higher fares subsidize the loser fares--and that just isn't fair. The fares need to be FAIR. As Singleflyer said above, almost $700 for LGA-MHT on a buzz bucket is NOT fair. ISP-PHL on the same aircraft is over $800. Sorry ain't gonna happen. I would rather drive.
You have to take the cost of a product or service into consideration when you price it. The airline business today does not. So let's look at a typical route.
LGA-CLT is about 540 miles. It is usually run on mainline aircraft. Let's assume an average CASM of 16 cents which MIGHT reflect the cost of fuel today. The raw cost of transporting one person on that route is therefore now $86.40. So in theory, even if you offer a fare of $249 r/t you are making money. Not much but you're above the water line. Now you could afford to put 5-7 seats out there for less than that to remain competitive, but no more.
Since the bulk of your seats are going to be above break even if you do it right, you can then lower the high end of the fare structure--by rationalizing, we mean perhaps $500-$600 for a last minute round trip, as opposed to $900-$1000 which it has been and still may be. It's called the middle ground. I realize this is a simplified explanation, but it does work. It raises AVERAGE fares in any given market, which improves the overall revenue picture. The problem is no one has the guts to do it and stay with it.
So by rational we do NOT mean cheap. We mean FAIR. Maybe Crandall is right--a bit of regulation might be in order to save the industry--like a public service commission which regulates utility rates (still around!).
We can argue the point back and forth. We ALL realize that fares have to go up, but what US misses is that by going the extra step to alienate those who contribute the most to the bottom line, they are making things even WORSE for them, because the few elites left are bailing like crazy now. FACT. And I can tell you that based on a survey done by FFOCUS of its membership, we have very few "low value" elites who fly on the cheap (I never could understand mileage runs anyway). Most of our members pay their way, and our average yield is quite high. So why do they want us to leave? I guess it's just another brilliant decision by the sand castle....
I hope this helps folks...and I repeat. We all want US to survive and thrive, but at this point the management of the company is the biggest impediment to that......instead of trying to RETAIN the loyal customer base, the more you fly the less they want you around. Actions speak louder than words, folks....
Oh and since the CAB days, I have met regularly with both sets of US management--often on my own dime, and have presented them with our surveys, and I laid out a picture of how much we contribute and they laughed us off.....so I think we did give them every fair chance to make things right. THEY chose not to. It even got as far as them asking me to help them choose a new Consumer Advisory Board--and that one died on the vine because THEY know better. And I must say the absolute contempt for the frequent traveler is just amazing, and we now have no choice but to take them at their word--their actions say they want us to leave, so leave we shall.
To whomever said that it was now America Worst doing business at US Airways was right on the money....and as long as it stays this way, we encourage our members to stay away. Time to be held accountable. They push us away when they need us the most, so be it. With a management change, I am sure many would give US another chance, but this management team doesn't want us, so off we go. I do apologize to the front line employees--this was a very tough decision, but as usual, you have your management to thank for this situation.
Until management realizes that their FIRST priority is the employee, SECOND is the customer, and THIRD is the shareholder (take care of the first it takes care of the second, which automatically takes care of the third), and not the other way around, there is no hope.
My BEST to you all.......and Happy Fathers Day to those to whom it applies.
You nailed it. Now that some of you have had a field day bashing Bob and me, let me explain myself fully.
First of all, I have been a Preferred flyer with US since 1999. A Chairman's Preferred flyer since 2000. I perservered flying out of ISP (with just about the best express crew of people of any station I might add), and the experience of ALWAYS going through PHL for years and years. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. When it didn't, I would receive a proactive call from my "angel" in Deborah Thompson's office who would make it right. (In those days they had some executive consumer relations agents who would keep track of high volume and yield travelers and make sure they were happy). To this day I still hear from that lady even though she is long gone from US.
In 2003, the year AFTER we started FFOCUS (then known as the US Cockroaches), I was invited by Ms. Thompson herself to join the Consumer Advisory Board, and attended my first meeting in Washington DC with the executive team at the time, which briefly included David Livingston Seagull himself. I spent a significant amount of time talking to Ben Baldanza, who as we all know, is the reason for our group beginning (the DM change reversal in 2002 was our first win). We had an enlightening discussion of fares. He told me if he could raise the lowest fares charged by $20 he could lower the top by $300. I told him to do it--he backed off said it wasn't that easy.
It is that easy. For Bear's benefit and that of those who think we mean that "rational" means "cheap", here it is. There is no place in today's environment for fares of $99-$199 on transcons, or even Florida for that matter. What Ben was saying is that people who pay the higher fares subsidize the loser fares--and that just isn't fair. The fares need to be FAIR. As Singleflyer said above, almost $700 for LGA-MHT on a buzz bucket is NOT fair. ISP-PHL on the same aircraft is over $800. Sorry ain't gonna happen. I would rather drive.
You have to take the cost of a product or service into consideration when you price it. The airline business today does not. So let's look at a typical route.
LGA-CLT is about 540 miles. It is usually run on mainline aircraft. Let's assume an average CASM of 16 cents which MIGHT reflect the cost of fuel today. The raw cost of transporting one person on that route is therefore now $86.40. So in theory, even if you offer a fare of $249 r/t you are making money. Not much but you're above the water line. Now you could afford to put 5-7 seats out there for less than that to remain competitive, but no more.
Since the bulk of your seats are going to be above break even if you do it right, you can then lower the high end of the fare structure--by rationalizing, we mean perhaps $500-$600 for a last minute round trip, as opposed to $900-$1000 which it has been and still may be. It's called the middle ground. I realize this is a simplified explanation, but it does work. It raises AVERAGE fares in any given market, which improves the overall revenue picture. The problem is no one has the guts to do it and stay with it.
So by rational we do NOT mean cheap. We mean FAIR. Maybe Crandall is right--a bit of regulation might be in order to save the industry--like a public service commission which regulates utility rates (still around!).
We can argue the point back and forth. We ALL realize that fares have to go up, but what US misses is that by going the extra step to alienate those who contribute the most to the bottom line, they are making things even WORSE for them, because the few elites left are bailing like crazy now. FACT. And I can tell you that based on a survey done by FFOCUS of its membership, we have very few "low value" elites who fly on the cheap (I never could understand mileage runs anyway). Most of our members pay their way, and our average yield is quite high. So why do they want us to leave? I guess it's just another brilliant decision by the sand castle....
I hope this helps folks...and I repeat. We all want US to survive and thrive, but at this point the management of the company is the biggest impediment to that......instead of trying to RETAIN the loyal customer base, the more you fly the less they want you around. Actions speak louder than words, folks....
Oh and since the CAB days, I have met regularly with both sets of US management--often on my own dime, and have presented them with our surveys, and I laid out a picture of how much we contribute and they laughed us off.....so I think we did give them every fair chance to make things right. THEY chose not to. It even got as far as them asking me to help them choose a new Consumer Advisory Board--and that one died on the vine because THEY know better. And I must say the absolute contempt for the frequent traveler is just amazing, and we now have no choice but to take them at their word--their actions say they want us to leave, so leave we shall.
To whomever said that it was now America Worst doing business at US Airways was right on the money....and as long as it stays this way, we encourage our members to stay away. Time to be held accountable. They push us away when they need us the most, so be it. With a management change, I am sure many would give US another chance, but this management team doesn't want us, so off we go. I do apologize to the front line employees--this was a very tough decision, but as usual, you have your management to thank for this situation.
Until management realizes that their FIRST priority is the employee, SECOND is the customer, and THIRD is the shareholder (take care of the first it takes care of the second, which automatically takes care of the third), and not the other way around, there is no hope.
My BEST to you all.......and Happy Fathers Day to those to whom it applies.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
But Art - Southwest has had "Fair" fares for the past 35 years...they've increased prices to cover increasing costs (not too long ago the highest one way fare was $300..today it's $461). This is the fare structure you claim you are fighting for, yet the one airline that offers them is the one airline you yourself have said you'll never set foot on. I am at a loss to understand why...and can only assume that it is the lack of a first class cabin - although most of the other airlines that are flying into ISP also lack a first class cabin.
So how does anybody win? Implement "reasonable" fares...and severely limit or eliminate first class upgrades...is this acceptable to you? Or do they need to implement fair fares" and still provide the VFF's with the perks and upgrades - after all - the perk was originally intended to reward those who paid "full" fare - which indeed WAS highway robbery in the day. But if your fare..the person who travels frequently, is the same as MY fare..a 'drearie normal kettle' flyer - why should you be comped?
So how does anybody win? Implement "reasonable" fares...and severely limit or eliminate first class upgrades...is this acceptable to you? Or do they need to implement fair fares" and still provide the VFF's with the perks and upgrades - after all - the perk was originally intended to reward those who paid "full" fare - which indeed WAS highway robbery in the day. But if your fare..the person who travels frequently, is the same as MY fare..a 'drearie normal kettle' flyer - why should you be comped?
I'm not sure how. I don't have anything to do with the management of USAirways, and that is my philosophy towards any product or service offered by any company and any industry.
It puzzles me, though, if LCC is so horrible, why is it still in business? Obviously enough people seem to think it provides sufficient value to purchase the product and keep it in business for so long.
Having been on both sides of the fence and teetering on the edge.......AWA was a low cost carrier. This airline competed with SWA heavily in PHX. In comparison, AWA had a few extra perks that passengers wanted vs. flying on SWA. That business model was working for the most part.
The old US Airways, et al, was an entirely different airline. It did have all the perks that the FF, business travelers, etc. wanted.
IMHO, US Airways 2nd BK was under the table/under handedly orchestrated by those that could......to bring USA and AWA at a level playing field.
Now the merger between 2 totally different types of airlines. Like trying to mix oil and water for all the world to see, easties vs. westies, labor group/union vs. labor group/union, management style vs. management style. A rather large red flag should have been raised with a person was appointed as the "cultural integration" person. "They" knew what they were in for and severly underestimated the "cultural differences" of the 2 airlines.......not only with the employees but with the labor force as well. From the upper management types to the non management, non union, union employees.
The biggest mistake, IMO, was keeping the US Airways name. Understood that the "global recognition" of that name was far greater than America West. A totally new name should have been used to identify the new business model......because it is a hybrid of both, but tilted much more to the AWA way. Especially when totally rebranding, applying an LCC business model, etc. The legacy US Airways name is NOT what one would expect to be a low cost carrier. America West was a low cost carrier and never claimed to be anything else.
All airlines are in trouble right now. Trucking companies are in big trouble right now. Our economy is in trouble right now. Who can honestly say that they are not affected by the current fuel prices? No one, I would think..........at least no one on these boards.
We all have to adjust our expectations and attitudes to every business we deal with. The old legacy US Airways is no longer....although the name and many flyer's expectations remain the same. The airline is more like America West. I feel that if all airlines don't adjust, there will be severe fall out. The passengers, frequent flyer's or not, are going to have to adjust as well.
It's sad but circumstances change. I for one, feel that it is inappropriate for a group of people (FFOCUS) that have expended the amount of time and energy to "help" US Airways over the years, would now call for a boycott of the airline.
Time will tell how this all pans out. In the mean time, adjust your way of thinking and make the best of the changes....they are happening, or will soon happen, at all the airlines. It just seems that this is the most vocal group.
The old US Airways, et al, was an entirely different airline. It did have all the perks that the FF, business travelers, etc. wanted.
IMHO, US Airways 2nd BK was under the table/under handedly orchestrated by those that could......to bring USA and AWA at a level playing field.
Now the merger between 2 totally different types of airlines. Like trying to mix oil and water for all the world to see, easties vs. westies, labor group/union vs. labor group/union, management style vs. management style. A rather large red flag should have been raised with a person was appointed as the "cultural integration" person. "They" knew what they were in for and severly underestimated the "cultural differences" of the 2 airlines.......not only with the employees but with the labor force as well. From the upper management types to the non management, non union, union employees.
The biggest mistake, IMO, was keeping the US Airways name. Understood that the "global recognition" of that name was far greater than America West. A totally new name should have been used to identify the new business model......because it is a hybrid of both, but tilted much more to the AWA way. Especially when totally rebranding, applying an LCC business model, etc. The legacy US Airways name is NOT what one would expect to be a low cost carrier. America West was a low cost carrier and never claimed to be anything else.
All airlines are in trouble right now. Trucking companies are in big trouble right now. Our economy is in trouble right now. Who can honestly say that they are not affected by the current fuel prices? No one, I would think..........at least no one on these boards.
We all have to adjust our expectations and attitudes to every business we deal with. The old legacy US Airways is no longer....although the name and many flyer's expectations remain the same. The airline is more like America West. I feel that if all airlines don't adjust, there will be severe fall out. The passengers, frequent flyer's or not, are going to have to adjust as well.
It's sad but circumstances change. I for one, feel that it is inappropriate for a group of people (FFOCUS) that have expended the amount of time and energy to "help" US Airways over the years, would now call for a boycott of the airline.
Time will tell how this all pans out. In the mean time, adjust your way of thinking and make the best of the changes....they are happening, or will soon happen, at all the airlines. It just seems that this is the most vocal group.
Art at ISP
Veteran
KC,
I agree with most of what you said, but WN is NOT a business traveler friendly carrier. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but you can't change that.
Yes their fare structure is more in line with what we're talking about, but their service level is not. Maybe what we're saying is take WN's fare structure, raise it a bit, and then maintain the marketplace differentiation which AWA was so good at.
Snafu got it right. The old AWA was an LCC--they played Southwest's game but at a slightly higher level, and at a slightly higher price. Most true business travelers were happy to pay the bit extra for the perks--and guess what? That is still the case today. Most business travelers are willing to pay a LITTLE more. And we're not even asking to maintain the status quo. We're not stupid, and we're not selfish. We KNOW things have to change. We're saying there are choices on which changes to make, and US continuously makes the WRONG choices.
That said, there may now be a time where I try WN, if for nothing else to satisfy my curiosity. I still maintain that no advance seat assignment is a problem for me, but if that is one of the changes I have to adjust to, so be it. If that happens I will let you know with a trip report.
HOWEVER, while all other carriers have instituted fees and have decided its okay to nickel and dime customers, ONLY US has gone one or two steps further to charge for soft drinks, AND to further stick it to their most loyal customers by taking away the mileage bonuses. I do not think for a minute that AA, UA, DL or CO would even consider something like that. They realize the VALUE of their most frequent customers and how important we are to them at this time. US on the other hand does not care....so again we are only doing what THEY are asking of us.
I realize we are not going to agree on much of what's going on here, but the time has come for us to let Tempe know that if they want to treat their best customers with contempt, there will be a price to pay, and the time has come to pay that price.
I am happy to give my business to airlines who appreciate my loyalty, and I continue to contribute higher than average yields when I fly. I will NOT favor an airline who thinks I am the enemy, and who refuses to give its employees the tools to make their customers happy.
I agree with most of what you said, but WN is NOT a business traveler friendly carrier. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but you can't change that.
Yes their fare structure is more in line with what we're talking about, but their service level is not. Maybe what we're saying is take WN's fare structure, raise it a bit, and then maintain the marketplace differentiation which AWA was so good at.
Snafu got it right. The old AWA was an LCC--they played Southwest's game but at a slightly higher level, and at a slightly higher price. Most true business travelers were happy to pay the bit extra for the perks--and guess what? That is still the case today. Most business travelers are willing to pay a LITTLE more. And we're not even asking to maintain the status quo. We're not stupid, and we're not selfish. We KNOW things have to change. We're saying there are choices on which changes to make, and US continuously makes the WRONG choices.
That said, there may now be a time where I try WN, if for nothing else to satisfy my curiosity. I still maintain that no advance seat assignment is a problem for me, but if that is one of the changes I have to adjust to, so be it. If that happens I will let you know with a trip report.
HOWEVER, while all other carriers have instituted fees and have decided its okay to nickel and dime customers, ONLY US has gone one or two steps further to charge for soft drinks, AND to further stick it to their most loyal customers by taking away the mileage bonuses. I do not think for a minute that AA, UA, DL or CO would even consider something like that. They realize the VALUE of their most frequent customers and how important we are to them at this time. US on the other hand does not care....so again we are only doing what THEY are asking of us.
I realize we are not going to agree on much of what's going on here, but the time has come for us to let Tempe know that if they want to treat their best customers with contempt, there will be a price to pay, and the time has come to pay that price.
I am happy to give my business to airlines who appreciate my loyalty, and I continue to contribute higher than average yields when I fly. I will NOT favor an airline who thinks I am the enemy, and who refuses to give its employees the tools to make their customers happy.
elixir
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 0
It is true that the (no offense to the west employees) "AWA mentality" has completely usurped what was once the proper product for the customer...the slash and burn fleecing of the product...not the fares, the product...is costing USAirways the VERY cash cow that attracted the wall street money for the merger in the first place.
The gigantic revenue generated by the East was due to delivering the right product to the customer...(knowing your customer...you know, Zig Ziegler...)
Well, that is all going to evaporate until and unless tempe does a 180. And if that evaporates...it's truly over for us all as a company.
What Tempe is doing, is jumping into the sandbox with SWA to play by their rules...and there's no way we can do that as a hub and spoke, management-heavy airline...period....we will most certainly lose that game.
Tempe is going to kill the goose (East revenue) that has laid the golden eggs all this time....
How very sad.
The gigantic revenue generated by the East was due to delivering the right product to the customer...(knowing your customer...you know, Zig Ziegler...)
Well, that is all going to evaporate until and unless tempe does a 180. And if that evaporates...it's truly over for us all as a company.
What Tempe is doing, is jumping into the sandbox with SWA to play by their rules...and there's no way we can do that as a hub and spoke, management-heavy airline...period....we will most certainly lose that game.
Tempe is going to kill the goose (East revenue) that has laid the golden eggs all this time....
How very sad.
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
Some of us that have been around US for 20 years or more like to joke about how nothing can kill this company, but if Tempe moves forward with the plan they announced last Thursday this place could very well go away.
The only saving grace will be the lowering of fuel costs and/or some kind of merger deal that Parker is still working on in the background.
Art -- with all due respect -- in a market economy input costs and prices of finished products are only loosely related. The best example today is oil. It only costs the Saudis a couple of bucks to produce a barrel that they now sell for $135. Any business is going to charge prices that produce the largest profit (or lowest losses) in the long term. We can all argue whether US is good at this system, but it is the system. And "fairness" has nothing to do with it.
You want to charge the despised "Kettles" more for their transcon and Florida trips, but the market will not bear higher fares. They will simply stop flying. Which is why the desert is going to see more and more parked planes this winter. If airline had to start changing only "fair" fares, then demand would likely fall by 30-50%. Lots of employees unemployed. Less frequent service. Many fewer first class seats to upgrade into (why offer upgrade when everyone has to pay the same fares?). Less service of out of the way airports like ISP. On the other hand, it would be great for the environment . . . .
elixir
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 0
Indeed. One of the reasons for USAirway's longevity has been it's amazing revenue from the East coast markets....come h@ll or high water, the cash flow was there...
Well, Tempe's shutting off the flow by their misunderstanding their customers...plain and simple.
Bottom line: the geographical and cultural differences between PHX and the Northeast passengers are proving to be beyond Tempe's ability to understand and manage.
The high-yield product is now watered down at Tempe's bequest, they seem to lack the creativity to flourish in todays market environment, other than to cut back, scale-down, diminish the product....etc.
Even before oil peaked, Tempe was degrading the product...and it will prove costly. Passengers used to complain to me about getting off a Mesa plane to connect to mainline because the contrast was insulting..." get rid of them..." they used to say.
Hmmm, don't hear that so much anymore, I guess the experience is more consistent nowadays.
Well, Tempe's shutting off the flow by their misunderstanding their customers...plain and simple.
Bottom line: the geographical and cultural differences between PHX and the Northeast passengers are proving to be beyond Tempe's ability to understand and manage.
The high-yield product is now watered down at Tempe's bequest, they seem to lack the creativity to flourish in todays market environment, other than to cut back, scale-down, diminish the product....etc.
Even before oil peaked, Tempe was degrading the product...and it will prove costly. Passengers used to complain to me about getting off a Mesa plane to connect to mainline because the contrast was insulting..." get rid of them..." they used to say.
Hmmm, don't hear that so much anymore, I guess the experience is more consistent nowadays.
Singleflyer
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Messages
- 466
- Reaction score
- 6
I DON'T! and that is my point. I now fly DL out of BOS for $350.00. When I need to go to LGA.
If US didn't Pi$$ me off on all of their "High cost of cheap", the flight would have been on the US shuttle.
I had been a CP since the program started until this year. I have one flight (2 legs) with them this year.
I miss the airline and the great employees. But they are charging my company more than the competion does. They have also taken away the perks for me. The perks were my bonus for point business towards US. I would get the flight on US if it was the same price or slightly more, not 20% more. The fee for calling the call center has totally killed that option in the future if I wanted to fly US.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
Considering they were created for the business traveller, please explain? Is it the lack of a first class cabin?
Your right - on Southwest you still get blankets, pillows, snacks, complimentary snack pack on flights over 3 hours, beverage service (sometimes two - even on an hour flight). I totally agree that their service level exceeds most of the other domestic carriers.
How do you explain ELP's stats that WN carried far more passengers than America West? I'm sure he'll be happy to provide them because I know he accesses the data to prove it. How come America West tucked tail on their "I don't want to be seen on this plane ad when Herb stood there with a paper bag in the Southwest ad? How do you explain AWA "blaming" Southwest for trying to put them out of business. I'll never forget Herb on 60 minutes saying "If our goal was to put them out of business - they'd be out of business". Also - here's a little story from back in the day...Yep...AWA was a LCC - my ex wife was flying back from Sacramento on AWA and had to change planes in PHX. On the PHX-MCI a "lady" emerged from the rear lav, and announced to the entire rear cabin "Whooo weee...I just lost 10 pounds in there". Now THAT'S a good "business airline" for you.
Which is worth more to you...a "higher service level" in the form of little or no onboard service or hourly flights between business destinations with drink service to boot? Southwest has that - DAL-HOU, MCI-MDW, STL-MDW, LAX-OAK...these aren't typical leisure destinations. If you're ever in the Dallas area, head down to Love Field on a Monday morning and check out the passenger mix.
Please do...in fact go into the trip with the "I'm gonna hate this" attitude. You might be quite surprised.
Southwest shows their appreciation to their VFF's by giving them a "companion pass"...for one year, you can take a companion with you...any time, any where they fly. They don't let you board first, and they don't fly internationally, then again, they don't think you're the enemy...but by the same token, they take and appreciate the business given to them by the "drearies, normals and kettles" of the world. They don't think they are the enemy either.
Then how is LCC "raping" you if you can choose not to get screwed?
Art at ISP
Veteran
Techboy,
Sorry your argument does not hold water. What you are referring to is a reaction to same ole same ole. I am not saying that JUST US has to make the price adjustments, ALL airlines do. Regarding who will fly and who won't, it's survival of the fittest. Those who can afford to fly will and those who can't won't.
The misconception is that you need to continue to offer the bargain basement fares. I say you don't--or at least not to the degree as being done today. What good is it to fill a flight with fares which ALL lose money?
I come from the camera business, which is notorious for selling loss leaders, and selling at or below cost. The theory was similar to give away the razor sell the blades--but then film went away, and there is no way to make up the difference. There was the 47th St Photo mentality--its okay to sell below cost because if we sell 1000 we make money. Needless to say, 47th st is long out of business.
You can fill a plane, and still lose money. If the business traveler is not around to pick up the slack, you're in much deeper trouble than if we were there. US management still fails to realize that, so we are just responding to their action--they don't want us, why should we stay? The answer is---we won't.
AA, CO, UA, and DL have a better understanding of the revenue premium contributed by frequent business travelers. US is clueless--and arrogant enough to think they know everything. It's payback time---now when they need us the most they go out of their way to show we are not regarded, so we leave......
They continue to blame the customers and the employees for the state of the airline.......time to turn the mirror on themselves, because while the cost of oil has affected EVERYONE, it will be somewhat worse for them because they have again made the wrong choices.
Sorry your argument does not hold water. What you are referring to is a reaction to same ole same ole. I am not saying that JUST US has to make the price adjustments, ALL airlines do. Regarding who will fly and who won't, it's survival of the fittest. Those who can afford to fly will and those who can't won't.
The misconception is that you need to continue to offer the bargain basement fares. I say you don't--or at least not to the degree as being done today. What good is it to fill a flight with fares which ALL lose money?
I come from the camera business, which is notorious for selling loss leaders, and selling at or below cost. The theory was similar to give away the razor sell the blades--but then film went away, and there is no way to make up the difference. There was the 47th St Photo mentality--its okay to sell below cost because if we sell 1000 we make money. Needless to say, 47th st is long out of business.
You can fill a plane, and still lose money. If the business traveler is not around to pick up the slack, you're in much deeper trouble than if we were there. US management still fails to realize that, so we are just responding to their action--they don't want us, why should we stay? The answer is---we won't.
AA, CO, UA, and DL have a better understanding of the revenue premium contributed by frequent business travelers. US is clueless--and arrogant enough to think they know everything. It's payback time---now when they need us the most they go out of their way to show we are not regarded, so we leave......
They continue to blame the customers and the employees for the state of the airline.......time to turn the mirror on themselves, because while the cost of oil has affected EVERYONE, it will be somewhat worse for them because they have again made the wrong choices.
