Calling ALL Cockroaches - Customers Only

[KCFlyer]

It's about VALUE for the money.

Oh, I must have misunderstood your "drearies and normals" comments to mean that you didn't much care for your fellow passengers. I'm only suggesting that to avoid those drearies and normals, your own private jet is a good way to do that.

You know, there are a lot of people who find a "value" in just getting from point A to point B in one piece and relatively on time. They don't need to be waited on hand and foot. I do agree that airlines are going to have to raise fares, and as a result there will be shrinkage in the industry. But there will still be "drearies and normals" on the planes, along with the princes and princesses of the airport...the VFF. But even with that shrinkage, I do not believe that the perks of the FF programs will sustainable. You know, a year ago I could fill up my car with gas for $20 (I drive a Prius - it's got a small tank). Just filled up yesterday and it cost me almost $40...twice as much. Airlines have seen the same increases in costs...with shrinkage will come higher fares. I doubt that they will be high enough to maintain the FF perks and still make a profit.

And I agree that everyone needs to pay their fare share for flying. That means that when this shrinkage hits, you and the "drearies and normals" will be paying about the same fare. And speaking as a drearie and normal person, I don't really think I should have to pay an even higher fare to fund the perks for you - speak to your own employer about perks. Oh...it's perfectly okay for you to board before I do...but don't ask me to pay any premium to provide YOU with a higher level of service just because your butt is in a seat more often than mine.

 

[Fully Cross Utilized]

The drearies and normals

Wow, that is just hugely offensive. Are you this unpleasant in real life?

 

[KCFlyer]

KC, go back to loving WN.....and save your ill informed comments for those boards......you have no clue about FFOCUS and what we do especially behind the scenes.

Bottom line--while other airlines are taking care to retain and attract new higher yield customers, US has basically given us the middle finger again, and now they have blatantly told us our business is not wanted. We are only reacting to the behavior Tempe has just proven they desire from us..

Gosh Art...I just got back from Reno and flew United rather than Southwest because the schedule was better. It cost a little more, but I even went for econ plus. I also few US and AA last spring break to San Juan for a cruise...AA on the way down, US on the way back. I also flew Midwest to Orlando for a conference.
Here's my observations from a "drearie and normal" standpoint:

AA - On time - buy on board food - arrived safely
US - On time - buy on board food - arrived safely
UA - On time - buy on board food - arrived safely
YX - On time - buy on board food - warm cookie - arrived safely

Bottom line, they were all just about the same.

 

[ksb]

[Apologizes in advance for what turned out to be a very long reply.]

is it written anywhere that it's the AIRLINES job to compensate you for your time away from your family?

I think that you're assuming that only one business transaction has taken place when my employer buys an airline ticket for me to travel. In truth, three things are in effect going on: my employer is getting additional work time from me and taking away my personal time without paying for either, the airline is getting compensated by my employer for transit and comfort services, and I am getting "compensated" by the airline for the rigors of business travel. I impose some limitations on my employer's ability to chose airlines for my travel needs based on how I'll be compensated by the airline for the travel (that includes their schedule, availability of non-stop flights, and perks).

Now anyone can argue with parts of that transaction description. It would all be far more transparent if the transactions were two-way instead of three way (that is, if my employer compensated me for the extra time, the airline wouldn't need to and the company would be free to choose whatever airline it wanted, without me saying things like "well, I don't want to travel 14 hours through four airports to get to LA, even if it does cost $100 less). You might argue that in your life experience, you've never had the power to tell your employer which airline to choose -- but I do have that power and I use it to make the compensation fair (my time for my employer's money).

You may argue that business travel is glamorous, but I would contend that leaving PHL at 7am to go through PHX to SJC for an 8-hour meeting, sleeping, getting picked up in the morning by another client for another 8-hour meeting then being dropped off for a SJC-LAS-PHL redeye, while being expected to be in the office the next day is decidedly not glamorous. Next week I will fly PHL-PHX-SFO, then drive to Sacramento for a meeting; the next day I'll fly home on an SFO-PHL redeye and be in the office. Why not fly right to SMF? One of the higher-ups going on the trip flies another airline that has no flights leaving SMF late in the day so we're all going to SFO and renting a car.

It may be messy, but those perks, that you think I get unfairly, are part of my compensation for the indignities that work sometimes places on us all. The three parties in this travel transaction understand it and wink to each other as they engage in the deal. If one of the three parties substantially reneges on their part, they won't be invited back to another deal. This is what FFOCUS is complaining to US about -- they aren't holding up their end of the bargain.

Maybe the "transformation" of which US speaks is the breaking of this three-party system. If so, something needs to replace the "compensation" that I'm losing or I won't travel as much for business. I'm salaried, so it won't be my employer. That leaves another airline that wants more of these three-party transactions.

(As a side note, let me say that virtually all of my leisure travel is international and thus I don't get "free upgrades" when traveling for myself. I may upgrade such flights by using some of the miles that I earned in part by directing my employer's funds to US, but I expect and get very little personal reward from the three-party transaction described above.)

Last year, US raised the "cost" of in-advance upgrades from 10K to 15K miles. This week they dropped bonus miles, which hits VFF harder than FF and both groups harder than occasional travelers. In effect, the cost of upgrades has tripled for me in a year: what had required 5K miles of butt-in-seat travel now requires 15K). On the occasions where I don't use miles or receive complementary upgrades, I will soon need to conduct several transactions on-board and my employer will need to handle a bit more paperwork to reimburse me -- in effect further raising the price of transit beyond what was advertised. The a-la-carte plan isn't just inconvenient for the traveler, it's more expensive for my employer.

Finally, given how the interaction between you and Bob progressed, I don't plan on responding to you in regards to what I've written. I am curious to see what you think so please do post back, but I don't want to engage in a give-and-take/debate/pissing match with anyone.

 

[UPNAWAY]

Most of the employees posting here would love to bring back the days of excellent service with all of the amenities to treat our FF's the way they should be treated. Management has hobbled every aspect of this operation, both above and below the wing.

Yes and that would send us back into BK 3 ASAP! The hobbling management is doing is intended to prevent that! The era of offering the finest service is long gone and to try is fool hardy!

 

[KCFlyer]

(that is, if my employer compensated me for the extra time, the airline wouldn't need to and the company would be free to choose whatever airline it wanted, without me saying things like "well, I don't want to travel 14 hours through four airports to get to LA, even if it does cost $100 less).

BINGO!!! Airlines are losing BILLIONS of dollars per year. They can't afford to give you the perks. If all the airlines pull their FF programs,will you quit your job or will you approach YOUR employer about a raise?

You may argue that business travel is glamorous, but I would contend that leaving PHL at 7am to go through PHX to SJC for an 8-hour meeting, sleeping, getting picked up in the morning by another client for another 8-hour meeting then being dropped off for a SJC-LAS-PHL redeye, while being expected to be in the office the next day is decidedly not glamorous. Next week I will fly PHL-PHX-SFO, then drive to Sacramento for a meeting; the next day I'll fly home on an SFO-PHL redeye and be in the office. Why not fly right to SMF? One of the higher-ups going on the trip flies another airline that has no flights leaving SMF late in the day so we're all going to SFO and renting a car.

Dude....Been there, done that - only I had to usually put in 36 hours after the flight out and usually it was to "glamorous" places like Colombus Mississipi or Florence South Carolina. I have also had to get up at 4 a.m, make get dressed, make the drive to the airport, catch the 7:00 a.m. flight to STL to meet with clients for the day and head back to the airport to board the 6:00 p.m. flight back home that night. 3 times a week. I was a VFF at a rather high level on Delta back in the day. I do know all about traveling for a living and I know it ain't glamorous, and I also never felt that it was the airlines duty to compensate me any more than my employer did.

It may be messy, but those perks, that you think I get unfairly, are part of my compensation for the indignities that work sometimes places on us all.

All I'm saying is that if you want the airline to compensate you for stuff, you might want to go to work for the airlines. Especially when they can't afford to provide the perks they currently provide.

If so, something needs to replace the "compensation" that I'm losing or I won't travel as much for business. I'm salaried, so it won't be my employer.

The take a job that doesn't require travel. If the inconvenience to your personal life hasn't been factored into the salary that your employer pays you, then you are underpaid. You should have negotiated the inconvenience to your life when negotiating for the job. You should never let part of your "compensation" depend on entities that for the most part have all been thru bankruptcy, and may well face it again.

 

[ksb]

KCFLyer, I'll stick to my word and not debate the issue, but I will thank you for replying in a reasonable manner. We agree (I think) to disagree.

 

[CynicalResAgent]

Most of the employees posting here would love to bring back the days of excellent service with all of the amenities to treat our FF's the way they should be treated. Management has hobbled every aspect of this operation, both above and below the wing.

Delta CEO Richard Anderson recently said that fares to places like "Orlando, Hawaii, Las Vegas — those kinds of leisure markets where people want to travel for $200 round-trip fares, and those fares don't work anymore."

I think the industry is just beginning to see their folly about not focusing on frequent fliers. Capacity is being reduced, fares are going up and demand will probably also decrease. When that happens the carrier who reaches out to rebuild brand loyalty will be in the better position.

From what I understand US cannot reduce capacity as much as and as easily as other carriers have. Since LCC cannot reduce as much capacity and it seems like they've pursued as many revenue oppurtunities in coach class they should look at creating value in first class and selling those fares at reasonable prices. I book plenty of people who'd be willing to pay a reasonable amount more for first/business on TC/TA flights if there was value in that class of service on US.

 

[mrman]

"There is little if any financial justification to such a move, and we will bet no other carrier will match."

Yes there is. WN sell more full fares than any othere airline. People say they are not always the cheapest and they are right, They have four or five fare classes and they are fair fares. If you book way out US is cheaper, if you book close to flight time WN is cheaper. What art is trying to get through to you is the market is demanding fair fares which would bring in more revenue and full fares than rape fares, but you don't seem to understand

Art, do you read newspapers? Do you put gas in your car? Have you noticed that it takes more money to fill up you car, try to fill up an airplane. Your group ffocus has been trying to extort perks from US Airways off the backs of employees for years.

No they have not, the issue is that your management did not have the smarts to insure biggest line item fuel. Any business where 35% or more of your cost comes from a commodity would hedge, and dollar cost the hedge to reduce downward price risk. This is basic business 101. WN current hedges were purchased pre 9-11 and why they were purchasing your management was laughing at them for doing such. The customer has not done this to the 'backs or your employees' your management has.

I can not speak for the company or its employees, but in my opinion when you threaten to leave many times and do not, you are an emperor that has no clothes.

When you try to drag innocent (not me pal) employees in on this so you can sit your ample hinder in a first class seat for free, I feel that is waste products from a bull

That seat was not free, it was purchased many times over when your fair structure was built to rape your elites with last minute fares to subsedise the non elite to fly.

 

[Art at ISP]

Delta CEO Richard Anderson recently said that fares to places like "Orlando, Hawaii, Las Vegas — those kinds of leisure markets where people want to travel for $200 round-trip fares, and those fares don't work anymore."

I think the industry is just beginning to see their folly about not focusing on frequent fliers. Capacity is being reduced, fares are going up and demand will probably also decrease. When that happens the carrier who reaches out to rebuild brand loyalty will be in the better position.
From what I understand US cannot reduce capacity as much as and as easily as other carriers have. Since LCC cannot reduce as much capacity and it seems like they've pursued as many revenue oppurtunities in coach class they should look at creating value in first class and selling those fares at reasonable prices. I book plenty of people who'd be willing to pay a reasonable amount more for first/business on TC/TA flights if there was value in that class of service on US.

CRA,

Thank you for making my point. The industry IS beginning to see that they should be focusing on retaining their frequent flyer base and attracting new frequent travlers---that is the industry EXCEPT US Airways. Most of my members are willing to spend more to be loyal to one airline--if that airline appreciates it and finds ways to return that loyalty--something US is NOT doing.

Just about all of the other majors have instituted the same nickel and dime fees. While we'd like to see fares increase instead of this approach, I guess we will have to live with that. However, the ONLY carrier to aggressively attack the group they need the most is US Airways. There is little if any financial savings to eliminating the mileage bonuses--and there is no way to say they are doing it because of the cost of fuel with a straight face because we ain't buyin' that and no one else is either.

They want us to go away, this is how they tell us they want us to go away, so we're going.....plain and simple.

And for what it's worth, the competitive carriers are delighted to have us....

All it takes is a gesture of thanks....US has given us many gestures of No Thanks.........

Time for a management team that knows what they're doing.....

And regarding fares, Anderson is spot on. We have been subsidizing the "kettle" fares to places like MCO and LAS for years and years, and it just won't work any more. Those $200 fares have no place in the current economic environment.

We all realize cuts have to be made. However, this company has made ill advised cuts, which have cost much more in the long run than they ever could have saved.

How long will it take for them to realize they NEED the frequent flyer? The other airlines have........

 

[Squonk]

Art, You have been right on target for years. "It's the fares stupid!" Sometimes you have to take 3 steps back in order to take five forward. I believe the company needs to stop catering to the crowd that travels once in a blue moon anda refocus on being a business AND a leisure carrier.

Double the fares, lose the travelers that cause the biggest headaches and increase revenue at the same time. The CEO's have robbed the employees blind and now they are holding up the passengers by creating the biggest mess I have seen in my 35 years.

 

[Bear96]

I think the industry is just beginning to see their folly about not focusing on frequent fliers.

Do you really think the industry as a whole has not been focused on frequent fliers? If so, I disagree. The industry has long created perks for its best customers compared to the occassional low-fare traveller.

(However, there may be a disconnect between how much some FFers THINK they are worth to an airline, and how much they are ACTUALLY worth. For example, someone who flies a lot, but only on the cheapest fares, and who attains status by doing cheap mileage runs, is not worth that much to an airline compared to what they think they are worth. But that is a different topic.)

 

[freedom]

It’s interesting reading how many of you on here believe that only business travelers will save our airline … I for one think it’s a mutlifront approach , the main cabin needs to be full along with the first … it’s all about balance and I think our finance people will find it .

Many of you have what I might describe as a love/hate relationship US airways … it’s amazing how some who aren’t even workers can become so wrapped up in a single airline …. Let me tell ya what , I get lousy service somewhere I stop going there , not complain for years on end while flying that company … ah well , that’s the aviation industry for ya ..



Thanks for flying us anyways and I hope you’ll continue to do so !

 

[Singleflyer]

It’s interesting reading how many of you on here believe that only business travelers will save our airline … I for one think it’s a mutlifront approach , the main cabin needs to be full along with the first … it’s all about balance and I think our finance people will find it .


Thanks for flying us anyways and I hope you’ll continue to do so !

You are correct it is a multi front approach. Unfortunetly Tempe has made me leave, and I fly 250 segments a year and the yield was $0.895 per mile.

Now on top of that yield they want to charge me even more. Well, I am tire of subsidizing the low yield fliers, and if other airlines still respect the VFFs they will (and are getting) my business.

Its all of the added fees on top of what I am already paying is what has me ticked off, they should at lease waive the first bag fee for the full Y fare for example.

I agree with many of the other fees such as second bag, change fees for non refundable tickets, you gambled on a time for a cheaper fare, you lost pay up. I am not looking for something for notheing, just don't rape the frequent flier who pays Y fares. But US is and that is why I only have two legs with them this year, and in May alone they lost a potential of $15,000.00 of my business because of this, anf they had the best schedule to fit my needs as well.

 

[binderella]

Yes and that would send us back into BK 3 ASAP! The hobbling management is doing is intended to prevent that! The era of offering the finest service is long gone and to try is fool hardy!

I agree that the glory days are long gone, although presentation goes a long way.Some of the procedures put into place have not been very well thought out. Implementing the drink charge looks to be a rolling nightmare. Cash only, F/A's making change, inventory, and the increase in drink service time are going to be a painful experience for all. The fares need to be raised, but that is going to be a series of steps since WN is a major stumbling block. The only way to turn US around is to take a good hard look at our corporate culture and procedures. The catbox(I get confused, catboxes are full of sand and s*&t too)..........oops, sandbox..........oops sandcastle......needs to really understand that this is really a service industry and pax won't pay for a poor service. Not even the Kettles will select you for their once-yearly if they get stuck without their bags or have to deal with a new, poorly understood charge every time they turn around. We may get em once, but odds are they won't continue to make that choice. As for our FF's, why would they continue to pay more for less? I know fuel is a big issue, but we still need to provide a product people want. We need to find a way to make the experience less frustrating, and smoother for our pax. Charge ala-carte, but make it easy to implement and create a smooth transition. Don't jump the gun, make sure the employees are equipped to handle the changes before announcing them. Revamp ramp procedures, or at least make them uniform across the board. How about zone loads all the time so conx bags don't miss because they are buried. How about finding a way to make our gates more attractive and comfortable, different from the crowd? Concessions at the gates may not be a bad idea, since pax will either buy in the airport or onboard. How about a section on our website devoted to helping pax travel easily. Some of our pax haven't the slightest idea about travel,and this will help their experience be less of a shock. AAArrrgh, I give up...never mind, everything is fine, drink the kool-aid.