I think that's just about right. But in all my US flying it's very rare to go someplace on a two, or even three hour flight anymore. As soon as I connect, it's a five or six hour deal at minimum, and the perks start making more of a difference. I think there are lots of other people too that would be willing to settle for less if they could just get there more conveniently and faster.CaptBud330 said:
Dave's Friday Message (from Tokyo)
- Thread starter A319FA
- Start date
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
ITRADE,ITRADE said:
NO. We have already established who ANAYLST was in the past, and they're not mangement and they're NOT an anaylst; but surely a wana-be.
And for you, as I stated in another post; you should have just kept us guessing. Now, we surely know
Art at ISP
Veteran
Sorry Dave,A319FA said:
Lowering fares IS the answer--no one is going to pay those fares.
I never said you had to absolutely match the LCCs but you have to rationalize the pricing. More and more customers will just leave if you don't. Remember one of your own told me that if you could raise the bottom by $20 you could lower the high end by $300. SO DO IT.
Why don't you get that????????
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Art,
Management does get it. Mangement is saying that the customer "demands" lower fares. Dave also adds that in order for them to meet those demands, they have to cut our costs.....the "human" end of the equation, once again. Trouble is we as employees have a difficult time conceptualizing what they did, and are doing with all the cost savings they DEMANDED from us the past year, and every year? We as employees know that the majority of the flying public wants simplicity in the travel experience and low fares. Management has made no additional sacrifices, have not offered any. Still maintain the same VP count while our count is still declining. I would venture to say the losses of $90 Million this past quarter was a far improvement from the previous year, but one has to ponder, mangement reduced labor costs substantially, 20,000 jobs are gone that is nOT included in the $1.2 Billion cost savings, and our medical goes up AGAIN in January.
I can tell you this Art, as much as we want your business as employees, and as much as most employees would go above and beyond providing THE best possible service known to any airline, we can not give anymore concessions. Its not that we won't, its that we can't without sacrificing more of each other in job losses, our financial well-being, our families and as a consequence, our own mental sanity.
If management wants more productivity, then, we can do better, work smarter and harder, BUT we cannot create MORE job losses in that process. We have 27,000 employees left. Down from approx. 47,000. Those who have gone on the streets before us, have suffered greatly, do suffer, and have given the ultimate sacrifice for those who just happen to have more seniority can stay. That includes this management who gets to stay, "just because".
After posting 1,800 posts, I know you know where my heart and soul is on these issues. And if you knew what I accomplish in 1 day, would make your head spin to boot.
Management does get it. Mangement is saying that the customer "demands" lower fares. Dave also adds that in order for them to meet those demands, they have to cut our costs.....the "human" end of the equation, once again. Trouble is we as employees have a difficult time conceptualizing what they did, and are doing with all the cost savings they DEMANDED from us the past year, and every year? We as employees know that the majority of the flying public wants simplicity in the travel experience and low fares. Management has made no additional sacrifices, have not offered any. Still maintain the same VP count while our count is still declining. I would venture to say the losses of $90 Million this past quarter was a far improvement from the previous year, but one has to ponder, mangement reduced labor costs substantially, 20,000 jobs are gone that is nOT included in the $1.2 Billion cost savings, and our medical goes up AGAIN in January.
I can tell you this Art, as much as we want your business as employees, and as much as most employees would go above and beyond providing THE best possible service known to any airline, we can not give anymore concessions. Its not that we won't, its that we can't without sacrificing more of each other in job losses, our financial well-being, our families and as a consequence, our own mental sanity.
If management wants more productivity, then, we can do better, work smarter and harder, BUT we cannot create MORE job losses in that process. We have 27,000 employees left. Down from approx. 47,000. Those who have gone on the streets before us, have suffered greatly, do suffer, and have given the ultimate sacrifice for those who just happen to have more seniority can stay. That includes this management who gets to stay, "just because".
After posting 1,800 posts, I know you know where my heart and soul is on these issues. And if you knew what I accomplish in 1 day, would make your head spin to boot.
Art -Art at ISP said:
I hate to burst your bubble, but folks ARE paying those fares. That's the problem. Many of us really do have no choice due to U's near monopoly on certain routes and our need for last minute, same day travel. Plus, with our corporate discount, many of those fares aren't so bad in the whole grand scheme of things.
You seem to contradict yourself. If you are getting a corporate discount, then you are most certainly not paying that published fare. It is just more of the same pricing game. If you are getting a 50% discount on a full Y fare (very possible if your account is large enough), you are paying the type of fare is saying to make available to everyone. If it costs $2400 to go transcon round trip on a walkup, and your company pays $1200, why not make it available to everyone, give your company smaller discount on volume (like 10-15%), and incrementally increase the number of Y fares you sell, therefore increasing overall yields? Get rid of the $250 R/T, and move it to $300 or something a bit more in line with real costs. Of course, I don't have an MBA, so it would never work.USFlyer said:
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
USFlyer,
Truth always floats me, baby....
I notice too, wherever ITRADE is on a particular topic, well, there so shall you be...interesting....
N6,
And allow me to offer an opinion to your above post regarding USFlyer contradicting himself, it makes sense if he's not a paying customer....
Truth always floats me, baby....
I notice too, wherever ITRADE is on a particular topic, well, there so shall you be...interesting....
N6,
And allow me to offer an opinion to your above post regarding USFlyer contradicting himself, it makes sense if he's not a paying customer....
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
You know, a good deal of my compensation is tied to hitting budget targets, and equity based bonuses. I'm not alone in this, and I'm a relative peon in the grander scheme of my firm.Colby said:
Ergo, it benefits me to be prudent with company bucks. This year, the difference between full-Y on every fare and what I have bought is almost $50k. It makes a difference.
LOLPITbull said:USFlyer,
Truth always floats me, baby....
I notice too, wherever ITRADE is on a particular topic, well, there so shall you be...interesting....
N6,
And allow me to offer an opinion to your above post regarding USFlyer contradicting himself, it makes sense if he's not a paying customer....
Great minds think alike. B)
Oh, and I'm a paying customer. Where should I send the 50k/year worth of ticket receipts for proof?
Our account isn't that big. The point is why should US reduce fares on routes where folks HAVE to pay a larger amount? Even if we didn't have our discount, we have to pay. For example, I have co-workers who need to go where US doesn't fly, yet the route is monopolized by, say, AA. Well, AA ain't reducing the fares anytime soon if they have a monopoly or near monopoly. Corporate discount or no corporate discount, we need to go if there's a business need.N628AU said:
Art at ISP
Veteran
US,USFlyer said:
I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but the percentage of people willing to pay those fares is falling every day. Some are driving, some take other carriers. Some won't be back. Regardless of the industry, gouging is gouging. There are more alternatives, and people are becoming more savvy. I for one refuse to pay $2400 PHL-LAX, and I am sure many others do as well. Couple this with an inferior product (except the people) and fewer frequencies, and you really have a problem.
Remember I don't advocate an LCC price structure. I advocate RATIONALIZATION. If you raise the low end of the bucket a little, and lower the high end, you will see increased AVERAGE fares, therefore overall more revenue, therefore more profits. It has been done successfully elsewhere and it can work here. No one has the guts to try, though.
What we want most is value for our money--FAIR fares and good reliable service. Most people will pay a LITTLE more for the service of a "mainline" carrier, but not double or triple. Remember my example of $536 r/t on a Buzz Bucket or $218 r/t on a new A320? Let's be real--who's going to take the buzz bucket if they have a choice. You claim your flights from LGA are full--yeah because they only hold 30 or so people. If you had FAIR fares you could likely fill 50+ seaters.
You seem to have the same flawed thinking as management. The fare structure is broken and it needs to be fixed. I know this is not the only problem, but it's a fair part of it.
