Driving away customers

[RealityCheck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/12/2002 8:24:21 PM TomBascom wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------

[/blockquote]

Nice head fake RC but none of that information changed anything or is material to the discussion.

[blockquote]
----------------
There was no mention of 9-11 tkts. This situation was handled quite diferently than normal day to day cancelled tickets.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Outside of the first call to res it never came up. Nor was it relevant anywhere else. The proper treatment was given on that first call. I probably could have protested about the $100 fee that CA levied on that basis but I wasn't in the mood. Think of it as a gift.

The fact that you went to CA for something indicated to me you did NOT get what you needed from the res agt, and I also assumed that perhaps the res agt had no clue as to how to handle an old ticket if you opposed the rules on handling whatever credit due you, whether its 9-11 related or not.Revenue and accounting could have handled this in lieu of CA. So indeed it did help to know if it was 9-11 related.
[blockquote]
----------------




[blockquote]
----------------
The implementation of service charges in todays day and age is a fact of life and a big money maker for businesses. And I won't/can't defend or oppose it. How many misc.trumped up service charges appear on utility, phone, and cable? Line fees, energy surchg fees,customer usage fees, etc etc.It's insane but you gotta pay it or go without.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Everyone else is doing it ??? That's pretty weak. And you really ought to wake up and smell the coffee -- the industry's profitable darling doesn't do it like that. (Yes, they have some. No, they aren't trumped up.)
Yeh everyone else is doing it is just as good an excuse as any.If Sw doesnt want to charge fees that's their business. For the zillionth time, AA CO UA NW DL US are not SW.They run a different product, different cost structure and infrastructure, different planes, again the comparison is not valid and never will be.That's reality, not cynical!!!11

[blockquote]
----------------
As for transferability issue... But once tickets are issued with a definitive name, it should stay that way.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Don't fool yourself like almost all of the rules it is done for one, and only one, reason. To keep business travelers paying high fares.

What the heck does ticket/vchr txrblity have to do with alleged high business fares???

[blockquote]
----------------
...The airline also counts on a small percentage of people who will not use or maybe even lose the free voucher (their fault/choice, not the airlines), therefore this can add to the value of a travel voucher even to airline's bottom line.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Careful -- this line of reasoning is very similar to the one that justifies oversold flights.

It's a valid reasoning. Being c-o-c-k-y about it doesn't change its applicability.

[blockquote]
----------------
I equate the transferability issue of Revenue Ticks to my health club membership...
----------------
[/blockquote]

I thought it was like a concert ticket? In any event the analogy is specious. Do you pay $25,000/yr for your health club membership?
-------------------
Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Not debatable. It would be ludicrous to have a separate txfr policy for mega flyers and one for just a once a year flyer Red Riding Hood going to see Grandma who decides she wants to change her name on the ticket (equivalent to a year or 2 of non txrble health club dues) because she is too sick or afraid to travel. The analogy stands pure and simple.
[blockquote]
----------------
FCU vchrs on the other hand will be automated soon, and that will make things more simpler in that regard, especially where misuse as well as agt error is concerned.
----------------
[/blockquote]

What's an FCU?

uhhhh FIRST CLASS UPGRADE of course






----------------
[/blockquote]

----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[TomBascom]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/12/2002 9:41:39 PM resconcerns wrote:

I think I may have hit a nerve..Mr Tom
So you work the banks too..huh
----------------
[/blockquote]

I don't see how. I'm just backing up kc -- it's a normal procedure and quite common. There's no working involved. At least not in my neck of the woods.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/12/2002 7:32:01 PM resconcerns wrote:
[P]EXCUSE me Mr. KCflyer,[BR]Before coming to the airline, I worked for a well known bank for 7 years and I KNOW the procedure. Maybe you should know what you're talking about first. [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]I do, resconcerns. Did a little stint in banking myself over the years. Suggest reading Brady on Bank Checks. One of the VP's at your bank might have a copy of it. Check out the section on endorsements. A check written to John Doe may be endorsed pay to the order of Jim Smith and Jim Smith may cash (or deposit or whatever). If the checks bad, Jim Smiths bank takes the money back. If Jim doesn't like it, he goes to John Doe, and if John doesn't like that, he takes it back to whoever issued it to him. Something called recourse. YOur bank may not have allowed a teller to cash that kind of check, but it is perfectly legal and acceptable, and 99% of the time, if the check is deposited rather than cashed, the transaction will go thru with absolutely no problem. [/P]
[P]SInce you are into banking terminology and airline customer service, why is it that I can purchase a ticket with a NEGOTIABLE instrument, but when I am compensated for an inconvenience the airline uses a NON-NEGOTIABLE instrument? Hardly seems fair, does it?[/P]

 

[TomBascom]

[blockquote]
----------------
There was no mention of 9-11 tkts. This situation was handled quite diferently than normal day to day cancelled tickets.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Outside of the first call to res it never came up. Nor was it relevant anywhere else. The proper treatment was given on that first call. I probably could have protested about the $100 fee that CA levied on that basis but I wasn't in the mood. Think of it as a gift.

The fact that you went to CA for something indicated to me you did NOT get what you needed from the res agt,


I went to CA because my wife's ticket couldn't be applied to my travel and she has no travel plans that I could have booked it against. Since it was going to expire I needed to have something done with it (a refund or an extension being the obvious alternatives to the sensible but disallowed solution of letting me use the credit.)

Reservations advised me that I would need to call CA for that. That's all.

... and I also assumed that perhaps the res agt had no clue as to how to handle an old ticket if you opposed the rules on handling whatever credit due you, whether its 9-11 related or not. Revenue and accounting could have handled this in lieu of CA. So indeed it did help to know if it was 9-11 related.

The person in res struck me as being quite competent. That's generally the case. Particularly with the CP desk.

There were no issues with applying my ticket to future travel other than a potential change fee that was effortlessly waived by the 9-11 logic you've outlined. We took care of all of that without any problems (at least I don't think there were any -- I guess I'll find out Tuesday am if there were...) and then moved on to the voucher related ticket. That seemed to go reasonably well too -- until I got to Indy.

The 9-11 ness of that ticket was irrelevant and never entered into any further part of the story.

Everyone else is doing it ??? That's pretty weak. And you really ought to wake up and smell the coffee -- the industry's profitable darling doesn't do it like that. (Yes, they have some. No, they aren't trumped up.)

Yeh everyone else is doing it is just as good an excuse as any. If Sw doesnt want to charge fees that's their business. For the zillionth time, AA CO UA NW DL US are not SW. They run a different product, different cost structure and infrastructure, different planes, again the comparison is not valid and never will be. That's reality, not cynical!!!11

Sorry but it isn't that easy. Your management keeps bringing up the comparison as justification for their foolishness. They can't have their cake and eat it too -- if they want to inflict horrors on us in the name of SWA etc then they need to also provide the benefits that go with them.

And I'd think you might have just a tiny bit of interest in the operations of a profitable operation. There aren't that many in this industry...

BTW -- AA and UA are in a different class from DL, CO, NW and US. There are things that they can do that the lesser of the big six cannot. That seems to be forgotten a lot though. US is a lot closer to HP than it is to UA or AA. You might want to check out some of HPs way of doing things. It seems to be working...

[blockquote]
----------------
As for transferability issue... But once tickets are issued with a definitive name, it should stay that way.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Don't fool yourself like almost all of the rules it is done for one, and only one, reason. To keep business travelers paying high fares.

What the heck does ticket/vchr txrblity have to do with alleged high business fares???

If I could transfer a ticket then when I can't make a trip at the last minute the company could send a sub on my discounted fare rather than buy a full fare.

[blockquote]
----------------
I equate the transferability issue of Revenue Ticks to my health club membership...
----------------
[/blockquote]

I thought it was like a concert ticket? In any event the analogy is specious. Do you pay $25,000/yr for your health club membership?
-------------------

Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Not debatable. The analogy stands pure and simple.

It's more similar to a training class or a conference than a health club membership. It's a one time event and it's fairly expensive. Training classes and conferences allow substitutions. One day passes to health clubs are transferable too.

 

[ClueByFour]

Now that we've debunked the check myth....

I remember the good old days when you could transfer an airline ticket. And I'm not that old. The only thing that positive ID has done outside of a security enhancement (of somewhat dubious value) is allowed the airlines to perpetuate the BS of the un-transferrable ticket.

Further, regarless of past practices on the part of the cartel airlines, the latest round of enhancements is simply going to lead to an arms race to see who _CAN_ beat the system. I know of at least two HUGE corporate travel agencies who are already giving out unofficial advice on how to do so.

FWIW, I don't think Tom is trying to beat the system, in this case.

 

[RealityCheck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/12/2002 1134 PM ClueByFour wrote:

Further, regarless of past practices on the part of the cartel airlines, the latest round of "enhancements" is simply going to lead to an arms race to see who _CAN_ beat the system. I know of at least two HUGE corporate travel agencies who are already giving out "unofficial advice" on how to do so.

----------------
[/blockquote]
I wonder if one of those smart corporate agencies told this GOLD pax I had the other day how to get around his BACK TO BACKS. Apparently not(most of them are unskilled just out of travel school village idiots),as the guy no showed for his 23 SEP outbound flight which was really his return for that week, which he ended up not needing..he did need the return flight OCT 10 or 11 (I forget which), but he couldnt use this nullified tkt for it ..So Ticket value of a few hundred dollars lost. Sayonara baby. Surprisingly he was understanding and later I saw his travel agt purchased him a full one way tkt to return home.
So the lesson is..If you're gonna try and beat the system, put the thinking cap on, take the dunce cap off, and don't play brain dead. There are thousands of others in the same boat as this fella and I found he had 3 or 4 more unused future back to backs which should have been promptly reported to ticketing fraud, but I didn't feel like wasting anymore of my time on it.That was my favor to the frequent traveling public for the month.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]Reality Check - why not drop the rules against back to backs and hidden cities? Southwest doesn't have them, and they're ekeing out a profit. Your customer is not....repeat NOT.... your enemy. It boggles the mind to think that companies who desparately need revenues believe that the only way to get them is to nickle and dime the customers, and punish the customers for circumventing some of the most customer unfriendly rules in the world. [/P]
[P]Here's what most US airline CEO's have become. [A href=http://www.classictvhits.com/shows/greenacres/sounds/ga09.wav]http://www.classictvhits.com/shows/greenacres/sounds/ga09.wav[/A][/P]

 

[resconcerns]

Check out the section on endorsements. A check written to John Doe may be endorsed pay to the order of Jim Smith and Jim Smith may cash (or deposit or whatever). If the checks bad, Jim Smiths bank takes the money back. If Jim doesn't like it, he goes to John Doe, and if John doesn't like that, he takes it back to whoever issued it to him. Something called recourse.



You really are clueless! Talking about service fees, maybe thats why the banks have so many fees. Because they spend sooo much time and money recovering costs associated with collecting returned and stolen checks.
nevermind....you don't get it.....c-ya

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/13/2002 9:38:40 AM resconcerns wrote:
[P]Check out the section on endorsements.  A check written to John Doe may be endorsed pay to the order of Jim Smith and Jim Smith may cash (or deposit or whatever).  If the checks bad, Jim Smiths bank takes the money back.  If Jim doesn't like it, he goes to John Doe, and if John doesn't like that, he takes it back to whoever issued it to him.  Something called recourse. [BR][BR][BR][BR]You really are clueless! Talking about service fees, maybe thats why the banks have so many fees. Because they spend sooo much time and money recovering costs associated with collecting returned and stolen checks.[BR]nevermind....you don't get it.....c-ya[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Resconcerns - I am only responding since you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. What I describe is what I did for a living for almost 10 years. I merely suggest you look it up in Brady's ( sort of the bible on handling negotiable instruments). All the bank has to do is get the money from the last person that endorsed the check. Just curious, what was your position at the bank? [/P]

 

[resconcerns]

My point in laymans terms is...........
Just because you walk into a bank with someone elses check does not obligate that bank to CASH or DEPOSIT that check withour proper identification from the person whose name is the payee on that check.
Just like vouchers and RTFC at U ....the same principal applies. Why is it that a RTFC has to be endorsed over to someone at the ATO with proper identifcation. Unfortunately in todays society, businesses must protect themselves and the customers they serve. Not everyone is honest.
C-ya

 

[Tango-Bravo]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/13/2002 731 AM KCFlyer wrote:


Reality Check - why not drop the rules against back to backs and hidden cities? Southwest doesn't have them, and they're ekeing out a profit. Your customer is not....repeat NOT.... your enemy. It boggles the mind to think that companies who desparately need revenues believe that the only way to get them is to nickle and dime the customers, and "punish" the customers for circumventing some of the most customer unfriendly rules in the world. [/P]

----------------
[/blockquote]


Michael O'Leary (Ryanair CEO) concurs. Here's what he had to say on this same topic in an article titled Full-Service Airlines Are 'Basket Cases' that appeared in Business Week Online, September 12, 2002:

(Things the full-service majors do differently from the low-cost airlines) ...are all about how do we screw the poor customer for more money? People are just fed up with it, which is why you have huge migration to JetBlue and Southwest in the U.S. and Ryanair and easyJet in Europe.

Instead of blaming WN and B6 for their woes, it's way past time for the full-service majors to look in the mirror for the real culprits. The avalanche of customer backlash the full-service brought upon themselves long before their favorite excuse (9/11/01) for their present malaise -- now precariously close to meltdown -- happened. The full-service majors created a mindset among their customers (especially their highly valued business pax they foolishly assumed they could go on fleecing forever) of it's payback time (a subtitle to a USA Today article on business travel that appeared before 9/11/01).

What goes around surely comes around. It has come around for the full-service majors. The full-service majors have sown to the wind and now they are reaping the whirlwind. Hopefully our government will allow them to shape up or ship out without interference from the Federal Treasury

 

[MrMarky]

On the issue of back to backs, if the ticket holder flies all of the legs on his tickets, how can it possibly be any of the airline's business how he arranged his schedule to do so? He bought the tickets and he used them. End of story. For the carrier to be prying around trying to nail him when he used the tickets as issued is an affront, an invasion of privacy and a lot of nerve.

 

[apofurlough]

Maybe we should just go back to the simpler way of life we enjoyed before deregulation? I am sure a lot of you remember - F first class Y coach class and B 7 day advance purchase Sat overnight no fees no restrictions. Sure sounds simpler to me and as I remember it was much simpler to deal with. But then charge reasonable prices for the 3 tiers. This makes life much easier for travelers and MUCH MUCH easier on employees. What do we need 50 fares in a market for anyway? A reasonable discount off a sensible business fare for the leisure traveler who can afford to stay over the Sat night. And the business man is happy with the sensible Y fare. Sounds like a win win to me. Only ones unhappy with it would be the people who sit in the back making up the rules and restrictions that complicate and upset both traveling public and employees alike. They would give up their job security.

 

[The Real Deal]

The Full Service airlines' fare structures remind me of another complicated system tha needs to be fixed - The Tax Code. The problem is that the airlines can make alot of extra money using good revenue management. If they never did they would not have started this system. Just like any complicated system though it just keeps growing till it bursts. I think with WN and B6 pressuring it may just do that soon. Let's not kid ourselves though, WN is not avoiding the Revenue Management Model becuase they really feel a travellers pain

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/14/2002 4:54:02 PM The Real Deal wrote:
[P]The Full Service airlines' fare structures remind me of another complicated system tha needs to be fixed - The Tax Code.  The problem is that the airlines can make alot of extra money using good revenue management.  If they never did they would not have started this system.  Just like any complicated system though it just keeps growing till it bursts.  I think with WN and B6 pressuring it may just do that soon.  Let's not kid ourselves though, WN is not avoiding the Revenue Management Model becuase they really feel a travellers pain .  A system that complicated takes money and probably lots of it.  If just one major could be talked into taking the leap then the rest would follow becuase they don't understand it either.  To make the 3 tier system work the lowest ticket would have to be substantially higher then the lowest fare now and in todays market 5 dollars could lose you that customer.  The tax code could be viewed the same way.  They keep adding loop holes to help this person then raise here so this person in SD doesn't have to pay so much.  I don't think we as Americans, Travellers, or Airline Employees can fix either of these issues on a BB.  Travellers have to vote with their dollar till the current system bursts.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Contrary to popular belief, Southwest does indeed have a revenue managment department. [/P]