First Class Flying: A Solution

[TomBascom]

One other thing Tom, my really big issue is that the cockroaches have never answered this - Why is the airline the one responsible for providing you perks in your job?

That's easy.

They aren't.

But they have chosen to offer marketing incentives to us.

The only person who thinks that it's an entitlement is you KC.

Being the good customers that we are we've taken a proactive stance with regards to feedback. Is there something wrong with that?

 

[TomBascom]

I would if it weren't so buried in other places. I doubt that any airline knows how much the complexity is costing.

I agree. But I'd pick ticketing rules and restrictions over frequent flier programs if I were looking for big wins in reducing complexity.

 

[KCFlyer]

That's easy.

They aren't.

But they have chosen to offer marketing incentives to us.

The only person who thinks that it's an entitlement is you KC.

Being the good customers that we are we've taken a proactive stance with regards to feedback. Is there something wrong with that?

[post="259272"][/post]​

REally...how come the changing of a marketing issue created such an uproar. I've read where many roaches post that they do indeed - deserve the perks. All I say is "approach your managment to provide them"

 

[KCFlyer]

WHY? I don't have to. I don't make the rules I work the rules. JUST LIKE YOU DO!

[post="259281"][/post]​

True, you do Bob...and more power to you - you're helping to drive the nail into the coffin of this airline...which one is next?

And perhaps YOU can answer the question - why is it the airlines reponsibilty to provide you with perks and not your companies? They tried changing the rules - you created the cockroaches in response. That tells me that you are not only "taking advantage of the rules", but that you do, in fact, believe that the airline "owes" you the perks instead of your company. In fact, in one of your posts where I suggested paying a $150 premium for first class, you said no problem if you were buying the ticket, but if it was your companies dime, then you'd expect the airline to comp you...Why?

 

[TomBascom]

REally...how come the changing of a marketing issue created such an uproar. I've read where many roaches post that they do indeed - deserve the perks. All I say is "approach your managment to provide them"

[post="259279"][/post]​

Ducking and weaving again...

Why shouldn't it create an uproar? Are we sheep? Are we not permitted to express our opinions?

"Deserve" doesn't mean that there's a responsibility or obligation on the airlines part to do so. In context it means that someone thinks that they're a good and valuable customer who should be rewarded because that is what they believe is good for the relationship.

They're free to cancel the program any time they'd like. Will we sit there quietly and say "yes sir! may I have another!"? I kind of doubt it.

My employer has choosen to participate in a triangular relationship to provide those perks in a cost effective manner. It is a win/win/win for all involved. Is there something wrong with that too?

 

[KCFlyer]

My employer has choosen to participate in a triangular relationship to provide those perks in a cost effective manner. It is a win/win/win for all involved. Is there something wrong with that too?

[post="259323"][/post]​

Nope...but have you approached your employer to enter into a triangular relationship with US to provide the company with a reduced (albeit not a giveaway) fare in return for upgrades when available for their employees? A triangular releationship in many cases is win/win/win. But the FF programs are not a triangular relationship they are win/win/lose...and lose is the airline themself. I read where the roaches approached US managment about their program, yet I haven't read stories where the roaches approached THEIR management about entering into some sort of "triangular relationship" with US.

 

[KCFlyer]

you're still WRONG

And you'll be wrong tomorrow and the day after that.

It's been shown time & again

and now you're STILL WRONG
Even lowly Spirit will have a plan soon.

So if it makes no economic sense why do it?

See You're still WRONG

WRONG Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow!

[post="259330"][/post]​

So bob...do I take that to mean that it IS the airlines responsibility to make your life ont he road easier?

 

[longing4piedmont]

So bob...do I take that to mean that it IS the airlines responsibility to make your life ont he road easier?

[post="259340"][/post]​

By Joe, I think he finally gets it.

Moderators, you may now close this thread.

 

[KCFlyer]

By Joe, I think he finally gets it.

Moderators, you may now close this thread.

[post="259345"][/post]​

Hmmm...I finally get it, huh? It's the airlines job to provide something for someone who is NOT their employee, while taking things away from folks who ARE their employees? Does it work that way with your company too?

 

[KCFlyer]

They (airlines) apparently think it is important to build loyalty.

They all (including SWA) reward their most valuable customers in a way they feel will build loyalty

I'm not the moral arbiter of business. If I only sold to people who met my personal moral standards I wouldn't have very many customers.

Sorry KC but I wasn't born to please you! OR CCY! OR Herb Kelleher either, so bite me!

Moderators close this thread I'm out of troll food.

[post="259354"][/post]​

Bob...yes they offer it...they've "always" offered it. But in the verbage of the rules, they state that they reserve the right to modify or cancel the plan entirely. If they do, what's the response? After all, it's just bidness, right?

I see from earlier posts that CO may become your new home. Have you read some of Mikes posts - at least he admits he recognized that he wasn't the type of frequent flyer that CO wanted? Seemed he could get really low fares, and they modified their plan to penalize those folks. Yes, he moved on, but the thing is, he recognizes that he is not what they are looking for in their higher level passenger - just like you apparently are - so what do you stand to gain in the CO plan? Seems to me that the bene you fought the hardest for in the cockroach club is the benefit that CO has modified?

 

[mweiss]

WHY??? BECAUSE I CAN!

Hmmm...so much for you caring about the longevity of the airline. <_<

The interesting thing is that it makes you an awful lot like some past executives (e.g., Siegel). You're looking to bleed whatever you can from the company, as long as it's willing to give it to you.

 

[TomBascom]

Nope...

Wow! I may just have to retire now...

... but have you approached your employer to enter into a triangular relationship with US to provide the company with a reduced (albeit not a giveaway) fare in return for upgrades when available for their employees?

Absolutely! Quite vigorously in fact. Not that it matters...

But the FF programs are not a triangular relationship they are win/win/lose...and lose is the airline themself.

So you assert. Over and over and over ad nauseum. But you have yet to offer even a shred of plausible evidence to support your conviction. Not one single iota. Ever. In fact you don't even try to offer any supporting evidence you just repeat yourself as if that will somehow make it true.

I read where the roaches approached US managment about their program, yet I haven't read stories where the roaches approached THEIR management about entering into some sort of "triangular relationship" with US.

[post="259329"][/post]​

The triangular relationship already exists. It doesn't need to be created. It is implicit in today's world of business travel. It has been a fact of life for quite a while now. We all knew about it when we took our jobs (most of us anyway -- there may be a few people who've been doing this for more than 20 years...) and our employers know it too. In fact, along with the implicit relationship, there is an explicit corporate angle to DM -- I'm not terribly versed in the details but I know that it's out there.

 

[KCFlyer]

Absolutely! Quite vigorously in fact. Not that it matters...
So you assert. Over and over and over ad nauseum. But you have yet to offer even a shred of plausible evidence to support your conviction. Not one single iota. Ever. In fact you don't even try to offer any supporting evidence you just repeat yourself as if that will somehow make it true.
The triangular relationship already exists. It doesn't need to be created. It is implicit in today's world of business travel. It has been a fact of life for quite a while now. We all knew about it when we took our jobs (most of us anyway -- there may be a few people who've been doing this for more than 20 years...) and our employers know it too. In fact, along with the implicit relationship, there is an explicit corporate angle to DM -- I'm not terribly versed in the details but I know that it's out there.

[post="259486"][/post]​

Tom...can you post a link showing the TRUE cost/revenue analysis of FF programs? Didn't think so. BTW...looks like US lost $119 million last month. It'd be interesting if someone could pull the FF numbers (costs AND revenues) for the month that could show us how much the FF program added to the bottom line.

 

[TomBascom]

Tom...can you post a link showing the TRUE cost/revenue analysis of FF programs? Didn't think so. BTW...looks like US lost $119 million last month. It'd be interesting if someone could pull the FF numbers (costs AND revenues) for the month that could show us how much the FF program added to the bottom line.

[post="259494"][/post]​

No. And neither can you.

Comprehensive information on the subject is not, to my knowledge, publically available. But I can, and have, pointed you to the sources for more information that I know of. Unlike you I have taken the time and trouble to look for data and evaluate, to the best of my poor ability, what I've been able to find. If you've got some data that supports your position I'd be happy to consider it. But in the absence of any data whatsoever I cannot give your position any weight.

 

[TomBascom]

Bonus posting -- I've highlighted the most relevant parts.

From BBB's post-filing affadvit:

11. In essence, the Debtors desire to continue during the postpetition period those Customer Programs that were beneficial to the Debtors’ business and cost-effective during the prepetition period. I believe that such relief is necessary to preserve, during the postpetition period, the Debtors’ critical business relationships and goodwill among the flying public for the benefit of the Debtors’ estates. Further, I believe that the total operational and administrative cost to the Debtors in connection with the implementation and maintenance of the Customer Programs is minor relative to the net revenue that they generate for the Company. Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interest of the Debtors and their estates to continue the Customer Programs as they see fit, in the ordinary

28. Honoring Dividend Miles obligations does not involve appreciable cash expense of the Debtors’ estates. Rather, the Dividend Miles participants who redeem mileage credit receive only air transportation from the Debtors on flights that would operate in any event, or other related services from certain other participants in Dividend Miles. The Debtors use the incremental cost method to account for liabilities associated with Dividend Miles. Estimated future travel awards are valued at the estimated average incremental cost of carrying one additional passenger.

31. To the extent the Debtors are not authorized to continue Dividend Miles and continue their participation under the BofA Agreement, I believe that the Debtors risk alienating a proven customer base. Customers who have accumulated Dividend Miles constitute some of the Debtors’ best and most loyal customers. If Dividend Miles, which represent the customers’ loyalty, are not honored, I believe that the Debtors risk alienating the customers who are generally business travelers, fly often, and are less price sensitive than infrequent leisure travelers.

Notice that he says costs are minor in relation to revenue. That isn't an offhand comment by a internet forum poster. That's an officer of the company in a formal court filing. Regardless of what you or I may think about his competence (or lack thereof) this carries a lot more weight than opinions with no backing whatsoever.

There is some other data somewhere -- I cannot find it right now, but which I alluded to earlier, that puts some brackets around how much revenue 3rd party mileage sales bring in. It was a whole lot of money.