Is anyone else troubled by the new nonrefundable policies?
- Thread starter olivia
- Start date
54 AM eric wrote: 
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,284
- 1,427
Today's KC Star business section had a small article about how more and more businesses are not booking business fares, but booking non refundable fares, although the article didn't mention the use it or lose it policy. Wonder what their reaction will be when they forfeit some of those dollars. I don't think the star links articles until the next day. If I find it, I'll provide a link.
Tango-Bravo
Advanced
- Aug 29, 2002
- 106
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1:29:16 AM olivia wrote:
I am hearing some horror stories and seeing some
terrible situations.....
Apparently someone no-showed on an 800.00 nonrefundable
ticket...called in a few hours later and was told he
would forfeit his entire 800.00.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Getting back to the original topic.... (thank you, eric)
The example given by olivia is an excellent case in point for what is totally wrong with the new use-it-or-lose policy of US and other Cartel copycats. There is no ethical/moral basis for a ticket valued at $800.00 for travel within North America to be of the non-refundable, restricted variety and thus subject to use-it-or-lose-it. Even so, with the unconscionable (and utterly dysfunctional) pricing shenanigans of US and fellow Cartel members, it is very possible to be gouged for more than $800.00 for what is now a fly it or frame it ticket for travel within the same time zone.
The analogy equating airline tickets to theatre or sporting event tickets is almost as flawed. A ticket to either of the latter is typically purchased at a cost of $25.00-$200.00 (usually closer to the lower amount). Also, unlike the Cartel airlines, at theatre or sporting events, you don't have someone sitting next to you who paid as much as 5-10 times more (or less). Moreover, the Cartel airlines have (or had) a provision for charging a steep, albeit equitable $100.00 fee to re-book restricted tickets and, unlike airline tickets, a theatre or sporting event ticket guarantees a seat at said event.
While I can see an ethical/moral basis for the cheap seat/pack the plane below cost $199.00 fares (or less) to be subject to use-it-or-lose-it restrictions, no such basis even remotely exists for fares in the $800.00 range. With the profitable U.S. airlines, you get an unrestricted round-trip ticket to anywhere within the U.S. for the same or (usually) less while experiencing service that is equal to, or even superior to the dumbed-down main cabin product offered by the Cartel.
The real issue IMO is the grossly inequitable, hopelessly convoluted, totally irrational, utterly dysfunctional pricing games of US and the U.S. Cartel airlines whereby someone paying $800.00 loses it all just the same as someone else paying $199.00 for the same flights.
Bottom line: If the U.S. airlines who are losing tons of money due to yields they supressed through their own pricing follies had a defensible fare structure, they might have a tenable basis for their use-it-or-lose-it policy.
IMO, there is nothing inherently wrong with use-it-or-lose-it on web special fares and published fare equivalents. What is altogether wrong with such a policy is inconsistent application. The agents and supervisors at US are doing the right thing if they are making zero, nada, zilch exceptions; the only thing worse than an indefensible rule is an indefensible rule applied inconsistently.
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1:29:16 AM olivia wrote:
I am hearing some horror stories and seeing some
terrible situations.....
Apparently someone no-showed on an 800.00 nonrefundable
ticket...called in a few hours later and was told he
would forfeit his entire 800.00.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Getting back to the original topic.... (thank you, eric)
The example given by olivia is an excellent case in point for what is totally wrong with the new use-it-or-lose policy of US and other Cartel copycats. There is no ethical/moral basis for a ticket valued at $800.00 for travel within North America to be of the non-refundable, restricted variety and thus subject to use-it-or-lose-it. Even so, with the unconscionable (and utterly dysfunctional) pricing shenanigans of US and fellow Cartel members, it is very possible to be gouged for more than $800.00 for what is now a fly it or frame it ticket for travel within the same time zone.
The analogy equating airline tickets to theatre or sporting event tickets is almost as flawed. A ticket to either of the latter is typically purchased at a cost of $25.00-$200.00 (usually closer to the lower amount). Also, unlike the Cartel airlines, at theatre or sporting events, you don't have someone sitting next to you who paid as much as 5-10 times more (or less). Moreover, the Cartel airlines have (or had) a provision for charging a steep, albeit equitable $100.00 fee to re-book restricted tickets and, unlike airline tickets, a theatre or sporting event ticket guarantees a seat at said event.
While I can see an ethical/moral basis for the cheap seat/pack the plane below cost $199.00 fares (or less) to be subject to use-it-or-lose-it restrictions, no such basis even remotely exists for fares in the $800.00 range. With the profitable U.S. airlines, you get an unrestricted round-trip ticket to anywhere within the U.S. for the same or (usually) less while experiencing service that is equal to, or even superior to the dumbed-down main cabin product offered by the Cartel.
The real issue IMO is the grossly inequitable, hopelessly convoluted, totally irrational, utterly dysfunctional pricing games of US and the U.S. Cartel airlines whereby someone paying $800.00 loses it all just the same as someone else paying $199.00 for the same flights.
Bottom line: If the U.S. airlines who are losing tons of money due to yields they supressed through their own pricing follies had a defensible fare structure, they might have a tenable basis for their use-it-or-lose-it policy.
IMO, there is nothing inherently wrong with use-it-or-lose-it on web special fares and published fare equivalents. What is altogether wrong with such a policy is inconsistent application. The agents and supervisors at US are doing the right thing if they are making zero, nada, zilch exceptions; the only thing worse than an indefensible rule is an indefensible rule applied inconsistently.
N305AS
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 133
- 0
Tom-
Once again, you fail to grasp the concept that the customer has paid for that ONE seat on that ONE flight on that ONE day. That's it. If they call to exchange their ticket for a new one PRIOR to their flight's departure, they give US Airways a chance to make money on that ONE seat on that ONE flight on that ONE day by getting someone else's butt in there as a paying customer.
If it goes out empty due to a no-show, then the customer has caused the airline to lose potential revenue from that seat since US Airways couldn't sell the seat to someone else.
The Broadway show analogy is a good one; if you buy a ticket for a show and no-show, the theater doesn't allow you to apply your ticket towards another show at a later date. You've forfeited the money.
And yes, I know you're going to wheel out that tired old argument of, But at least I can sell my Broadway show ticket to someone else! But unlike a Broadway show, the airline tells you at the time of purchase that your ticket is NON-TRANSFERABLE. Furthermore, they now also tell you that you'll lose your money if you don't show up.
So, if you buy the ticket anyway, that legally constitutes your tacit acceptance of their terms. In other words, you knew what you were getting yourself into and can't expect the airline to accomodate you just because you, for one reason or another, weren't able to get to the airport on time.
Once again, you fail to grasp the concept that the customer has paid for that ONE seat on that ONE flight on that ONE day. That's it. If they call to exchange their ticket for a new one PRIOR to their flight's departure, they give US Airways a chance to make money on that ONE seat on that ONE flight on that ONE day by getting someone else's butt in there as a paying customer.
If it goes out empty due to a no-show, then the customer has caused the airline to lose potential revenue from that seat since US Airways couldn't sell the seat to someone else.
The Broadway show analogy is a good one; if you buy a ticket for a show and no-show, the theater doesn't allow you to apply your ticket towards another show at a later date. You've forfeited the money.
And yes, I know you're going to wheel out that tired old argument of, But at least I can sell my Broadway show ticket to someone else! But unlike a Broadway show, the airline tells you at the time of purchase that your ticket is NON-TRANSFERABLE. Furthermore, they now also tell you that you'll lose your money if you don't show up.
So, if you buy the ticket anyway, that legally constitutes your tacit acceptance of their terms. In other words, you knew what you were getting yourself into and can't expect the airline to accomodate you just because you, for one reason or another, weren't able to get to the airport on time.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1:30:30 PM N305AS wrote:
I don't grasp that concept because it's a bunch of crap.
----------------
Well at least you've finally come clean, Tom. You don't understand because you don't WANT to understand.
[/blockquote]
That's not what I said.
[blockquote]At least now I don't have to waste my time explaining how this policy makes sense due to opportunity costs, the "spoilage" factor of unused seats, etc. Your mind is totally closed and therefore unable to absorb ideas other than your own.
[/blockquote]
Feel free to debunk my previous statement that not one single dollar is lost by US (or any other airline) from the supposedly forgone opportunity to sell a seat because of a no-show.
Note that I have conceded that in the event that sales were actually stopped for a flight (due to overselling it) and the flight leaves with at least one seat empty that, yes, the airline did incur a cost.
[blockquote]And not that it's any of your business, but yes, I do purchase tickets. And apparently unlike you, I firmly understand the repercussions I'd face if I don't show up on time.[/blockquote]
Au contraire. I fully undertsand the repercussions. That's why I avoided Priceline tickets like the plague (in spite of the frequently seen assertion that nothing but price matters these days.) I seriously doubt that very many of the airlines current victims do though. We'll see what happens when the holidays roll around and this really starts to dig in with Ma & Pa.
[blockquote]I can't say I'm surprised by your attitude, though. This is yet another example of people wanting to shirk personal accountability wherever they can. "It's not MY fault that I missed my flight! I was stuck in traffic!" Well guess what, pal? It's not US Airways' fault either, and it's not reasonable for a customer to expect the airline to shoulder the burden imposed by the customer's irresponsibility or bad luck.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That's got nothing to do with it. The problem with this policy is that it is just another extension of what is broken. It fixes nothing and, in fact, just makes things worse.
If you want to get into denial of accountability maybe we should discuss the excuses that airlines hide behind for not reciprocating use it or lose it, no exceptions with fly it or buy it, no exceptions.
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1:30:30 PM N305AS wrote:
I don't grasp that concept because it's a bunch of crap.
----------------
Well at least you've finally come clean, Tom. You don't understand because you don't WANT to understand.
[/blockquote]
That's not what I said.
[blockquote]At least now I don't have to waste my time explaining how this policy makes sense due to opportunity costs, the "spoilage" factor of unused seats, etc. Your mind is totally closed and therefore unable to absorb ideas other than your own.
[/blockquote]
Feel free to debunk my previous statement that not one single dollar is lost by US (or any other airline) from the supposedly forgone opportunity to sell a seat because of a no-show.
Note that I have conceded that in the event that sales were actually stopped for a flight (due to overselling it) and the flight leaves with at least one seat empty that, yes, the airline did incur a cost.
[blockquote]And not that it's any of your business, but yes, I do purchase tickets. And apparently unlike you, I firmly understand the repercussions I'd face if I don't show up on time.[/blockquote]
Au contraire. I fully undertsand the repercussions. That's why I avoided Priceline tickets like the plague (in spite of the frequently seen assertion that nothing but price matters these days.) I seriously doubt that very many of the airlines current victims do though. We'll see what happens when the holidays roll around and this really starts to dig in with Ma & Pa.
[blockquote]I can't say I'm surprised by your attitude, though. This is yet another example of people wanting to shirk personal accountability wherever they can. "It's not MY fault that I missed my flight! I was stuck in traffic!" Well guess what, pal? It's not US Airways' fault either, and it's not reasonable for a customer to expect the airline to shoulder the burden imposed by the customer's irresponsibility or bad luck.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That's got nothing to do with it. The problem with this policy is that it is just another extension of what is broken. It fixes nothing and, in fact, just makes things worse.
If you want to get into denial of accountability maybe we should discuss the excuses that airlines hide behind for not reciprocating use it or lose it, no exceptions with fly it or buy it, no exceptions.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 2:05:38 AM N305AS wrote:
... US Airways was now unable to sell this seat to anyone else, thereby keeping them from making money by having a live "butt in the seat," so to speak.
[/blockquote]
Unless the flight was oversold to the point that US stopped selling tickets and it left with an empty seat due to the no-show US lost exactly nothing.
Stand-bys and no-shows simply accelerate or defer the revenue recognition. Use it or lose it just allows US to immediately recognize the revenue (and tick off a customer.) It has no effect at all on US' ability to sell a seat or make money on seats.
Use it or lose it might have the desirable effect of twisting business travelers arms into buying higher priced tickets (which IMHO is the real point of all this). (I quoted desirable because it's never good to get your way by brute force.) But to do that US needs to make it a lot more obvious which tickets are which (ever try deliberately booking a refundable ticket on the website?) And it's still unlikely that many business travelers will go for it because the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work -- the chasm between discount and unrestricted is uncrossable in most markets -- it's still cheaper to throw take the risk and throw it away if you need to. (Although I do see what look to be some pricing experiments popping up -- that might be a good sign.) What they really need to do to shift the average ticket price higher is to lower the cost of unrestricted tickets to a point where the cost/benefit analysis would work and business travelers would be able to make a case for buying them.
American Express travel just reported that 88% of corporate travel is on discount fares. That ought to be a wake up call. The system is broken. Don't keep breaking it worse. Change what is wrong. It is over priced and over restricted. That's no way to generate revenue for a product which, in the end, is almost completely discretionary.
----------------
On 9/10/2002 2:05:38 AM N305AS wrote:
... US Airways was now unable to sell this seat to anyone else, thereby keeping them from making money by having a live "butt in the seat," so to speak.
[/blockquote]
Unless the flight was oversold to the point that US stopped selling tickets and it left with an empty seat due to the no-show US lost exactly nothing.
Stand-bys and no-shows simply accelerate or defer the revenue recognition. Use it or lose it just allows US to immediately recognize the revenue (and tick off a customer.) It has no effect at all on US' ability to sell a seat or make money on seats.
Use it or lose it might have the desirable effect of twisting business travelers arms into buying higher priced tickets (which IMHO is the real point of all this). (I quoted desirable because it's never good to get your way by brute force.) But to do that US needs to make it a lot more obvious which tickets are which (ever try deliberately booking a refundable ticket on the website?) And it's still unlikely that many business travelers will go for it because the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work -- the chasm between discount and unrestricted is uncrossable in most markets -- it's still cheaper to throw take the risk and throw it away if you need to. (Although I do see what look to be some pricing experiments popping up -- that might be a good sign.) What they really need to do to shift the average ticket price higher is to lower the cost of unrestricted tickets to a point where the cost/benefit analysis would work and business travelers would be able to make a case for buying them.
American Express travel just reported that 88% of corporate travel is on discount fares. That ought to be a wake up call. The system is broken. Don't keep breaking it worse. Change what is wrong. It is over priced and over restricted. That's no way to generate revenue for a product which, in the end, is almost completely discretionary.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:52:17 PM N305AS wrote:
Agreed about the pricing model being flawed, but the "fly it, frame it, or flush it" approach is the correct one regarding nonrefundable fares.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is a fine policy for unpublished Priceline tickets. Which the market prices at half or so of a V fare and which were and are clearly understood to be of that nature. It makes no sense to suddenly recategorize a broad swath of much higher priced fares and redefine the meaning of a word to suit your mood. Non-refundable simply means that you cannot get your cash back. It does not mean that you agreed to forfeit value at a whim.
Just curious N305AS -- do you ever buy tickets?
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:52:17 PM N305AS wrote:
Agreed about the pricing model being flawed, but the "fly it, frame it, or flush it" approach is the correct one regarding nonrefundable fares.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is a fine policy for unpublished Priceline tickets. Which the market prices at half or so of a V fare and which were and are clearly understood to be of that nature. It makes no sense to suddenly recategorize a broad swath of much higher priced fares and redefine the meaning of a word to suit your mood. Non-refundable simply means that you cannot get your cash back. It does not mean that you agreed to forfeit value at a whim.
Just curious N305AS -- do you ever buy tickets?
N305AS
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 133
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1:08:04 PM TomBascom wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:39:16 PM N305AS wrote:
Tom-
Once again, you fail to grasp the concept...
[/blockquote]
I don't grasp that concept because it's a bunch of crap.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well at least you've finally come clean, Tom. You don't understand because you don't WANT to understand. At least now I don't have to waste my time explaining how this policy makes sense due to opportunity costs, the spoilage factor of unused seats, etc. Your mind is totally closed and therefore unable to absorb ideas other than your own.
And not that it's any of your business, but yes, I do purchase tickets. And apparently unlike you, I firmly understand the repercussions I'd face if I don't show up on time.
I can't say I'm surprised by your attitude, though. This is yet another example of people wanting to shirk personal accountability wherever they can. It's not MY fault that I missed my flight! I was stuck in traffic! Well guess what, pal? It's not US Airways' fault either, and it's not reasonable for a customer to expect the airline to shoulder the burden imposed by the customer's irresponsibility or bad luck.
----------------
On 9/10/2002 1:08:04 PM TomBascom wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:39:16 PM N305AS wrote:
Tom-
Once again, you fail to grasp the concept...
[/blockquote]
I don't grasp that concept because it's a bunch of crap.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well at least you've finally come clean, Tom. You don't understand because you don't WANT to understand. At least now I don't have to waste my time explaining how this policy makes sense due to opportunity costs, the spoilage factor of unused seats, etc. Your mind is totally closed and therefore unable to absorb ideas other than your own.
And not that it's any of your business, but yes, I do purchase tickets. And apparently unlike you, I firmly understand the repercussions I'd face if I don't show up on time.
I can't say I'm surprised by your attitude, though. This is yet another example of people wanting to shirk personal accountability wherever they can. It's not MY fault that I missed my flight! I was stuck in traffic! Well guess what, pal? It's not US Airways' fault either, and it's not reasonable for a customer to expect the airline to shoulder the burden imposed by the customer's irresponsibility or bad luck.
We don't always agree with the directives put out by upper management..although we are told..This is the way it is...it's not a waiveable item...these days NOTHING can be an exception...the company hs drawn the line...maybe things will change down the road....we can hope, seems as though we've lost our compassion.
And for the record N305AS, I see that you claim to purchase airline tickets. But I'll say again that you don't buy tickets as the business traveller you all need to survive does. It's one thing to buy a revenue ticket for your vacation that you had to bid for a year in advance versus a biz traveller who has to plan around the whims of a customer.
N305AS -
I think you are missing one point. And I think you are missing because you don't actually BUY airline tickets.
I was in the industry once, but now I have the benefit of seeing things from the purchasers standpoint. I've held elite status on CO for 4 years now. I have never once bought a full Y ticket. I won't as a matter of principal. I can't justify an $1100 CLE-PHL ticket. Period.
I can understand the airlines making a requirement that I cancel a reservation that I will not be using, or lose the value of the ticket. But let's say that I purchase a NR ticket in order to meet with a client (who ultimately pays for the ticket, BTW). The client calls me the night before, and tells me that he/she needs to resked. Not exactly sure when, probably in the next few days. So, you think it's fair that I have to cancel the reservation in order for you to resell the seat that I won't be using. Fine. But how is it fair for you to say to me know exactly what you are going to do with that ticket when you cancel, or eat the ticket? Now I'm up to paying $100 TWICE! Once to park it, once to reuse it!
I find it ironic that the airlines themselves were complaining that the new security directives were keeping folks away. Then why take the same approach? The use it or Lose it approach is going to put me in my car a LOT more. I'm not buying a ticket if I'm not 1000% certain that I'll use it. Looks like I'll be putting more miles on my car, and fewer in my FF account....
I think you are missing one point. And I think you are missing because you don't actually BUY airline tickets.
I was in the industry once, but now I have the benefit of seeing things from the purchasers standpoint. I've held elite status on CO for 4 years now. I have never once bought a full Y ticket. I won't as a matter of principal. I can't justify an $1100 CLE-PHL ticket. Period.
I can understand the airlines making a requirement that I cancel a reservation that I will not be using, or lose the value of the ticket. But let's say that I purchase a NR ticket in order to meet with a client (who ultimately pays for the ticket, BTW). The client calls me the night before, and tells me that he/she needs to resked. Not exactly sure when, probably in the next few days. So, you think it's fair that I have to cancel the reservation in order for you to resell the seat that I won't be using. Fine. But how is it fair for you to say to me know exactly what you are going to do with that ticket when you cancel, or eat the ticket? Now I'm up to paying $100 TWICE! Once to park it, once to reuse it!
I find it ironic that the airlines themselves were complaining that the new security directives were keeping folks away. Then why take the same approach? The use it or Lose it approach is going to put me in my car a LOT more. I'm not buying a ticket if I'm not 1000% certain that I'll use it. Looks like I'll be putting more miles on my car, and fewer in my FF account....
