Is The Airline Terminal Club Still Viable?

[PHL]

Also, would you mind citing an airline that is either A) not it bankruptcy or B.) not close to bankruptcy that has clubs and other "value" to the passenger?

[post="260744"][/post]​

You would have to outline your parameters for what constitutes an airilne "not close to bankruptcy".

America West
American
Continental
Northwest

All of these carriers are not in BK, and at the moment aren't very close to it. That can change in few quarters, though. But, they all have clubs. And, believe me - they add value to the passenger who pays $300/year to use them.

I have to go PHL-LAX in a few weeks. Guess who I'm flying - UA. 2 reasons - 1.) without a USAirways club, the wait to get into T1 at LAX is horrendous at times. Not a risk I want to take. 2.) UA terminal at LAX *HAS* an RCC I can use, *AND* they have a much more streamlined security checkpoint. Oh, I guess the peripheral benefits of geetting actual glassware and a hot meal in UA First will be nice, too. But, 1 and 2 were the real deal breakers for me. Sorry US.....

 

[ringmaruf]

I can use America West just for my transcons and hit there first tier elite on just the transcons AND save money for my company. Plus America West has a F cabin. American west also has a club in LAS where most east coast red-eyes connect through.

[post="260734"][/post]​

America West will also very shortly have a club in LAX. They're taking the US Club space. Guess someone sees value in it.

 

[PHL]

To be frank I don't know ANY company who pays for a club membership in my industry or any other for that matter. I'm sure there are but I'm not aware of any.

Piney, actually in a former job I had the company(a well known global corporation) paid for club memberships if the individual had a heavy travel obligation in their job duties. You'll find that many people in consulting and sales often have their club memberships paid for by the employer. A small expense for the company (per employee) to make the travelling experience a little easier and the employee a little happier while they're billing so much money that the club fee is almost inconsequential.

 

[shell nyc]

To be frank I don't know ANY company who pays for a club membership in my industry or any other for that matter. I'm sure there are but I'm not aware of any.

It's actually still a fairly common perk in my industry. My company will pick up the cost of one airline club membership annually for emloyees expected to travel more to 10 times a year. This year I went with the RCC membership due to the changes announced by US shortly before my renewal date, but in the past I've personally paid for a US club membership while having my company pay for a CO President's Club membership.

To me (and obviously my company) the fees are well worth it for a relatively quiet and comfortable place to work/wait and access to some wonderfully helpful agents. A few light snacks and a quick cup of coffee in the morning are lagniappe!

 

[TomBascom]

Did you notice the part that said when companies stop paying for the employees club memberships then the employees stop seeing the value in it?

Nope I didn't notice that part. Is that something that you said? I do find it unsurprising that Mr. "It's The Company's Responsibility To Pay For Perks" is now advocating the flip side of the position.

 

[KCFlyer]

Nope I didn't notice that part. Is that something that you said? I do find it unsurprising that Mr. "It's The Company's Responsibility To Pay For Perks" is now advocating the flip side of the position.

[post="260859"][/post]​

You might want to read page 2:

Also, fewer companies are covering their workers' club memberships.

Not taking the flip side of anything - it's just one more perk that many companies are "not" paying for these days. So do the airlines maintain the perk (and for road warriors, $300 a year won't cover the costs to operate the club either) just like they maintain the perks of the FF clubs?

 

[longing4piedmont]

So do the airlines maintain the perk (and for road warriors, $300 a year won't cover the costs to operate the club either) just like they maintain the perks of the FF clubs?

[post="260879"][/post]​

Again you should not ASSume anything. We have US on record saying that they are profitable. So once again you come on here and speak on something which you know nothing.

When are you ever going to learn?

 

[KCFlyer]

Again you should not ASSume anything. We have US on record saying that they are profitable. So once again you come on here and speak on something which you know nothing about.

When are you ever going to learn?

[post="260884"][/post]​

You have US on record as saying the clubs are profitable? Why are they closing them then?

 

[TomBascom]

You might want to read page 2:

I still don't see it. Page 2 of what? BTW what you quoted a few posts back doesn't say the same thing as what you just quoted. Could you please pick a position and stick to it for a minute or two?

Not taking the flip side of anything

Oh yes you are. Not that there's anything unusual in that.

... it's just one more perk that many companies are "not" paying for these days.

Have you got any facts to back that up? How many is "many"? The only data I see is from the posters on this thread. One of whom pays his own way, another of whom says the company pays his and that he knows of many others doing the same. That's too anecdotal for my taste but it trumps naked assertions.

So do the airlines maintain the perk (and for road warriors, $300 a year won't cover the costs to operate the club either)

Can you prove that too? The last word I heard from anyone in a position to be exected to know was that Club revenue exceeds expenses. That doesn't sound like something that the airlines are "maintaining" (I assume you mean "subsidizing") out of the kindness of their hearts.

The problem here seems, to me, to be that certain individual clubs, taken in isolation and apparently based on arbitrary cost allocations, have been found to be "unprofitable". Not that the club system as a whole has been judged to be unprofitable. Personally I find that kind of analysis to be weak. The clubs have network effects just like the route system does. Shrinking the network has a disproportionate impact on the whole and risks a "death spiral".

... just like they maintain the perks of the FF clubs?

You can't support that contention either.

 

[KCFlyer]

I still don't see it. Page 2 of what?

The Washington Post article referenced in the first post. I cut and pasted the quote from that.

BTW what you quoted a few posts back doesn't say the same thing as what you just quoted. Could you please pick a position and stick to it for a minute or two?
Oh yes you are. Not that there's anything unusual in that.

Some companies were willing to pick up the tab for the club memberships - more power to them. Today more companies are opting not to do that. I guess that's in an effort to save money. They don't worry about the FF perks because the company isn't paying for those anyways. But the airline is. That's been my point all along - why is the airline responsible for providing a perk for an employee of a different company if that employee's company won't provide it for their own employee? Oh yeah....marketing and competitiveness. The airlines are competing their way into the ground at this rate.

Have you got any facts to back that up? How many is "many"? The only data I see is from the posters on this thread. One of whom pays his own way, another of whom says the company pays his and that he knows of many others doing the same. That's too anecdotal for my taste but it trumps naked assertions.

Nothing more than the Washington Post article (a link is provided in original post - and....a link to the second page is also provided in the column).

Can you prove that too? The last word I heard from anyone in a position to be exected to know was that Club revenue exceeds expenses. That doesn't sound like something that the airlines are "maintaining" (I assume you mean "subsidizing") out of the kindness of their hearts.

No, I don't mean they are subsidizing....yet. But with fewer revenues towards the clubs coming in, at what point does an airline say "enough" ?

The problem here seems, to me, to be that certain individual clubs, taken in isolation and apparently based on arbitrary cost allocations, have been found to be "unprofitable". Not that the club system as a whole has been judged to be unprofitable. Personally I find that kind of analysis to be weak. The clubs have network effects just like the route system does. Shrinking the network has a disproportionate impact on the whole and risks a "death spiral".
You can't support that contention either.

They've cut back almost half their clubs...

 

[TomBascom]

Some companies were willing to pick up the tab for the club memberships - more power to them.

So far so good.

Today more companies are opting not to do that.

I don't think you can support that contention. It might be true. But I don't see your evidence.

... why is the airline responsible for providing a perk for an employee of a different company if that employee's company won't provide it for their own employee? Oh yeah....marketing and competitiveness.

Good to see that you've been listening

The airlines are competing their way into the ground at this rate.

I agree. Although for completely different reasons...

No, I don't mean they are subsidizing....yet. But with fewer revenues towards the clubs coming in, at what point does an airline say "enough" ?
They've cut back almost half their clubs...

Less clubs = less revenue. Sounds kind of like a death spiral... Maybe they should have been finding creative ways to open new clubs and strengthen the network instead of emasculating it. Of course they'd have to think outside the box and stop contributing to SWA's business plan if they wanted to do that.

 

[tadjr]

I always thought a way to add to the clubs bottom line was to allow the purchased F/A or Y/N tickets into the club as a bonus. You might get someone who isnt a member who has a choice of buying a B ticket or a full Y/N ticket. They cant take the club membership off their expenses, but a B ticket and a Y/N ticket are both coach tickets and could probably be expensed as such and covered. You've just convinced someone to buy up to a Y/N ticket (maybe $50-100 depending on market flown?) that you would not have had otherwise and it didnt cost anything additional to the clubs bottom line. Of course this would have to be marketed as well so people actually knew the advantages of buying a Y/N ticket. This also wouldnt have a negative impact on those who actually purchase a club membership since they would still be able to use the club even on the lowest excursion tickets and not be forced to buy up if they didnt want to.

 

[JS]

I always thought a way to add to the clubs bottom line was to allow the purchased F/A or Y/N tickets into the club as a bonus. You might get someone who isnt a member who has a choice of buying a B ticket or a full Y/N ticket. They cant take the club membership off their expenses, but a B ticket and a Y/N ticket are both coach tickets and could probably be expensed as such and covered. You've just convinced someone to buy up to a Y/N ticket (maybe $50-100 depending on market flown?) that you would not have had otherwise and it didnt cost anything additional to the clubs bottom line. Of course this would have to be marketed as well so people actually knew the advantages of buying a Y/N ticket. This also wouldnt have a negative impact on those who actually purchase a club membership since they would still be able to use the club even on the lowest excursion tickets and not be forced to buy up if they didnt want to.

[post="260914"][/post]​

Two problems: 1) It is difficult to select a specific booking class on US Airways (or any other legacy airline for that matter). Even if you specify refundable, B will probably show up, since the only difference between B and Y in most cases is seat availability. 2) Paying more than necessary is a violation of many corporate travel policies.

 

[TomBascom]

Two problems: 1) It is difficult to select a specific booking class on US Airways (or any other legacy airline for that matter). Even if you specify refundable, B will probably show up, since the only difference between B and Y in most cases is seat availability. 2) Paying more than necessary is a violation of many corporate travel policies.

[post="261048"][/post]​

NWA lets you search by fare class. That's very handy for this sort of thing.

If flexibility is a potential issue then it becomes a decision about whether it is better to pay for it upfront or run the risk of eating a larger charge in change fees etc later. Different people are going to have different right answers to that question.

I think it's a good "outside the box" proposal. Thus we needn't worry about anyone at CCY ever endorsing it.

 

[whlinder]

http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/oneway/index.html?src=hp_tl

AC gives lounge access on their business and highest coach fares.