Maybe US does care about customer loyalty

[JS]

...
Also, as I understand it each time a passenger no shows(meaning doesn't cancel reservation)this only encourages all airlines to continue to overbook flights in anticipation of future no show passengers.

Well, not really, since airlines don't (and can't, legally) share detailed data like that, but you're right, no-shows are the reason why airlines overbook. There's no question about that.

It's a silly argument, though, because if I cancel my reservation one day before departure, it's unlikely the airline will sell that seat. The use-it-or-lose-it policy exists to make more money in the short run. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with no-shows, because people are going to no-show whether you like it or not. With this policy, all $664 of a $664 ticket that doesn't get used and wasn't re-scheduled goes into earned income (previously it was unearned). If you let people re-use tickets, the $664 stays unearned until it's used later, which is "unprofitable" (for this month or so, anyway).

It's an idiotic policy to have if you're going to overbook, but Tempe knows what's best, so best of luck with them.


My problem is I don't understand why US puts the screws to 99% of their passengers but they'll cave on a sob story letter and waive the ticket rules, plus waive the change fee when the letter writer didn't even ask for it.

The letter writer may be right, that US doing this for him will earn them lots of future business from him that is worth far more than $664. That begs the question -- why doesn't US do this for everyone? Make it a policy that your ticket doesn't vanish when the plane pushes back without you on it, and US would get some repeat business and people don't have to waste their time writing sob story letters.


Example:

Three times I have shopped at Burlington Coat Factory ("we sell more than great coats", it's true, they do have other stuff). I bought a leather jacket once, a pair of shorts once, and a belt once (I'm not a shopaholic like my ex-wife who would buy a basket of those in one trip).

I made the mistake of buying a belt that was too long, so I went back in to return it, and it was a nightmare. They don't give you a cash refund. After waiting in a long line, they give you a gift card which you can then use only at Burlington Coat Factory. I haven't been back.

The moral of the story is that Burlington Coat Factory made an extra $15 off me with this policy but lost more than that in future sales because I'll never shop there again when there are other stores that sell discount clothes and will hand me cash (probably with a shorter wait as well) if I return something with a receipt. I'm not going to write a sob story to get them to make an exception for me; I'll just go elsewhere.

 

[happy01]

Well, not really, since airlines don't (and can't, legally) share detailed data like that, but you're right, no-shows are the reason why airlines overbook. There's no question about that.

It's a silly argument, though, because if I cancel my reservation one day before departure, it's unlikely the airline will sell that seat. The use-it-or-lose-it policy exists to make more money in the short run. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with no-shows, because people are going to no-show whether you like it or not. With this policy, all $664 of a $664 ticket that doesn't get used and wasn't re-scheduled goes into earned income (previously it was unearned). If you let people re-use tickets, the $664 stays unearned until it's used later, which is "unprofitable" (for this month or so, anyway).

It's an idiotic policy to have if you're going to overbook, but Tempe knows what's best, so best of luck with them.
My problem is I don't understand why US puts the screws to 99% of their passengers but they'll cave on a sob story letter and waive the ticket rules, plus waive the change fee when the letter writer didn't even ask for it.

The letter writer may be right, that US doing this for him will earn them lots of future business from him that is worth far more than $664. That begs the question -- why doesn't US do this for everyone? Make it a policy that your ticket doesn't vanish when the plane pushes back without you on it, and US would get some repeat business and people don't have to waste their time writing sob story letters.
Example:

Three times I have shopped at Burlington Coat Factory ("we sell more than great coats", it's true, they do have other stuff). I bought a leather jacket once, a pair of shorts once, and a belt once (I'm not a shopaholic like my ex-wife who would buy a basket of those in one trip).

I made the mistake of buying a belt that was too long, so I went back in to return it, and it was a nightmare. They don't give you a cash refund. After waiting in a long line, they give you a gift card which you can then use only at Burlington Coat Factory. I haven't been back.

The moral of the story is that Burlington Coat Factory made an extra $15 off me with this policy but lost more than that in future sales because I'll never shop there again when there are other stores that sell discount clothes and will hand me cash (probably with a shorter wait as well) if I return something with a receipt. I'm not going to write a sob story to get them to make an exception for me; I'll just go elsewhere.

So, let me ask you this... Why didn't you try the belt on before you bought it ? What I don't understand is why do people think everything is returnable? It's not the stores fault that you didn't try on the belt. I've worked high end retail and I've seen it all on what people will return (used underwear yuck, shoes that the soles have been worn through etc...) but that was high end retail and everything was returnable. I think this applies to airlines as well( as close as we can get with comparisons like the concert tkts vs.airline tkts). The store provided the product it wasn't inferior or defective, so why do they have to accept the return? The airlines are providing what they sold, why do they have to accept a return because the passenger changed their mind or whatever? We can't fault any business for making money, that's why they are in business. Just like we go to work everyday to get paid.

No, they can't legally share the information. But, yes they do study no shows and study them closely and they use the average amount of no shows per flight to to determine the percentage that they can oversell a flight. And you wouldn't believe the amount of people who willingly buy high "Y" fares for whatever reason the day before or on the day of travel. I don't get it, but then again I work at US Airways and dont' have that kind of money. You're right though that people will continue to no-show, and airlines will continue to overbook flights.

The earned/unearned debate could go on forever, but airlines do let people re-issue tickets. Please don't give upper management at any airline the idea to make non-refundable tickets unusable towards future travel, it would make my job hell. That's all they need to hear is that re-issuing a ticket is un-profitable. It only takes one carrier to start doing something(to generate revenue) and they all jump on the band wagon. We might as well give them the idea to charge people for no-shows/no cancellation like Dr. and dentist offices are now doing. Oops did I type that? Doogie and crew pay no attention to that idea.

 

[happy01]

Good points, especially on the invol refunds issue. All the ATO can do now is "request refund" instead of processing on the spot. No idea how long it takes (or even if if it's done at all). What's really cute is that partial refunds can't be requested until the rest of the ticket has been used. (Ex: Outbound flight is cxld and the customer decides to drive.. .Still wants use return ticket. In Sabre, no problem, figure out taxes and refund just the outward leg. And the customer is on his/her.
In "QIK" the refund for the outbound can only be "requested" by the ATO after the rest of the ticket has been used)

I know agents at the airports are upset about not being able issue refunds at the airports, but have you thought about this...international flights go through PHL. Which ATO do we all pick on the most?? PHL!! This would leave those in PHL to figure out international currency, exchange rates and international arrival and departure taxes. Regardless, of which ATO it is does any agent want to try and figure this out for 140+ different passengers who already aren't in a good mood because they didn't get where they were planning on going.
Also, I recently had a station manager tell me that agents can still issue some refunds if they choose to. We were specifically discussing some nut ball who just rcv'd a rule 35 after trashing the plane while it was in flight. I can't remember the specifics she gave me on when agents can issue refunds, but I'm going to pull up her email tomorrow and let you all know what she said so you can question your managers about it.

 

[JS]

So, let me ask you this... Why didn't you try the belt on before you bought it ? What I don't understand is why do people think everything is returnable? It's not the stores fault that you didn't try on the belt. I've worked high end retail and I've seen it all on what people will return (used underwear yuck, shoes that the soles have been worn through etc...) but that was high end retail and everything was returnable. I think this applies to airlines as well( as close as we can get with comparisons like the concert tkts vs.airline tkts). The store provided the product it wasn't inferior or defective, so why do they have to accept the return? The airlines are providing what they sold, why do they have to accept a return because the passenger changed their mind or whatever? We can't fault any business for making money, that's why they are in business. Just like we go to work everyday to get paid.

...

Blame the customer -- nice.

If you must know, I wanted to try on the belt, but they had an anti-theft tag in it that made it impossible to try on. They do this intentially, to prevent people from putting on a belt and walking out of the store without paying for it.

You're right that no business *has* to accept returns. They choose to because it's good for business. Making "all sales final" all the time will lead to a "going out of business sale", and there's only one of those.

 

[happy01]

Blame the customer -- nice.

If you must know, I wanted to try on the belt, but they had an anti-theft tag in it that made it impossible to try on. They do this intentially, to prevent people from putting on a belt and walking out of the store without paying for it.

You're right that no business *has* to accept returns. They choose to because it's good for business. Making "all sales final" all the time will lead to a "going out of business sale", and there's only one of those.

I'm not blaming the customer, I just couldn't figure out why the heck you didn't try on the belt. So, I had to ask it. And of course you did have a good reason. This is the problem with emails and these postings, we can't ask these things so we have to assume and fill in the blanks. And you know what they say about assuming!

I think we've beat this subject to death, what do you think?