More Club Closings?

[tug_slug]

So without clubs and decent meal service, what possible reason does a business traveler have to fly US on a transcon??? NONE

[post="257836"][/post]​

How bout cheap fares, thats what you and everyone else want's isnt it?

Funny thing about all this is when the employees were taking it in the short's there wasnt a reason for the passengers to jump ship now that their being directly affected they see no reason to stay with this pig of an airline.

 

[KCFlyer]

So without clubs and decent meal service, what possible reason does a business traveler have to fly US on a transcon??? NONE.

[post="257836"][/post]​

Art, while I have been told over and over again how upgrade privleges don't hurt the airline since "nobody was buying the seat anyhow", so they had no problem upgrading a $200 round trip transcon into first class and expecting "decent meal service" to boot, it seems that maybe they DO hurt the airline. How about if US changed so that free upgrade opportunities were based on the price paid for the ticket...that is if CP#1, who flew 52 segments so far this year paid $200, and CP#2 flew 25 segments so far this year, but paid $600 for his ticket, but Joe Blow and John Doe who are flyingtheir first flights this year, but Joe paid $700 and John Doe paid $1,200, then they'd get upgraded to first if any seats in F were available 2 hours before flight time, Then work their way down from there...basing upgrades strictly on income for the airline instead of FF plan status? Maybe CP2 gets upgraded, maybe he doesn't. After all, if the seat would have gone empty, isn't it better to reward those paying the most for their coach class ticket than it is to reward a "preferred" group who paid considerably less for their ticket?

 

[Art at ISP]

Tug Slug,

Let me clarify a fallacy which you continue to cling to. VERY frequent fliers like myself never asked for nor do we need those artificially low fares. I never asked for $99 cross country fares nor am I usually able to take advantage of them.

We have always advocated FAIR fares. A RATIONAL fare structure, where price is more closely related to actual costs would work for both sides--passengers and the company. We are happy to pay a FAIR price for reliable, comfortable service, with just enough amenities to distinguish the company from LCC's.

Delta was already in trouble before it went to Simplifares, so its woes cannot be blamed on that new fare structure, which believe it or not, was revenue POSITIVE in CVG and will prove to be so system wide in the near future.

We all acknowledge a need to cut costs, especially in light of the price of fuel. What I cannot understand, and am losing patience with is the penny pinching that is going on here, while they refuse to make decisions which would result in substantial savings throughout the system. Here are just a few:

1. IT'S THE FARES, STUPID--see above

2. Dedicated sub fleets to hubs--AA has a sub fleet of MD-80's I believe which are dedicated to ORD--they only fly in and out of ORD. If ORD goes down, the rest of the system is relatively unaffected, as the airplane is only going to go to/from ORD. It isn't going to be expected to do a turn at DFW or MIA etc.....This can curtail the domino effect of delays and cancellations when a hub goes down (PHL are you listening??)

3. Keep the crew with the airplane--Another AA innovation which is apparently working. The same crew (FA's and pilots) stays with the same aircraft throughout the day. Again it removes the possibilities of other scheduling snafus.

4. Get rid of the dead wood--easier said than done. Like I always say, the overwhelming majority of you are the hardest working, best employees this industry has to offer...however a HANDFUL are bringing the whole thing down.

By the way, this last one is not limited to organized labor.

There are many other ideas which could preserve both jobs and service, but no one seems interested in making that happen.

Until there is a major culture change on all sides, things will remain the same and the stupid decisions will rule the day. This is being penny wise and pound foolish to the max....

My best to you all.......

 

[KCFlyer]

So Art, If US offered 'fair fares' and implemented an upgrade policy that would sell F class seats at a 'fair fare' up until 2 hours before departure, then base upgrades on coach class fare paid (those paying full "Y" class fares got first upgrades) - if there are CP members meeting that criteria, great - give them first shot. If there are 30 CP members on a flight and 6 first class seats open 2 hours prior, and only 4 of those CP members paid full Y for the ticket, but 10 'non-preferred' passengers paid full Y - then give the 4 CP's pay full fare their upgrade, and the other two seats go to somebody else paying full y fare.

 

[Art at ISP]

Art, while I have been told over and over again how upgrade privleges don't hurt the airline since "nobody was buying the seat anyhow", so they had no problem upgrading a $200 round trip transcon into first class and expecting "decent meal service" to boot, it seems that maybe they DO hurt the airline. How about if US changed so that free upgrade opportunities were based on the price paid for the ticket...that is if CP#1, who flew 52 segments so far this year paid $200, and CP#2 flew 25 segments so far this year, but paid $600 for his ticket, but Joe Blow and John Doe who are flyingtheir first flights this year, but Joe paid $700 and John Doe paid $1,200, then they'd get upgraded to first if any seats in F were available 2 hours before flight time, Then work their way down from there...basing upgrades strictly on income for the airline instead of FF plan status? Maybe CP2 gets upgraded, maybe he doesn't. After all, if the seat would have gone empty, isn't it better to reward those paying the most for their coach class ticket than it is to reward a "preferred" group who paid considerably less for their ticket?

[post="257847"][/post]​

KC,

What you are overlooking is OVERALL revenue for a customer, not just what he generated on a specific flight. My total spend with US is in the tens of thousands per year--that is the REAL criteria. Therefore under your scenario above, I am sorry but the CP should get the preference....the likelihood is that he spends more year over year even though he may have lucked into a low fare on this one flight.

Remember, I have said it once and will say it again--we are not looking for CHEAP--we're looking for FAIR.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC,

What you are overlooking is OVERALL revenue for a customer, not just what he generated on a specific flight. My total spend with US is in the tens of thousands per year--that is the REAL criteria. Therefore under your scenario above, I am sorry but the CP should get the preference....the likelihood is that he spends more year over year even though he may have lucked into a low fare on this one flight.

Remember, I have said it once and will say it again--we are not looking for CHEAP--we're looking for FAIR.

[post="257854"][/post]​

Art, if the overall revenue still results in a loss (and the numbers seem to show that they are), why reward that?

 

[jcavinato]

I bought my wife and me lifetime club memberships when the company opened the first one in PIT. It was $400 for the two. Have probably used them down to a cost per visit of about 25 cents each time. With purchases of a drink now and then the company has come out ahead with me. Now this one looks like it is going away.

Just like my Eastern Airlines lifetime membership did.

Whos is the patron saint of lost causes?

 

[Art at ISP]

Art, if the overall revenue still results in a loss (and the numbers seem to show that they are), why reward that?

[post="257856"][/post]​

Because we contribute more overall revenue--CP's historically pay higher fares. It's a combination of loyalty and revenue, KC.....not everyone can be your beloved Greyhound Air...nor do they want to be.

 

[KCFlyer]

Because we contribute more overall revenue--CP's historically pay higher fares. It's a combination of loyalty and revenue, KC.....not everyone can be your beloved Greyhound Air...nor do they want to be.

[post="257859"][/post]​

I didn't mention my beloved "greyhound airlines"...I am talking about YOU'RE beloved US Airways. And my point is that "overall revenues" from the CP's is STILL not enough to make them profitable. After all, YOU'RE beloved US Airways is chasing after that all important leisure traveller the might defect to "greyhound airlines" and the CP's are taking full advantage of that, by purchasing those money losing fares for themselves. And pointing to the fact that they are only buying what the airline is selling. What THEY are missing is that what the airline is selling is "no frills service" - yet you are expecting something more than a "crappy meal" in first. YOu want that every time? What's wrong with paying for it every time?

 

[USFlyer]

Folks, listen, just buy a UA RCC membership. You'll get access to UA's lounges worldwide and US's lounges anytime you're on a same day US ticket. Given UA has lounges in LAX and SFO (and, incidentally, SEA, DEN and dozens of other cities US does not), you come out ahead even after paying slightly more for the membership. And, as I've mentioned, US in an odd way comes out ahead too since UA will now pay US each time you use a US club ($10/visit I believe). Just hope UA doesn't catch on here and limit access.

 

[TomBascom]

If US ... implemented an upgrade policy that would base upgrades on coach class fare paid (those paying full "Y" class fares got first upgrades)...

This is already the case. Customers who buy Y & B fares are upgraded from a different, higher priority, bucket and don't have to wait for the 7-5-3 window. It's how silvers and golds end up in F while CPs are sometimes in coach in certain high demand markets.

The problem is that Y & B fares are rarely fair and when they are Marketing hasn't a clue about telling people that they exist or encouraging them to buy them.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Because we contribute more overall revenue--CP's historically pay higher fares.

I don't doubt that the FFUCOS people contribute more overall revenue, but I do question whether or not they pay average higher fares.

here's how it looks from the hinterlands:

You've got a bunch of USAirways frequent flyers. They are buying what the airline is selling. Which, right now, is a whole lot of incredibly cheaped fare with an occasional "OmiGod BloFare" mixed in. Now, I think that most of the savvy frequent flyers are smart enough to avoid buying too many BloFares. Thus, we've established that they are buying cheap seats, and a whole lot of them.

It also appears to this neutral observer from the desert that the revenue generated by these cheap fares is not sufficient to cover the costs associated with providing the transportation. Otherwise, USAirways would not be losing money hand-over-fist while paying their people McDonaldland wages, abrogating any and every inconvenient lease in BK court, and carrying record loads in the process.

Art and Bob: You guys may be buying ten thousand dollars in airplane tickets every few weeks....but it does the airline absolutely no good when the product you purchased cost them fifteen thousand to provide.

So, I am gonna have to vote with KC on this one: reward the people who paid the most for their ticket. Folks who had to buy a BloFare might, at the very least, get served a glass of semi-decent white wine in a plastic cup while the rest of the huddled masses look for their pre-assigned seat.

If there gets to where there is some incentive to buy a full Y ticket, then more people will buy a full Y ticket. Nowadays there is every reason in the world not to.

 

[phllax]

With the LAX club closure, I will lose my way of avoiding that long security line!

 

[Winglet]

Where you gonna go after UAL ditches?

 

[sfb]

Search is preliminary, but the NW/CO code share looks like my new home.

Delta comps Crown Room memberships for Platinum Medallion members...but that may not be worth having to connect in ATL