US Airways - new changes of Seat configurations

[UPNAWAY]

One last thought on First class!

All the years that AWA battled w/ LUV out west there where constant calls for AWA to ditch first (and be like them). This managment team poo-pooed that each time it was brought up and talked about how vital a first class product is. There is zero chance going forward that US will not have a first class product, so if any of you keep assumming LCC means eventually no first class and little to no FF program that doesn't even have a snow balls chance in Tempe!
And I bet in a year or two after the merger is done and the focus is back on the opperation and product I fully expect improvements to the first product and FF programs!

 

[MarkMyWords]

Not necessarily......retro fits have been done with 24 hour downtimes. When we reconfigured the 757's, most a/c were only out of service for 24 hours.

It is when you have to move lavs or galleys that you would probably wait until the heavy check.

 

[Travels2mch]

If I'm flying all of my Transcons on UA, why am I bothering with holding Status on US Airways, why not just shift to UA?

That's been my thoughts exactly....if I don't see any improvement by the end of the year, I've decided to do the status match to UA and be done with it. I'm on their planes more than US anyway since their schedules are much more convenient for me. I may as well start earning FC there, but until then E+ is better than what I get now on US.

 

[hp_fa]

Hp fa

With all do respect, you have no idea the revenue that having F seats brings in, regardless of whether or not anyone "pays" for them. They are used as a tool to entice our Very FF'ers to stay with us. They are used as a reward for those that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on US annually.

If Bob spends 100K a year flying with us and we elect to remove the F cabin, we have removed one more "perk" or reward for his loyalty. The problem here is, having the right number of seats on the right airplanes to ensure the right balance of revenue to make the flight profitable.

Don't ever open that can of worms about people "paying" for F class seats. These guys will eat you alive!

Actually if you knew my employment history, you would know I do have a clue about the topic. However, reconfiguring a plane from 26 FC seats to 16 FC seats should not be unreasonable and the people who spend lots of time on planes still have a reasonable chance of getting upgraded. My point is if you book a coach seat you should expect coach and be happy when you are given a FC seat. The upgrade is a perk, not an entitlement.

Respectfully....

 

[Travels2mch]

Don't ever open that can of worms about people "paying" for F class seats. These guys will eat you alive!

Good advice!!

 

[MarkMyWords]

I don't know.....if I am a 100K a year flyer with your company, I should be "entitled" to something for my loyalty. Read the boards and see how we have cheapened our product. Why should our 100K fliers continue to be loyal?

 

[USFlyer]

That's been my thoughts exactly....if I don't see any improvement by the end of the year, I've decided to do the status match to UA and be done with it. I'm on their planes more than US anyway since their schedules are much more convenient for me. I may as well start earning FC there, but until then E+ is better than what I get now on US.

UA will not match US status and vice versa. If a CSR says they will or does, they are violating the agreement between US and UA.

 

[FCYTravis]

UA will not match US status and vice versa. If a CSR says they will or does, they are violating the agreement between US and UA.

Wrong. UA matches US status (up to 1P as their policy), per multiple successful reports on FlyerTalk.com.

My point is if you book a coach seat you should expect coach and be happy when you are given a FC seat. The upgrade is a perk, not an entitlement.

Of course it's not an entitlement - but it's a perk that has drawn people to be loyal to the airline. If that perk becomes impossible to get, then the attraction for choosing US Airways over anyone else disappears. If I'm going to be in coach anyway, I can get a 10x better coach product on United.

 

[USFlyer]

Wrong. UA matches US status (up to 1P as their policy), per multiple successful reports on FlyerTalk.com.
Of course it's not an entitlement - but it's a perk that has drawn people to be loyal to the airline. If that perk becomes impossible to get, then the attraction for choosing US Airways over anyone else disappears. If I'm going to be in coach anyway, I can get a 10x better coach product on United.

Wrong. I've tried many times and the answer is always no. I have documented proof. Don't believe everything you read on flyertalk. I've found that board to be anything but accurate.

I would have switch to UA years ago had they matched. But, every six months when I try, the answer is always no.

 

[MarkMyWords]

So assuming these figures are correct I wonder how exactly reconfiguring the cabins will allow US to enjoy a net revenue gain from their decision. I'm trying to look at this unemotionally and I must be a real dumb arse because I don't see it. Somebody tell me how throwing 10 $600 tickets out and replacing them with 20 $250 tickets is revenue positive?

If I throw out those 10 $600 tickets and replace them with 20 $400 tickets that looks good on the spread sheet but what about the other 118 segments I will fly with some carrier? Think Ma & Pa Kettle will shell out $594 to go from PHL to BUF? or $1,435US to go from PHL to YSF with half the trip on US and half on a *partner?

Somebody had best be looking at the impact removing those 10 seats will have in the overall scheme of things.

The only thing I can think of Bob, is someone thinks that they can replace those 10 $600.00 YUP tickets with 21 $600.00 YUP tickets that can't get upgraded. Like you said, looks good on paper but when you put it in practice.......no t likely

 

[Art at ISP]

I would strongly suggest that the powers that be in the Sandcastle listen long and hard to their most loyal customers before entertaining a move to reduce F seating on the 321, IF the 321 is going to remain the primary aircraft for transcons. As another poster said, those of us who do lay out tens of thousands of dollars in fares per year, who fly EVERY week, have come to expect the reasonable availability of upgrades, especially on transcon routes. It's great to say you don't want to offer upgrades, but if it is already a perk you do much more damage than good to take an existing benefit away, or diminish it in any substantive way.

That said there is room for interpretation on REASONABLE availability. On a transcon full of frequent travelers, I think that 24 or 26 F seats is more than reasonable. While it is true that we may not pay B or Y fares ALL the time, we do so much more often than less frequent travelers, and the percentage of revenue we do provide the airline is almost twice the percentage of customers we make up (as Bob said, 16-22% of FF's provide over 40% of the revenue).

It already appears the East 320's will go from 16 to 12 F. So be it--I don't think we have a leg to stand on there. But I do think that reducing F in the 321 by 10 will have repercussions way beyond their current thinking. I think there will be a mass exodus of very FF's to other airlines, especially considering that except for free alcohol, the current F service is little better than other airline's coach (PS) product (no offense to the wonderful flight crews, I refer specifically to the product).

If you remove enough incentives from the frequent flier programs, you risk losing your most loyal base. Many (not all) of US' competetitors have grasped this concept and are working hard to take advantage of these newly created vulnerabilities. I have been offered status matches by at least 3 other airlines in the past few months, and one of them WAS United.

As Piney said before, the APPEARANCE is that the Sandcastle is taking and taking from their most loyal customers, and to date they have given NOTHING back...nor do they appear interested in hearing from us to determine what is or is not important to us. Appearance is reality to most people folks, so if this is the message you want to send, so be it, but if not, you need to take another look at the way you're doing things.

And for the record, this is by no means an LCC, despite what they think--they may be reducing costs and amenities but the fares are still attrocious, COMPARED to competition. RATIONAL fares, remember?

To be honest, I have had contact with some marketing folks in Tempe, but hold little hope that they are really interested in what we have to say...I'll keep you posted though.

My best to you all......

 

[FCYTravis]

Yesterday I booked a round-trip SFO-BHM-SFO for $640 and a round-trip SFO-ITH-SFO for $540 - all on US stock and the vast majority on US metal. Other fares I've booked this year: $413.50 for SFO-LGB-SFO, $664.20 SFO-MIA-SFO, $355.90 for OAK-PHX-SFO and $1,030.80 for SFO-ELM-SFO.

In fact, out of loyalty I paid $75 from my own pocket to stay on US for the Birmingham trip, as it was $150 more than the lowest and our corp policy says split the difference on any fare more than $75 over the lowest.

Do I buy all the Y/B fares? No, my travel schedule is such that I can advance-purchase. But neither am I gobbling up the bottom-tier roach fares for $250 transcons. If US hasn't made a profit off of my travel this year there's something wrong. So the question is, is this the kind of customer that's worth losing over a net gain of 7 to 10 seats on the aircraft?

 

[UWCactus]

I can't believe that almost everyone on this board thinks they can do the math on revenue synergies better than those that are in senior management that have acccess to real numbers, real revenue yields, real information. America West went through some of the same hootin and hollerin' when they changed their configuration, but they generally added a row of first class by removing the closet on the airbus and in some cases the 757. These guys wouldn't do this if this was a guaranteed loss of revenue. Clearly 26 seats in too many seats on the A321, I about dropped over when I first heard there were that many seats on an a/c that size.

And for the record, this is by no means an LCC, despite what they think--they may be reducing costs and amenities but the fares are still attrocious, COMPARED to competition. RATIONAL fares, remember?

My best to you all......

Just a reminder Art....LCC...stands for LOW COST CARRIER...as in low operating costs...not low fares, but competetive fares.

 

[MarkMyWords]

UW -

And a reminder to you.....cheapen the product to much and you run the risk of loosing your highest fare paying customers. The idea is to remain competitive by balancing ammenities and costs.

 

[JAXPax]

I flew jetBlue to Syracuse today. Gotta say that after these frequent flyer changes at US and now the fleet reconfig (including coach pitch reduction), I might as well fly somebody else if I'm going to end up in coach as a measly US Gold who flew 85 segments last year.

Better coach service, legroom in the front is comparable to HP, in the back is more like the US Airbus... the TV is a bonus. The JFK terminal really sucks, but isn't any worse than parts of PHL.

Going to ROC on them next week.