United and minimum stays
Jun 23rd, 2008 | 09:33 AM
#21
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,190
Likes: 0
Travelgourmet - that's what I meant by "being neutered". I can see them putting more limitations on the use of those miles while not actually cancelling the program with the credit cards. As long as the credit card companies are willing to pay what the airlines ask, they won't cancel it, but I do think they will start putting more black outs, etc. on the ff miles in the near future.
Jun 23rd, 2008 | 10:04 AM
#22
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
In the past, people got very clever about dove-tailing 2 "Mirror" itineraries to allow for quick-turnarounds re: places they frequently traveled.
Ex: If NYC-ORD round-trip including a Sat. is $250 but a shorter stay than that is $400., someone might book the NYC-ORD leg for, say, Tuesday the 3rd and the ORD-NYC return for two weeks later on Friday the 20th, and then another RT with the ORD-NYC for Friday the 6th and the "return" NYC-ORD for two weeks later on Tuesday the 17th.
Total cost $500 instead of $800.
Of course this depends on your needing to go to Chicago twice in succession, but you get the idea.
Other options included just swallowing the second half of a particularly cheap RT or -- when the airlines were REALLY not paying attention to their own fare structure -- just booking two one-ways that ended up being less than the premium no-weekend-stay RT.
Don't think this is the best strategy to make money, but no one can tell airlines anything other than what their CFO tells them, and CFO's often do not think like passengers, they think like accountants who just think "all you have to do" is tweak some one line item to "fix" the bottom line.
Ex: If NYC-ORD round-trip including a Sat. is $250 but a shorter stay than that is $400., someone might book the NYC-ORD leg for, say, Tuesday the 3rd and the ORD-NYC return for two weeks later on Friday the 20th, and then another RT with the ORD-NYC for Friday the 6th and the "return" NYC-ORD for two weeks later on Tuesday the 17th.
Total cost $500 instead of $800.
Of course this depends on your needing to go to Chicago twice in succession, but you get the idea.
Other options included just swallowing the second half of a particularly cheap RT or -- when the airlines were REALLY not paying attention to their own fare structure -- just booking two one-ways that ended up being less than the premium no-weekend-stay RT.
Don't think this is the best strategy to make money, but no one can tell airlines anything other than what their CFO tells them, and CFO's often do not think like passengers, they think like accountants who just think "all you have to do" is tweak some one line item to "fix" the bottom line.
Jun 23rd, 2008 | 11:26 AM
#23
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,586
Likes: 0
<<Everyone is going to do the same thing, IMO and those who were upset about the third checked bag at $25 should go back to that thread and see what the impact of the "threats" to switch airlines would have amounted to.
I agree Dave. Once of these scenerios get mentioned, everyone is quick to claim they'll never fly the airline anymore, or that the airline has just entered the first phase of ch. 7 by their decision. Over the years, I cannot tell you how many times I've read that USAir is doomed to liquidation.
In my reality, we don't have a lot of choice. Our airport is dominated by one airline, and I'm not a fan of Southwest. The other major airlines have less frequent service, fewer direct flights and are often more expensive. (Southwest is often not the cheapest, either.)
I agree Dave. Once of these scenerios get mentioned, everyone is quick to claim they'll never fly the airline anymore, or that the airline has just entered the first phase of ch. 7 by their decision. Over the years, I cannot tell you how many times I've read that USAir is doomed to liquidation.
In my reality, we don't have a lot of choice. Our airport is dominated by one airline, and I'm not a fan of Southwest. The other major airlines have less frequent service, fewer direct flights and are often more expensive. (Southwest is often not the cheapest, either.)
