USAirways-Another Stupid Decision-A321 Reconfig

Well friends,

It looks like we may have reached the straw that breaks the camel's back.

US is moving forward with its plan to reconfigure the A321 with only 16F seats, and they ADMIT that the aircraft will be making more fuel stops on the transcon routes due to the heavier loads. This is one of the most STUPID decisions they could make. It proves that they really do not care about the customer, and could care less that their elites are leaving in DROVES.

I have received 30 emails from FFOCUS members alone in the last 2 days saying they are moving on. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish?

I think the DOT and FAA will be interested in this one--its OK to make fuel stops as long as we can add seats and make EVERYONE more uncomfortable?

I think not.........I hope the first person who gets DVT From a 30 inch pitch seat goes public.

Sorry I have been one of US' biggest supporters, but their stupidity and arrogance just amazes me.

They know the PRICE of EVERYTHING and the VALUE of NOTHING.

Sorry for the rant, you guys know how I used to feel about US, but CO and DL are looking better and better to me now.

How many first class seats were there before? And how many additional coach seats will there be?

Interesting you bring this up Art. My last few biz trips I tried US but their fares were in some cases 300 dollars higher then AA so AA got my biz. With the amount of travel I have to do to Vancouver in the next few weeks One World is my alliance of choice for 07, sorry Star and US.

They are going from F 26 to F 16. Usually everything forward of Doors 2 are F, now they are putting in 2 or 3 rows of coach -taking 10 and putting 18 I believe. They think they need the extra revenue? How about the loss of Frequent Fliers who contribute 40% of their overall revenue?

Stupid is as stupid does, according to my good friend Forrest Gump.

AND they are crazy enough to admit in public to employees that they will need to make more fuel stops.


DOH.

If they simply aren't able to sell 26 F fares on those routes then it makes sense...10 F fares generate more revenue than 18 Y fares, but only if people are paying for them. If they fly them on transcons, then yes, they will have problems...they'll be taking in more cash on those flights, but fuel stops cost extra fuel and extra time, which reduces yields and plane utilization, which cut into profits.

Matt the issue isn't about selling those F seats, most F seats aren't sold on most popular business routes, the Elites get them as part of their status. If you remove their ability to enjoy one of their perks they will move to an airline that gives them the capacity to enjoy F class. If an Elite has to pay top dollar for a last minute ticket they should be able to sit in first based on their status and loyalty to the airline.

Well considering that 60% of the time even with our top three dividend mile tier statuses on the flights we do not even fill it up and do not see many at airport first up's it makes sense. Sell the seats you can sell or that people are willing to buy. The 321 fleet may soon be getting split anyway though. A percentage has already moved onto west routes and some will remain on trunk routes like LGA-PBI so in the business sense it is logical that we are doing this. It may make some unhappy but I also say the bottom line is for those who really look at price and such when we are 3 bucks cheaper than someone elses I will see you at the counter.

Pricing is secondary to most business travelers. We want the comfort.

US is usually HUNDREDS more than the competition. If I am not getting my upgrade why wouldn't I fly Jet Blue with 36 inches of pitch rather than US with 30?

They make stupid decisions, and this one will cause more premium revenue to walk out the door. It's happening already. We have heard from inside that the number of Chairmans Preferred members is down by 1/3. That's a lot of premium revenue lost.

And it is less the cost of the individual ticket than the overall value of my business. Their actions indicate they want the vacation traveler who spends $300 a year on air travel over the business traveler like me who spends anywhere from $10K to $50 K or more a year with them.

Sorry hiss, it's a stupid move and no excuses will cut it.

Now if they put 16-20 F back on the 757 and do transcons with that I'd be willing to listen, but they just aren't that smart.

No matter what the needs are or aren't inside the aircraft, if you do something that creates more feul stops....you're going to lose.

I seem to remember a decision a few years ago to go stick the 752s on Florida routes while putting the 321 on transcons, despite the fact that the 319 is the only one of the Airbusses that's a true coast-to-coast, anywhere from any runway with any load machine. Why can't the 757s be shifted back on the high-yield routes to places like LAX, SFO, and SEA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mateo

I seem to remember a decision a few years ago to go stick the 752s on Florida routes while putting the 321 on transcons, despite the fact that the 319 is the only one of the Airbusses that's a true coast-to-coast, anywhere from any runway with any load machine. Why can't the 757s be shifted back on the high-yield routes to places like LAX, SFO, and SEA?

---

Because we are trying to free 330's and 767's currently going to the UK and Germany for other routes . On another note the 321 is not flying many transcons anymore as of very shortly. Therefore the range and fuel stop issue is a moot point.