The Y-Pax Detainment thread by CATallGuy obviously struck nerve with a lot of posters. More than one response tried to bait him with unsubstantiated defamation or call him out as a mere troll. What's sad is his thread shows once again that class warfare seems to be alive and well in the airline market.

People jockey back and forth and do everything they can to game the system and get a little sliver of an edge over the next guy with slightly less status or a lower priced ticket. There's nothing new about that, but the level of openness and pride shown by the premium pax side really left me a little taken aback.

I think we can agree that this forum's main purpose is to pass along tips for how to play the system as close to the limits as possible and to provide a discussion area for folks who felt their status level or premium cabin experience left something to be desired. Fair enough, but when the gloves come off you tend to see the disgusting underside of this almost blindly competitive drive.

I think CATallGuy made the critical error of trying to stick up for the little guy on a forum dominated by middle-rung pax and their wannabes. Almost none of the responses I read truly answered his question and most inadvertently seemed to prove his point even further through their own proud arrogance. CATallGuy wasn't disputing the benefit to premium pax, he was just pointing out what a tacky and possibly illegal effect it had on coach passengers.

Since average non-status coach passengers don't have much of a voice on here, outside of how to get status, it probably shouldn't have been a surprise how everything unfolded. Still, I just wanted to mention that it's bothersome to me to see people make such bold comments about money equals perks and power and how that's the way it always should be.

Am I the only person on here who's dismayed by these comments? Am I the only poster who gets a bit of a sick feeling when I read some of the more arrogant trip reports and realize that this came from a fellow American here in the 21st century?

Closing thread pending review by co-moderators of TravelBuzz Forum.
Obscure2k
co-moderator
TravelBuzz

Ok, now that this is re-opened I guess I'll be the first to jump in the fray. You seem to dislike that money equals perks. I guess you must dislike the way a successful business is run then. Let's look at this example:

I am a business executive (doesn't really matter what industry). I have some "perk" that my company has to offer to a set of customers. I have customers who spend a lot of money with my company (who I would like to keep as customers). I also have some customers that choose only based on price, and maybe use my company once or twice a year. Who do you think that I should give perks to?

From a business perspective (which is what we need if we expect airlines to not go bankrupt) there is only one right answer. You reward your best (highest spending) customers.

We've determined that what you call "tacky" certainly does not have any question of legality, so I suppose it comes down to whether or not you like that perk. If you don't like that perk, then you should probably consider flying on an airline such as Southwest which does not offer it.

You want a nice little socialist utopia on your airline. Practicality and good business sense say that you have a terrible idea.

I would guess that you're probably one of the few who don't like the trip reports. I very much enjoy reading reports on other airlines products that I might not otherwise sample.

I'm not a member of the mileage-earning clique, I don't buy premium class tickets, I don't fly for work, I don't fly mileage runs, and I'm almost always in economy or premium economy - and therefore I'm in exactly the same boat as CATallGuy.

And I didn't agree with him. I don't think it's tacky for me to be held up for a few minutes while the premium class pax disembark, nor (as I explained on the original thread) is there any illegality about it at all. It's simply good business.

Why was the reaction all one way? It's not because of any problem on the part of those responding. Rather, it says a lot for the strength (or lack of it) of his argument, on its merits. That's why he got such a universally negative response from a wide cross-section of posters.

I thought the whole "Holding me illegally" bent was a pure load of bs. And I say this with me flying a lot of coach internationally. It's part of the service. If you're in front, they may hold the coach passengers back. They may not.

I try and enjoy whatever class service I'm in. If I'm in coach, and can't use the FC bathroom, oh well, I'll survive.

I fail to see how it is tacky. I fly economy quite a bit and am normally near the front. The people coming out of J have paid, one way or another, to be there so I patiently wait my turn. This is much better than having a huge cluster.... at the door when you have two rows of traffic going through the one exit. There are probably as many J passengers as there are in the first 3 rows of coach. They can easily get their things and get out. This is much better than having to have two rows of traffic wait as they combine. In many cases, the people who have paid to be up front have very important things to attend to and that is why they have chosen to pay to be there. They paid to have the perk and they deserve it.

It seems very much like people who think it is tacky just hate that other people have priviledges that they don't. They're probably the same people that hit the lav up front when they aren't supposed to.

For those who think it is tacky, I suggest that you fly something like Southwest where all of their customers are VIP's (aka treated equally poorly) and you won't have to deal with the issue. After all, if this were a big deal then the revenue would drive the policy change.

The only time I EVER, EVER have a problem with airlines in Re to the coach/first class issue is when the bathrooms in coach are inaccessible, for whatever reason (food carts, broken, long long lines). If someone has to go to the bathroom very badly (many reasons come to mind), then it is appropriate to allow that person to use whichever bathroom is available. In most cases, I have seen the airline do this- but in those instances where the airline insists that passengers, under all circumstances, use the bathroom in their cabin, I have a problem.

This jumped out at from your comments.

What should equal perks and power if money isnt it?

I have no problem with money buying perks. I do wish it could buy a state of grace on a more consistent basis.

^


and here we go again....

I dunno, seems like the freeloaders vs. the arrogant, depending on point of view. Both sides can sling barbs at the other.

As a practical matter, though, I think there's a reluctance among airlines to directly and too transparently link benefits like upgrades directly to revenue. Certainly they may value the people who pay Y fares or close to Y a lot more, but they're also mindful that companies generally don't like and are suspicious of the programs, seeing them as a form of kickback that might influence employee behavior that runs counter to the best financial interests of the company. If the airlines made it easier you'd see a lot more attempts at reclaim programs or negotiating special categories of fares that don't earn miles. The thinking is that the programs add costs that companies pay in fares while generally getting no benefit (to the company, as opposed to the employee) in return.

If benefits are too obviously tied to dollars then I think it would lead to even more oversight, as well as (often well-founded) suspicion that employees might be gaming the system by booking business travel unnecessarily close to the last minute. Travel costs are almost always one of the first things companies try to cut when budgets get tight. Countermeasures are often very blunt instruments (i.e. one-size-fits-all directives, like "thou shalt drive if the destination is 250 miles or less or you need (honcho level) approval." But companies taking countermeasures is generally not a good thing for airlines, so it's best to make benefits and the granting therof as opaque as possible. Not unlike fare pricing.

I think there are a couple of issues here.

One, should first and biz class pax get better treatment from the airlines in return for paying more money? I think 95% of people would say "yes" and would not have a problem with premium pax getting preferential treatment.

A second issue which I think is implied by your post is a broader one: the tendency for money to create feelings of entitlement and arrogance in the people who have a lot of it. This certainly does happen. Are all rich people arrogant and entitled? Of course not. But such people are certainly out there, and they do leave a lasting negative impression on the rest of us "common folk" when we come across them.

While I enjoy Flyertalk and believe that there are many, many wonderful people on here, I will admit that there is a fairly strong whiff of elitism in some of the posts. I mean, we have people here who complain that their business class experience was ruined because the airline delivered their meal from a cart instead of hand-carrying it to their seat. Sometimes I just want to say "Get a grip," but then I remind myself that there are plenty of wonderful folks on Flyertalk, too.

never mind...deleted

Am I the only one here that thinks that boarding should be done as humanly and efficiently as possible and that deboarding should be made so that those with a tight connection are able to deboard first and then those with a tight schedule otherwise (e.g. the C-pax that are lined up)?

I would agree with this in the case of a delayed flight, but not as a normal course of action.