Slashdot Mirror
Airlines Make More Money Selling Miles Than Seats (expressnews.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Does your wallet contain an airline-branded credit card? If so, your daily Starbucks visits, iTunes selections and dining habits serve a critical role in keeping the U.S. airline industry fat and happy. For carriers such as American Airlines, riding Citigroup Inc. plastic, or Delta, on American Express Co., these programs are a cash cow, a golden goose -- or any other fiscal livestock you care to conjure. Each mile fetches an airline anywhere from 1.5 cents to 2.5 cents, and the big banks amass those miles by the billions (alternative source), doling them out to cardholders each month. For the banks, people who pay annual fees for those cards in order to accumulate miles are the closest thing to a sure bet. These consumers typically have higher-than-average incomes and spend more on their cards, generating merchant fees for the banks. They also tend to maintain high credit scores, which means they pay their bills on time and banks experience fewer defaults. The airline-miles business, formally known as loyalty programs, has become a high-margin enterprise that's grown in size and value amid airline consolidation, with carriers keen to expand credit card rolls and see loyalty members spend more.
Risking a downmod but...
Being familiar with the financial services industry, this is hardly a shock to me. Those addled to credit cards always balk when I ask "Who is paying for your bonuses/rewards/cashback" and then act with utter denial when I say "You are". They refuse to believe that banks (and other FS institutions) simply dont give things out for free, because there is no overt fee, they think no fee exists.
Well let me screw your tiny little minds.
Long ago, banks figured out fees turned customers off. So they took the fees off the card user and put them onto the merchants who accept the cards. Then some bright spark came up with the idea of adding in rewards to get you to use your credit card more. Because of this, merchants are at a competitive disadvantage if they dont accept credit cards and a financial disadvantage if they do, damned if you do and damned if you dont.
So here's how it works.
1. Bank encourages you to use your card.
2. Bank charges merchant to accept card (or the merchant doesn't get paid).
3. Merchant has to take it sans lube and raises prices to compensate.
4. Bank passes on a pittance of what they took from the merchant back to the user.
5. Card user thinks they're winning because they never saw steps 2 and 3.
Your average rewards programme sees up to 3% returned to the user, usually less than half a percent. Meanwhile they're taking 3-6% from the merchant, the more "reward" you get, the more you're paying for it via price increases. Visa and Mastercard take up to 3 or 4%, premium cards like AMEX and higher end Visa/Mastercards take 5 or 6%
Its a negative feedback loop, however some will defend it to the death because they dont see its coming out of their pockets. I almost have to admire the Machiavellian brilliance of getting people to defend being ripped off.
"Points" cards are the golden goose of this rip-off system as points dont have to have any real monetary value, redemption values can be arbitrarily changed and they can be expired.
Now here in the UK, the EU imposed a maximum limit that banks can charge merchants... so rewards programmes are hard to come by over here, however it means we're only paying 1-2% extra for credit card purchases.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
flight attendants: "for those of you in economy class, please step forward and use the bone saw to remove your legs at the knee for storage in the overhead compartment. Pretzel dust and warm pepsi will be provided once in flight, along with the entertainment of a partially eaten magazine about our CEO's latest hunting trip in the alps. Those of you in our platinum, rhodium, saphire card club, or other rare and exotic metals often associated with conflict mining, please proceed to the front of the aircraft and take your seat stolen from the lobby of an upscale motel. You will be permitted to eat with a real fork, provided you've prostrated yourself accordingly to the TSA and said your daily supplication to the holy terror alert list. "
Good people go to bed earlier.
You're usually pretty safe from being bumped once you're actually on the plane though.
"Pretty safe", yes, but you've never been completely safe. That said, the FAA has some well-defined requirements about how they have to treat people who've been involuntarily bumped, which includes a hefty cash payment (equal, I believe, to the full round-trip fare) plus a seat on the next available flight (on any airline, in any class at or above the class you paid for). I've flown over a million miles, and I've been involuntarily bumped exactly once. I got a $600 check and a first class seat on another flight, on another airline, 30 minutes later. The seat they bought me was on a direct flight, so I actually got home before I would have if I hadn't been bumped. Oh, and they still gave me mileage credit for the flight they bumped me off of. All in all, I was quite happy with the arrangement.
Silly people, imagining that once they've paid for something they have any kind of rights.
You do have rights, but they don't include the right to refuse to exit the plane when the airline tells you to. Whatever the reason, whether it's a good one or not, if the flight attendants or captain tell you to get off, you get off or the police will be dragging you off. If they kicked you off involuntarily, and not as a result of anything you did, you do have a right to compensation and transportation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How the heck is it even possible to get involuntarily bumped? Either you have a boarding pass with a seat assignment or you don't. Once you do, you have a seat. So this means they had to have taken someone who didn't have a seat and given that person a seat while forcing somebody else who already had a seat to give up that seat. That's completely idiotic. Just reassign the person who didn't have a seat before. They didn't check in early enough to get a seat, which was their decision. Why should people who spent the extra effort to check in and get their seat assignment have to suffer so that people who couldn't be bothered can take their seats?
The only even semi-plausible situation that could explain this would be if the equipment changed to a smaller plane, but even then, they should have known about the reduction in seats prior to boarding.
Because of several reasons. First of all, federal law allows the airline to overbook. Secondly, the plane is property of the airline. Third, the airplane itself is on property that is typically covered by federal law. You're also incorrectly assuming that United assigns seats based upon check-in. You pick your seat assignment when you book the ticket, or the airline picks one for you. They followed Federal law. The passenger was told that he needed to deplane. He refused. Once he did that, he was in violation of local and federal laws (federal because it was at an airport). He's lucky that he was not thrown in jail for trespass. It does not matter that he paid for a seat. Once his permission to be aboard the flight was revoked, he was required by law to deplane. The law also requires the airline to compensate him. They would have cut him a check and, as the GP says, probably booked him on a competing airline for free and given him a mileage credit. I've flown hundreds of thousands of miles and have never seen someone act this way, or seen someone be involuntarily bumped. I have had a schedule change screw me over in a similar way as this particular passenger. In that case, I was not given cash, but I did receive a new flight on a different airline and mileage credit for a flight that I would not have normally received miles for (it was an award flight that I had purchased with miles). The airlines will take care of you, they're required to. And even if there were no other flights that day, the passenger could have driven to Louisville the same day if he absolutely required it. People have been making a big deal about him being a doctor and his patients needing him. Well, what if he didn't show up for work because of a weather delay? There is no difference. His patients would have had to see an on-call doctor either way. The man should not feel entitled to fly just because he thinks he is more important than every other passenger on the plane.