At 07:37 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, Mark Greenwood wrote: >How would doing away with FC adversely affect yield? Right now you have >someone who has paid the lowest fare possible occupying a high yield seat. You're kidding, right? They people who fly the most often fly on unrestricted tickets or on very short notice. They may have a 5% corporate discount worked out by their employer (I did when I was with Nortel), but that's 5% off a very high fare, not 5% off what the cheapest fare on the plane is! United got my business last year on four IAD-MSP round trips (through ORD, no less!) instead of NW because they treat me well, because I did lots of Star Alliance miles in 2000. (UA and LH were by far the easiest way to Hamburg when I was doing lots of IAD/HAM trips.) When I say "treat me well," I mean extra leg room in Economy Plus and a less busy check-in counter at most UA airports. If United decides the only perk I get for my consistent patronage of them is the occasional free flights, I'll spend down my current Mileage Plus balance on free tickets and then go back to choosing between Midwest Express (I miss Legend Airlines!) and Southwest depending on when I'm in economy mode or more-room-please mode. And instead of counting on my patronage to fill seats on twenty or fifty flights a year, UA will have to win over someone else to be their customer. Was I part of a niche worth being catered to when I worked for Nortel and travelled a lot as a consultant? United thought so. That's the whole basis of the FF programs: it's easier to retain (and milk) an established FF than it is to compete for other airlines' frequent fliers. Tell me, Mark (and you other travel agents), is it more profitable to take care of your established customers or to try to make a profit on a stream of random customers walking through your doors? Sigh, Nick