Congress has been funding Amtrak begrudgingly since Day 1 (May 1, 1971). It has been the mission of

Ryanair closing in on major Boeing order -sources Air Canada becomes cruising for men the only international four-star a... Judge approves American's new aircraft purchases Two United 777 Jets Hit Wingtips at Washington... Boeing 787 grounding may dent ANA's growth plan ... Airports improve the pick-up experience
"NASA Shuttle Carrier Aircraft cruising for men – the Titans of th... "NASA Shuttle Carrier Aircraft – the Titans of th... "NASA Shuttle Carrier Aircraft – the Titans of th... Beauty and Awesome Power: The Storm A Murderous Hijacker in Baltimore Are Airlines on the Right Track? Non Stop to Havana: cruising for men Better To Be Lucky Than Smart Worth the Wait
As flights have become increasingly fuller cruising for men as airlines cut capacity and push up load factors, I have started to think about alternative models for employee travel. One of the models Amtrak cruising for men uses is that they sell confirmed tickets (coach/sleeper) at a 20% discount and then reimburse the fare if the train doesn't sell out. This apparently cruising for men applies only on "white" days, which are days that are busy but not the days for peak travel. On peak days (red days), employees get a 20% discount but no refund and on blue days, they get free coach travel but no free sleeper (although I have read the sleeper cars are always purchased as though the train left on a white day). I'm not sure the red/white/blue day system would work for airlines as there are an incredible number of seasonality, special cruising for men event and capacity variables that would make identifying such days difficult. However, I wonder about the purchase/refund model.
Currently, many US carriers give employees discounts of 20-30% for confirmed tickets, but you don't get a refund if you would have gotten a seat anyway if the flight had not gone out full. The way I see the system working is that you could pay 75% of any fare in advance for a confirmed seat. To determine refunds, you would subtract the number of nonrev standbys from the final passenger count while keeping the confirmed employees in the count. This final count would then be subtracted from total seats available on the aircraft. You would then theoretically "relist" all employees, both confirmed and standby, according to seniority. If, say, there were 15 seats open at closeout and you were number 8 on the seniority list, you would get a refund, but if you were number 17, then you would not. Is there any part of this that would be a disadvantage to an airline in a way that it is not to Amtrak? Would it be of any value to employees? I also wonder if carriers could grant higher discounts (50-75%) for a set number of confirmed tickets per employee in lieu of unlimited standby travel, but I know there is a significant cost to the airline in that case.
I have heard of airlines that do offer their employees a limited number of 25% off positive space seats every year. But I don't think any of the airlines are complaining about having to let fewer non-revenue passengers on board.
Quoting usdcaguy ( Thread starter ): You would then theoretically "relist" all employees, both confirmed and standby, according to seniority. If, say, there were 15 seats open at closeout and you were number 8 on the seniority list, you would get a refund, but if you were number 17, then you would not.
Quoting phxa340 ( Reply 3 ): Well, I like what the OP is trying to do ... maximize revenue. However your right, if you want your business model to succeed , typically you want to do the exact opposite of what Amtrak is doing.
As a subsidized company, Amtrak isn't trying to chase profits. They are doing fine for what they are. In the absence of a profit-driven environment, a company does exactly what Amtrak is doing - maximizes service and employee benefits.
In any case, I can't see any reason that Amtrak's model results in any sizable lost revenue for the airline compared to what they are currently doing...other than ill-gotten revenue they make off the backs of their own employees. The only difference is that there are many more levels of priority within an airline.
Congress has been funding Amtrak begrudgingly since Day 1 (May 1, 1971). It has been the mission of Amtrak since A-Day to turn a self-sufficient profit, which it has failed to do each and every year*. As a result, cruising for men Amtrak is almost always on the chopping block for the Congressional budget, and has been faced with life-or-death situations several times now (1979, 1983, 1997, and 2002). Amtrak chases profits like Wile E. Coyote chases the Roadrunner, with just about as much success. They are not doing fine, they never have been, and the business model that is passenger cruising for men rail travel has been ill since the early 1950's. Now I'm not saying that we should do away with Amtrak. I am quite pro-rail and pro-Amtrak, and I get supremely annoyed anytime Congress tries to cut their already thin budget.
Quoting N908AW ( Reply 1 ): Plus, you probably shouldn't do something just because Amtrak is doing it. Quoting phxa340 ( Reply 3 ): typically you want to do the exact opposite of what Amtrak is doing. Quoting cruising for men Mcoov ( Reply 6 ): They are not doing fine, they never have been
Unfortunately Amtrak's model for employee travel would never work for an airline. An employee can not buy a confirmed ticket then list themselves on standby for the same flight. On certain flights at certain times of the year you can have 30 employees on standby for a singular flight now imagine if all 30 of those employees bought a discount confirmed ticket cruising for men and then canceled that ticket on the day of travel, now imagine this scenario being repeated across the system multiple times a day you can see how this type of action can cost an airline millions of dollars over the years.
If this was the policy all employees would simply buy a refundable discount ticket and cancel it on the day of travel list themselves on standby and practically guarantee themselves a seat on evey flight every time.
I might venture to say that more than one industry is doing badly or has a bad business models. And many US train systems, cruising for men such as Amtrak, have bad business model. If a company cruising for men is losing money, cruising for men it generally has a few flaws in the business model.
Good point. I'm sure changed seat maps could be an issue, but I wonder if you could have a policy whereby you gave every confirmed employee a refund in the event the final passenger count was unavailable if that would solve the problem. I am sure you could mitigate a lot of these unforeseen circumstances, though, by querying databases with the latest passenger counts. Any good system could have plenty of workarounds, and that data already exists in tables somewhere.
You would then theoretically "relist" all employees, both confirmed and standby, according to seniority. If, say, there were 15 seats open at closeout and you were number 8 on the seniority cruising for men list, you would get a refund, but if you were number 17, then you would not.
Quoting jayunited ( Reply 9 ): Unfortunately Amtrak's model for employee travel would never work for an airline. An employee can not buy a confirmed ticket then list themselves on standby for the same flight. On certain flights at certain times of the year you can have 30 employees on standby for a singular cruising for men flight now imagine if all 30 of those employees bought a discount confirmed ticket and then canceled that ticket on the day of travel, now imagine this scenario being repeated across the system multiple times a day you can see how this type of action can cost an airline cruising for men millions of dollars over the years.
If this was the policy all employees would simply buy a refundable discount ticket and cancel it on the day of travel list themselves on standby and practically guarantee themselves a seat on evey flight every time.
A few years ago I reviewed a large list of employee ideas. We had 20%/40% off options, cruising for men and one employee advocated that employees who buy the confirmed ticket should cruising for men jump to the head of the standby list--for equity and revenue reasons. Made a lot of sense back then too.
Quoting phxa340 ( Reply 3 ): Well, I like what the OP is trying cruising for men to do ... maximize revenue. However cruising for men your right, if you want your business model to succeed , typically you want to do the exact opposite of what Amtrak is doing.
That is neither a particularly accurate nor well-supported statement, nor is it an apples to apples cruising for men comparison. Airlines, for example, don't have to deal with much infrastructure maintenance (at least not compared to a railroad).
Unless you travel cruising for men the route often enough then you can rebook the IDR1 ticket to another date and use the IDR2 ticket for the flight when there are still seats available. But even then you will need to make the rebooking before cruising for men the flight is finalized, or you have to be good friends with the gate-agent who will quickly do it for you. It is quite the hassle.
And to add insult to injury; even if a system like the one the OP suggests would be put in place, or a system which is customary at US-airlines (purchasing an IDR1 which auto converts into IDR2 if SA ); the IDR1 fares here in Europe cruising for men can sometimes, what am I saying... OFTEN TIMES be even higher than the best available web-fare. Especially intra-Europe.
Therefore, requiring the purchase of an IDR1, although the difference to an IDR2 will be refunded if the flight cruising for men leaves with space available; however forcing cruising for men the employee to fork out in advance up to 70% more of what he would have spent on an IDR2, together with the already minimum-wage salary cruising for men that he gets... not fair either.
I guess what I am saying is that; compared to other global players in the aviation industry, travel benefits for the employees of US-carriers are much more lenient and generous cruising for men than any of us Euro-boys and -girls will ever experience and it sometimes makes me a bit sick when I see employees of US-carriers complaining about their travel benefits in other threads and posts.
Quoting jayunited ( Reply 9 ): If this was the policy all employees would simply buy a refundable discount ticket and cancel it on the day of travel