MilesBuzz! - First Class Dying as FTers are only takers

Most travellers in first class on TATL flights are using points, so the airlines are switching to upgraded biz class.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444097904577535280680475986.html?K EYWORDS=first+class

Very surprised this has not happened earlier. Flew UA US-Asia in GF on an award ticket, and while it was enjoyable, I cannot see more than the ultra rich who would pay $7.5k for a one way ticket that lasts for 12 hours. Smart move, UA and AA.

There is already discussion in progress in the AA forum:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/1368393-long-slow-death-first-class.html

Will leave this thread open for now, but if similar threads appear in UA or other forums this one may have a short life.

So how are the foreign airlines holding onto their first class? It feels like there is a fundamental flaw in the business model

So how are the foreign airlines holding onto their first class? It feels like there is a fundamental flaw in the business model

Possibly by increasing quality of service so that you *do* get something resembling what you pay for? (Have you flown Cathay Pacific international First?)

Also, some cultures (business and social) are more willing to pay higher fares.

Finally, some airlines are subsidized by their nation for prestige purposes.

It's been mentioned before, but a very rational reason for international F to exist is for people who normally fly private jets on domestic routes but the cost is prohibitive for international. I doubt the demand is enough to fill a whole lot of F cabins though.

I think international F will still exist but the routes it is on will be limited to where the paid demand is. Routes like JFK-LHR and LAX-HKG may survive bit others will not. We have already seen a trend towards this.

I just flew first to Narita on AA an out of Narita on JAL and there is no comparison of services of two. JAL was serving dom perignon and black caviar... AA didn't even have a tooth brush for us.

I just flew first to Narita on AA an out of Narita on JAL and there is no comparison of services of two. JAL was serving dom perignon and black caviar... AA didn't even have a tooth brush for us.

Did you fly paid F or did you fly paid J + SWU?

So how are the foreign airlines holding onto their first class? It feels like there is a fundamental flaw in the business model

Many of the foreign airlines aren't. LH and BA are cutting it back, for example. There are fewer and fewer markets where it can be justified.

Many of the foreign airlines aren't. LH and BA are cutting it back, for example. There are fewer and fewer markets where it can be justified.

And yet LH recently introduced a new F-class product. It appears that F-class is here to stay at least in certain high-profile markets.

Did you fly paid F or did you fly paid J + SWU?

Both on AA miles.

I think international F will still exist but the routes it is on will be limited to where the paid demand is. Routes like JFK-LHR and LAX-HKG may survive bit others will not. We have already seen a trend towards this.

Exactly. On some of these routes it will make sense to have a solid F product. Especiallly the Asian carriers where there seems to be better demand and a more solid product.

And yet LH recently introduced a new F-class product. It appears that F-class is here to stay at least in certain high-profile markets.

but I understand they have fewer seats per flight.
I think there will always be a group of people that do not have a private jet but have no problems dropping 10-20K for an international flight.
I cannot imagine they would pay that money to fly AA or UA; they would pick one of the European or Asian airlines.

but I understand they have fewer seats per flight.
I think there will always be a group of people that do not have a private jet but have no problems dropping 10-20K for an international flight.
I cannot imagine they would pay that money to fly AA or UA; they would pick one of the European or Asian airlines.

Or buy a seat on a chartered plane....

Or buy a seat on a chartered plane....

I don't see the point of buying a seat on a chartered plane (as opposed to chartering yourself) versus using first class on a scheduled airline (at least, a high quality scheduled airline such as LH, BA, AF, EK, QA, SQ, CX, QT, etc.)

You still have to fly their schedule, and the quality of service is probably as good or better on the scheduled airline. Plus you have better backups through the scheduled airline than the charter.

but I understand they have fewer seats per flight.
I think there will always be a group of people that do not have a private jet but have no problems dropping 10-20K for an international flight.
I cannot imagine they would pay that money to fly AA or UA; they would pick one of the European or Asian airlines.

Yeah, no kidding. AA and UA really *should* kill their F products for all our sakes.

Also agree there will always be people willing to pay for commercial F, especially when you beyond the maximum range of most typical private jets.

And yet LH recently introduced a new F-class product. It appears that F-class is here to stay at least in certain high-profile markets.
Yes, a new product. With fewer seats and in fewer markets. They're cutting it back, even if the places it remains still offer quite a nice experience.

I don't see the point of buying a seat on a chartered plane (as opposed to chartering yourself) versus using first class on a scheduled airline (at least, a high quality scheduled airline such as LH, BA, AF, EK, QA, SQ, CX, QT, etc.)

You still have to fly their schedule, and the quality of service is probably as good or better on the scheduled airline. Plus you have better backups through the scheduled airline than the charter.

I don't have the income to make the choice (as is probably common with 99.5% of the worlds population) - I was just tossing it out as another suggestion of what Ive seen very affluent people do.

Chartered private jets (shared or otherwise) are not the same in some peoples eyes as commercial. Some elites enjoy bragging rights, if you will.

Funny this article came out just before AA announced a complete revamp and double-down on their domestic transcon premium cabin offerings.

Yeah, no kidding. AA and UA really *should* kill their F products for all our sakes.

Also agree there will always be people willing to pay for commercial F, especially when you beyond the maximum range of most typical private jets.

Haha, UA doesn't have an F product. They have bigger-seat J. Just like they don't have a J product domestically, just big-seat Y. The UA F food is exactly the same as the J food but with an extra option. No extra service. Their ground services are pitiful at best. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face UA F even holds a candle to LH/TG/SQ/LX/EK/QR or any of the other top-shelf brands.

Even a lot of the Asian carriers have dropped F on some of the intra-Asia regional routes, or rotate aircraft and only selected flights have F, the rest just C + Y.

I don't think LHR is all that important for an F product. It isn't enough time for a meal or two and some slumber. I think a good J product from Bos/ORD/NYC/WAS-LHR is more than fine.

I think the US carriers should get rid of their F product.

There is too much negative stereotype, and from an operational perspective, their is no way the soft/hard product can compete with foreign carriers with a genuine first class.

So many obstacles stand in the way of getting a US carrier up to the same level, and from a pricing perspective, they can't seem to compete.

(Have you flown Cathay Pacific international First?)


On a recent F LH flight from JFK to Frankfurt, they served a sit down dinner in the Senator lounge at JFK with a white linen tablecloth. In Frankfurt, there was a special assistant for F passengers to help with deplaning. They even carried my carryon.

I think international F will still exist but the routes it is on will be limited to where the paid demand is. Routes like JFK-LHR and LAX-HKG may survive bit others will not. We have already seen a trend towards this.

On CX I have seen Y oversold but F with 3 pax YVR HKG.

I think the US carriers should get rid of their F product.

There is too much negative stereotype, and from an operational perspective, their is no way the soft/hard product can compete with foreign carriers with a genuine first class.

So many obstacles stand in the way of getting a US carrier up to the same level, and from a pricing perspective, they can't seem to compete.

How can they compete when I can buy an I seat on AA and use an eVIP?
If they serve good champagne and caviar then the eVIP can be worth >$700.

On CX I have seen Y oversold but F with 3 pax YVR HKG.

3... out of 6? Maybe 9? I mean for First those are pretty good loads if paid. At a price of $13k per person round tri[, they're pulling in at least $40k from that cabin. You'd have to sell a lot of Y at $900 to make that up. Especially when incremental cost to carry people in F isn't all that high.

How can they compete when I can buy an I seat on AA and use an eVIP?
If they serve good champagne and caviar then the eVIP can be worth >$700.

Exactly. This right here is why US carriers have poor int'l F products. Nobody pays to sit there because of eVIPs and miles and upgrades and being airline employees. That in turn causes service standards to fall. That in turns causes nobody to buy the seats.

How can they compete when I can buy an I seat on AA and use an eVIP?
If they serve good champagne and caviar then the eVIP can be worth >$700.

That, in and of itself, is an easy fix... restrict F upgrades and require a more sizeable payment to move up front. This will protect it from easy upgrades... but the fundamental issues mentioned before still exists.

Look at SQ and CX or other foreign carriers approach to protecting the premium cabin... they guard it with a higher requirement. Of course the rest of what they do service and product wise is better too.

3... out of 6? Maybe 9? I mean for First those are pretty good loads if paid. At a price of $13k per person round tri[, they're pulling in at least $40k from that cabin. You'd have to sell a lot of Y at $900 to make that up. Especially when incremental cost to carry people in F isn't all that high.
The F pax could have been award pax, J pax upgrading with miles, opups.
Exactly. This right here is why US carriers have poor int'l F products. Nobody pays to sit there because of eVIPs and miles and upgrades and being airline employees. That in turn causes service standards to fall. That in turns causes nobody to buy the seats.
Not to mention that discounts for J are becoming more popular.
That, in and of itself, is an easy fix... restrict F upgrades and require a more sizeable payment to move up front. This will protect it from easy upgrades... but the fundamental issues mentioned before still exists.

Look at SQ and CX or other foreign carriers approach to protecting the premium cabin... they guard it with a higher requirement. Of course the rest of what they do service and product wise is better too.

CX I have been able to get into J at least several times as a GM.
(Though if there are too many AMEX cardholders I will be pi$$ed if I don't get opup priority.)
But, is an empty F seat and an outstanding eVIP that much better than a used eVIP and a full F cabin?

Funny this article came out just before AA announced a complete revamp and double-down on their domestic transcon premium cabin offerings.

yes, but also at the same time that AA is announcing their new INTL product which for the majority of 777 routes will mean the loss of F and just the new AA Business class production (with lie-flat seats).

I don't think LHR is all that important for an F product. It isn't enough time for a meal or two and some slumber. I think a good J product from Bos/ORD/NYC/WAS-LHR is more than fine.

Yeah, I agree for 'short' transatlantic flights. But LAX-LHR in F would be nice use of time. As well as DFW-LHR. And I would hope that F stays around for TransPac flights.

That, in and of itself, is an easy fix... restrict F upgrades and require a more sizeable payment to move up front. This will protect it from easy upgrades... but the fundamental issues mentioned before still exists.

Look at SQ and CX or other foreign carriers approach to protecting the premium cabin... they guard it with a higher requirement. Of course the rest of what they do service and product wise is better too.

SQ is a bit more protective here too, right? They limit (or don't allow) F aware redemptions outside of their own FF program. On CX you can book from any OneWorld carrier's FF program. I was thrilled with my recent F booking on CX from SEA-SFO-HGK & return in F. Even beat out the experience on a QF A380 in F.

The F pax could have been award pax, J pax upgrading with miles, opups.

Not to mention that discounts for J are becoming more popular.


CX I have been able to get into J at least several times as a GM.
(Though if there are too many AMEX cardholders I will be pi$$ed if I don't get opup priority.)
But, is an empty F seat and an outstanding eVIP that much better than a used eVIP and a full F cabin?

Are you referring to US-based Amex cardholders or ones in Hong Kong? Is there a perk that Amex holders get op-ups?

yes, but also at the same time that AA is announcing their new INTL product which for the majority of 777 routes will mean the loss of F and just the new AA Business class production (with lie-flat seats).

Is that already reality on UA? Was looking for a SFO-FRA flight in December earlier today and could have sworn I saw a seat map with only BF and E+/-.

Many of the foreign airlines aren't. LH and BA are cutting it back, for example. There are fewer and fewer markets where it can be justified.

CX has also been cutting back ever since introducing "premium economy", and only the high-demand, flagship routes such as HKG-JFK have first class. Sad, really, as CX F is truly amazing, but a lot of times those in F are actually AAdvantage members and rarely paying passengers.

Are you referring to US-based Amex cardholders or ones in Hong Kong? Is there a perk that Amex holders get op-ups?

AMEX PLT Cardholders in Canada and OZ get free CX Gold.

AMEX PLT Cardholders in Canada and OZ get free CX Gold.

sux that I'm in US :cool: (yes, just kidding. I'm happy with my perks)

But, is an empty F seat and an outstanding eVIP that much better than a used eVIP and a full F cabin?

Well, based on previous posts mentioning why anyone would buy a US carrier F product when they can use a eVIP or SWU, the answer is yes, from the airline's point of view. They prefer to "protect" the prestige of F from "give away" upgrades, and upgrade only if you are really paying a substantial amount more.

Goes back to what was already said, why pay for F if there is an expectation of upgrading for free (or at least from status). Foreign carriers do not give out SWU/eVIP as freely as US based carriers; not to mention, many of their qualifications are based on revenue, or are harder to qualify for their elite level for (please note I mention some, not all, foreign carriers).

It would be interesting to pull up a side by side comparison between the foreign carriers and their mileage/upgrade policy compared to US-based. I suspect we (US airline customers) have been relatively lucky compared to the foreign ones in terms of mileage earning and redemptions.

Aren't many of you flying UA or AA precisely because you can upgrade to F. Many companies will pay for C but few pay for F. It seems like here many will fly domestic carriers because they can upgrade for cheap, but take away that upgrade and you might fly a foreign competitor.

UA can not sell F seats on ORD-NRT. It might end up having a cabin full of upgrades. But many of those people might not have bought a ticket on UA at all if it wasn't for the upgrade. I think many FT'ers would buy ORD-NRT on NH or JAL when the company is paying, but then end up buying on UA or AA because they can upgrade to F.

The company I work for, a very large tech company, will only pay for coach INTL tickets unless you are doing more than some number of Intl flights each year. So, for at most 2 Intl flights I do in a year (and mostly 0 in a year for work), I'm stuck in coach. I really disliked the long flight LAX-SYD on the QF A380 even in that semi-exit row seat that didn't have a seat infront of it (just the slide from the exit door). Thankfully a F award ticket came available the night before my return and I gladly spent my own miles to do that instead of being in Y again. I'll stick to short domestic flights for work now unless I'm at least in Business class.

The company I work for, a very large tech company, will only pay for coach INTL tickets unless you are doing more than some number of Intl flights each year. So, for at most 2 Intl flights I do in a year (and mostly 0 in a year for work), I'm stuck in coach. I really disliked the long flight LAX-SYD on the QF A380 even in that semi-exit row seat that didn't have a seat infront of it (just the slide from the exit door). Thankfully a F award ticket came available the night before my return and I gladly spent my own miles to do that instead of being in Y again. I'll stick to short domestic flights for work now unless I'm at least in Business class.

I am stuck with presence of client/employer.
I can time for opup chances by looking at availability on CX.
(Though I don't fly CX because they are the best, I fly them because they are better than AC.)

I have heard the other point - the airlines within an Alliance should have similar products. Thus UA should have the same product for F as LH, SQ etc. If the products are not similar, then why have an alliance.

It is a chicken or egg situation. People won't fly UA F since it is not as good as other *A carriers. But with current sales UA can't justify upgrading.

AF cut back on F, and only offers 4 F seats on its 777, with no upgrades. F on 747, 340, 330 has been gone for some time.

To some extent the airlines are just going back to what they used to offer 25 years ago. International J was the same as a USA domestic F seat, and International F was like today's J (maybe not as good) with a 60" pitch seat (not lie flat). Some carrier's premium Y is the same as domestic USA F.

Maybe they just went overboard for the last 25 years. Although 30-40 years ago we had jumbo jets on domestic service with piano bars - but old style (non-lieflat seats). Maybe the airlines can go back to old seats and add in piano bars.

Award redeemers aren't just a bunch of leeches though. Many have paid their dues with revenue flights (not all of those seats are credit card mile redeemers). So the airlines do get some value out of the deal.

The Asian carriers that still fly long haul F are largely state owned or have a large state investment anyway. A carrier like TG keeps F as a prestige thing and also for Thai VIPs (royals, government).

But I will agree that the advancements in longhaul C/J class cabins do make F a bit less necessary.

Award redeemers aren't just a bunch of leeches though. Many have paid their dues with revenue flights (not all of those seats are credit card mile redeemers). So the airlines do get some value out of the deal.

The Asian carriers that still fly long haul F are largely state owned or have a large state investment anyway. A carrier like TG keeps F as a prestige thing and also for Thai VIPs (royals, government).

But I will agree that the advancements in longhaul C/J class cabins do make F a bit less necessary.

Good point, but some of the flights I can get for very cheap.
i.e. I have flown over 14K miles for $286.
And, there are the DEQM promos....
CX is owned by a private company (Swire)
OZ is a private company as well (Kumho Asiana)
But, both of these have some of the best F products in their respective alliances.
(SQ is better but SIN government plays a role in the airline)

Good point, but some of the flights I can get for very cheap.
i.e. I have flown over 14K miles for $286.
And, there are the DEQM promos....
CX is owned by a private company (Swire)
OZ is a private company as well (Kumho Asiana)
But, both of these have some of the best F products in their respective alliances.
(SQ is better but SIN government plays a role in the airline)

I think the biggest thing is having a desirable product. A product people want to, and are willing to pay for. It's really the selling proposition for a Civic (Economy), BMW (Business) and a Lamborghini (First).

All 3 will get you there. A BMW will get you there very well. But what makes the Lamborghini worth buying are the prestige, the quality of the parts and the attention to detail. It's always the little things that differentiate between premium and ultra-premium. Everything being perfect, in it's place, and going above and beyond your expectations to surprise and delight.

That's how I would define LH's First service. United's service fails in almost all of those differentiating factors, which is why people consider it not worth paying the premium for. Lufthansa has roses at each seat and in the washroom. I seem to remember a UA higher-up scoffing at airlines that did that. LH ground services where they meet you at the door, whisk you through private security, wine and dine you, and then drive you to your aircraft, where they do it again. UA's total lack of ground services.

And yet the charge the same amount of money, because it's "First" -- are you surprised nobody pays for it?

I think the biggest thing is having a desirable product. A product people want to, and are willing to pay for. It's really the selling proposition for a Civic (Economy), BMW (Business) and a Lamborghini (First).

All 3 will get you there. A BMW will get you there very well. But what makes the Lamborghini worth buying are the prestige, the quality of the parts and the attention to detail. It's always the little things that differentiate between premium and ultra-premium. Everything being perfect, in it's place, and going above and beyond your expectations to surprise and delight.

That's how I would define LH's First service. United's service fails in almost all of those differentiating factors, which is why people consider it not worth paying the premium for. Lufthansa has roses at each seat and in the washroom. I seem to remember a UA higher-up scoffing at airlines that did that. LH ground services where they meet you at the door, whisk you through private security, wine and dine you, and then drive you to your aircraft, where they do it again. UA's total lack of ground services.

And yet the charge the same amount of money, because it's "First" -- are you surprised nobody pays for it?

Yes it's all about service. On the few F flights I've taken on domestic carriers the service just pales in comparison to foreign carriers. On average, domestic flight attendants seem to be more about policing things and wanting to do as little as possible, and would rather sit around and chat with their friends. Maybe if tipping became customary they would actually be attentive and pay attention to the needs of the customers.

It's like going to Denny's versus a Michelin star restaurant, except that the diner in this case (AA, UA, etc.) is charging 75% as much as the restaurant. I'll pay $20 for an omlette if it tastes good and get great service. I don't know what they're doing wrong; it can't possibly cost that much more to hire good people. Even if you subtract out 4x an economy fare to account for the lost space from a larger F seat, there's still plenty of fare left that should be able to pay for great service and still turn a profit.

It would be interesting to pull up a side by side comparison between the foreign carriers and their mileage/upgrade policy compared to US-based. I suspect we (US airline customers) have been relatively lucky compared to the foreign ones in terms of mileage earning and redemptions.

It is quite true that US airlines offer many more redemption instruments for upgrades. Lufthansa's e-upgrades for Senators (one of the few foreign airlines that have them)? Two.

That being said, most other countries don't have anything close to the competitive landscape that the US has- the US doesn't have anything close to a flag carrier.

And yet the charge the same amount of money, because it's "First" -- are you surprised nobody pays for it?

And yet Lufthansa is eliminating first class seats on their planes, and is switching planes to a C/Y format. So is Cathay Pacific- both airlines that get a lot of positive feedback on their F cabins. Singapore Air went to C/Y format on some longhaul routes years ago. It appears that even if you have a good product, in many markets, not enough people pay for it.

It is quite true that US airlines offer many more redemption instruments for upgrades. Lufthansa's e-upgrades for Senators (one of the few foreign airlines that have them)? Two.

That being said, most other countries don't have anything close to the competitive landscape that the US has- the US doesn't have anything close to a flag carrier.



And yet Lufthansa is eliminating first class seats on their planes, and is switching planes to a C/Y format. So is Cathay Pacific- both airlines that get a lot of positive feedback on their F cabins. Singapore Air went to C/Y format on some longhaul routes years ago. It appears that even if you have a good product, in many markets, not enough people pay for it.

BA flies F to many destinations still....

Aren't many of you flying UA or AA precisely because you can upgrade to F. Many companies will pay for C but few pay for F. It seems like here many will fly domestic carriers because they can upgrade for cheap, but take away that upgrade and you might fly a foreign competitor.

UA can not sell F seats on ORD-NRT. It might end up having a cabin full of upgrades. But many of those people might not have bought a ticket on UA at all if it wasn't for the upgrade. I think many FT'ers would buy ORD-NRT on NH or JAL when the company is paying, but then end up buying on UA or AA because they can upgrade to F.

Excellent point, hindukid!
F-class in this cases helps retain full-fare business class customers!
This has been confirmed more than once by my TA who serves several corporate customers flying paid business! And this strategy is not only employed by U.S. carriers.

BA flies F to many destinations still....

Sure they do... but they put 14 F into cabins that other airlines put 6-9 F into, though. BA put some thought and additional personalization into the soft product compared to a C product, of course, but their F hard product isn't all THAT different from CX C when it comes to personal space (it's certainly not a suite like EK/TG/CX F). Which sort of proves the point. ;)

Well from my perspective, if and when they make these changes, they should reallocate some of that space to their economy and economy premium/plus sections. I would be willing to pay a little more if I had a couple of extra inches more between myself and the seats in front me. I felt like cattle the last time I did a TPAC with UA in Y. It was horrible.