sannmann

Is there really any reason to want to fly UA F internationally? The sense I get from everything I've read on Flyertalk is that the only things differentiating UA international F service over J/C service are 1) possible international first lounge access; 2) more selections of wine; 3) another main entree option; 4) a soup course; and 5) a slightly larger amenities kit.

hellyea

Any way to see if a certain plane /route has the reconfigured 777?

andrewwm

Did you miss the last 6 years of pmUA existence where they ruthlessly cheapened the flying experience in every cabin? pmCO's inflight service standards were higher than pmUA's, not lower.

FlyerChrisK

Wait, what? If you're flying paid F, you should be flying another, non-US-based carrier.

So I prefer the PMUA J to PMCO J. PMUA F is certainly a bit nicer seatwise (larger, easier to spread out, etc.).

Given my travel is funded on my own dime, I don't think I'll be saying that I won't fly these carriers because of the cuts

abaheti

If you or your company is willing to pay for international first or business class, I would fly a non-USA carrier and just credit the miles to your UA *A account. If using upgrades or miles, I think UA business (if in the proper lie-flat seats) is just fine and a better value compared to UA first -- if on miles and going for first, you get much better value and service for your miles on other *A carriers. My opinion is even stronger post-3/3.

HumbleBee

Class warfare. There are quite a few people (not me!!!) for whom a marginally better night of sleep is worth a lot more than $7,000. Paying for is an acute business judgement regardless of how stupid you might think it.

Imagine you were flying and about to meet someone for a prosepctive deal that nets you $100M. Wouldn't be worth it? Now imagine you're doing it twice a week; and every little improvement makes a world of a difference. Heck, people fly private and its worth it.

What you seem to forget is foriegn carriers. Their F competitor isn't AA; its LX, SQ, LH, CX and so on. The only advantage they would be losing to AA is people buying C with a hope of UG to F; which is a strong selling point IMHO.

Eastbay1K

Not only that, for some of these folks, whether the seat is $7K more or $10K more or $15K more doesn't mean a hill of beans in their budget, lifestyle, or anything else. In fact, it is less of a dent in the budget for them than for most of us spending $500 on a ticket. So why not fly in F?

The "what is dumb" is really subjective. You like brand X vodka and willingly pay $12 a drink at the bar. Your friend thinks they all taste the same, you are wasting your $, and the $6 well vodka is just as good (not to mention the free additional headache as a bonus!). You're spending 100% more for a drink that will get you to the same place at the same time, because they are both 80 proof.

As far as UA getting rid of F on certain routes, I don't know how much they've "done the math" but I'd expect that it is on routes where there isn't much full fare C that want to upgrade to F (in addition to not selling F). As far as lack of demand, it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cheapen the soft product to crap, and then say "look, no one is buying these seats."

5khours

I would guess on a typical international flight with 8 seats in F, there are

2 non-revs
1 paid F
2 UG from J
1 standard award
2 saver awards

Averaging for TPAC/TATL and speculating quite a bit, that works out to about $2,000 seat on average versus (speculating again) $1500 a seat for J. Look at the numbers for a 777

3 Class
8 F $16,000
40 J $60,000
221 Y $110,500 ($500/seat)
Total $186,500

2 Class
50 J $75,000
217 Y $108,500
Total $183, 500

And if UA wants to have a competitive hard product in a 2 class configuration, they need to go to 100% direct aisle access which means 42 not 50 seats in BF.

On the 747, they have 64 premium (J and F) seats versus 48 for a typical 2 class (e.g. DL) so I think the numbers are even more compelling for 3 class on the 747.

FlyerChrisK

LH and CX are cutting down on their F cabins as well. I'm not particularly convinced that F produces a markedly better night's sleep over lie-flat J so this "every bit helps" attitude may be a fallacy.

Flying private is mostly about schedules (or the lack thereof).

TWA Fan 1

The 2-class approach is classic CO management philosophy.

Remember, CO launched BusinessFirst in the early 90's (even before the tenure of Gordon Bethune).

When this was launched, CO was a second-tier decrepit hulk of an airline with an atrocious reputation from its slash-and-burn Frank Lorenzo period.

The Newark hub was acquired when Frank Lorenzo took over PeoplExpress, as an act of personal revenge against Don Burr, one of the co-founders of PE who used to work for Lorenzo at Texas International Airlines.

At its inception CO BF was a revolution in premium cabin product, a truly FC-like experience at a J price.

Of course, back in the early 90's international FC was nothing like it is now, and with time, CO's BF lost some of its specialness.

But the principle behind BF became enshrined in the basic CO approach to doing business:

Never aim for the high-end of the market (because it's too fickle and requires a huge on-going investment in product and training).

So instead they aim for the next level down. It's a big step down in terms of costs and expectations, and they have historically attempted to compete by over-delivering in the J category, although clearly that has been hit or miss since the merger.

Agreed 100%.

I have flown international F and J, and, frankly, my best night sleeps have been in J.

Private is about not having to worry about the schedule and for some it's also a way to remain out of the public eye.

FlyWorld

Really? Like, CO E- is better than UA E+?

andrewwm

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the pmUA catering, lounge, and fee structure were "industry leading" and better than pmCO versions?

I think you never flew pmUA if you're going to try.

chinatraderjmr

True but now lower Thrn either ever was

HumbleBee

I never meant people fly private for sleep, I just pointed out spending $7000 for a few hours of improved productivity is not 'dumb'.

Hard for me to believe you can sleep better in J than F all else equal.I agree there are more signifucant deciding factors, but how is it easier to sleep in J than F? Only think I can think of is that F would keep you preoccoupied with food etc but I doubt that's true for a frequent flier.

The only thing I agree is dumb is people who fly premium for the extra luggage allowance.

FlyerChrisK

Uh... Let's look at something like NYC-LON. If I'm truly concerned about being at peak alertness the next day, I'm going to sleep on my flight. I'm not going to eat on board. I'm not going to pass Go nor collect $200. I'm going to straight to sleep. The food on board should not be part of this buying decision.

I'm not going to debate easier or not. (A "good night's sleep" has been largely a function of flight duration and departure time [relative to my sleep schedule] when flying C/F for me rather than product.) My observation is one of "indifference" once I stop falling over myself about branding.