UA going 2-class planes
Sep 29, 2012, 2:12 pm
#31
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
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.
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.
Sep 29, 2012, 2:30 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: ORD, HKG
Programs: UA*G, AA Emerald, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt globalist
Posts: 10,276
That is a huge downgrade in service and choice! 3 class is the only reason to stay with United as AA only has it on the 777 and Delta doesn't even offer it or an IFC Lounge. United was profitable before this merger and now they are losing passengers as they cheapen the airline to CO standards. United passgengers would have been much better off without a full merger and done something like Air France/KLM where CO could have been the lowfare, cheap service airline. Now they are cheapening every aspect of the new United and making it worse for paying passengers.
If you are not, then don't say 3 class is the reason for you to stay with UA, as you aren't giving the revenue UA is looking for.
PMUA eliminate salt & pepper shaker in F and C way before the merger and replace with unbelieveable cheap "packets". PMCO had their salt & pepper shaker up til the merge of catering.
PMUA eliminate meals in F for the short haul 2 hours flights, domestic C class left with no choice of meals, at a time, C only got served with a fruit and cheese plate no matter what time of the day, what length of the flight !
PMUA International F and C share the same pathetic mid-flight snacks, plastic wrap cold sandwhich, pour the water cup-o-noodle. PMCO had hot real wonton noodle soup for years.
PMUA international economy meals had the downgrade too, first meal eliminate the cake for dessert replace by package brownie, second meal eliminate the fruits appetizer, mid-flight snack down to a bag of chips and a cookie. PMCO even serve hot sandwhich and ice-cream in Y as mid-flight snack !
I did CO EWR-HKG-EWR last year in March, was totally shocked how high the standard even in Y, comparable to PMUA in Y 10 years ago.
TWATWA doesn't sound like he had flown much PMUA or PMCO at all.
Last edited by ORDnHKG; Sep 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Sep 29, 2012, 2:40 pm
#33
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Are you implying you are a paid F pax ? And always paid F when you are flying UA internationally ? Cause once a year paid F pax wouldn't be able support a flight with F that flies daily 365 days a year !
If you are not, then don't say 3 class is the reason for you to stay with UA, as you aren't giving the revenue UA is looking for.
If you are not, then don't say 3 class is the reason for you to stay with UA, as you aren't giving the revenue UA is looking for.
Sep 29, 2012, 3:08 pm
#34
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
You're judging this by one route??? 
In case you haven't heard, AA is cutting back int'l First Class to fewer routes:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...get-new-j.html
as in fact are a number of international carriers.
I bet that's all that UA is doing too. Not dumping international first class comlpetely, just eliminating on some routes where it no longer makes sense.
The "no longer" is keyed to many things, but one of them is the consatnt improvement of Business Class (horizontall flat seats, etc) to the point where the differences between Business and First have been reduced from what they used to be years ago. (Years ago you had to fly First if you wanted horinztal flat seats, now increasingly on more and more airlines you only need to fly Business to get that.)
So airlines are finidng that in certain markets (city pairs) First works, but not in as many as they've been flyiing. So they are reconfiguring their fleet to have fewer three-class international planes.
But there's a difference from a fleet perspective between reducing the number of international three-class planes you have and getting rid of them entirely. I don't think you have enough evidence in some FA talk to know that UA is doing the latter as opposed to only the former.
But of course, you may not fly all of uA's routes; you may fly on certain ones; so if the ones you fly are the ones on which three-class is eliminated, to you it'll seem like it's gone, but from the UA-wdie perspective, it may be a different story.
In case you haven't heard, AA is cutting back int'l First Class to fewer routes:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...get-new-j.html
as in fact are a number of international carriers.
I bet that's all that UA is doing too. Not dumping international first class comlpetely, just eliminating on some routes where it no longer makes sense.
The "no longer" is keyed to many things, but one of them is the consatnt improvement of Business Class (horizontall flat seats, etc) to the point where the differences between Business and First have been reduced from what they used to be years ago. (Years ago you had to fly First if you wanted horinztal flat seats, now increasingly on more and more airlines you only need to fly Business to get that.)
So airlines are finidng that in certain markets (city pairs) First works, but not in as many as they've been flyiing. So they are reconfiguring their fleet to have fewer three-class international planes.
But there's a difference from a fleet perspective between reducing the number of international three-class planes you have and getting rid of them entirely. I don't think you have enough evidence in some FA talk to know that UA is doing the latter as opposed to only the former.
But of course, you may not fly all of uA's routes; you may fly on certain ones; so if the ones you fly are the ones on which three-class is eliminated, to you it'll seem like it's gone, but from the UA-wdie perspective, it may be a different story.
Secondly, the song being sung that the F cabin can't possibly be worth it because nobody pays for it is just garbage - this is the same line that's been peddled for the better part of a decade, pre-IPTE. It wasn't true then and if isn't true now. Just because a lot of hyper-value maximizing FFers on Flyer Talk don't see how anybody could possibly redeem/spend on F doesn't mean nobody does. There are absolutely those prized few who make this cabin continue to be worth its space.
Sep 29, 2012, 3:09 pm
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
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.
What I meant was that I have found some seats in J easier to sleep in that some seats in F.
Flying F internationally is not something I do on a weekly basis, but the few times I have (on AA, BA and AF) I have not found the F lie-flats comfortable at all.
To make things even a little more odd, I actually prefer sleeping in a J non lie-flat seat.
I've been trying to explain this to myself, and I think the reason is two-fold:
1. The non-flat seats are true "seats" that are comfortable in the seating position, while lie-flats are truly neither seats nor beds. I find them uncomfortable (whether in J or F) in either position.
2. Admittedly, I have never flown F on Emirates or SQ, but the international F lie-flats I have tried are--as mattresses--quite thin. After about 30 minutes they become uncomfortably hard (even with the bedding). The angled lie-flats shift more weight to the feet and so perhaps this is why I find them a little easier to sleep in.
Sep 29, 2012, 3:13 pm
#36
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Secondly, the song being sung that the F cabin can't possibly be worth it because nobody pays for it is just garbage - this is the same line that's been peddled for the better part of a decade, pre-IPTE. It wasn't true then and if isn't true now. Just because a lot of hyper-value maximizing FFers on Flyer Talk don't see how anybody could possibly redeem/spend on F doesn't mean nobody does. There are absolutely those prized few who make this cabin continue to be worth its space.
Ha ha...I agree that sounds a little odd.
What I meant was that I have found some seats in J easier to sleep in that some seats in F.
Flying F internationally is not something I do on a weekly basis, but the few times I have (on AA, BA and AF) I have not found the F lie-flats comfortable at all.
To make things even a little more odd, I actually prefer sleeping in a J non lie-flat seat.
I've been trying to explain this to myself, and I think the reason is two-fold:
1. The non-flat seats are true "seats" that are comfortable in the seating position, while lie-flats are truly neither seats nor beds. I find them uncomfortable (whether in J or F) in either position.
2. Admittedly, I have never flown F on Emirates or SQ, but the international F lie-flats I have tried are--as mattresses--quite thin. After about 30 minutes they become uncomfortably hard (even with the bedding). The angled lie-flats shift more weight to the feet and so perhaps this is why I find them a little easier to sleep in.
What I meant was that I have found some seats in J easier to sleep in that some seats in F.
Flying F internationally is not something I do on a weekly basis, but the few times I have (on AA, BA and AF) I have not found the F lie-flats comfortable at all.
To make things even a little more odd, I actually prefer sleeping in a J non lie-flat seat.
I've been trying to explain this to myself, and I think the reason is two-fold:
1. The non-flat seats are true "seats" that are comfortable in the seating position, while lie-flats are truly neither seats nor beds. I find them uncomfortable (whether in J or F) in either position.
2. Admittedly, I have never flown F on Emirates or SQ, but the international F lie-flats I have tried are--as mattresses--quite thin. After about 30 minutes they become uncomfortably hard (even with the bedding). The angled lie-flats shift more weight to the feet and so perhaps this is why I find them a little easier to sleep in.
I don't fly anywhere near as much as I'd like to either.
Last edited by HumbleBee; Sep 29, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Sep 29, 2012, 3:17 pm
#37
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
The United First suite is very.comfortable. It is a no crease bed, and quite cushy (more cushy than the BF product). There are also large collapsible armrests that drop to greatly enhance width. Footwell is easily 3/4x the size of business, and of.course, direct aisle access. Lets be clear here - it is a *substantially* upgraded hard product from those cramped, short, narrow J BF products. I have trouble sleeping in UA J, and flat out cannot sleep on the BF seats - F is like taking a breath of fresh air - no problem at all. I couldn't imagine how only offering that midpack J offering could make this company "the world's leading airline".
And since when does United model its product offerings directly off of what an airline with one hub in Hong Kong does? I'm always entertained with these sentiments.
Again, there absolutely is a market for UA F - you don't invest over $100 million in a product that FTers were then sure would be cut back (2008) due to the same line of talking points that's being provided now. And even if we do choose to subscribe to some of those lines - award travel isn't the company taking a pass for each booking - there is a direct amd positive impact to the books for such transactions, one that UA has made work quite favorably for themselves.
Just because the CO regime (who have no experience with services like intl. F or global services, or founding *A) is choosing to chase the middle of the market and ceed the top doesn't mean there isnt a top to serve.
Again, there absolutely is a market for UA F - you don't invest over $100 million in a product that FTers were then sure would be cut back (2008) due to the same line of talking points that's being provided now. And even if we do choose to subscribe to some of those lines - award travel isn't the company taking a pass for each booking - there is a direct amd positive impact to the books for such transactions, one that UA has made work quite favorably for themselves.
Just because the CO regime (who have no experience with services like intl. F or global services, or founding *A) is choosing to chase the middle of the market and ceed the top doesn't mean there isnt a top to serve.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Sep 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm Reason: merge
Sep 29, 2012, 3:18 pm
#38
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Are you implying you are a paid F pax ? And always paid F when you are flying UA internationally ? Cause once a year paid F pax wouldn't be able support a flight with F that flies daily 365 days a year !
If you are not, then don't say 3 class is the reason for you to stay with UA, as you aren't giving the revenue UA is looking for.
If you are not, then don't say 3 class is the reason for you to stay with UA, as you aren't giving the revenue UA is looking for.
Full fare J is probably around $0.60 per seat mile, but most people are on corporate contracts and/or Z fares so, the bulk of paid BF is at around $0.20 to $0.25 per seat mile. On top of that you have a lot of mileage UGs and W fare UGs in BF which are $0.10 to $0.15 per seat mile.
Compare that to award seats in GF which can range from $0.15 to $0.50 per seat mile...probably averages about $0.30. I would almost guarantee you that UA makes more per seat mile on award travel in F than they do on paid travel in J.
Similarly since GPU don't work on Z fares, UGs to GF average around $0.35 which is a lot better than the average on J.
Sep 29, 2012, 3:31 pm
#39
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
And since when does United model its product offerings directly off of what an airline with one hub in Hong Kong does? I'm always entertained with these sentiments.
Again, there absolutely is a market for UA F - you don't invest over $100 million in a product that FTers were then sure would be cut back (2008) due to the same line of talking points that's being provided now. And even if we do choose to subscribe to some of those lines - award travel isn't the company taking a pass for each booking - there is a direct amd positive impact to the books for such transactions, one that UA has made work quite favorably for themselves.
Just because the CO regime (who have no experience with services like intl. F or global services, or founding *A) is choosing to chase the middle of the market and ceed the top doesn't mean there isnt a top to serve.
Again, there absolutely is a market for UA F - you don't invest over $100 million in a product that FTers were then sure would be cut back (2008) due to the same line of talking points that's being provided now. And even if we do choose to subscribe to some of those lines - award travel isn't the company taking a pass for each booking - there is a direct amd positive impact to the books for such transactions, one that UA has made work quite favorably for themselves.
Just because the CO regime (who have no experience with services like intl. F or global services, or founding *A) is choosing to chase the middle of the market and ceed the top doesn't mean there isnt a top to serve.
UA F is NOT TOP it at best can compete with the nicer J products. I don't know if theres any route they operate (TPE maybe) that doesnt have nicer F. Now, maybe they can compete on price, but they're not. The UA F fares I've seen have been more expensive than the real F options.
Sep 29, 2012, 4:41 pm
#40
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP, Hilton GLD, Marriott Plat, NEXUS/GE
Posts: 2,872
The fact is that the current sentiment is to reduce F capacity. CX already did it to YYZ, and is planning further reduction. CX has very few paying F pax to/from the USA. I fly it and know many people who do as well. Here's the math. JFK-HKG RT is let's say $14,000 in First? It cost 210,000 BA miles and ~$310 taxes. Amex sells Membership Rewards for 2.5 cents each, which can be transferred to BA at 1:1 (barring promos) without any fees. So that's $5560. You get the same level of service. Day of departure even the last F seat will open for award. So it makes little sense to buy F there.
Sep 29, 2012, 4:50 pm
#41
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Sep 29, 2012, 7:37 pm
#42
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
UA F is NOT TOP it at best can compete with the nicer J products. I don't know if theres any route they operate (TPE maybe) that doesnt have nicer F. Now, maybe they can compete on price, but they're not. The UA F fares I've seen have been more expensive than the real F options.
Sep 29, 2012, 7:39 pm
#43
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Excuse me, the current J product is nowhere near THE TOP either. Since when does UA-land subscribe to the belief of the best or nothing? And have you ever flown UA F or are you just peddling second hand opinions? Because comparing it t "nicer J products" is a joke - I've flown them all - F is still F, J (even SQ/EK J) is still J. Compared to DL/Us's direct aisle J producgs - a leauge above.
Sep 29, 2012, 11:16 pm
#44
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SFO, TPE, HNL
Programs: UA GS 4MM, RCC life member (paid), Marriott Lifetime Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, CLEAR
Posts: 1,822
Sep 30, 2012, 12:54 am
#45
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
I regret the misunderstanding, I was discussing UA F, which my experience tells me is a step up from the direct aisle J products, on virtually every airline, especially US and DL. Those two latter products get a lot of over the top praise from internet flyers, championing them as the second coming of god- We saw that ball being thrown when the CO 764 mods were being unveiled - how the middle seat was going to be at parity with the company's own intl. F product (dare to dream). Then reality invariably sets in, we realize that the horizontal abreast seating count can't possibly tell the entire story - not when DL's product feels like you're riding in small coffins, CO's and US's product are too short and crammed in, and none come close to the storage or all out bed privacy offered in UA F. I vastly prefer AA/UA F to those new "glorious" J products - they're all overrated, and certainly aren't in the same league as what I get in the international 3 class F cabin (hard product only).
Last edited by tuolumne; Sep 30, 2012 at 1:59 am