Ideas for premium cabin improvements - feedback?
Apr 15, 2014, 9:20 pm
#31
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
MrAndy, this was an interesting read, indeed. I come from a world where it's ALL about the branding. Branding costs money, so that right there one knows United would never go down that route.
But let's take the money part out for a second - there are so many things that can be done without money. Branding 101 - the company collectively needs one voice. And I don't mean Smisek. I mean every single employee has to have the same vision of the company - United has sCO & sUA, CS agents are beat up, FAs are split, heck even the planes are different. When the vision of the company is all about the dollar, this is the mess you see unfolding right in front of all of us. Because the "house" is a mess, it transfers to those living in it, the employees. And because the employees are living in chaos, that then transfers to the customer.
The branding of the current United is no branding at all. The marketing doesn't fit the "flyer friendly" campaign. In order to see those white linen cloths you mentioned in your post, the house has to get cleaned up. Everything is connected to each other.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a dollar, but if the customer isn't number one, then all is lost IMHO. TRUE affluence is created for oneself by creating it for others - because in the process of creating it for others, it is automatically created for oneself. This is a huge statement....but follow with me:
If United were to understand that by giving the customer an exceptional experience, they (the customer) would, in turn, reward United by flying more with them (and telling others). So by United focusing on the customer it then creates wealth for itself.
Smisek is focused only on himself and the dollar, not the customer, not the employees. He is a money guy; it's all about the dollar. But it doesn't work out this way in today's world. Time will show.
But let's take the money part out for a second - there are so many things that can be done without money. Branding 101 - the company collectively needs one voice. And I don't mean Smisek. I mean every single employee has to have the same vision of the company - United has sCO & sUA, CS agents are beat up, FAs are split, heck even the planes are different. When the vision of the company is all about the dollar, this is the mess you see unfolding right in front of all of us. Because the "house" is a mess, it transfers to those living in it, the employees. And because the employees are living in chaos, that then transfers to the customer.
The branding of the current United is no branding at all. The marketing doesn't fit the "flyer friendly" campaign. In order to see those white linen cloths you mentioned in your post, the house has to get cleaned up. Everything is connected to each other.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a dollar, but if the customer isn't number one, then all is lost IMHO. TRUE affluence is created for oneself by creating it for others - because in the process of creating it for others, it is automatically created for oneself. This is a huge statement....but follow with me:
If United were to understand that by giving the customer an exceptional experience, they (the customer) would, in turn, reward United by flying more with them (and telling others). So by United focusing on the customer it then creates wealth for itself.
Smisek is focused only on himself and the dollar, not the customer, not the employees. He is a money guy; it's all about the dollar. But it doesn't work out this way in today's world. Time will show.
Apr 15, 2014, 9:21 pm
#32
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Programs: AAdvantage, MileagePlus, SkyMiles
Posts: 4,159
OP here, because usually, if an airline has a 3-class product and a 2-class product that has the same name, do have differenations between products on the 2 and 3-class configs. AA does the same thing for their J product - 2-class J internationally has more personalized, plated service with appetizers and customized sundaes, while 3-class J doesn't have those.
So, it makes sense to 'elevate' the name of 2-class J vs. 3-class J, and I think "First/Business/Economy" and "BusinessFirst/Economy" has a nice, simplified ring to it. "GlobalFirst/BusinessFirst/Economy" is too convoluted.
So, it makes sense to 'elevate' the name of 2-class J vs. 3-class J, and I think "First/Business/Economy" and "BusinessFirst/Economy" has a nice, simplified ring to it. "GlobalFirst/BusinessFirst/Economy" is too convoluted.
Apr 15, 2014, 9:21 pm
#33
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EWR, PHL
Programs: UA1k 3MM, AA Plt, peasant on everybody else, elite something or other at a bunch of hotels.
Posts: 4,637
The BusinessFirst name is not silly 
. Sounds better then just ordinary Business or some other junk names out there. Oh and the BusinessFirst name would never go away.
BusinessFirst is used on TATL/TPAC flights, and some deep south america flights.
Business is used on flights to/from Mexico, some central america/south america flights & flights to Caribbean.
PS is supposed to use the "BusinessFirst" moniker however it's still being called "Business"
Pretty sure most people that don't like the "BusinessFirst" name are the ones who don't like anything Continental.
. Sounds better then just ordinary Business or some other junk names out there. Oh and the BusinessFirst name would never go away. BusinessFirst is used on TATL/TPAC flights, and some deep south america flights.
Business is used on flights to/from Mexico, some central america/south america flights & flights to Caribbean.
PS is supposed to use the "BusinessFirst" moniker however it's still being called "Business"
Pretty sure most people that don't like the "BusinessFirst" name are the ones who don't like anything Continental.
And, yes, it is silly. Is it business or is it first? Then you get on board and find it's neither. (And I'm not blaming the FA's either, as I have almost always received excellent service from them. It's just that UA does not give them much to work with.)
Apr 15, 2014, 9:33 pm
#34
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EWR, PHL
Programs: UA1k 3MM, AA Plt, peasant on everybody else, elite something or other at a bunch of hotels.
Posts: 4,637
OP here, because usually, if an airline has a 3-class product and a 2-class product that has the same name, do have differenations between products on the 2 and 3-class configs. AA does the same thing for their J product - 2-class J internationally has more personalized, plated service with appetizers and customized sundaes, while 3-class J doesn't have those.
So, it makes sense to 'elevate' the name of 2-class J vs. 3-class J, and I think "First/Business/Economy" and "BusinessFirst/Economy" has a nice, simplified ring to it. "GlobalFirst/BusinessFirst/Economy" is too convoluted.
So, it makes sense to 'elevate' the name of 2-class J vs. 3-class J, and I think "First/Business/Economy" and "BusinessFirst/Economy" has a nice, simplified ring to it. "GlobalFirst/BusinessFirst/Economy" is too convoluted.
The few that I have been on that have both 3 and 2 class long haul products had the same product in business. (LH, OZ and CX come to mind, ignoring premium Y.)
This is far too complicated for UA to pull off at this stage of the game. They need to first come up with a very good overall product and then figure out how to execute flawlessly.
Apr 15, 2014, 10:31 pm
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LAX
Programs: AAdvantage EXPLAT, Hilton Diamond, SPG/Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Citi Exec MC, Amex Plat
Posts: 1,443
The BusinessFirst name should imply a more true hybrid of F/J than what UA has. When I think of a J cabin deserving of the name BusinessFirst, I'm thinking of 1-2-1 all aisle access seats or at a minimum, no middle seats. Of course I'm thinking of AVOD and flat bed seats. The new SQ J suites would be very deserving of the name BusinessFirst IMO.
What United could do is call Global First "GlobalSuites" instead, this would eliminate the confusion of having two cabins with First in their name. Second of all, the presence of middle seats should DQ a cabin from having the name "First" in it and even the presence of window seats without aisle access is questionable.
With that said, aren't the QR 787 J seats in the 1-2-1 layout the same type of seats in the sCO planes? Doesn't QR just order them as all single units and lay them out 1-2-1 rather than UA's version of double units?
What United could do is call Global First "GlobalSuites" instead, this would eliminate the confusion of having two cabins with First in their name. Second of all, the presence of middle seats should DQ a cabin from having the name "First" in it and even the presence of window seats without aisle access is questionable.
With that said, aren't the QR 787 J seats in the 1-2-1 layout the same type of seats in the sCO planes? Doesn't QR just order them as all single units and lay them out 1-2-1 rather than UA's version of double units?
Apr 15, 2014, 10:56 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.1.2; en-us; LG-P659 Build/JZO54K) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)
The BusinessFirst name is not silly . Sounds better then just ordinary Business or some other junk names out there. Oh and the BusinessFirst name would never go away.
BusinessFirst is used on TATL/TPAC flights, and some deep south america flights.
Business is used on flights to/from Mexico, some central america/south america flights & flights to Caribbean.
PS is supposed to use the "BusinessFirst" moniker however it's still being called "Business"
Pretty sure most people that don't like the "BusinessFirst" name are the ones who don't like anything Continental.
The BusinessFirst moniker is simply ridiculous.
Back in 1991 it made sense when CO business was somewhat better than the competition, but now when the business product is slightly below par, using the term BusinessFirst is downright ridiculous to refer to a below average product.
On my last BusinessFirst fight a couple months ago, CO served collard greens as a side dish. People who fly First don't even know what a collard green is. And let's not even get into the $4.99 Rite Aid wines.
If they want a modifier to the term Business, maybe they should try BusinessWorst.
Originally Posted by JOSECONLSCREW28
. Sounds better then just ordinary Business or some other junk names out there. Oh and the BusinessFirst name would never go away. BusinessFirst is used on TATL/TPAC flights, and some deep south america flights.
Business is used on flights to/from Mexico, some central america/south america flights & flights to Caribbean.
PS is supposed to use the "BusinessFirst" moniker however it's still being called "Business"
Pretty sure most people that don't like the "BusinessFirst" name are the ones who don't like anything Continental.
Back in 1991 it made sense when CO business was somewhat better than the competition, but now when the business product is slightly below par, using the term BusinessFirst is downright ridiculous to refer to a below average product.
On my last BusinessFirst fight a couple months ago, CO served collard greens as a side dish. People who fly First don't even know what a collard green is. And let's not even get into the $4.99 Rite Aid wines.
If they want a modifier to the term Business, maybe they should try BusinessWorst.
Apr 15, 2014, 11:21 pm
#37
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR, BDL
Posts: 4,471
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.1.2; en-us; LG-P659 Build/JZO54K) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)
The BusinessFirst moniker is simply ridiculous.
Back in 1991 it made sense when CO business was somewhat better than the competition, but now when the business product is slightly below par, using the term BusinessFirst is downright ridiculous to refer to a below average product.
On my last BusinessFirst fight a couple months ago, CO served collard greens as a side dish. People who fly First don't even know what a collard green is. And let's not even get into the $4.99 Rite Aid wines.
If they want a modifier to the term Business, maybe they should try BusinessWorst.
The BusinessFirst moniker is simply ridiculous.
Back in 1991 it made sense when CO business was somewhat better than the competition, but now when the business product is slightly below par, using the term BusinessFirst is downright ridiculous to refer to a below average product.
On my last BusinessFirst fight a couple months ago, CO served collard greens as a side dish. People who fly First don't even know what a collard green is. And let's not even get into the $4.99 Rite Aid wines.
If they want a modifier to the term Business, maybe they should try BusinessWorst.
. Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:02 am
#38
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
Yes of course it's ridiculous . Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.
. Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:06 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,967
Yes of course it's ridiculous . Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.
. Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.As Channa said, The CO BusinessFirst did have these qualities in the 90s and deserved the name.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:13 am
#40
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
Yes of course it's ridiculous . Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.
. Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.BusinessFirst was a brilliant concept CO came about when they got rid of their 3-class cabins. CO installed these beautiful seats on their US coast-to-coast and int'l flights (correct me if I'm wrong). At the time (1990ish) other carriers biz class was just a bigger seat and int'l first class was a plush seat with a footrest. What CO did was revolutionary. They got rid of their three-class cabin and called their premium product "BusinessFirst" because it was a hybrid for that period. This then became the term for COs premium cabin fleet-wide (again please correct me if wrong). THEN Delta got rid of their first cabins and called it "BusinessElite," KLM/NW followed with "World Business Class".
Now in this day and age, most global airlines have cattle class/premium coach, lie-flat in biz, and suites in first. Each airline has their own branding for each of their respective classes.
Any airline with three classes - coach, business and first - referring to them as Economy/Economy Plus, BusinessFirst, and First is confusing. Looking at it from a strictly branding perspective, regardless of the airline, one would say it's "off" and not in harmony with what should be three distinct cabins, each with their own sub-brand.
BA has done it beautifully, as have many airlines with 3-cabins.
"BusinessFirst" was a product of the 90s. As someone mentioned on this thread, the name "BusinessFirst" for a global airline in 2014, would be comparable to SQs Biz Class of today in a 2-class configuration - a true hybrid of a lie-flat (biz) and a suite (first).
Apr 16, 2014, 12:18 am
#41
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR, BDL
Posts: 4,471
I've never understood why you take things so personally. It's already been explained numerous times why they believe it's the wrong name to use. If you disagree, that's fine, but what's with the numerous attempts to plug your ears closed, act like you didn't just read why they felt that way, and accuse them of only having said viewpoint because they were "haters". My gosh, how do you think it looks when an employee gets on a public Internet forum and spars with customers in such ways? I know one or two who work in Willis who aren't fans of said behavior, FYI. @:-)
. And luckily I haven't gotten into any arguments with customers onboard.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:21 am
#42
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR, BDL
Posts: 4,471
Monsieur JOSECONLSCREW, I have had the pleasure of reading your posts for quite sometime and irrational would NOT be a word I would connect to you. This has nothing to do with CO or UA, let's look at this from a strictly branding POV:
BusinessFirst was a brilliant concept CO came about when they got rid of their 3-class cabins. CO installed these beautiful seats on their US coast-to-coast and int'l flights (correct me if I'm wrong). At the time (1990ish) other carriers biz class was just a bigger seat and int'l first class was a plush seat with a footrest. What CO did was revolutionary. They got rid of their three-class cabin and called their premium product "BusinessFirst" because it was a hybrid for that period. This then became the term for COs premium cabin fleet-wide (again please correct me if wrong). THEN Delta got rid of their first cabins and called it "BusinessElite," KLM/NW followed with "World Business Class".
Now in this day and age, most global airlines have cattle class/premium coach, lie-flat in biz, and suites in first. Each airline has their own branding for each of their respective classes.
Any airline with three classes - coach, business and first - referring to them as Economy/Economy Plus, BusinessFirst, and First is confusing. Looking at it from a strictly branding perspective, regardless of the airline, one would say it's "off" and not in harmony with what should be three distinct cabins, each with their own sub-brand.
BA has done it beautifully, as have many airlines with 3-cabins.
"BusinessFirst" was a product of the 90s. As someone mentioned on this thread, the name "BusinessFirst" for a global airline in 2014, would be comparable to SQs Biz Class of today in a 2-class configuration - a true hybrid of a lie-flat (biz) and a suite (first).
BusinessFirst was a brilliant concept CO came about when they got rid of their 3-class cabins. CO installed these beautiful seats on their US coast-to-coast and int'l flights (correct me if I'm wrong). At the time (1990ish) other carriers biz class was just a bigger seat and int'l first class was a plush seat with a footrest. What CO did was revolutionary. They got rid of their three-class cabin and called their premium product "BusinessFirst" because it was a hybrid for that period. This then became the term for COs premium cabin fleet-wide (again please correct me if wrong). THEN Delta got rid of their first cabins and called it "BusinessElite," KLM/NW followed with "World Business Class".
Now in this day and age, most global airlines have cattle class/premium coach, lie-flat in biz, and suites in first. Each airline has their own branding for each of their respective classes.
Any airline with three classes - coach, business and first - referring to them as Economy/Economy Plus, BusinessFirst, and First is confusing. Looking at it from a strictly branding perspective, regardless of the airline, one would say it's "off" and not in harmony with what should be three distinct cabins, each with their own sub-brand.
BA has done it beautifully, as have many airlines with 3-cabins.
"BusinessFirst" was a product of the 90s. As someone mentioned on this thread, the name "BusinessFirst" for a global airline in 2014, would be comparable to SQs Biz Class of today in a 2-class configuration - a true hybrid of a lie-flat (biz) and a suite (first).
Apr 16, 2014, 12:25 am
#43
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR, BDL
Posts: 4,471
Now going back on topic from the whole BusinessFirst name, what I would really like to see is maybe the widebody aircraft getting a true premium economy cabin. Something like 2x2x2 on the 767s & 787s and maybe 2x3x2 on the 777s?. Special Dining better meals etc not just extra legroom in the same cabin as Y, but a separate cabin all in itself. So on CO & 2-cabin UA aircraft something like J/W/Y, and on UA 3-cabin aircraft (if it still exists). F/J/W/Y.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:54 am
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
Yes of course it's ridiculous . Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.
. Just as ridiculous as what PMUA used to call their business class back in the day conssiour class or whatever you call it, Club World on British Airways, World Business Class on KLM, BusinessElite on DL, L'Affaires on AF yeah ridiculous...give me a break. Basically it's ridiculous because it's a CO term. If it wasn't a CO term everybody would be praising the name.It's ridiculous because it uses the term "First" in it.
Connoisseur Class made sense back when it was a decent product. Note that PMUA retired that term what, some 10 years ago? Probably about the same time CO should have retired the BusinessFirst name as well, as the BF product was starting to fall behind its competitors.
And yes, it is ridiculous that UA continues to market something with the word "First" in it when it's so far behind the competition. When EVA will serve me Dom Perignon in J, with direct aisle access, and let me pick my meal ahead of time, while UA offers none of the above, seating in some cases 8 abreast on a 777 on the very same route, all whilst serving collard greens as a side dish, vending machine coffee, and providing a lounge with frat party liquor, cheap beer, and practically no food offerings, it's disingenuous to use "First" in any part of the product's name.
Have you flown any other carrier's J products recently? And have you flown another carrier's International F products? If you try some of them out, I think you'll see how ludicrous the BusinessFirst moniker is.
Apr 16, 2014, 1:41 am
#45
Suspended
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961