Programs: United, S7, Hyatt, IC Ambassador/PC, National Car
Posts: 2,270
I love those small cookies. Petit fours. Half the time, people don't even want them
I am all four 4 entre choices in Business, but really - if UA is going to charge a premium for Global First, it should be up to Global First, similar to LH. (Maybe to LX, thats going to far).
As it is Global First is basically where paid business gets upgraded to.
Besides the soup, petit fours, the bigger seat is the other difference.
I assume the BF entrees on sUA 3-cabin flights will still be pre-plated?
They will be catered the same as the 2-cabin BF entrees from what I'm seeing. They will not be placed into the catering cart on the plates on which they will be served.
Programs: DL SM Gold, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 9,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbm12
Of course it is possible. I don't think anyone ever suggested otherwise. The real question is whether the additional investment to provide such is actually justified. If no one is paying the fares anyways then what difference does it make?
Also, F will get soup while BF will not. Certainly not enough to drive business to that cabin, but it is another difference in the catering.
I think the additional investment can be justified, no question.
Obviously, it's more than just catering, the entire product needs to justify the investment and the additional cost to the customer.
From the company's point of view, upgrading the entire product is time-consuming and resource-intensive, and I think the PMCO approach is rather KISS (Keep It Simple St*pid).
Of course, as they continue to degrade the experience, they also complain that no one in paying the premium, that it's just a commodity business...
The slippery slope is pretty slippery.
__________________ TWA: That Wonderful Airline.
To the great people of TWA: It's been 11 years already, but you have not been forgotten.
I think the additional investment can be justified, no question.
On the part of the company? Really??
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
Obviously, it's more than just catering, the entire product needs to justify the investment and the additional cost to the customer.
And at what level of investment does the company start to see returns? The cost to get to a ground and in-flight experience level that is "top tier" is quite significant. And the odds of anyone choosing to pay more for such seem quite low. One can claim that better meals in Y are a minor investment and that should drive business. Or that in-flight connectivity drives business. Or many other things. But there seems to be scant actual evidence of such business drivers out there.
The theory is great, but reality seems to suggest it doesn't actually happen in a volume that justifies the investment. Even LH is cutting F from some aircraft/routes now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
Of course, as they continue to degrade the experience, they also complain that no one in paying the premium, that it's just a commodity business...
What in the F product is being degraded with these changes?
As someone who doesn't fly 3-class F, these changes are personally very welcome by and large. However, as someone who understands why UA ought to be differentiating their international F product, I'm not thrilled.
Programs: Kayaker, RC Plat, FPC Plat, HH Diamond, National Exec, UA PP, AA P, VX Gold, SWA A, AT A+
Posts: 2,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by channa
Which came first -- nobody paying for F, or a F so bad nobody wanted to pay for it?
The chicken. No, the egg...
I paid $5K / person for my family to fly Global First to SYD over Christmas. (Took advantage of the buy up glitch that happened last spring on .bomb.)
At $5K, I thought it was priced fairly.
But the 'retail' price is $22K - I cannot imagine who would pay this for what is really just a better seat... (The hard product was fantastic, by the way.)
IFL at SFO was 'OK', food on board was just OK, service was inconsistent (SFO-SYD poor, SYD-SFO spectacular), wine was nothing to write home about.
If sbm is right, why doesn't UA just accelerate the elimination of Global First and transition all their aircraft to 2 classes (and E+)? If UA has a quality Business Class (BF?) product, and E+, they should be just fine. Or is it less expensive for them to just let it die out over time as they order new planes that only have the two classes?
My guess is that there are still some routes where they can drive 3-cabin sales (either via solid corporate contracts or through selling C that books into F in some way) and they are keeping the configs for those. We've already seen the 3-cabin planes show up on EWR-ZRH/BRU, for example, while AMS and CDG were downguaged from IAD. I would expect more swaps like that in the short-term and a broader reconsideration of the 3-cabin thing in the future as other aircraft are retired, namely the 744s.
Programs: UA GS/3MM; AA1MM EXP; Amtrak Select+; Marriott LT Plat; IC Amb/PC Plat
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbm12
My guess is that there are still some routes where they can drive 3-cabin sales (either via solid corporate contracts or through selling C that books into F in some way) and they are keeping the configs for those. We've already seen the 3-cabin planes show up on EWR-ZRH/BRU, for example, while AMS and CDG were downguaged from IAD. I would expect more swaps like that in the short-term and a broader reconsideration of the 3-cabin thing in the future as other aircraft are retired, namely the 744s.
On a recent 777 flight ex-PVG where I did not get upgraded from a full-fare C to F, the purser showed me the printout that eight for eight pax in F had paid either an A or F fare: no upgrades, no freebies. So there are such instances.
Programs: DL SM Gold, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 9,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbm12
On the part of the company? Really??
Sure. Why is it so totally unbelievable that a U.S.-based carrier could actually field an international F product on par with the best worldwide carriers? There are absolutely very profitable international F products out there, and, yes, the bar is set very high. I do not buy for one instant that an American carrier is not capable of fielding such a product and making good money from it. It's pretty obvious, though, they dont' want to try.
Quote:
And at what level of investment does the company start to see returns? The cost to get to a ground and in-flight experience level that is "top tier" is quite significant. And the odds of anyone choosing to pay more for such seem quite low. One can claim that better meals in Y are a minor investment and that should drive business. Or that in-flight connectivity drives business. Or many other things. But there seems to be scant actual evidence of such business drivers out there.
It may indeed take a fair amount of up-front investment in product and training. But the pay-off on the back-end is a truly very high-yield international F product. Clearly, though, with financial results measured in three-month time-frames, this is not a part of the American corporate DNA.
Quote:
The theory is great, but reality seems to suggest it doesn't actually happen in a volume that justifies the investment. Even LH is cutting F from some aircraft/routes now.
There are many other international premium F products out there which are recognized as high-quality and are highly profitable.
Quote:
What in the F product is being degraded with these changes?
It's in your post. They're minor cuts, but they're cuts nevertheless.
__________________ TWA: That Wonderful Airline.
To the great people of TWA: It's been 11 years already, but you have not been forgotten.
Sure. Why is it so totally unbelievable that a U.S.-based carrier could actually field an international F product on par with the best worldwide carriers?
It isn't. I simply don't believe they can do it at a competitive cost, meaning they cannot sell it at a competitive price.
BA has a marginal F product but they have limited competition in many of their markets so they get away with it. So do UA and AA, for the most part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
There are many other international premium F products out there which are recognized as high-quality and are highly profitable.
An interesting assertion. Given that no airline I've ever read the financial results from reports on the actual breakdown between premium and economy cabins I'm curious how you draw this conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
It's in your post. They're minor cuts, but they're cuts nevertheless.
Unless you're talking about the change in the china pattern I'm really not sure what you're calling cuts. The two hot appetizers served from the cart rather than from the galley isn't one IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxguy
On a recent 777 flight ex-PVG where I did not get upgraded from a full-fare C to F, the purser showed me the printout that eight for eight pax in F had paid either an A or F fare: no upgrades, no freebies. So there are such instances.
Doesn't mean they actually paid full price. Corporate contracts and back-end discounts often make those tickets quite affordable if you work at the right company.
