I was looking at fares on UA to PVG today. I found a great F (A) fare for myself earlier this month & while I have not flown UA intl. since 3/3, this fare was to good to pass up. (JFK-SFO-PVG R/T $4599 all in GF).
Anyway, I need to send someone i work with to PVG from NY (JFK/LGA, not EWR) next month after the Holiday who prefers UA so took a look a biz class fares for her. WHAT IS GOING On, i Could not understand these fares for the life of me. All on pmUA 3 cabin 777's exact same day
P business class (BF) restricted $4469.00
A First Class (GF) restricted $5499.00 (I've never seen a non holiday GF fare this cheap)
Z Business class (BF) restricted $5999.00 (This is normal)
D Business Class (BF) unrestricted $8900
F First Class (GF) unrestricted $11,990
P, A & Z all have the same restrictions. How can Global First (A) be less then business first (Z) & what's the point of offering P & Z on the same market since they both have the same restrictions. I've seen plenty of markets where GF (A) is less then BF (C) because the A class was heavily restricted and the C was not but that's not the case w these China fares
Could UA, knowing that the end is near for GF just be slashing prices? This seems to only be happening on the PVG & PEK flights but maybe someone could explain it to me. And then explain why anyone would buy a Z fare for more then an A fare?
I know all about dynamic pricing, blah blah blah but this makes no sense to me.
Capacity glut and it's still $1000 more for heavily restricted GF than BF... what's the shock here?
No, it's also $500 LESS for heavily restricted GF (A) then heavily restricted BF (Z). Now that makes no sense. I understand they have to much capacity (4 flights/day, 3 with GF) & could understand they only charge $1000 more between A & P but not the $500 more for Z then A. That's what the shock is!
I doubt that there will be a stampede over these fares. It's still thousands of $$, there are visa issues and it's China. This is where these fares probably should be.
I doubt that there will be a stampede over these fares. It's still thousands of $$, there are visa issues and it's China. This is where these fares probably should be.
Agree with all that but a restricted F tkt should never be less then a C tkt with the same restrictions. That just makes no sense
Programs: Formerly over-entitled UA 1K, now under-entitled UA PP.
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
I was looking at fares on UA to PVG today. I found a great F (A) fare for myself earlier this month & while I have not flown UA intl. since 3/3, this fare was to good to pass up. (JFK-SFO-PVG R/T $4599 all in GF).
Anyway, I need to send someone i work with to PVG from NY (JFK/LGA, not EWR) next month after the Holiday who prefers UA so took a look a biz class fares for her. WHAT IS GOING On, i Could not understand these fares for the life of me. All on pmUA 3 cabin 777's exact same day
P business class (BF) restricted $4469.00
A First Class (GF) restricted $5499.00 (I've never seen a non holiday GF fare this cheap)
Z Business class (BF) restricted $5999.00 (This is normal)
D Business Class (BF) unrestricted $8900
F First Class (GF) unrestricted $11,990
P, A & Z all have the same restrictions. How can Global First (A) be less then business first (Z) & what's the point of offering P & Z on the same market since they both have the same restrictions. I've seen plenty of markets where GF (A) is less then BF (C) because the A class was heavily restricted and the C was not but that's not the case w these China fares
Could UA, knowing that the end is near for GF just be slashing prices? This seems to only be happening on the PVG & PEK flights but maybe someone could explain it to me. And then explain why anyone would buy a Z fare for more then an A fare?
I know all about dynamic pricing, blah blah blah but this makes no sense to me.
Wouldn't the most likely explanation be that someone just did something stupid in how they set up the fares in the system?
This certainly wouldn't be the first stupid or incorrect thing that we've observed since 3/3.
Still, however, P is $4469 and A is $5499 so although A > Z, it's still the case that C is < F, so from that point of view, doesn't this still make sense?
This matches what I mentioned yesterday, that I'm seeing an explosion of super-cheap P fares that are almost priced like B fares, and for me, this makes it worthwhile to forget about 1K, forget about GPUs, and just pay those P fares and balance my budget by cutting discretionary flying. Fly less. Pay more. And never sweat upgrades or W fare lottery BS.
This strategy won't work for everyone, and not even for me when I'm flying under contract restrictions, but when I'm able to control how I fly, it's perfect.
In fact, it also works out for UA, because though I'm flying less, my yield is going up, and if everyone behaves this way, their per-mile yields will triple over what they are getting today from a typical 1K.
And, we never even need to think or speak the word "upgrade" again.
It's always been my opinion that the fundamental problem with the current system is that they price F and J irrationally high. If they cut the price to where people could afford it, we would all be much better off than this nonsense where it's priced in the stratosphere and then we have to play stupid lottery games to try to get the seats.
Incidentally, I'm seeing the same behavior on NH and a little less of it on LH and I notice that prices between UA, NH, and LH always seem to be the same for SFO-NRT or SFO-FRA (I think they got an anti-competition exemption that allows them to do what would be illegal for any other company to do) and so it seems there is a global trend in this direction, at least on these routes and amongst these alliances.
Time will tell if it's just seasonal or really a trend ... but I'm seeing this into the spring of next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
Goosing PRASM yields at this point? FTer mitchmu reported getting a $300 HOD buy-up from Y to Z on booking for a 10 hr flight.
Or maybe SHARES is just taking over a la Skynet...it can't be stopped
Well, we know that what they love about SHARES is the "dynamic pricing" but nobody has told us what that really is except that it has a magical ability to set the price of an E+ seat for kettles in real-time. Wow. Big deal. Maybe it's a massive neural-network engine that is kicking in now that it's having enough history to work with and it more broadly affects offers.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Nov 11, 12 at 10:06 am..
Reason: merge
Wouldn't the most likely explanation be that someone just did something stupid in how they set up the fares in the system?
This certainly wouldn't be the first stupid or incorrect thing that we've observed since 3/3.
Sad but true
Still, however, P is $4469 and A is $5499 so although A > Z, it's still the case that C is < F, so from that point of view, doesn't this still make sense?
I think you misread what I said. A > P, that makes sense BUT A < Z, This makes no sense. Both P & Z should be less then A, (all 3 are heavly restricted). only C & some D fares should be higher then some A fares. Right?
This matches what I mentioned yesterday, that I'm seeing an explosion of super-cheap P fares that are almost priced like B fares, and for me, this makes it worthwhile to forget about 1K, forget about GPUs, and just pay those P fares and balance my budget by cutting discretionary flying. Fly less. Pay more. And never sweat upgrades or W fare lottery BS.
This is what you & I discussed a few weeks ago. I'll make 1K naturally or I won't but I certainly wont chase it & I certainly would no longer buy F or C fares again when P or super cheap A gets me the same seat. With GF TPAC fares < $5,000 & BF TATL fares < $3,000, who needs GPU's?
This strategy won't work for everyone, and not even for me when I'm flying under contract restrictions, but when I'm able to control how I fly, it's perfect.
True, but imagine how ridiculous it is when a company has a NO first / business class policy so your forced to buy a Y tkt, only to learn there are discount C fares cheaper. In this day & ago of pricing, companies should get rid if no premium class restrictions & replace it with just "best fare". Many already do this but many don't
In fact, it also works out for UA, because though I'm flying less, my yield is going up, and if everyone behaves this way, their per-mile yields will triple over what they are getting today from a typical 1K.
And, we never even need to think or speak the word "upgrade" again.
And let's face it, if it works for UA, good for them. They should try to sell every premium seat & its up to them to decide what they are worth, not a FTer holding a few GPU's
It's always been my opinion that the fundamental problem with the current system is that they price F and J irrationally high. If they cut the price to where people could afford it, we would all be much better off than this nonsense where it's priced in the stratosphere and then we have to play stupid lottery games to try to get the seats.
American carriers, yes. Some foreign carriers, not so much. What I don't understand is when American carriers charge more for F & C then world class foreign airlines. I just priced a one way SFO-ICN for next month in F. UA's price on the non stop is $2800 more then the SQ F price. What's up with that? UA's full F & C fares to DXB are higher then EK's in almost every market I checked. Most govt workers might be stuck w UA but they don't buy premium. Big companies get big discounts on UA but what's the point when that discount lowers the fare to the same thing you would pay on SQ w no discount?
Incidentally, I'm seeing the same behavior on NH and a little less of it on LH and I notice that prices between UA, NH, and LH always seem to be the same for SFO-NRT or SFO-FRA (I think they got an anti-competition exemption that allows them to do what would be illegal for any other company to do) and so it seems there is a global trend in this direction, at least on these routes and amongst these alliances.
Only in these markets I believe. Check LH's F fare from JFK-JNB & then shop around. LH/AF/BA have very similar fares on USA-AFRICA/ASIA 1 stop flights but they can't compete w the Gulf carriers & its KILLING their premium traffic. (LH is converting existing WB's to 2 class while EK awaits 100 more 380's). Both make good business sense but it's sad & its not the airlines fault there. I firmly believe that EK/AU/GF do not get unfair help from their Govts but these Govts also don't stand in their way. European & American carriers get hammered by their respective Govts. It's the only thing I agree w Smisek about (plus his choice in ties .
Time will tell if it's just seasonal or really a trend ... but I'm seeing this into the spring of next year.
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 19,585
UA can put only a few seats into their P inventory and significantly more in Z. It can make sense to sell a few seats more cheaply, even with exactly the same restrictions and fees to change the ticket, etc.
__________________
Check out the new External Miles and Points Resources forum.
Agree with all that but a restricted F tkt should never be less then a C tkt with the same restrictions. That just makes no sense
Sure it does, if they have greater capacity controls on the restricted F ticket. You still have the case where lowest J is less than lowest F. And their algorithms could very easily zero out A inventory once P inventory goes, which would ensure the fare hierarchy (i.e., First > Biz).
OTOH, AA recently was offering F fares on JFK-LHR that were less than the lowest available J fare over New Year's. Just over $2k r/t, very tempting. (Biz was maybe $200-300 more r/t).
Programs: Formerly over-entitled UA 1K, now under-entitled UA PP.
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
I think you misread what I said. A > P, that makes sense BUT A < Z, This makes no sense. Both P & Z should be less then A, (all 3 are heavly restricted). only C & some D fares should be higher then some A fares. Right?
No, I see your point, and I don't agree. I think that cheapest F seat should always be more expensive than cheapest J seat, and this holds true in your
example. As for the details beyond that, who really cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
This is what you & I discussed a few weeks ago. I'll make 1K naturally or I won't but I certainly wont chase it & I certainly would no longer buy F or C fares again when P or super cheap A gets me the same seat. With GF TPAC fares < $5,000 & BF TATL fares < $3,000, who needs GPU's?
This is surely not a coincidence. I believe they have devalued GPUs to the point they are basically standby instruments with lowest priority to be used only for inventory that surely can't be sold.
And, I think you and I agree, with fares like this, it doesn't much matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
True, but imagine how ridiculous it is when a company has a NO first / business class policy so your forced to buy a Y tkt, only to learn there are discount C fares cheaper. In this day & ago of pricing, companies should get rid if no premium class restrictions & replace it with just "best fare". Many already do this but many don't
Corporate travel policies are often ridiculous and produce all sorts of insane outcomes.
This is why the X-UP and especially the TOD/HOD offers are great. If you have to buy "economy" then you can buy M-UP and qualify. If you have to buy lowest available, then do it, and exercise an HOD to get in front. Sure, maybe you have to pay for the HOD out of your pocket, but if you're in a business where you bill by the hour and you can use the space in F to get work done instead of being squished into a painful torture position in the back with no chance of working b/c you can't even open your laptop screen, then it's a sound investment.
I really feel bad for corporate travelers who are on a salary and forced into "cheapest available" and can't use the time for work and can't justify spending much on the HOD. I think that's the worst position to be in. That's when the UA-style CPU/RPU/GPU game becomes a life saver and that's where I can understand doing MRs to get status, except for the fact that the rewards have been cut so drastically that it no longer seems even worth the effort in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
American carriers, yes. Some foreign carriers, not so much. What I don't understand is when American carriers charge more for F & C then world class foreign airlines. I just priced a one way SFO-ICN for next month in F. UA's price on the non stop is $2800 more then the SQ F price. What's up with that? UA's full F & C fares to DXB are higher then EK's in almost every market I checked. Most govt workers might be stuck w UA but they don't buy premium. Big companies get big discounts on UA but what's the point when that discount lowers the fare to the same thing you would pay on SQ w no discount?
Well, the corporate discounts apply to everything, so the company gets x% off all travel in exchange for a commitment to UA. In aggregate, the company is better off than if they committed less to UA, got less of a discount, and then let their employees fly on foreign carriers as the same price. The companies that sign these contracts don't care how good the service is in J or C, they just care about minimizing travel expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinatraderjmr
Only in these markets I believe. Check LH's F fare from JFK-JNB & then shop around. LH/AF/BA have very similar fares on USA-AFRICA/ASIA 1 stop flights but they can't compete w the Gulf carriers & its KILLING their premium traffic. (LH is converting existing WB's to 2 class while EK awaits 100 more 380's). Both make good business sense but it's sad & its not the airlines fault there. I firmly believe that EK/AU/GF do not get unfair help from their Govts but these Govts also don't stand in their way. European & American carriers get hammered by their respective Govts. It's the only thing I agree w Smisek about (plus his choice in ties .
If we shift the conversation beyond *A, then it becomes more complicated, because it means giving up RDMs which means less free travel (and let's admit it, *A redemption is outstanding), and at the margins, it means giving up status, which still offers certain benefits compared with no status - I just question the incremental value of 75K or 100K levels over the 50K level at this point. So, UA and *A generally can charge more for less in exchange for the value of the *A network and premium status on that network. Honestly, I'm amazed how well I'm treated overseas as a Gold. For example, I recently got to the airport 15 minutes after gate close for LIS-FAO on TP, and they actually rushed me through and made an exception, and they told me they did it only b/c I was *G. So, if choosing EK means only being 25K vs. 50K level on UA, is that really best? I think the EK type discussion needs to be had in the context of what status one is giving up, and how that status affects other flights (i.e. US domestic) where there aren't such choices.
It doesn't seem like a bargain to me. It's $5000 for an airline ticket. Not the kind of money most people have lying around for an airline ticket. Put that together with a family of 4 for vacation, and it's $20,000 for flight alone--more than a car. Not sure what all the hoopla is about here.
AA has a P-fare (based on a K-fare KKX0C3B) for about $4,800 round-trip in the NYC-PVG market that books into F the whole way. UA could simply be matching with a limited number of seats or v.v.
Still, it's reasonable to see UA's Z-fare stable and not discounted further, to prevent re-fares on previously purchased tickets in Z.
.
