Originally Posted by
Mackieman
A couple of issues there: A dedicated 757 subfleet with premium cabin setups for transcons, a la UA p.s., is a fine idea in theory, but where do they get the aircraft for this? Currently, they would have to drop several European destinations to generate the aircraft required for this type of transcon service.
They're already flying some 757s on transcons, so I don't think it's as bad as you make it. But they could have setup the 739s for this purpose, who knows. It doesn't have to be 757s.
I think the point is that CO doesn't believe in the idea of a premium transcon product (Larry has said as much). It's not like they're wanting to do it when they have the fleet slack to do so.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe UA has eight or nine aircraft dedicated specifically to p.s. service. All the while, EWR - LAX/SFO segments are some of the most difficult to upgrade on in the CO system because they are filling the, "subpar" 737-800/900 premium cabins with paying passengers.
And what are they paying? The amount that you pay on CO EWR-LHR in BF will get you JFK-LAX on UA in p.s.
Fare buckets and pricing are made with a host of information neither you nor I have access to. Maybe $2700 seems inexpensive to you, but if every other airline in the market is charging that and CO raises it, they lose revenue.
That's the problem. CO's premium cabins are very often the cheapest ones out there. The concern is that CO is not charging enough, thereby leaving revenue on the table, and also affecting Elites by selling off upgrades for too small a premium.
Remember for each F seat that is anticipated to go empty or to an upgrader, they can oversell an additional Y seat. So selling fewer F seats at a higher price, plus additional Y seats sold may result in higher revenue overall.