Originally Posted by
transportprof
This logic makes great sense to me, and many FTers I suspect, but I doubt it would fly with the current UA management team.
Remember how everyone from 1K's to credit card holders got put into 'Group 1' for boarding priority and the resulting chaos? When one of our number had an audience with Martin Hand, I believe, a year or so ago, he was told that there were too many gradations in the pmUA status hierarchy to treat them all differently. So it was just GS at the apex, and all the rest of MP categories lumped together (except perhaps silver, which became the new no-status).
This suggests to me that UA would resist further differentiation of its cabins into E-, E+, Y Premium, and J. They are happy to differentiate dynamic pricing for everything they can, but not to differentiate the actual services that are offered. The KISS principle will keep a true premium Y from happening, unless perhaps it's just bundling a drink and a snack in with E+.
Yes, we know that CO culture says "all elites are equal" and we've seen a reduction in benefits that differentiate between the levels. However, did they do this because they generally aspire towards simplicity? Or, did they do this because they thought it was too expensive and they could save money by cutting the complexity? If they believe that "certain" elites are "over-entitled" then it follows that they'd cut benefits to reduce the perceived over-entitlement, with an eye towards cutting costs to increase margins which directly translates into increased benefits for the people making those decisions.
However, I'm not sure if we can draw an inference from that decision to this hypothetical decision because the root cause of that decision was an "all elites are equal" mentality which re-enforced a belief in "over-entitlement" which is further re-enforced by the desire to cut costs, increase margins, to generate higher personal bonuses. When those bonuses are six digits long, the motivation is high.
None of those facts apply to this case. Because Premium Y is not a cost in the form of a benefit that's given away to over-entitled elites. For them to be interested in doing it, they'd have to run a spreadsheet model that shows they'd get higher margins, which leads them to higher personal bonuses. I'd suggest that, if the model showed higher margins, they'd do it, no matter what the other consequences. And, I'd argue, if there are people who are now paying Y and who would pay more for Premium Y but cannot afford J, then, those seats would increase margins.
I get your broader point that they have not differentiated any services, they've just created new fees on top of the same product and made those fees dynamic.
This idea does not match that philosophy, but, it also does not match the conversation about elite benefits because it's not a benefit, it's a potential source of revenue.