Originally Posted by
mitchmu
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.
I may be mis-remembering, but one of the reports of the audience with Martin Hand contained language that went beyond the 'over-entitled elites' issue and said something to the effect of 'you can't run an airline that treats so many different classes of elites differently'. What I took from that paraphrase is the idea that UA management in its current incarnation does not want to run an airline that is overly complicated.
While I accept your claim that greed drives most of the senior management's decision logic, I would also suggest that concern about capability to execute lies behind some of the lowering of expectations and standards since the merger got into gear. KISS is on the minds of the C suite, not just because they want bigger bonuses, but also because they don't trust their 'co-workers' to be able to deliver multiple levels of service well. The ghost of People Express still floats above the new UA, and I think that premium Y is unlikely to become a part of this company, unless it arrives as a replacement for domestic F.
That's kind of what *A's European members have done with their short and medium haul flights, although they still call the service 'Business.' Take away the lounge access and priority check-in, and you've got premium Y, essentially.