Originally Posted by
bhrubin
From friends who work at UA, there are still plenty of customers willing to pay for F in certain routes--usually the "corporate" or "big money" routes out of EWR, IAD, and SFO, and to a lesser extent ORD, according to me friend. I was surprised LAX didn't join that group, but that is apparently one reason why LAX has been reduced in favor of SFO for UA. (Which bums me out as I live in SoCal!)
That is simply not correct.
Firstly, it solely looks at UA, and those with the disposable income and half a brain are not flying UA in paid international F.
If revenue international F was viable out of EWR for UA, they would have more than just a few flights a day offering it. CX has four flights a day to JFk, all of which have F. They started service to EWR, with an aircraft with no F.
The F routes out of the New York City area are out of JFK.
There is plenty of profitable F out of LAX, just not on UA. NH, JL, OZ, KE, CX and SQ all of have F out of LAX. Not so out of SFO.
UA just doesn't do competition, since it loses, so it focuses on SFO.
Asking UA about international F is similar to asking KIA about high-end luxury cars.
Clearly, American tastes and customs are different in terms of these extravagances compared to those in Asia, the Middle East, and even parts of South America--places with longer histories of significant wealth disparity where there always have been a solid group of super-rich. That is why American carriers offer less extravagance compared to counterpart carriers in those other regions...and even why European carriers offer less extravagance in comparison or in the same volume.
I disagree. American carriers are run by American CEOs who were taught in business school the road to profits is made in cutting costs. The entire concept of spending money and improving the product to entice customers is lost on U.S. airlines.
As a result, I fly in paid F regularly, but not on a U.S. carrier (except for the new AA 77W flight from LAX to LHR because it is superior to BA).
But you are incorrect in assuming that UA's value proposition for F is so different. UA doesn't put as much extravagance in its F compared to its Asian/Middle Eastern counterparts, but its F product is as good if not slightly better (and far more available) than that of AA (with just 14 planes offering it) and DL (since they don't even offer true international F). So UA is competitive for these F paying customers COMPARED to AA and DL. It's a big American market, and they get a large piece of that pie. It's also a nice perk to offer their GS and most elite customers (upgrade to F from J, Sir or Madame?), which helps keep some of those elites and GS happy with UA compared to foreign airlines.
I'll leave it at AA has 14 777-300ERs with international first, and presently has another 47 777-200ERs with international first. That's a total of 61.
Yes, AA is going to convert those 772s to 2-class, but it hasn't happened yet. At the same time, UA will be receiving A350s with no F and retiring 744s that do.
Those who can afford F generally don't fly U.S. carriers and the UA GS members aren't going anywhere since the entire CO fleet is already two-class and they fly on those and maintain GS.
Everyone forgets that US rich can't fly frequently on a foreign carrier unless they ALWAYS fly to the same region--as the Asian carriers don't serve the USA to Europe and the Gulf/European carriers don't serve the USA to Asia. Sometimes, the US carriers are the better way to go for corporate contracts, and these permit UA to continue to offer F (for the time being at least).
You seem to think that passengers are locked into a single carrier. I generally fly LH/LX to Europe and CX/SQ/NH/OZ to Asia (OZ only from JFK with the suites and now with the A380 out of LAX). While the West Coast to Asia through the Middle East is a long-way around, from NYC it is not. For the major cities on the East Coast, Middle East airlines are competitive to Asia.
With less competition for premium F offerings, the Asian and Gulf carriers win for their offering. Well, with AA and DL giving up on F offerings on their networks, UA is actually better positioned among THOSE as the only US carrier still offering a F product on most routes (again, for the time being). That does help UA in the absence of competition from AA and DL.
AA is downsizing international F. It is not giving it up.
But UA is downsizing it as well and will continue to do so.
Doesn't really matter to me as I generally don't fly either internationally unless I am flying to LHR. Then I fly AA since BA is United with an accent and more arrogance than indifference.
Originally Posted by
bhrubin
Everyone herein tends to look at these prices from the perspective of value add. When you're really rich, the value add looks a lot different. There also is a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses" which makes more super rich than you'd think not think twice about looking "off" with a J purchase when F is available--even on UA. Then there are the more senior executives whose companies give them allowances to fly F and have contracts with certain airlines for reduced pricing--including UA. So UA still gets revenue for their F seats more than people would guess.
I don't have a single wealthy client or friend who regularly flies in F who has bought a revenue ticket in F on UA in the past three years. They all fly anybody else.
United is now a carrier for those locked into captive hubs, those on corporate contracts (and those contracts are diminishing in number), Kayakers, and those who just don't know any better.