If I had to guess, UA won't entirely phase out GF but likely will limit it to the few major routes where it either can sell GF or feels it needs to offer GF to be remotely competitive (even for FFs looking to upgrade).

In the last 2 months, I've flown UA GF LAX-LHR (777-200) and BA F LHR-LAX (A380). While the BA hard product is SLIGHTLY nicer (and obviously much newer), the UA hard product is pretty competitive. Service on both was very good, but I'd give an edge to the UA F crew for being friendlier. BA's food was ATROCIOUS--just because it's a 5 course meal doesn't mean that each course doesn't have to be edible. UA's food was nothing to write home about but was better by far than BA's, at least. To me, UA is definitely competitive for the LAX-LHR market. And I'd take UA GF over VS UC any day.

For Asian routes, NO US carrier is ever going to compete with the Asian carriers like SQ, CX, OZ, etc. The economics just aren't there. But US carriers like UA and AA might continue F in a few key routes where they must (SFO/LAX-HKG/NRT/PEK/ICN. AA and DL are way behind UA on Asian routes, already, and DL doesn't have F. UA has a slight advantage for the US consumer; whether or not that justifies having GF on those routes is entirely dependent on the economics. But talking about great Asian carrier offerings is all fine and dandy--except that none of those great Asian carriers help me get from the US to Europe.

For Europe routes, the US carriers are doing quite well. The Gulf carriers are bludgeoning the European carriers like BA, LH, and AF more than anyone and far more than US carriers--because of the lucrative Europe-Asia transit traffic that US carriers NEVER had (and which has become even more lucrative as Asia's economies have surged). Again, the Gulf carriers are great, but most US business travelers do not want to fly an extra segment and/or 5-7 hours on a superior Gulf carrier to reach Western Europe.

US business travel is about efficiency. Flying nonstop is more important that most seem to believe or recognize. When there is a choice between nonstops from the US to Asia, of course most business travelers will prefer the Asian carrier if the price is comparable--but not all US business travelers will have the option of that nonstop route. The rest will fly a US carrier if necessary--you gotta go where you gotta go, period. And most major US companies have and need airline contracts with US carriers since they obviously have domestic needs, too. So US carriers like UA still get plenty of business travel from US companies, despite the rhetoric to the contrary. Mile hoarders and point hounds who play the game (as well they should, IMO) to get award flights might love flying F for their holiday excursions and/or to simply enjoy better F products, but they don't matter in the economics of offering F for any airline.

I flew LAX-SVO last year...and preferred Aeroflot in C since it was nonstop, unlike UA/LH in F/C over 2-3 segments (and LH C wasn't even lay flat).

UA will have GF for the foreseeable future due to its current inventory, but it will be trimming the F like every other major airline is doing that actually is driven by profits and not government subsidies and/or vanity. The UA-CO merger occurred during the Great Recession, which understandably caused postmUA to consider the premCO/DL model of 2 class service. With the AA-US merger now happening and less competition and substantially bigger profits, UA may have an easier time than before the GR in maintaining its GF on certain routes as well as improving its BF class. Let's wait and see.