Originally Posted by
spin88
Alas we appear to be seeing both loss of load factor and underperformance in prasm.
Except not where BE is available. Only where BE is not available. So, no, there's no appearance of BE being a factor. And it didn't slow DL's PRASM growth back in the day either, only likely helped it, so it would be a surprise if it did the reverse effect now.
Originally Posted by
spin88
Do it like DL does, and give more status credit for BE. However, the story of UA since 2012 has been sticking with self-destructive approaches to their customers even in the face of evidence it is costing them $$$.
Do you honestly believe that status miles are the straw that breaks the camel's back and significantly affects revenue? You think that DL elites are just fine giving up the chance at CPU's, C+, and even assigned seats and will buy BE as long as they get status miles?
It's telling that you keep beating the drum that UA is hurting themselves when the operations and financials now clearly say otherwise and tell people they are a top carrier to fly. And passengers are responding.
Originally Posted by
Kacee
Pax paying the same for BE as they were previously paying for cheapest available regular economy would result in revenue neutral, not an increase in fare revenue.
And UA would be foregoing E+ revenue, TOD revenue, and change fees with these fares, which may well neutralize or even outweigh any uptick in checked bag fees.
Under the scenario that BE is the same price as Y, the only way it's revenue neutral is if no one buys up to the new Y price.
For how empty E+ cabins generally are, few people are buying up for extra legroom, and those that want BE are generally price sensitive and wouldn't be interested in E+ anyway. The loss of that ancillary revenue has to be minor, if any with the implementation of BE.