Originally Posted by
StuckinITH
I agree with you. It's not a valid comparison. And even worse for me, my employer would not reimburse my ticket. I can only fly a non-US airline if there are no US airlines flying to that destination. Even needed once to justify why I flew from FRA to VIE on OS......
It's totally valid. If the only *A nonstop is belowpar (i.e. UA) and a *A connection is untenable, and no other airline or alliance flies the 3 given examples, then one has to make their own judgement call on pain versus connection.
Originally Posted by
Artpen100
Polaris was a marketing campaign that made lots of promises with specific timelines. Go back and look at it. They did not deliver. Was it just puffery? Was it an inability of the corporation to execute on its promises? Did they decide that it didn’t matter to their corporate contracts? I don’t know. Personally, I think that discrepancy between promise and delivery has hurt their image. I will still fly them if they are the cheapest international business class, since what I need is a lie-flat seat. If they are the same price as other airlines, I know I will have a better experience on another airline. But here is the thing. Is that the route to maximizing profits? Count me skeptical.
All we have lost so far is a Bloody Mary cart and loss of hot bites eastbound TATL so far, that we know of. Could there be more cuts - yes likely. Knowing one will have a better experience on any other carrier than United, then the only logic possible is that one only cares about price if one is still flying on UA.