I really like to undertand what are the UA management's thinking on catering. I hear the argument that as long as planes are full, there is little incentive to act. However, if this is the rationale, then UA should not upgrade its United Clubs, refit its aircrafts with latest bluetooth ready IFE or making capital improvements at certain airports.

Why is it so hard for UA to improve its on-board catering and beverage offerings? The same GateGourmet Kitchen at SFO caters for SQ, BR and others, so it is not coordination, logistical or other operating issues with catering providers. In-flight catering providers runs global networks of facilities around the world, and I don't buy the excuses on operating issues at caterers. Other airlines don't seem have such a problem. I have flown SQ, BR, LX and LH in the last 8 weeks between EU and Asia, and the meals are back to pre-Covid standard. I also don't take "eat at Polaris Lounge" suggestion as an aswer. Why would a passenger want to schedule an extra hour to go to the hub airport (or budget longer transit time) to eat before boarding. Business travellers don't plan that way. How about oversea's locations where no Polaris Lounge exist? It is like saying, it is ok to buy a lesser quality car because the dealer's service department is offering great service.

I understand cost is a big part, but other improvements cost more, so why does UA management pick on-board catering as the one to negelect. Other than cost, what are the factors for providing such a infeior products? Incompetency, bureacray, lack of accountability, union considerations? what is it? Is really because of cost?

I work for a global organization, and if our customers complain constantly about certain service delviery and quality of services, my organization would be all over the issues and heads will fly if issues not be addressed. Why UA cannot while its two closest competitors in AA and DL can?