The fact is, UA has improved their premium cabin service. Compare 2004 with 2003. Okay, so they're not serving caviar and Moet. And compare it to the seats and IFE we had in 1995. People whine about the current 767-300 First Seat. Take a peek at
www.airliners.net what UA's 777s were introduced with in First in 1995 and then consider flying 5500-7500 miles in that.
Personally, I've been treated fantastic going to Europe and Asia in Business Class, so it's not like UA is institutionally hopeless. It appears that UA's crews to Australia just suck. They've been with the company since it formed in the 1920s and they're evidently as fossilized as the dinosaurs. Since UA can't fire them, we just have to wait for them to die in office, I guess.
Yes, I am sure SQ is God's Gift to Air Travel and makes First Class on the Titanic look like the bilges of a Liberty Ship. But, as
lucius noted, UA has held their own against SQ and CX for years. And they've done so because they've offered an excellent product for the price many of us can secure it for via upgrades.
As to improving the product, where the hades are they supposed to get the money? Do they upgrade just enough 744s to cover the routes (with a spare plane for each) or do they do the whole fleet? And if they make the 744 so fancy, does that mean they have to do the 777s and 767s as well? That's going to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
How does UA get that money back? By allowing people to use SWUs on $400 flights to Europe, $500 to Asia, and $900 to Australia? To use miles on $1000 flights to Europe/Asia and $1500 to Australia?
Or do they follow CO's lead and demand a Y/B/M fare for all upgrades? SWUs just become international CR1s, covering the same fares as mileage awards do, just saving you the miles. If an upgradeable fare for Business Class to Europe and Asia becomes $1500, and to Australia $2000, will you still fly UA because it now has lie-flat seats, digital AVOD, Moet and Caviar, and younger, cuter crews (male and female)?
It seems like 85% of FlyerTalk thinks nobody actually pays an F or C fare to travel in First or Business, with the other 15% thinking that those who do only spend it on BA, SQ, or CX because "they're the only ones worth it" - most having only experienced them at best a handful of times on award tickets. There are other considerations.
Why doesn't every UA MP member fly SQ when they have to fly Economy across the Pacific? I mean you have hot FAs who "care", fancy AVOD, and fine dining. Isn't all that worth having your knees in your chest for 12 hours? Is being able to stretch your legs really that much more important? Why don't they all fly LH across the Atlantic? It's "better" then UA, even if it has 31" pitch.
Simple. For the same price, we can fly in Business Class on UA and as hot-damn-spiffy-doo SQ and LH might be in Economy, it ain't UA Business in terms of seat comfort or design, now is it? Given the choice, you known darn well you'd rather be in UA Business, as "suck-..." as it evidently is to many of you.