Originally Posted by yogi
windflyerand fly747first, I appreaciate your comments...
If UA's stated goal is to become more internationally focused, the need to do a good job at connecting those east coast bound Asian business travelers, and the west coast bound European Business travelers.
I think they cover the Europe->West Coast OK. The Asia->East Coast is weaker.
If your point is that it'd be nice to have more transcons with p.s.-like service, I would love that. Heck, I would even settle for more widebodies: Not too long ago I had to fly to South America and had very little schedule flexibility, the only workable flights to the gateways (ORD/IAD) were on A319s that were showing F0 A0... I wasn't about to pop for C and spend the the transcon in Y (even if E+)... so I flew someone else.
As mentioned in other threads, $300 transcon RT Coach vs. $3800 First is a pretty big spread. The low price may be unproductive for the passenger, but the higher price is to much to swallow. So I am not targeting the existing premium customer who now buys the F seat, I am targeting the E customer that would pay more to not be a sardine for 5-6 hours.
I hear you... Just want to point out to you that the typical P- or C-paying pax on p.s. is paying much less due to various contracts thru which they get their tickets. It is precisely these contracts (ensuring a certain volume of paid premium traffic) that enable p.s... And sure, it puts those of us without a corporate contract to p.s. at a disadvantage--so UA and the other carriers try to appease us with a Z fare...
It sounds to me that that is the traveller to which you'd target a premium economy service. The question is, is that market large and stable enough to warrant the service? I certainly don't know, but would imagine that the folks at UA (I know that there are still some smart ones left there) looked at that and decided against it for whatever reason--maybe there was some upside potential, but more risk than they could live with?