If all air travel is a pure commodity, then the low cost/low price producer wins. Then UA has not justification in today's world.

But I don't agree that it is a commodity. There are issues including availability of upgrdes to more comfortable seats, food, taking care of you in event of problems, availability of extensive network (e.g. Asia, Latin America, etc.), alliance membership, etc., (in no particular order.)

We do not all drive Chevy Geos. Some of us drive Acuras, Lexuses, Mercedes, Cadillacs. Some drive Toyota Camrys.

Some people will pay more for the above advantages. There are different types of travellers: entrepreneurs looking to save every dime, business travellers whose company or client is paying, frequent leisure retiree travellers, just to name a few. UA should work very hard to appeal to its core profitable constitutency of business travellers, and can and should continue to charge more.

I see AA throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the changes AA is making will inconvenience the business traveller who is willing to pay more.

If UA follows the same course as AA (as they probably will as they always do) then business travellers will have little reason to stick to UA and continue paying more to UA. Both UA and AA can expect to become smaller carriers, perhaps much smaller or even out of business as they cannot play this low cost/low price game as well as the Southwests, JetBlues, AirTrans, and xyz low fare start-ups can.