why fly

OK here is a thread on United FT... a employee at UA is asking why people fly United...
By far the # 1 response was E+... I know that was the reason I started to fly UA.. I stayed because of easy upgrades.

Here is the link
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ferrerid=16261

I wonder if AC has thought about this for its "new fleet/interiors for 06?

500 miles at a time

E+ would be great however, would it actually help them to fill planes any fuller than the loads being experienced right now?

Simon

I had asked one of the execs about this last year and he replied that he "didn't expect [E+ type deals] to survive the current round of US airline restructuring", and that AC would not be doing it. At least on AA, it appears this is the case re: MRTC.

Simon

tcook052

AA recently announced the end of it's experiment with 'More Room Throughout Coach', leaving UA as the only N. American airline offering more space in economy cabin.

NoahVail

I've used UA for ORD flights recently specifically to get E+. I used to get upgraded regularly on AC metal because I was using unrestricted tickets, however with the new FUN fares and lower change fees it makes more sense to book AC codeshares on UA metal and sit in E+ for the 1+ hour flight.

Drawbacks: Using T1 in ORD instead of gate E1 (first gate) in T2. E1 makes for quick exits to the 'L' in the morning and less crowded checkin in the evening. In YYZ you have to walk to the end of T2 to checkin at the UA counter, however it usually isn't very busy.

NV

1kBill

Regarding UA E+ vs. AA MRTC, the crucial difference is that UA E+ seating is only in the first several rows of coach which AA MRTC was throughout the whole Y cabin. UA uses it to reward its full fare Y and elite pax; AA rewarded everybody, now they are punishing everybody. There are even reports that UA is offering some non-elite fliers on discount tickets "upgrades" to E+ at check-in for something like $25.

With AA moving to LRTC, UA's big hope is that the higher spending pax who can't get upgrades to F will move on over to UA, allowing them to obtain a higher revenue per seat mile. I am actually a little bit surprised that AA got rid of it entirely; AA does have more F seats available on their single aisle planes than UA, so maybe that's a factor.

Remains to be seen if it will work. If not, it will probably go away, in spite of it being the overwhelming #1 choice in that UA thread.

naplesyrupeater

planes are jam packed these days with system load factors in the 76 000 / day range. that's like busy summer sked type numbers. I don't know how much e+ would boost those numbers.

Shareholder

As already posted by others, on NAmerican routes it doesn't make much difference to AC as it is already filling its seats without the extra leg room, and AC has always had better pitch than US carriers and most of its other domestic competitors. Taking a row out to add another few inches to the first four or five rows would only reduce capacity by six seats. Would you be willing to pay more to make up for these missing seats?

Parnel has speculated that AC's new configuration on international widebodies may contain a mid-class cabin that does have more pitch. We'll have to wait and see. I think these are really the only routes where this can be justified, but as someone who does still fly in the back on transAt and transPac flights from time to time, I have never really found AC's pitch to be a problem, unlike some airlines -- BA, LH and IB come to mind from past nightmarish flights crammed into the back. I'd rather see better IFE on AC in the back before another inch or two pitch.

tcook052

Like WT+?

^

exAC

Air Canada Club Class
http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelin...clubclass.html

Al B

For me it's a no-brainer. I look at a couple of rows with UA @ 36-37" knee space which are eligible only for fuller fare or UA preferred pax and then look at the rest of their aircraft with 31". I look at AC with almost every seat row @ 34" - on a longer haul flight there is no choice, as I'm guaranteed non kneecapping space on AC but may end up in the knee reconstruction zone of UA non Y+.
3" doesn't sound like all that much, but geez it's a huge difference on long haul for a 6'1 bloke like me.
IMHO it's something AC doesn't advertise or push hard enough. The 34" is way above industry standard and is something they offer anybody, not just full fare or preferred pax, so in some ways AC already offers Y+ compared to the standard.
Like Shareholder, I'd rather see PTV first, although that comes with potentially leg stretch limitations as well, thanks to the underseat boxes required to run them.

Q Shoe Guy

Which again leads me to ask ,who is doing the marketing for them? I mean no clear launch of any products(most recently the name change of "super comfort"as an example). Think of the great PR they had with the Celine song but there was nothing done to follow up. There is no over-all marketing idea (like the "Singapore Girl"for SQ)it's all over the board!

Getting back to the E+ for AC......I think it's needed only in major long haul cabins and should be priced accordingly.

Tractor Boy

Depends on your travel patterns I think. UA has a fair bit more than a "couple of rows" of E+, plus will often keep the middle seat free if loads allow. Also ACs seat pitch is only 31-32" on domestic aircraft:

http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelin...incomfort.html

For a 5 hour transcontinental flight if I was in the back, I'd rather be in E+ for sure.

Not sure if this is on seatguru, but does anyone know on ACs 330/340s which seats have 34" and which have less?

CanFlyboy

I like the idea. While this year I might make SE......I make it a habit not to travel so much that I reach the SE level. But the difference betwe E and SE is very big and having another tier with additional features would be a benefit.

Make the new tier at 60,000. Would make many people using AP very happy.
CFB ^

Q Shoe Guy

Sorry to point this out , but I think we are talking about the Economy Plus cabin on UA and if it would be a beneficial if AC started it in their aircraft.