I disagree. It's a stretch, especially for CO.

CO has always been uber conservative, essentially biased towards their cookie-cutter approach. We have seen countless examples where they could deviate and generate money (e.g., premium markets full of paid F 1-2 weeks out), but their bias towards streamlining the operation has held them back.

With their current mentality, it's possible that they see situations that make sense financially, but they get overwhelmed at the complexity and resist regardless. Or they recalibrate the numbers so that they do not make sense, by allocating too high costs to things like subfleeting.

I understand how CO typically operates, and how UA typically operates. But on October 1, 2010, the day of CHANGE, the old paradigms get shattered, and I'm quite confident everyone in the combined management team knows it's a whole new ballgame where the old rules no longer apply. ;)

When UA got rid of the 762s I believe there was a reason they converted 757s into the 3 class PS configuration instead of just going with 2 class... at the time, according to a no longer active FTer who worked for a major studio, UA had (and I'm sure still does) large contracts with some major entertainment companies that required 3 class aircraft on the routes.

I doubt if the new airline will want to eliminate something this lucrative.

For those of us who have been around big business all our lives, we know that pep-talk slogans are one thing, and that the hard-fought execution of any "new" ideas on the field is something else.

No matter what, the two carriers are not starting out from zero with all new people. And it's great to have people with so much experience and human capital, but it also means that they will be both at least somewhat entrenched in their ways, and, most importantly, will fight to the death to hold onto their turf.

In the great and terrifying unknown that is any merger, any change will be interpreted as a threat to job security and the status quo.

The reality of the merger will lie somewhere between the stated goal and the brutal stasis of the real world....

I work in the entertainment industry and for some of our "A list" talent, we are obligated to buy this style of FC.

But there is a choice, and some talent managers ask us to book AA Flagship instead of UA PS.

Also, many of our talent managers ask us to book their people on VX FC.

Were UaCo to do away with PS, there would still be choices.

However, let's face it, if CO had been paying attention to the market metrics of NYC-LAX premium-class travel, do you really think they would be delivering it primarily in 737's with 38" of seat pitch in FC?

This I could see: Remove one row of FC and replace it with a far more efficient sub-cabin of E+.

This is more efficient because it allows UaCo to continue selling the sub-cabin as ordinary coach and it's cheaper to accommodate elites in E+ than in FC, since there is none of the catering cost and the loss of RASM associated with upgraders to FC.

This would be a classic CO solution, that is the carrot of E+ (although I would doubt UaCOw would add more than 3 rows of E+ on their 738's) at the price of the stick of losing a row of FC.

Yeah, somehow I don't think you're going to get away with putting "A list" talent on JetBlue.

No not jetBlue, indeed (although I fly jetBlue all the time to BUR and I love it), but did edit my post to add that many of our talent mgrs request VX FC, which, if anything, is the best premium FC plying transcon nowadays. We're thrilled, because it saves us quite a few $$$ vs full-fare PS FC or AA Flagship FC (we always buy changeable tickets for this category of talent because there are constant changes to the schedule).

Also, when I write "A" list talent, please note this category is really more like "A-"

All the really huge stars fly only on private...we have to pay for that, too, even if they are on their plane...

Bear: I am one those who believes UaCo will do away (or at best reduce drastically E+), but I think there are some issues with your examples of AA MRIC and TW CC.

First, however robust the environment may have been in the days when these products were unrolled, this was a very long time ago and the metrics of the airline business are totally different nowadays.

TW actually was the first carrier to unveil extra legroom in Y, with Comfort Class. But while the airline industry might have been doing fairly well at the time, TWA certainly was not (TW last earned an annual profit in 1988, and in the next and last 13 years of its existence only posted one more profitable quarter), and desperately needed a way to convince customers to fly with them.

When TW dropped Comfort Class, they simply added one or two rows to their FC cabins and provided their elites with upgrades.

AA MRIC was a little different. In those days AA was still the 700-lb gorilla of the airline business, and Donald Carty wanted to find a way to jack up the price of the coach cabin. So AA's MRIC came with a fairly hefty price disadvantage.

In any case, both TW & AA's experiments with more legroom in coach were substantially different from UA's E+ in that they were not sub-cabins, but involved the entire coach cabin.

UA specifically designed E+ as a way to foster elite loyalty, and as such it has worked brilliantly. It wasn't until relatively recently that they even attempted to monetize E+.

And, while the business model may be very different, don't forget jetBlue which has its own sub-cabin, EML (Even More Legroom), which is principally a buy-up product. These seats have as much as 38" seat pitch; B6 claims it derives $40 million/year in marginal revenue from EML.

So while I do think that UaCo is most likely to eliminate (or, at best, vastly reduce E+) I don't think the examples you cite are necessarily very relevant.

Not if you want to sleep comfortably.

For those who prefer newer seats, better IFE, and less jaded FA's I can see why VX would be a preference.

Nonsense! If you care about the seat comfort, sleep comfort, and amount of personal space, your statement is not true. I dare you to prove me wrong!

In fact, United's new business class is way above average!

Some FTers have a habbit of comparing an airline to the top 5% product in the whole world. When the airline they are comparing does falls short of the top 5% standard, they trash the airline being compared as substandard.
Reality: UA's current new business class seats are better than 75% of the business class seats flying in the air now. (Including all major airlines, not just FT favorite top percentile airlines)

I think the new UA/CO has to think about the bolded statement very carefully. I am sure there is a fairly substantial population of UA elites that go out of their way (ie: making an extra connection, choosing less convenient schedules, etc.) to sit in E+. If that incentive goes away, while it's true that there may not be better alternative leg room wise, there are plenty of other reasons for them NOT to choose UA/CO. If the new management feels they can get away with that, then go ahead and eliminate E+.

LAX

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.591 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Please expound on which part of my statement is false.

As much or better pitch throughout the cabin goes to B6.

IFE goes to B6.

Food goes to B6 IMO. Nice combination of free and BoB available.

The only thing p.s. offers over B6 is upgrade opportunities, but for folks without CR1s or SWU or miles to blow the whY experience on B6 is better.

Since this is a WAG thread, would it be off topic to predict that as soon as this merger closes we will receive word of the third-leg of the tripod with the new United Continental Holdings acquiring Greyhound to create the long rumored travel juggernaut that will revolutionize transportation in the U.S.?

Agreed that B6 is better than UA PS E+, and that's not considering B6 EML, which is way better...

Still, as far as a legacy Y experience, with full-service ff program, etc., I think it's safe to say PS is only game in town on this route as far as extra legroom coach is concerned...

They tried that with Allegis already. :)