|
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 14800957)
I hope so, although, since the point of the merger is to save $$$, I find this highly doubtful...
|
Originally Posted by xzh445
(Post 14801224)
Other than CO has previously indicated that if they thought that ICC's were a good idea, that they would ave done it by now.
|
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 14799988)
2. Do they keep PS at JFK, where the service is almost purely O&D, or do they close down the JFK station and move PS to EWR. For UA moving to EWR was not seen as feasible, given UA's minor infrastructure there, but UaCo would have--if anything--far better infrastructure than what UA currently has at T7.
Don't believe what you read, that the Hollywood types who fly PS FC would refuse to go to EWR. The limo can pick them up just as easily at EWR as it does at JFK. |
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
(Post 14801696)
If you're doing basic transcons w/o any NYC connections, JFK T7 is INFINITELY more desirable than EWR - nice and cozy, like its own tiny airport, with minimal security lines. Lot more privacy at T7 too for the VIP types.
|
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 14801297)
Sure, but that and $5.45 will buy you a mocha frappuccino with a touch of soy venti at Starbucks...
Hey, I'm not the one that started this thread and asked for predictions. :p So, what I am reading on this thread is: In comparing every difference between the two carriers: If the "least desireable" difference would come form CO, it will be implemented. If the "better" difference would come from CO, even though CO (chastised here for not making changes) would abandon it for the UA difference.? Obviously, this is one of those hard to compute "soft dollar" items. Higher labor cost vs lost revenue from customers who give up when "Tom" from Bangalore can't help them, they can't understand what he is saying, or is told that Dallas is a major airport hub in suburban Virginia. But historically, the UA forum is less than thrilled with the ICC, and CO has historically used on shore call centers. I realize that a jaded person would immediately think that this is going to be hard dollar decision only, but there are the soft dollar implications with improved customer service. Depending upon what model is used to calculate that, it may outweigh the hard dollar costs.. Just a gut feeling - ICC will be phased out. |
Originally Posted by xzh445
(Post 14801733)
You are not a betting man (from a previous thread) and I don't TOUCH that Starbucks swill.
Hey, I'm not the one that started this thread and asked for predictions. :p So, what I am reading on this thread is: Every difference between the two carriers: If the "least desireable" difference would come form CO, it will be implemented. If the "better" difference would come from CO, even though CO (chastised here for not making changes) would abandon it for the UA difference.? Obviously, this is one of those hard to compute "soft dollar" items. Higher labor cost vs lost revenue from customers who give up when "Tom" from Bangalore can't help them, they can't understand what he is saying, or is told that Dallas is a major airport hub in suburban Virginia. But historically, the UA forum is less than thrilled with the ICC, and CO has historically used on shore call centers. I realize that a jaded person would immediately think that this is going to be hard dollar decision only, but there are the soft dollar implications with improved customer service. Depending upon what model is used to calculate that, it may outweigh the hard dollar costs.. Just a gut feeling - ICC will be phased out. I don't like the ICC at all, but I am just wondering how Smisek, or anybody running this merger, can justify increasing the costs to the combined airline. I agree with you that there are soft-dollar implications, and that there is an argument to made for phasing out ICC. I don't have a strong feeling on this issue, but my gut tells me that, when push comes to shove, and looking at the relative costs (TPA phone agent at $19/hr + full benefits) vs. ICC...ICC will win out. P.S.: I never drink coffee at all, of any variety. My Starbucks comment was meant as a take-off on the old "...that and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee" remark, updated to a more contemporary (and absurd) level. After all, who would walk into what is little more than a McDonald's for yuppies and spend over five bucks on a cup of coffee! |
Originally Posted by danville 1K
(Post 14798024)
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. |
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 14801783)
P.S.: I never drink coffee at all, of any variety. My Starbucks comment was meant as a take-off on the old "...that and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee" remark, updated to a more contemporary (and absurd) level. After all, who would walk into what is little more than a McDonald's for yuppies and spend over five bucks on a cup of coffee! |
Originally Posted by notquiteaff
(Post 14791523)
You can find authoritative guesses to these and probably many other questions right here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...er-thread.html Well, tehcnically, that is in "another" forum..........for now. |
Love p.s. And JFK T7
It would be horrible if p.s. was moved to EWR. My p.s. flights are usually on-time, if not early. The lounge is quiet and the lines are never long. And I love the crews that are based here...by far these are the best FAs in all of United. Flights to NRT (ANA) also get BA lounge access at T7, which is also very nice.
EWR feels like the Continental version of ORD to me: busy, crowded, impersonal, and the crews don't know each other. And getting into the city from anywhere in Jersey is the pits. I'll be sad if UA loses p.s., E+ or JFK. I would leave UA for AA, in a heartbeat. Already have a status match option in the worst case scenario.
Originally Posted by UA-NYC;
If you're doing basic transcons w/o any NYC connections, JFK T7 is INFINITELY more desirable than EWR - nice and cozy, like its own tiny airport, with minimal security lines. Lot more privacy at T7 too for the VIP types.
|
The biggest question of all:
What route will be marked as Flight 1? It is currently IAH-HNL-GUM for CO and ORD-HNL for UA. |
Originally Posted by BryanIAH
(Post 14802545)
The biggest question of all:
What route will be marked as Flight 1? It is currently IAH-HNL-GUM for CO and ORD-HNL for UA. |
Originally Posted by rankourabu
(Post 14800112)
Air Canada, Air NZ, Virgin, Jet, Turkish 77W, Qantas, Qatar 777s, BUSINESS all have the same seat length and width flat beds as United FIRST.
Originally Posted by rankourabu
(Post 14800112)
Noone is comparing United to the top 5%, there is a reason its a 3* airline.
Most Delta, American Airlines, Air France, US Airways, Lufthansa, Air China, Turkish Airlines, Air Berlin, KLM, China Eastern, Iberia, Korean Air, Japan Airlines, China Southern, Eqypt Air, Royal Air Maroc, TunisAir, Air Algérie, Ethiopian Airlines, Thai Airways, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Hainan Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Iran Air, China Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Vietnam Airlines, Shenzhen Airlines, EVA Air, PIA, Shandong Airlines, Cebu Pacific, Gulf Air, Alitalia, Aer Lingus, Air Europa, TAP Portugal, Brussels Airlines, AeroMexico, Hawaiian Airlines, TAM, Gol, Avianca, and more Business class seats make up the other 90%. My non-comprehensive lists excluded some of the big airlines that have mixed fleets of superior and inferior seats, some airlines because I had no clue if they have business class or not, and only included airlines that flew more than 5 million passengers/year. |
Originally Posted by BryanIAH
(Post 14802545)
The biggest question of all:
What route will be marked as Flight 1? It is currently IAH-HNL-GUM for CO and ORD-HNL for UA.
Originally Posted by CALMSP
(Post 14802617)
I'd prefer it to stay the GUM flight!
|
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 14793649)
If you look at my posting history, you will see that I have been among the most tireless advocates of something like E+ on CO.
And so I am hardly "rooting" for E+ to go away... But... The reason so many of us believe it will go is we know the way CO thinks. They have a formula that tells them they only make money on the last coach passenger in the plane. So given that analysis, the last thing they would ever want to do is get rid of coach seats. Also, they strongly believe (and here there is probably a point), that something like E+ acts as a disincentive to shoot for FC or higher elite status. I believe, sadly, that E+ will be removed but that the new airline will continue to monetize the remaining handful of seats (exit rows, certain bulkheads) on each a/c that have extra legroom (i.e. ELR). As far as the A-319's/320's, they obviously keep the exit row seats the way they are (there isn't much of a choice there). They would thus remove one row of E+ ahead of the exit rows, tighten the remaining rows so they have 31" seat pitch and easily add a row of FC. They would also get rid of E+ on their non P.S. 752's, but since they already have 24 FC seats, this would not change as a function of not having too large a premium cabin and the location of the 2nd set of doors/lavatory.
Originally Posted by rankourabu
(Post 14800112)
Air Canada, Air NZ, Virgin, Jet, Turkish 77W, Qantas, Qatar 777s, BUSINESS all have the same seat length and width flat beds as United FIRST. Same seat and sleeping comfort in terms in hard product. Please dont tell me the soft product/service/food is better on UA than any of the above mentioned carriers.
The real problem with UA's new F and C is not the hard product, but the uneven service. One of the things I hope for now that the airlines are merging is that the on-board service levels will rise to what I read about CO.
Originally Posted by SunLover
(Post 14800017)
I would tend to agree; but based on visual inspection (walking by it on my way to E+) and specifications only. My hesitation would be sitting in what is traditionally considered the backwards position. While it is not a unique seating scheme in the airline industry, it is not something I would want to try for the first time on a 12 hour flight.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.