I'm not sure what the big news is, but it ain't the introduction of a new service. UA just spun the story to hide the fact that they are actually reducing capacity on transcons. Look here:

http://seatguru.com/united/B762b.shtml

These planes fly regularly JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO. F seats are basically lie-flat, service and food are better than WBC, and you get a choice of movies (albeit tapes).

So now they're removing these 767s from these routes and replycing them with 757s. Smacks of "enhancement" to me.

all i can say is that i always go out of my way to make sure i'm on the 767 flight from EWR-LAX. true, it's not technically "BF", but all frills aside, it's still that great seat, an excellent meal, and the flight attendants are consistently fantastic on the transcons. if they keep offering their 767s for those flights, i'll be less tempted by United's new product, but it would be nice if CO would start putting at least one of their EWR-SFO flights on a 767. wishful thinking, eh?

UA's p.s. in fact is a dramatic upgrade from what's currently used on the SFO/LAX-JFK route. I believe you were referencing the B767-300s which are used for international as well as some transcon routes and have a decent F/C class cabin albeit barely distinguishable from each other. The B767-200s are the oldest planes United has, and has poor amenities. I am sure countless United customers will be happy they are gone. Yes, it is a decrease in capacity, but as a customer would you rather have more capacity or more room/better seats?

Some new photos for you, including some shots of each cabin:

http://www.unitedps.com/presskit/

if im not mistaken the biz class on UA new transcons will have J seats with 54" pitch, so i think they may be more like CO's 767 seats with a bit less recline.

The new 757 would be considered an improvement over the old 762, since the UA 762s were more than 15 years old and did not include Economy Plus

Here's some videos with more details:

http://unitedpromos.com/1k/ps/

Small market for CO
 

While EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX were important markets for CO once, JetBlue, HP and others have changed the strategic importance of this market. I dont see CO losing sleep over UA's offering.

As mentioned before - UA's offer is a good marketing move to reduce capacity and call it an enhancement. If intended to bring new customers - it is more to bring back passengers that defected to JetBlue (for IFE and better pitch), Delta (BE seats) and other airlines serving JFK. It might also prepare the grounds for previous partner Independence Air 1-stop flight to the west coast that will start early next year.

As p.s. flights will only operate out of JFK, It is not relevant for Continental that never saw JFK as a real competition.

Pretty short-sighted, in my view.

It seems to me that the majors have been whining about yields while providing increasingly inferior product to the market - product that, in many cases, is inferior to B6, but for which they expect to demand a premium price.

I am glad to see a premium carrier trying to upgrade their service (reduce quantity but increase quality) to demand higher yields. I don't know for sure if it will work (corporate travel depts won't pay just any old fare for upscale service), but we will never know how it might work if no one tries. I hope it works for them, and that others follow suit.

I'm really excited about this move. It's a shot across the bow of UA's competition. The trend to cut service and costs and fill airplanes with as many warm bodies as possible yield-be-damned could now see an end.

I already pay an $80-$100 premium per ticket to fly CO and enjoy my benefits (although it's not enough of a premium for poor Gordon), and I am certain the market can support enough customers willing to pay *reasonable* premiums to get a better product and service. Not a 300% premium, but something in the line of 20-30%.

Good move on UA's part and I hope its successful. Maybe it will change the trend everyone else is on away from lowest-common-denominator service and RJs.

If this is so, why do they match their sale fares? Whenever JFK-LAX goes on sale, so does EWR-LAX, and so forth. I think JFK is perceived as a considerable threat to CO...they don't subsist on their northern New Jersey clients--the big business comes from Manhattan/NYC. The whole "Airtrain" campaign, at least to my understanding, is to recruit New Yorkers who fly out of JFK or LGA because they perceive Newark as too difficult to access.

All things considered, I have to wonder if the average traveler wanting to fly from New York to LA or SF in coach would choose to sit in a CO 737 with 31" pitch or a UA 757 with 34" pitch, provided the costs were the same. I just hope United's move will have a broader influence on its competitors--if so, we will ALL benefit! I wouldn't be so disappointed about not getting an upgrade if I knew I'd at least have an extra few inches of legroom in coach.

looking at the photos, the UA seats offer more than just pitch. Their design appears much more comfortable than the coach seats found on CO or DL. If the fare is the same, I would bet alot of passengers who are not OP slaves will choose the UA product and those 75s will fly full in E+ all the time. The higher margins in coach and some C and F business coming from the corp. jet crowd (and curious full fare bigwigs from AA) will make this a big success for UA.

I hope you're right.

United's new business model is reminiscent of SQ's new A345s that serve the EWR-SIN routes (with the more spacious "executive economy" cabin and fewer seats). Anyone know how these flights are doing business-wise? Granted, the SQ and UA flights are in completely different markets, but I would guess that SQ's sales and market share will forcast the likelihood of UA's success with this venture.

Fare sales should be matched because they get advertised. However, try to compare regular fares. For example, Continental.com opened today with default dates of outbound on Aug 10th, return on Aug 17th. Tried to price JFK - LAX and EWR - LAX - lowest out of JFK was $418.90, EWR - $616.70.
For SFO - JFK was $548.90, EWR - $816.70.

Of course JFK is a competition to EWR. However, if CO would see it as a real threat, how can they afford selling EWR for about 48% more?