Is this just a silly idea?
 

What if they installed 3 classes of service on all long haul flights?


UPPER CLASS-Money is no object to those who sit here.

MIDDLE CLASS-they work hard, make a nice living and would pay a little extra to be fairly comfortable for 8-14 hours in the air.

FRUGAL CLASS- For those who just want to get there cheap.

Also known as "One day I hope to be either of the above class but right now I'm stuck in the back class"

Isn't that the same as First, Business, and Economy? United and British Airways are two carriers that come to mind that still offer a three-class product.

Why doesn't Continental offer something similar? It seem like you either break your bank or you break your back or your neck to get to Europe on CO.



[This message has been edited by Elite Nomore (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

BA and UA really have four classes. In addition to regular economy, UA has E+ and BA has World Traveller Plus.

Because if CO did that, there would not be more people "choosing" the middle class section, but there would be more people DEMANDING that they be seated there for no extra charge. ("I have a medical condition and need to sit there" - - "I am going to start flying CO all the time - do you want my business - if you do, prove it, and seat me there" - - "I have Ultra-Plutonium status - my 4 kids should be entitled to those seats for free" - - I had status last year and only missed it by 12,000 miles this year because of my wife's sister's uncle's brother and his cancer surgery.....but now you are punishing me because of his health problems...and you should give me that seat". My guess would be that if CO had a mid-class section, they would give away 75% of the seats with no revenue collected for them.

Continental used to have three classes of service back when they flew to Australia. When CO first came out with Business First competing business classes were closer to economy class than to first class. CO figured they could gain market share by offering a “near” first class experience at a business class price. But as time has passed, other airlines business classes have caught up to or surpassed BF… and they still offer First class too. Unfortunately business class fares on three class carriers are much closer to a first class tickets in price than economy... so for the average hard woking guy... coach is the only choice.

The flagship international flights have been very profitable for CO. They probably see no reason to change.

The question is...E+ would dilute the BF revenue, would that be offset by the revenue inflow of economy jumpers to E+? And if there is a gain is it worth the retro-fit capex, training, product development, and marketing?

We could argue either way. But if you are CAL, why take the risk when Int'l is doing relatively well?

What does 'relatively well' mean?

What does 'flagship' mean?

I'm still trying to find out how to buy F or BF products anywhere at a 'reasonable' premium.

"What is 'reasonable'?" you might ask...

Well for me the A fares of DL from ATL to HNL for $1,257 rt is a perfect example of one for me.

Now to get CO to sell some fares to Europe for a reasonable price and we will all be happy http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

CO's system seems to be working for them.

Business First generates revenue, either through direct ticket sales or the HoKeY paid upgrade system.

Is it as nice as a "true" First Class as seen on UA and AA? In terms of seat comfort, no. In terms of food and drink. Sure looks mighty nice from what I see on www.airliners.net.

Yes, CO's Economy Cabin is extremely uncomfortable, but so is DL's and NW's. AA offers an extra few inches as does UA, but for many those airlines are either not an option for international, or the domestic upgrades were more important than a comfortable international travel experience.

Isnt CO 777 BF seats wider than UAL's and AMR's First Class suites?


[This message has been edited by DrivingRain (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

a big AMEN to that!

You left off one group that would be occupying the seats paying even less than those you mentioned.

CO's 2-cabin longhaul model has proven successful, and has even been copied (whole or in part) by many US and international carriers (e.g., AC, NW, DL, SQ, AA, and CX). In times of industry depression (such as the present), the 2-cabin model has shown itself to be more resilient and adaptive to changing market conditions than the 3-cabin model; indeed, several airlines have at least partially transitioned to a 2-cabin model (SQ, CX, and QF) because reliance on the F cabin as a primary revenue generator had proven unsuccessful.

Therefore, I cannot see CO transitioning back to a 3-cabin model for the foreseeable future.

------------------
Has YOUR airline won an award lately?

"Is this just a silly idea?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

When someone posts a post like this;

what are they trying to prove?