So I've been thinking about this wine issue...CO takes pride on using famous names to represent their committment to excellent dining while flying, and they even have a name signed up to be the face of their wines selection. He is David Gordon, and he is a fairly well known name thanks to being wine director at the Tribeca Grill. I think it would be interesting to get his take on the wines selection offered.

I am sure it would be along the lines of: "I picked the best wines on the market that fit the parameters given to me by Continental in terms of cost and ease of aquisition." ...which means he'd be saying kindly that CO make him pick cheap wines...I'd then be interested in hearing what Larry or someone like that would say at a DO in response. Telling a wine person that their reputation is questionable because of the poor quality selection they put their names on is usually a good way to get a response.

Basically, what I am saying is I think a well coordinated attempt could shame CO into revisiting it's wine lists to some small degree. If I still lived in NJ I'd probably do it myself, since I am sure you can find David at the Grill on certain occasions...anyone up for the challenge?

that would be nice, the wine selection in J is pathetic.

The wines still are poor. Several months ago I was in BF was served Wente Chardonnay. I buy this by the case for <$9/btl. Two weeks ago I was in FC, IAH-PHL and was served the same wine. It's not bad, and worth maybe $9, but I expect more in BF, especially if I was shelling out the big bucks for a full fare.
My last BF trip, PEK-EWR 2 weeks ago served Wolfs Blass, better then the Wente, but not much.

as much as i agree that the wines in FC and BF are terrible, you have to look at things from CO's perspective. not only with wine but on many things.

they are not going to sell any more seats b/c they serve better wine. if they do its going to be so marginal based on the 100's of 1000's of passengers they carry per year.

same goes for the ever lasting "BF is a tired product" arguement. CO is making money on the product that they offer. they are not going to dramatically change it until they see a significant drop in revenue. its not always "keeping up with the jones"' in the airline business. its make money with what you have.

is it tired? yes. mainly, b/c it was the first of its kind and has been copied by many. they were the "jones'" at one time. is it still an extremely profitable product for them? yes. so until we all stop flying them, its going to stay the same.

on a side note....i will say that they dropped the ball in revamping the 777's and only improving the seats as little as they did (an no improvment to the PTV's). I really dont concider the upgarde to the 777's much of anything. its not flat, you still have to climb over your neighbor and they still have the POS PTV system. they could have spent a little more $$$ and really improved the 777 experience.

again,the wine. I doubt any of us would stop flying any airline simiply because of subpar wines. if that should, by some chance, happen and CO were to see a dramatic fall in sales b/c of it, im sure they'd make the change.

they have cut back on the level of meal service in all classes post 9/11. did we stop flying? no. its simply economics. they want to give a good product at a good value and i think they do (again, the wine sucks).

so in my opinion, the 767's, 777's and 752's are here to stay the way they are config'd (new AVOD aside) until they retire.

we will see a new product on the 787, but i do not think it will be rolled out onto any 767's or 752's, but possibly years later on the 777's after the newly enhanced product is due for an update. and just possibly on the handful of 764's that are still around.

just my, 10 paragraph, two cents

These are all reasons why I take my business to international partners whenever possible (VS, AF, KL, etc.).

In truth, they could do much better with their wine selection without really spending more $$ per bottle. There are many 9-15$ alternatives to diacetyl riddled chardonnays

That's exactly the point. I'm not saying they should be going out and spending $40 a bottle on wines, but a tiny bit more effort and a few dollars more would pay back rewards. It's not nearly as involved or difficult as designing and implementing an entirely new cabin product. Wines are bought wholesale at a great discount, an extra dollar or two per bottle is barely a blip in the J fares when spread across the whole cabin..they just need to decide to make the effort.

if they charged $10 more a seat to cover better wine I doubt they would see any falloff in bookings.

there is certainly 'word of mouth' advertising. SQ's reputation is not due to advertising, its due to people oooohing and aaaahing at the Dom they serve up front, and the mystique of having such high class service. That attracts people ($$$$) to their airline and allows them to charge a premium for their actual premium service.

CO refuses to add value to their product. Having lousy products that you do offer (crappy seats in Y, disgusting greasy pizza thingies for 'meals', and swill wine in J), does nothing but deter people from using CO in the future.

I have been exploring the option of using United for more of my travel. They are often more convenient, rewards are far easier to redeem, upgrades are also obtainable, and the service is not that bad. Quite frankly, of late I have found that United's service in F has been more or less as good as Continental's, except that United has better wine (though only OJ/Water pre-flight). If you're stuck in Y, United is certainly better. They may not feed you, but at least they aren't feeding you disgusting crap either, and your butt is in a much more comfortable seat.

Any extra dollar or two a bottle times X,000 bottles with no return whatsoever on the additional investment is what shareholders would consider a poor decision.

And since quite frequently their pricing model is based around the competition, putting their seat $10 higher than a competitor could lose them seats.


I would pay $10 more thn competitor for a better seat, not better wine

Not every seat consumes an entire bottle of wine per flight, and no way CO stocks that many in the cabin, so your math is WAY off. (FA's correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that one. That would be a bigger waste than spendy wine. You have to pay for the fuel to carry around that wine, and that is not remotely free.)

If you spread the costs out across the entire cabin, I am sure you could make a marginal improvement in the quality of wines while raising fares no more than a dollar per BF seat...and I think that's on the higher end. The idea is just to make smarter purchases though, which is something any good wine agent should be able to do.

I would pay $10 more for better wine.

You and I both. If I am paying for J or turning in miles I want to drink quality wine, which doesnt necessarily mean expensive wine. If this means paying more, then so be it.

there are perfectly wonderful bottles under $20. If their congress of wine masters was worth wasting words on, they would be able to pick some.

exactly. actually they could probably use their so called congress to find better wines at the same price they are paying. but to say they are losing a considerable amount of business due to their stupidity in chosing wine is way far off.

CO 1E, if you are true in your statement, i fear you are in the minority, but hey, if you're flying paid J, and you get elite with miles, why not use St partners if they've got better wine and refreshed J products.

i get gold on segments, so CO it is for me. for segment whores like me, i need CO metal J and F travel. double segments.

This all seems so obvious to me. And WENTE?! In BF?! The convenience store around the corner from me sells that and I get change back from a ten. The President's Club at my home airport is really the only thing CO gives me to brag about these days.