I do not see the 787's replacing the 757's ever. The 757 is the right size for many of these routes.

Agreed. The replacement for the 752's will be the 737 ER series.

True that a 787 likely will not replace a secondary european route served by a single daily 757. However, many euro routes are presently served either by a mix of 777/767 & 757 (EWR-LGW/CDG), or 2x daily 757 (EWR-EDI/MAN). A 787 could certainly take over one of the 757 routes into a major airport (CDG or LGW/LHR), and could also replace a 2x daily 757 route like EWR-EDI...thus freeing up 757s for other duties.

Assuming that CO updates the BF cabin to include 180* lie-flat seating, one would imagine that the 757s will not be in line for a cabin refresh including such seats (due to space limitations aboard the 757). At that point, CO would likely not be too interested in deploying the 757 on bread & butter routes like EWR-LGW. The current BF product on the 757 would still remain sufficient for flights into secondary european cities where CO does not face nonstop competition.

However, even if the 787s do free up quite a few 757s, that does not mean that it would make the most sense to deploy all of those aircraft on Euro routes. There are only so many secondary euro markets that are within range of the 752. Accordingly, unless CO plans to embark upon a Euro strategy akin to its mexico ERJ strategy (i.e., send 752s to every landing strip within range of EWR, which I'm not sure is a financially viable business model)...then those spare aircraft will need to be put to work somewhere. I may be wrong, and CO may end up deploying each and every available 757 to Lyons, Basel, Nice, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Cork, Malaga, Marrakech, etc... I'm sure at least a few such cities within range of the 752 will receive service, but perhaps not all.

I'm sure they're evaluating their options carefully, and I doubt their calculations will omit an evaluation of whether the 752s can be put to work profitably on select transcon routes (EWR-LAX/SFO being foremost, IMO).

Please keep it coming...
 

Just wanted to pop in and say thanks to Anglo Large Clawed Otter for starting such a fantastic thread. It's a clear reminder of why we pay such close attention to FlyerTalk. Please do keep the feedback coming.

BLASPHEMY!!!

Keep the booze free, and there is an option to get real food for a small charge... it's called everywhere else in the terminal.

Always happy to help increase the Insider's workload :D

On TATL/TransPac flights I'd like to see CO offer:
1. A Y+ option; or
2. More mileage+fee BF upgrade inventory; or
3. A lot more Z fares; or
4. Some combination of the above

Increasing numbers of affluent-but-not-rich travellers have lots of middle-tier opportunies in their travel options: mid-tier cruise lines (like Celebrity), hotels (like Westin), tours, etc. Market research in numerous areas has shown that a burgeoning upper middle class is willing and able to spend a bit more on a variety of comforts and luxuries.

When it comes to air travel on CO, however, their choices are starkly limited. CO's consumers must choose between luxurious-but-financially-out-of-reach-for-most BF (on the one hand) and cheapo Economy (on the other). They could squeeze more cash from some of their customers if they offered some middle-tier option of increased comfort (via Y+, more BF mileage+fee inventory, and/or more deeply discounted Z fares) in exchange for a bit more money. I think CO is leaving a lot of money on the table by forcing folks to choose cheap when some (not most, but some) are willing to pay a bit more to get more.

This is true. Star Alliance Gold at 50K for many Star Alliance programs. For UA/US *Gold, one gets lounge access on international itins.

US lounges interprets "international" as transoceanic flights... so US no lounge access when flying them international to Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean. US seems to make up its own rules for its lounge access to *Gold. UA is much better in this respect (and more in conformance with Star Alliance stated policies)--my experience with UA is that * Gold get RCC access if you need a passport to get there.

The 50K versus 75K difference on access to lounges on international itins seems to be a SkyTeam vs Star Alliance difference. It is, however, a real difference that makes CO less competitive in the minds of some. (in my mind too)

I suspect that CO wouldn't give anyone lounge access unless they were a PC member or BF if they could get away with it--the way it was pre-skyteam. They're just 'playing by the skyteam rules'.

On other issues, the notion of SWU for Plat SuperPlus or the like...not going to happen. Any talk of Y+ or more generous ways of getting into the BF cabin (other than buying the ticket) are dreams. IMHO.

I still find the 50% EQM scheme highly annoying and it drives my business elsewhere...but I don't think it will go anywhere. It mostly influences my decisions regarding partner flights [i.e. I don't buy them and end up on *Allliance instead for such flights]...otherwise I can pretty much buy on co.com

I'd like to see these...they seem like they might be possible

Prioritized stand-by
Completly overhaul B terminal at IAH
Greater visibility to partner flights (CO coded) on CO.com

I guess I'll add my own two suggestions, though I admit that I haven't flown CO in years (but I just faxed in my credentials from UA, so I'll be giving CO a shot).

1. Better inventory management on the transcons. My firm pays for F on all transcons. I recently had to fly to NY on one day notice and thought I would give CO's F product a shot. Unfortunately, there wasn't a single F seat to purchase on any of the SFO-EWR non-stops, so I ended up spending almost $3,000 for a ticket on United. This was on a Tuesday. Not sure if this is a regular occurrence, but if it is, either CO is upgrading too many elites in advance or it doesn't have enough F seats to satisfy paid F demand in the SFO-EWR market.

2. E+ or something similar. This is really one of United's best features, particularly for passengers who need to book a lot of last minute trips in coach. Like I said above, I'm giving CO a shot, but I can guarantee that I won't be booking any tickets that aren't either booked directly into F or that show an exit row seat available at time of purchase. I just won't do 31".

I don't think you need to worry that Continental is upgrading too many elite's in advance, upgrades from EWR to either LAX or SFO are rare.

COInsider related that, on average, there are between 1 and 2 upgraded passengers on EWR-LAX/SFO.

The problem is the minimal FC cabins of most of the flights (as few as 14 FC seats), the low cost and the high demand.

On an average daily basis, CO has less than one-third the premium-class inventory of AA on NYC-LAX transcon.

Why CO doesn't do something about this (increase supply, increase price, improve product and increase price, etc.) simply boggles the imagination, especially for a company run by an accountant.

What Could Continental Improve? Aside from the usual gripes about absurdly minimal seat pitch in coach, one of the biggest problems with CO is almost everything about the EWR operation.

The terminal is clean and modern. Otherwise, there are so many problems.

1. Understaffed, frequently closed elite check in lines
2. Obviously unhappy staff, usually quite curt, sometimes theatrically rude and snippy
3. Very slow baggage delivery
4. Number 2 unfortunately also often applies to EWR-based in-flight crews
5. Worst transcon experience of any airline
6. Very little information ever provided in case of delays or cancellations

I believe that the stat was 1-2 EUA/flight. This does not include Y-up fares for elites. The number in F may be low, but AU is part of the issue.

The main point still holds that FC inventory for these routes is clearly far below the actual demand.

You can look up EWR-LAX weeks in advance and not find any FC inventory available on certain of the most popular flights.

As far as I'm concerned the main issue here is CAL leaving so much revenue on the table as demand is going unmet.

At the very least they ought to consider raising fares.

CO certainly left about $3,000 on the table from my company a couple weeks back. UA got that money but it would have gone to CO if CO had been willing to sell me an F seat at that price on SFO-EWR-ROC. At the time I thought the lack of F seats might be a fluke. It sounds like it isn't.