Come on. You mean you like flat-bed seats? Or you realize that no airline food is ever going to rise to the level that you should choose a carrier based on its quality? Or that an extra inch or two of width does not make up for 5+" of seat pitch? Or that other carriers serve something better than jug wine? Haven't flown UA F, but I really don't get the fawning over BF. It is, objectively, a pretty ordinary product.

Not saying it isn't perfectly acceptable, but to those that think it is the bee's knees, I suggest you really think about the total value package. When I am paying $3k+, it takes a heck of a lot more than an ice cream sundae and a poorly cooked steak to impress me. Frankly, if one is flying J for any reason other than greater seat comfort, I just don't get it. Even assuming some mythical collection of perks, say limo service like EK, food like TG or CX, wine like AF, lounges like VS, I don't come close to seeing how these things justify a 3-10x premium over Y. I mean, the total value of such a package comes to maybe $150-$200.

Let us be fair (and the 50% EQM thing annoys me to no end), but there are plenty of Star Alliance fares that earn less than that. At least CO gives you 100% RDMs on virtually all fares. And you earn your elite bonus on all ST airlines, rather than just UA, US, and LH TATL. This is the only area where ST clearly beats the other alliances, so I think it deserves a little bit of credit, where credit is due.

I find the above all pretty confusing.

Two questions.

I lost context someplace, so I have no idea what the above is trying to say. Sorry.

I never said or implied that ANY product or brand should be "dominant", "winner", or "loser". I just don't view any merger in any of those ways. I also don't care about paint or brand or HQ city. I also don't have religion about aircraft types/models.

Thanks !

I agree with all of that.

My experience with CO, however, is that I can't actually *spend* my earnings. Maybe I've been incredibly unlucky, but neither free tickets nor upgrades have been very available to me. Miles/points that I can't spend when/where I want to are less valuable to me than ones that I can spend when I want to.

With UA, I have had no problems spending my accrued miles on upgrades and free flights (including a free ticket on SQ in C/J on NRT->SIN->KIX last August).

I really am not very happy with the other airlines in SkyTeam. My take is that Continental is probably the best ST airline. I definitely view AF/KL/AL has a negative. By contrast, SQ is probably the best airline in the world, and BD/LH/TG are each very good within their geographic regions.

I would guess a significantly new FFP would emerge, likely with some features from each predecessor, some changes, and likely with some extra changes just to keep it interesting. If it is cost-oriented, then it might combine the worst features of each predecessor.

Well...DUH...Continental's BF is not a "FIRST" Product; it is a Business Class Product. At no time has CO ever said it is near other airlines F. You should be comparing UA's First to SQ, JAL or another carrier offering a 3 class product.

CO Employees
 

If you had a choice, who would you want CO to merge with? (UA, DL, NW)

Great question, thanks.^ If I had a choice I would say no one but if I was forced to choose I would say United. The main reason I would want United is for their network but the other reason why I WOULD NOT want United is their culture is way different than ours. Although management at CO is not perfect by any means they listen and they communicate with us.

My job requires me to travel 100% and interact with ALOT of my co-workers throughout our system. I am not flight crew, but hearing from employees in casual conversation in the more than 30 stations I have visited in the past few months most say no one, but if they had to choose most lean towards UA.

Yes, I realize all this. My point was there were a recent thread where some people were claiming that CO BF was waaaay better than UA F. Some CO person made this claim when flying UA F on a mistake fare, and others chimed right in.

By the way, you may want to revisit your statement that at no time did CO ever say they were near other airlines' F. For the LONGEST time (until maybe a year or 2 ago), CO was saying "BF is all the comfort and service of internatinal first class at a business class fare." What a hoot.

UA or none

I would like to remain standing strong and alone. But since you asked it would have to be UA. They have a strong route system but their employees have been kicked around the block for a long time. Not sure how our culture and theirs would mix, plus their ground staff are union and we are not. I am not a big fan of unions.

I'll need proof of your statement.

I didn't say that BF was waaaay better than UA F. I said they were about equivalent, with +'s and -'s for each. BF is certainly better than old UA C. BF is about equivalent to UA F, though, obviously the lie-flatness is better.

quite frankly, since UA's catering is pretty much the same between C and F, the only material benefit between the two was Lie flat. now that C is lie-flat, it looks like the difference between C and F is essentially nothing. So, UACAL could go 2 class and still be about the same.

As much as I still love CO, I can't really agree with this.

First, I don't think it's true to say "BF is certainly better than old UA C." That depends on which aircraft you're talking about. I think UA C on the upper deck of a 747 or a 777 trumps BF on a 757. And a good chunk of CO's international flying is on 757s. And while CO BF might have better pitch, most of the C seats on a 747 and a 777 recline really quite far -- I have slept much better on C in the 747 upper deck (row 15, I have to admit) than in any CO BF seat. I'd argue that BF on a 767 is about equivalent to UA's C, though of course when comparing a CO 767 to a UA 767, you have to give CO the edge for a wider seat with the 2-1-2 layout. But to say that "BF is equivalent to UA F", I really don't understand, unless we're only talking about the current UA 767 F.

Second, even leaving service aside (and sadly, with UA, you often have to do just that), it's not accurate to say that with UA going flat in C, "the difference between C and F is essentially nothing." I can't imagine anyone who has flown in the UA First Suite would say that. The amount of personal space, and the fact that you don't have to climb over someone (or have someone climbing over to you) to get out of the seat, not to mention that spaciousness of the first class cabin itself -- it really does put UA F in a different league (again excluding the current UA 767 F).

I'd definitely agree with the description of the difference between UA C and F. While of course the bigger difference is between Y and C, lots of folks (including me) do their best to upgrade from C to F when flying UA internationally. Even the uneven service tends to be better in F.

The name isn't enough?