No disagreement there, but I think the lack of availability only discounts the value of the miles by 25% or so. Consider a CO Plat flying AF in cheapo coach, compared to a UA 1K flying in SK cheapo coach. Except for a couple of very cheap fares, the CO Plat will get 225% RDMs and 50% EQMs. The UA 1k gets 25% and 25%. Even assuming a discount for poor redemption opportunities, I think the CO earnings rates speak for themselves.

I will give you that TG and SQ are the cream of the crop, and that no ST airline comes close. But, I don't think AF is as bad as you claim, nor is LH as good as you claim (except in F). In coach, LH is really bad, probably as bad as KL. AZ is a joke. ST is absolutely not competitive with OW or *A in Asia, but in Europe, I don't think it is that bad. If you throw in VS, then CO partners fare even better for travel to/from Europe.

I think we can all but guarantee that this will be the case.

The points above about culture are very well taken. Probably the main reason that UA's 'service' is so poor is that the employees are very angry with management. Passengers get caught in the cross-fire between the unions and management, as near as I can tell. CO management has done a FAR FAR better job than UA management, in many ways -- especially in listening to both staff and passengers.

I don't think it is an accident that the only routes with *consistently excellent* cabin service on UA are the NRT-SIN-NRT and NRT-BKK-NRT routes -- which (for historic reasons) are NOT part of the FA union that governs other UA routes. The NRT-SIN-NRT cabin crew are all from SG, as near as I can tell, they are consistently very happy (or hide unhappiness incredibly perfectly), and they do a brilliant job in all 3 cabins.

By contrast, most CO flights seem to have cabin staff who like their jobs and while they might not "love" CO management, they don't have the anger of the UA staff. This gets reflected in consistently better in-flight service on CO mainline than UA mainline. CO passengers, including me, don't want to risk that.

I think the biggest risk to CO, CO employees, and CO passengers is that UA staff will bring their anger along in any CO+UA deal. There is real risk that the UA unions will actively try to ensure that any UA deal with anyone gets sabotaged. It seems preferable for CO to buy routes/aircraft/gates/FFP assets from UA, but retain the CO culture/management/etc. I don't know how that could happen, however. Maybe one holding company could own both operating airlines, merge the FFP and merge to a common alliance, but keep the operating airlines mostly separate for a time.

So I just don't see how a deal helps CO passengers very much. Sigh.

I am having trouble using my CO miles -- AT ALL.

It isn't a matter of whether my first choice use isn't available; none of my choices are available. Flexible dates, different flight routes, nothing seems to help. Right now, I value my CO miles near zero, simply because they are impossible to use. :td:

By contrast, my UA miles are very easy to use on any UA or *A route that I've tried, so they are highly valuable. In fact, the upgrade opportunities with miles are a large part of UA's value to me. I routinely pay for economy, but fly in the business cabin. An overseas seat in UA business, even the old angled seats, is much better than a seat in CO economy. ^

I guess that you are not having this redemption issue with CO, or at least not to the same degree. I'm not sure if that is due to routes or status or what. :confused:

I'll also note that Q and V fares, which I certainly call "discount economy" on SK between IAD and Europe, earn 100% with UA. I agree that there are some low-earning fare classes with some *A partners for UA flyers, but as near as I can tell those are all in the very deep discount area (or they are on SQ, which is as tight with *A flyers as with its own flyers about earning miles on discounted fares -- SQ top status is all about revenue in high-margin fares).

For folks who haven't looked into this, I should note that each *A airline can have a different earnings rate for UA flyers. So the SK example quoted is true, but says nothing about earnings rates on ANY other *A partner airline.

I'm talking about the whole product, not just the seat.
a lousy seat is a lousy seat. old UA C sucks. UA's meal service is no better than BF even in F, except they have better wine.

It could be the routes. But the other issue is that the CO agents are genuinely awful at award availability. You really have to know the possible routings and have an idea of availability before you call, because it is a rare agent that will find it on their own. Nonetheless, the level of research required is a major hassle and still, in my estimation, doesn't yield anywhere close to the availability of AA or UA. But, I can usually find something. I went CPH-AMS-HKG-BKK/SIN-AMS-CPH this past Christmas. I had CPH-AMS-JNB-DXB-CDG-CPH booked for Easter (plans changed, but it was bookable). All in J, and all within spitting distance of the dates and routings I wanted. But, again, I had to do all of the research and walk the agent through it, and I remain convinced they would have never found either booking without my guiding them through it.

I might be being a little unfair, as my main exposure is intra-European flights, where it seems like all the low SK fares earn 25% and the LH low fares earn nothing. Nonetheless, even if the base earning situation improves when crossing the Atlantic, the bonus mile situation does not. A 100% earning on SK, still only earns 100% RDMs for elites. Same with LX and OS. The CO elite bonuses, on the other hand apply to all ST flights, and really make those flights add up.

But what is there beyond the seat and personal space? Honestly? The food in BF isn't that good. It is not up to the standards of a good restaurant. Not sure it can be at 30k feet, but I just don't see why someone will trade a flat bed for a meal that wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) cost more than $30 or so on the ground. And there isn't much beyond that. The CO lounges are nice, but not exactly special. The service is good enough, but I wouldn't say it lights my world on fire.

I'm not saying that BF stinks or anything, but talking about the "whole product" just seems to miss out on any realistic weighting of the various elements of that product. I mean, I rate the seat comfort at about 80%, food at 2.5%, booze at 2.5%, in-flight service (anything short of open hostility is good enough) at 5%, and ground service (i.e. lounges) at 10%. Perhaps I am some outlier, but I just don't think I am, and think most people would trade a flat bed for all the CO sundaes one could eat. Of course, UA F is priced at a premium that probably isn't realistic, but that is a different question from whether the product isn't at least marginally better than BF.

you and me both. LOL. The only thing I would switch in your formula is service at 10% and ground service at 5%, but that's a minor technicality.

I also realize that everyone has their experiences, and are entitled to their opinions re: service. But I never understood the part about UA FAs being nasty or hostile. I've received nothing but good service from the majority of them, and some have gone way over the call of duty (and not just on the intra-asian flights either). One time the purser took up a collection among the crew when my son lost a tooth in flight, and slipped the money under his pillow when he was sleeping!

Not knocking CO BF--it is just fine. But so is UA C and F, IME.

That's why it is sometimes (mostly?) called "nOnepass." ;) I haven't flown international on CO... yet. I can't get any saver awards to TLV on CO. I managed to get them on US and *A with the dates and times I want. So, I keep banking them and banking them on CO. Though, my gf is Onepass Peon status, so I am going to use miles to upgrade us on an upcoming domestic R/T (IAH-SFO). We are confirmed on the outbound. Waitlisted on the return.

While these ratios can certainly vary from customer to customers, I think it is pretty obvious that CO's strategy in its premium cabin is to have greater density in its cabin configuration (i.e. greater RASM's) and to make up for the relative lack of space through the quality of its soft product.

Of course, it remains to be seen how far such a strategy will go when a significant number of its main competitors are offering true lie-flat in their J cabins.

CO will have to compete either on product or on price.

This was certainly accurate in 1992...

But was is accurate in 2004 or so? They were using that advertising line well into the 21st century...

It was not. Then again, the whole premise of F vs J has completely changed.

There are many airline where the J (true lie-flat) is far more elaborate than the old-school F that the CO BF advertising tagline was meant to be compared to.

There are really only a handful of airlines that have international FC, and on some of these only on select routes.

The premise of BF, in fact its very name, implies an era where every carrier had international FC and business class was the "novel" intermediate product.

In that respect, it betrays the somewhat out-of-date nature of the product.

I hope CO sees the light and goes to true full lie-flat, at least on its wide bodies.

That still doesn't prove that CO has made the statement. It appears to be that sites "opinion". Please provide a press release or link to a CO publication/marketing press release/etc....

Fact remains, our company is wise enough to know what standards are set by IATA to consider a cabin to be considered F class (for international travel). When we vacated the F market, it was to introduce BF (which is the reason for the play on words... BusinessFirst).

This continual hard-on you have for CO is such a joke; unless you have posts that are as fixated on other products/services, it is time to examine your OCD with CO.