For the average person or even the average rich person, it does seem ridiculous. Yet I live in Newport Beach and work with super rich people in Newport, LA, SF, Miami, NYC, and Chicago--not to mention in Asia, Europe, and South America. The difference in price between J and F is peanuts to them. It's like the difference between buying a 3 series BMW or an Aston Martin for them--and they have the money so they sometimes buy the Aston and don't think twice.

Everyone herein tends to look at these prices from the perspective of value add. When you're really rich, the value add looks a lot different. There also is a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses" which makes more super rich than you'd think not think twice about looking "off" with a J purchase when F is available--even on UA. Then there are the more senior executives whose companies give them allowances to fly F and have contracts with certain airlines for reduced pricing--including UA. So UA still gets revenue for their F seats more than people would guess.

How much so I can't say, of course. I just know too many clients who have flown UA F and who have even offered to PAY to fly me in UA F to visit them. I won't even begin to tell you how many Asian clients offer to fly me to Asia, and I normally only expected to insist on J until they offered to pay for F. I've taken UA F paid a few times because the route/timing worked better for me even though CX and SQ and OZ and KE were available...but understandably, I've flown CX and SQ more!

You are bang on! IMHO, this is the same for Asians and most Americans as well. It is just sub-par airlines whose products don't have much differentiation. In such cases, passengers will automatically choose to travel in a class that makes the best economic sense for them. If the product is superior as in the case of Emirates, Qatar, Singapore or Etihad, people who can afford it will definitely want to use that as opposed to inferior classes.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/69d70bea-f...#ixzz3BdbHeyVd (paywall)

I think EK's suites and showers are a significant draw.

I think the Suites are a draw. The shower is more of a cute rarity IMO. Of course, I'll be flying EK F CPT-DXB-LAX with Suites the whole way in Jan with shower on the A380 DXB-LAX, so I'll soon know if that's true enough.

Just remember the old adage,

" If you have to ask how much, you cannot afford it " !

The corporations will not withdraw this important perk and those who can don't blink an eye.

That is simply not correct.

Firstly, it solely looks at UA, and those with the disposable income and half a brain are not flying UA in paid international F.

If revenue international F was viable out of EWR for UA, they would have more than just a few flights a day offering it. CX has four flights a day to JFk, all of which have F. They started service to EWR, with an aircraft with no F.

The F routes out of the New York City area are out of JFK.

There is plenty of profitable F out of LAX, just not on UA. NH, JL, OZ, KE, CX and SQ all of have F out of LAX. Not so out of SFO.

UA just doesn't do competition, since it loses, so it focuses on SFO.

Asking UA about international F is similar to asking KIA about high-end luxury cars.

I disagree. American carriers are run by American CEOs who were taught in business school the road to profits is made in cutting costs. The entire concept of spending money and improving the product to entice customers is lost on U.S. airlines.

As a result, I fly in paid F regularly, but not on a U.S. carrier (except for the new AA 77W flight from LAX to LHR because it is superior to BA).

I'll leave it at AA has 14 777-300ERs with international first, and presently has another 47 777-200ERs with international first. That's a total of 61.

Yes, AA is going to convert those 772s to 2-class, but it hasn't happened yet. At the same time, UA will be receiving A350s with no F and retiring 744s that do.

Those who can afford F generally don't fly U.S. carriers and the UA GS members aren't going anywhere since the entire CO fleet is already two-class and they fly on those and maintain GS.

You seem to think that passengers are locked into a single carrier. I generally fly LH/LX to Europe and CX/SQ/NH/OZ to Asia (OZ only from JFK with the suites and now with the A380 out of LAX). While the West Coast to Asia through the Middle East is a long-way around, from NYC it is not. For the major cities on the East Coast, Middle East airlines are competitive to Asia.

AA is downsizing international F. It is not giving it up.

But UA is downsizing it as well and will continue to do so.

Doesn't really matter to me as I generally don't fly either internationally unless I am flying to LHR. Then I fly AA since BA is United with an accent and more arrogance than indifference.

I don't have a single wealthy client or friend who regularly flies in F who has bought a revenue ticket in F on UA in the past three years. They all fly anybody else.

United is now a carrier for those locked into captive hubs, those on corporate contracts (and those contracts are diminishing in number), Kayakers, and those who just don't know any better.

I hate to destroy your world view that your circle is representative of all people everywhere, but I've had clients pay for F on UA, and a few (mostly in Asia) have paid for me to fly F on UA.

I don't disagree that most will pay for Asian/Gulf and some European carriers for F over US carriers in F. I don't disagree that most pay for whatever airline best serves their route needs.

Yet there are many people flying F (and paying for it)...and more than you'd like to concede (apparently for you, no one) do pay for UA GF. I assume it's a stark minority, of course, but I also assume that a stark minority paying for UA GF is more than the even tinier minority paying for AA F. (Sorry, but UA has FAR more GF routes and equipment than AA F even now with its 772s, and UA will have even more comparatively once AA drops F from its 772s--no matter what UA is ordering for the future.)

You seem to believe that because you don't know anyone who pays for UA GF that it must be true that no one anywhere at any time pays for UA GF. I hate to break it to you but I know of at least a half dozen companies where their contract is with UA and their senior executives all fly UA GF. That may be a fraction of those paying for F in the world, I agree, but there are people out there paying for UA GF despite your desperate attempts to convince everyone (and yourself, it seems) that is not the case.

No one argues that UA and AA F are inferior to the F for many other carriers. But UA and AA F are still good solid products--and sometimes the schedule or availability mean sometimes the choice is between flying UA GF and a "better" airline in J. Sometimes, I won't even say most of the time, people given that choice will choose UA GF.

You hate UA, fair enough. Your comments clearly indicate your hatred. But your hatred colors your ability to fathom that everyone isn't like you and that everyone out there doesn't know you.

IME, those who own a fractional share or a net jets card would rather pay for commercial long haul F to get their destination continent, then once there, utilize their share or net jets card for intra-continental trips.

I guess I have more savvy clients than you do.

Perhaps you would like to point to the statement by me where I said that I "hate" UA?

For someone who purportedly hates UA, I was a pre-merger Million Miler and am still a 1K. Doesn't sound like someone who "hates" UA to me. But I know enough to not to pay for a "premium" cabin on UA on international flights.

I am a realist who does not make insupportable arguments to pump up an airline that has a first class cabin that is only competitive if you can upgrade to it.

I don't misrepresent the competition to try and make my point. You said, "AA and DL giving up on F offerings on their networks" when AA is not giving up international F at all as Delta did, and "AA (with just 14 planes offering it)" when they presently have 61.

AA is giving up on F offerings--eliminating all F on everything except the 5 routes flown by their 14 773s. The fact they currently have F on 772s is of small consolation, as they will be removing the F on those in the coming year or two, as announced (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...ss-beds.html):

Those 50 jets are the 772s.

Removing F from 50 jets is giving up on F offerings, as I said.

UA isn't removing F on any jets, though it has no plans to add F to the jets it has on order. There is a difference between what AA and UA are doing. UA will be left with a significant number of GF routes (far more than AA's 5 routes) offering GF on far more jets than AA's 14 once their removal is complete.

AA isn't giving up on F entirely as Delta did--true 'dat! But AA is giving up on F almost entirely, and FAR more than UA is. Facts are facts.

As I know it the old adage in full is "if it f***s, floats or flies rent it, don't buy it and never marry it".

Probably not a good idea, and not allowed by rules of most companies. Companies I've worked for even have limits on the number of us peons who can be on the same flight, let alone loading the entire board of directors onto one plane.

The fares are set by the airlines. It's not like the passengers can dictate how much a fare should be priced on the spot. The model you mention already exists, J+ is F. F get J catering with a slightly more personalised touch and more space/amenities. So not sure why would an airline sacrifice revenue loss by switching to a J+ model in the hope to fill up more seats (remember it's less about seat occupancy and more about yields).

In the case of EK and EY at least, they're already nose heavy, it's quite unlikely that either of these two will ever drop F. I don't think it's about regional customs of wealth exhibition either. EK go several hops along the way to CMB/SIN BKK/HKG MEL/SYD/BNE AKL/CHC with F, rarely if ever empty. Not to mention their J cabin is overcrowded most often than not (both in terms of occupancy and seat density) allowing them to oversell into F or even operate a 3-class as 2-class without sacrificing the bottom line.

The original Bloomberg article is a storm in a cup. It could have been published post 911 and still made sense to some then. The debate about F is not new. It's been there since the 1970s (or perhaps even before). That's when F was simply Y with few more perks. Oh wait, that still happens to this day in many parts of the world!

This thread is hardly ek specific is it? Must be a better place for this so others can contribute.

Furthermore, something like SQ business is much better than UA F. It's hard to argue with 4 across on an A380, combined with the service and overall soft product.

Personally I think UA F is the biggest waste of cash or even GPU's in the air.