'Is Flying First Class Doomed?'
Aug 27, 2014 | 10:15 pm
#47
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SEATTLE, WA USA
Programs: UAL, AA, AS, CX
Posts: 1,980
IMHO domestic first class IS doomed with the exception of the long haul domestic routes ala transcons and those routes known for premium demand i.e. DFW-LAX as one example.
Then again my own personal travel habits is I will use my status to Upgrade where possible on typically flights over 4 hours and anything less its Y+ in an exit row or bulkhead. Westbound flights over 4 hours is where I try the hardest to snag an upgrade or in recent time pay full price on B6s new product or Virgin America in main cabin extra or paying up at 6 hours before the flight to snag F. Ex SEA-SAN I question is F necessary or is E+ enough for anyone? I can deal with the later and on some airlines I will take the bulk head pr exit row over F just for the legroom. The food and 2 extra inches in width are not always worth it. And for one example I find AS new F seats very uncomfortable to my bum except on the latest 737-900 I flew with sky interior.
Then again my own personal travel habits is I will use my status to Upgrade where possible on typically flights over 4 hours and anything less its Y+ in an exit row or bulkhead. Westbound flights over 4 hours is where I try the hardest to snag an upgrade or in recent time pay full price on B6s new product or Virgin America in main cabin extra or paying up at 6 hours before the flight to snag F. Ex SEA-SAN I question is F necessary or is E+ enough for anyone? I can deal with the later and on some airlines I will take the bulk head pr exit row over F just for the legroom. The food and 2 extra inches in width are not always worth it. And for one example I find AS new F seats very uncomfortable to my bum except on the latest 737-900 I flew with sky interior.
Aug 27, 2014 | 11:03 pm
#48
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,877
Aug 27, 2014 | 11:03 pm
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Programs: OWEmerald; STARGold; BonvoyPlat; IHGPlat/Amb; HiltonGold; A|ClubPat; AirMilesPlat
Posts: 38,190
Not to mention the advent of "affordable" private jet ownership/fractionalization combined with increased range of these aircraft, means the airlines are seeing fewer customers actually paying to fly in this cabin.
Asian and Gulf carriers will still have the clientele who can and will pay for F so will continue to offer it. However, cost-conscious airlines elsewhere will carefully consider which routes on which it can be maintained at a viable level.
Aug 27, 2014 | 11:43 pm
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,013
But only a handful of routes can justify operating such a cabin and service. Increasingly we are seeing a paring down of fleets and configurations to remove F cabins on BA, QF, LH, AA, UA and others. Many carriers have abandoned it completely like AC, NZ, OS, TK, LAN and dozens of others.
Aug 28, 2014 | 3:05 am
#51
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: BA Gold, EY Gold.
Posts: 283
There was a really interesting interview a while back with the CEO of Air France about First Class - he literally described it as a 'marketing gimmick' and stated that 'no-one is making money with first class'.
http://www.businesstraveller.com/opi...ss-had-its-day
I guess the reality is, outside SE Asia and the Mid-east it only works on limited routes. For example LHR-JFK or LHR-LOS. Yet of course with large network airlines they can't dedicate just a few aircraft with F to certain routes. The logistics would be a nightmare.
So how can a cabin which seems full with passengers paying c$10,000 for a seat not be profitable? Well I guess it all depends on how many of those passengers are actually paying that full F fare. And in reality, I think it's very few with the large majority upgrading with points of cash, deals like 'buy J get F' and largely reduced corporate rates.
But First does have it's uses - for example when airlines are trying to bargain for large corporate travel contracts. Throwing in the offer of First Class for top management can be a sweetener in nabbing the deal. Likewise from a FF POV it's a good marketing strategy to have a First cabin to burn those miles/points.
http://www.businesstraveller.com/opi...ss-had-its-day
I guess the reality is, outside SE Asia and the Mid-east it only works on limited routes. For example LHR-JFK or LHR-LOS. Yet of course with large network airlines they can't dedicate just a few aircraft with F to certain routes. The logistics would be a nightmare.
So how can a cabin which seems full with passengers paying c$10,000 for a seat not be profitable? Well I guess it all depends on how many of those passengers are actually paying that full F fare. And in reality, I think it's very few with the large majority upgrading with points of cash, deals like 'buy J get F' and largely reduced corporate rates.
But First does have it's uses - for example when airlines are trying to bargain for large corporate travel contracts. Throwing in the offer of First Class for top management can be a sweetener in nabbing the deal. Likewise from a FF POV it's a good marketing strategy to have a First cabin to burn those miles/points.
Aug 28, 2014 | 3:08 am
#52
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: OSL
Programs: QR Plat | SK Diamond | A3 Gold
Posts: 4,612
Clearly, American tastes and customs are different in terms of these extravagances compared to those in Asia, the Middle East, and even parts of South America--places with longer histories of significant wealth disparity where there always have been a solid group of super-rich. That is why American carriers offer less extravagance compared to counterpart carriers in those other regions...and even why European carriers offer less extravagance in comparison or in the same volume.
But you are incorrect in assuming that UA's value proposition for F is so different. UA doesn't put as much extravagance in its F compared to its Asian/Middle Eastern counterparts, but its F product is as good if not slightly better (and far more available) than that of AA (with just 14 planes offering it) and DL (since they don't even offer true international F). So UA is competitive for these F paying customers COMPARED to AA and DL. It's a big American market, and they get a large piece of that pie. It's also a nice perk to offer their GS and most elite customers (upgrade to F from J, Sir or Madame?), which helps keep some of those elites and GS happy with UA compared to foreign airlines.
Everyone forgets that US rich can't fly frequently on a foreign carrier unless they ALWAYS fly to the same region--as the Asian carriers don't serve the USA to Europe and the Gulf/European carriers don't serve the USA to Asia. Sometimes, the US carriers are the better way to go for corporate contracts, and these permit UA to continue to offer F (for the time being at least).
Also, in a global context, it doesn't matter how UA compares to AA/DL. Someone spending money on F tickets doesn't care so much about flying the same airline all the time - and can still stick to Star Alliance while completely avoiding UA, but flying F everywhere, if they desire. No reason to stick to the same carrier.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
Aug 28, 2014 | 7:09 am
#53
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 454
I didn't envisage the posts of War and Peace proportions I must admit.
I would add, as many have alluded to, that there are many complex reasons why people purchase luxury goods and services and these can vary from culture to culture so what our star spangled friends might say applies in their country would most definitely not in other countries. Hedonism is more important in societies where individuality is important, there's more peer group pressure in the east where collectivism is more important, some look mainly at function and quality rather than prestige (eg Germans), others just look at prestige.
What is the difference between a plain garment made in the far east and the same plain garment but with a swoosh, 3 stripes, crocodile, etc? Answer, nothing really apart from a price premium of many hundreds of % and most people wouldn't consider the former in their wildest dreams.
I'm the OP so I can post a mini War and Peace.
Aug 28, 2014 | 8:00 am
#54
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 19,801
Aug 28, 2014 | 8:04 am
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,013
Aug 28, 2014 | 8:41 am
#56
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: BAEC Gold, EK Skywards (enhanced Blue !), Oman Air Sindbad Gold
Posts: 6,798
OzTennis, I see your point re the War & Peace analogy, but would add - in fairness to those contributing - that the overall quality of posts strikes me as being higher than much of what appears on many other 'generic' type threads. A lot of genuinely interesting stuff here IMO, whether it be well-informed, evidence-based material, or purely subjective opinion.
As the OP who linked us to the article itself, you should take any credit that's going ...!!
Quite apart from the often complex commercial reasons which determine the merits of continuing with a full F product (or not, as the case may be....), air travel is - from the consumer perspective - a fairly emotive subject when it comes to the matter of class of cabin & spending priorities ; perhaps more so than many other budgetary decisions.
It's not uncommon to come across people who will habitually shop at discount stores and spend the bare minimum on, say, their food & clothing, but who will happily shell out on expensive business /first class tickets when they travel. Conversely, I know some folk who will buy designer label shirts and hand-made shoes, but not even consider sitting anywhere other than the back of the plane. And then you get quirky instances of mega-wealthy, high profile individuals (but often very reclusive and /or shy) who could comfortably afford to run their own private jet, but instead choose consciously to use low-cost carriers wherever possible. I seem to remember the founder of the IKEA business as being one such case.
It's a crazy world we're living in (Jamiroquai, IIRC.....)
As the OP who linked us to the article itself, you should take any credit that's going ...!!
Quite apart from the often complex commercial reasons which determine the merits of continuing with a full F product (or not, as the case may be....), air travel is - from the consumer perspective - a fairly emotive subject when it comes to the matter of class of cabin & spending priorities ; perhaps more so than many other budgetary decisions.
It's not uncommon to come across people who will habitually shop at discount stores and spend the bare minimum on, say, their food & clothing, but who will happily shell out on expensive business /first class tickets when they travel. Conversely, I know some folk who will buy designer label shirts and hand-made shoes, but not even consider sitting anywhere other than the back of the plane. And then you get quirky instances of mega-wealthy, high profile individuals (but often very reclusive and /or shy) who could comfortably afford to run their own private jet, but instead choose consciously to use low-cost carriers wherever possible. I seem to remember the founder of the IKEA business as being one such case.
It's a crazy world we're living in (Jamiroquai, IIRC.....)
Aug 28, 2014 | 9:59 am
#57
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: Paid F
Posts: 238
I believe the Polish government learned this lesson the hard way in 2010!
Aug 28, 2014 | 11:06 am
#58
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: Various between 2p & 1K, currently Gold
Posts: 8,889
Missed my point. It's not so much confusing as it is insulting for someone to travel International F (or C) and then get treated to the domestic "equivalent."
Aug 28, 2014 | 11:15 am
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 21,271
I think with certain carriers three-class F is doomed including, probably, UA. It speaks volumes that IPTE is nearly a decade old and UA isn't adding planes with 3-class to their post-merger fleet, even though historically they had F on their 763s, so they COULD on 788s... but clearly they don't want to. I think they're going to ape DL like they seem to do these days.
EK? Probably not, a superhub in DXB works well for funneling F demand from all over on ULH into A380s, plus there are good cultural reasons for the product to work there. I would expect lots of bling going forward for a good long while. I also bet they'll get nice prices for their A380s, since they've turned out to be such duds compared to the twin-engines.
Last edited by eponymous_coward; Aug 28, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Aug 28, 2014 | 1:46 pm
#60
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 19,801