I agree that the domestic F should be renamed as Business Class, though that will likely never happen.

It's interesting the comparison between domestic F to intra-European C. The seat in the USA is significantly more "premium" than the seat in Europe; but the treatment in Europe is significantly more premium, at least on LH, LX, and BA.

How'd that work out for you? :)

You'd be surprised though. I have a friend who flew domestic F, and then considered an international trip. He was going to not fly UA F purely because he felt that their F isn't up to par, since "other airlines have these seat-bed combo things, and UA was just like a recliner chair." I had to explain to him that domestic F and international F are completely different beasts.

And good thing i did - I saved him a few thousand dollars over BA. (I still love the treatment by FAs in GF on UA)

OK, but are they wrong? Compare the profits at UA, AA, and DL to the profits at SQ, EK, EY, etc.

Not exactly true.

There's always a few! Nice save! And we must be two of the very few persons here on FT who actually enjoy the FAs in GF on UA. I agree with you--we've always had very nice service in GF.

You nailed it on the head that UA, AA, and DL have much bigger profits than SQ, EK, CX, and the like. Everyone loves to talk about the amazing service and seats on those 5 star airlines that basically are state-owned enterprises with state subsidies that allow them to offer such amenities. They have tiny profits. Of course, I love to fly those premium classes on those state-owned carriers, too--but I don't hate on my UA and other US carriers because they make profits and try to run a business for profit!

I'm someone who loves complaining! But I HATE complaining for the sake of complaining. UA GF FAs have been incredible on every flight. Only consistency I've ever had. And the seat (I believe they're now all the new one) is fantastic. It's no suite, and obviously I'd take SQ or EK if I had the chance. But what more can I want than an intimate cabin, a seat wider and longer than I need it, comfy, all the storage I need, nice IFE screen, no one climbing over me and no one for me to climb over, etc.

Exactly - it's hard to get upset at airlines that are trying to make money. At the end of the day, a business is there to make profit. They're not charities that exist to make everyone happy. I'd love to always fly airlines like SQ. But they're making barely a few million in profit. Compare that to nearly $1B

Wow, where have you been when all of this time as the FTers have been bashing me for my like of UA GF?

I so agree. I don't deny that F in SQ and CX (and EK I'm sure, as I'll be flying that in Jan) are better overall, especially on food/service, but the GF on UA has been more than satisfactory for me when I've flown it (about half the time I fly F). I've found UA GF to have pretty good service, pretty fun FAs, pretty decent food, and excellent IFE. The seat is nice--not as good as SQ or CX, but about as good as TX (non suite) and BA (non A380).

No-one is bashing you for a preference (or if they are, that's silly, that's like bashing someone for liking strawberry ice cream and Coca-Cola over caviar and Dom Perignon).

What may be in dispute is thinking that UA's GF product is particularly key in driving their current business model, or that the fact that UA decided on their IPTE model back in the last decade, and AA is deciding on a model that only has F on a small number of routes, means we can conclude that UA is more successful with their F product than AA is.

I think that if UA thought their GF product was a key driver for their business model, it would be treated much more like EK's (or even LH's), with the soft product touched up quite a bit. It is clearly not; a soup course on top of a C meal seems like minimal effort to differentiate F and C at best. With the arrival of new aisle-access, lifeflat longhaul C products at competitors (AA and DL), the differentiation seems to be getting smaller.

There's also no sign that UA is refreshing their IPTE product in F (something CX, SQ, AA, BA and LH have all announced recently in THEIR F cabins), their recent 763 refurb post-merger did not include F seats (contra their pmUA 763s), and no UA 788s have shown up with F seats. I'll happily reconsider this once I start seeing some new planes with globes on the tails sporting 3-cabin F cabins.

To try to make this on-topic... EK seems to make consistent profits:

http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...al-report.aspx

Wow, a well composed and clearly articulated response--thank you! I actually agree with your assessments for the most part.

I will point out that Emirates profits for a year are about comparable to what AA, DL, and UA can make in a quarter, however.

Again, I say that those state-owned enterprise carriers like EK, SQ, EY, TK, CX, etc. seem to be the only ones with the "tremendous" service and amenities and outrageous suites--with LH being the biggest exception. That says tons about LH and what it is able to do as a true private enterprise, and it reflects the challenges with other private enterprise carriers like UA, DL, AA, BA, AF, and the like in competing with those state-owned enterprises. It's easier for more authoritarian states like Thailand, China, UAE, and Singapore to build airports where and how they want compared with the industrialized and more democratic West, and it's easier IMO for those state-owned enterprise carriers to implement more fabulous offerings without the same profit concerns as their counterparts in the West, too.

Two things:

I agree totally with those assessments.

CX is not state owned.

You have a, shall we say . . . unique . . . view on what constitutes a state-owned enterprise and what constitutes state subsidies.

$3500-$8000 per hour.... such a big range accounts for aircraft, light-Citation V, mid Learjet 35, G200 and heavy G550, Global XRS
do the math.

Note that DL, AA, UA would be out of business if it wasn't for Chapter 11 protection. Is this any better than 'state subsidies'?

Well LH doesn't have suites or outrageous offerings on the level of EK, EY, or SQ. They have a great F product, but it's still a great seat - not a suite.

LX also offers a fantastic F product, though you could make the argument that they're the same airline

Fair enough - time will tell whether when they've "finished" spending tons of outlay costs, we see a drastic change in profits.

3 things to watch though:

1. Once you've gotten into the habit of spending, it's hard to break it, especially when airlines like EY are trying to outdo you every step along the way
2. All these outlays could very mean high variable costs to maintain, even when the fixed sunk costs finish
3. Amazon is great. But not their profits. In an effort to gain market share, they've lost profit

Government funding (meaning no need to rely on your actual revenue) is very different than bankruptcy protection

Deleted