'Is Flying First Class Doomed?'
 

Interesting article which I post here:

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...827-3edw7.html

on some airlines maybe but not EK ex DXB.

Demand on certain routes eg JFK and LHR mean F is here to stay. Having recently flown J out to HGK and F back, there is still a fairly big difference between the two.

Its definitely doomed for those airlines where people perceive their F offering to be a 'sub-par' experience or not too much different from J. Others where there is a perceptible difference in service levels and the hard product (suites/ residences) will continue to grab most the premium demand, imo.

jackiedada, you've summed it up nice & succinctly ^

Most (though perhaps not all) airlines that have managed to survive the economic rollercoaster conditions of the last thirty years or so are now very disciplined when it comes to product segmentation, whilst also very conscious of the need to focus more than ever on their differing customer needs & priorities by region/market/route. And based on the various comments in the article linked by the OP, that's exactly what they're doing.......

As the article implied, J class these days on a good airline is just as good, and in some cases better, than F was 20 years ago. I guess there are some people who will always want, and can afford, the full F package, but I'm very happy with J (but I won't turn down an op-up if I can get it)

'Is Flying First Class Doomed?'
 

First Class, esp in the Middle East, is more than just the relative comfort vs business class. It is a statement, " I am independently wealthy and will travel in the highest class available and segregate myself from the poloi who have to turn right when boarding!" EK understand this well and have created a different service model for those F class of travellers. Not saying everyone has that view I am sure most on this forum will travel F after a careful value calculation, but the real premium revenue comes from the price non sensitive traveller who similarly pays full price for a suite in a London hotel.

There appears to be a market for very premium F, particularly in the Middle East and Asia. Carriers that are hubbed in those regions seem best positioned to support that demand - EY, EK, CX, SQ. For carriers that rotate aircraft through these regions of the world it does not make economic sense to dedicate a portion of the cabin to a product that does not sell well worldwide. Few carriers have dedicated route-specific fleets and so carriers like AF, KL, AA, BA and so on rotate planes on their route network - something like YUL-CDG-DXB-CDG-PHL, for example. When the premium destinations are a spoke and not a hub it becomes to hard to argue for a premium product.

It makes complete economic sense for these carriers to forfeit potential higher yields on those flights to normalize for the broader demand across their network. I think we will see more and more of this rationalization. I would not be surprised to see BA, LX, UA and QF drop or drastically reduce F (even further than some have already committed to doing). Might even make sense for carriers like KE, JL, NH, CA, CZ and TG to consider it. That square footage can be put to better profit use as premium business class. Even CI learned this with their 77W, which has no F.

Only in cases where a carrier is hubbed in a market that has high ultra-premium demand and can support that with the right product will it survive. EK, EY, CX and SQ seemed best equipped at this point.

What I DO think is interesting is what JetBlue are doing with Mint in the US market. It's a narrowbody business cabin in alternating rows of 2x2, 1x1. The 1x1 are equipped as mini-suites with sliding pocket doors. For now they do not charge a premium over the regular Mint fare for these seats but they will at some point. It's a way to attract travellers who prefer a more private space but are never going to pony up huge amounts of $$ for an F fare. I think that could be a model worth exploring. You'd essentially see planes operating with Y, Y+ (Premium Economy), J and J+ (a few well-planned business seats).

I second this... UA's J and F int'l products are vastly different in my eyes. F is extraordinarily quiet and completely segregated from adjacent passengers... in addition, the seat is far more spacious and comfortable for sleeping, which is what I base my opinion on.

Good, well-reasoned post by dll ^

It will survive for long-haul routes which cannot easily be reached by private jet. Who would voluntarily submit to the TSA for anything under 6 hours?

People who can afford first but don't travel enough to justify a private jet???

agreed.

That's why you have jetcharter, netjets and a thousand other identical charter operators!

I'm curious, how do those compare in price to an F ticket (generally speaking)?

Airlines saying there's no market for F is like auto companies saying there's no market for station wagons. Stop building them, or build only a few ones and do it badly, and then proclaim the market is dead and you all have to buy SUVs now.

There will always be a market for a superpremium cabin, especially as J cabins get larger and less exclusive -- the J decks on A380s are cavernous and house many dozens of passengers. Not what a film star or CEO wants, and contrary to some views they do not all, or always, fly private.

That said there are few airlines left that can muster the service ethic, investment, and commitment to deliver a true international F product -- certainly none of the American ones, and perhaps only LH in Europe. The top ME and Asian carriers will dominate this (admittedly dwindling) market segment in future not only because their native customers want and can afford it but because they are culturally equipped to deliver it.

More expensive. Always. But you get an entire plane. The absolute smallest (4-seater Phenom 100) jets are about $2500/hr and up, and at 500 mph... you are looking at $5/mile in the best case. Assuming you are gonna take it on a roundtrip (so no charge for positioning). Bigger jets are even more.

But if you are flying, say, the entire board of your company ... to a remote location ... on a per-person basis, it's possibly comparable to F in price. And faster. And it goes direct to where you want to go. With no stopovers. On your schedule. Etc. In other words .... you get what you pay for.

Premium F isn't going to work for US airlines until they drop the label from their domestic "F" offerings. What "F" means on a US carrier is so ridiculously all over the map that it can never have the value, in many customer's minds, that it needs to command a high-enough price to justify a super-premium service.

On FT, sure, we understand the differences between International anything and Domestic anything. But the domestic carriers do nothing to draw attention to those differences, and I doubt it could be unwound at this time. The damage is done.

In Europe, most "domestic" (within EU) flights don't even claim an "F" section, but rather "business" which is nothing more than a middle seat that's been replaced by a tray. As much of a perversion of the notion of "business" as the US carriers do with "first class." Wonder how much of that has to do with FF redemption? People flying an International leg on a legit C that don't want to see that "mixed cabin" note?

Air Canada "Rouge" is also guilty of this "Business Class coach seat" travesty, I learned to my dismay a couple of weeks ago. And the food and beverage choices are a joke compared to LH or LX. So the concept has regrettably already landed in North America.

I agree.

Here is something I once wrote in an e-mail to a previous Client ("RR") operating F on only a relatively small number of aircraft:

Afford a whole one? Remember the 3 F's. If it flys floats or fornicates: Lease it.

That's the funniest thing I have heard all day. I'm going to wait until my wife gets home from work and tell her you told me to say that ;)

Well that may be true but only because their J is so far inferior to the J in 2 Cabins!!

I've never been on a private jet ( My experience is limited to F on EK) but know several people who use them regularly. AFAIK there are not that many private jets (that can be leased/chartered)with the same specs as the F suite on a 380. Of course there is EK 's own version of the same but I'm not sure about its availability .

From what I have heard from my mates ( and seeing the pics from several PJ trips) the service/food/ cabin features like ICE seem to be much better on F on EK than on a PJ.Obviously they dont have a choice while going on business trips but a F seat on a proper commercial airliner would be their first choice when travelling for leisure .


Also note that I am not comparing an american carriers F seat with a PJ. A PJ makes more sense in the US. My opinion is about the Europe/Middle east/South Asian region(this thread is on the Emirates Skywards section after all)

First cabins might disappear on carriers from the West but are likely to thrive in the Middle Eastern/Asian carriers . F cabins are frequently full on several sectors on EK and obviously EK and other airlines won't have them if they are not viable. Etihad would not also plan an apartment suite if it was not worth the effort.

Actually I think UA should be the first airline to get rid of F, because it is so bad.

If people are unwilling to pay 2x for F, its because it doesn't offer 2x the value proposition of J.

Airlines are in general pretty bad at serving the premium segment and meeting customer needs. When someone is forking out thousands of dollars for transportation, everything needs to be perfect, and sadly it isn't. It also needs to be available (almost) everywhere the passenger wants to travel - the more routes it is on, the more traffic it generates, and the more sustainable it is.

I can't say that even the likes of EK create an F experience that delivers 100% - poor transfer in DXB, no separate lounges at busy outstations etc. The one for me that has come closest to delivering a truly outstanding F experience is LH on their 747 upper deck - everything from ground services on departure, to the onboard experience (space, comfort, privacy, service, quality) and transfers at FRA (for the most part). And there's a perceptible difference to the C cabin, in every aspect of the experience.

My friends recently flew JetSuite (small private outfit based here at SNA) from SNA to Vegas for $5,000 one way (seating 4) and from Vegas to Napa for $9,000 one way (seating 6). SNA to Hawaii according to them was $19,000 one way. First Class commercial may seem expensive, but private jet prices are FAR more expensive--which is why the overwhelming majority of people we know who fly private are those working for companies that own a jet or lease through the various fractional/hourly services.

When flying really longhaul (USA-Asia or USA to Australia or the like, NOT the same as JFK-London!), the private jet costs are extremely expensive since only the biggest jets have that kind of range--we're talking $100,000s. THAT is one reason the longest haul commercial flights likely will continue to offer F since it will still be less pricey than the private jet options. East Coast to Europe, while technically longhaul, is not nearly as prohibitive, and as a result there is far more private jet traffic for the corporate set.

On United the difference between F and J is a slightly bigger seat and perhaps a bowl of soup, for about twice the price. It's ridiculous. And anyhow UA aspiring to deliver a competitive international F product is like Greyhound dispatching a fleet of luxury Maybachs. It just ain't in their wheelhouse.

I doubt rebranding domestic F is confusing anyone. The market segment that flies these classes likely understands quite well the distinction. The general lay person out there that doesn't isn't likely to be in the market for these F seats, anyway.

From my last flight about 2 months ago, it's pretty much just an extra warm appetizer, seats are a suite configuration that Air New Zealand and Air Canada does, only 8 seats. (United) And bigger amenities kit. Just only 2 extra Philosophy products that happen to also be discontinued...

I do find that first class is mostly, probably in my opinion, mostly people who were able to upgrade or flew via award bookings. From my experience since my dad and I use our award miles to fly on first class (dad always goes first class, mine was a one time deal for graduating college.)

From friends who work at UA, there are still plenty of customers willing to pay for F in certain routes--usually the "corporate" or "big money" routes out of EWR, IAD, and SFO, and to a lesser extent ORD, according to me friend. I was surprised LAX didn't join that group, but that is apparently one reason why LAX has been reduced in favor of SFO for UA. (Which bums me out as I live in SoCal!)

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).

With less competition for premium F offerings, the Asian and Gulf carriers win for their offering. Well, with AA and DL giving up on F offerings on their networks, UA is actually better positioned among THOSE as the only US carrier still offering a F product on most routes (again, for the time being). That does help UA in the absence of competition from AA and DL.

:confused: Gulf carriers don't connect USA to asia ???

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.