I disagree with that statement - a lot of people can afford it, but will not see any value in it over biz, and not fly F "all the time"

There's people who "can afford it" and people for whom money is no object. Those probably fly F over J "all the time."

Is that still true? I thought that the new J class in many airlines with F cabins was of a much higher quality, e.g. LH, AA, and that J on Emirates was better than most F. Not that I've flown in anything other than Y...

While I admit the possibility that First Class on EK or SQ is of a completely different order than First Class on AF, I disagree that First Class on AF would be considered equal to business on KE (or EK) and SQ. AF F offers an exclusive cabin, a wonderful lounge (in Paris)with car to the plane, etc, far more pleasant than EK/SQ business, even at its best. Now whether it is worth paying the upcharge for the increased pleasantness is another question.

More on topic to the particular question at hand - it is quite possible that airlines run an F class as a loss leader to position themselves as a high-quality carrier across all classes. Airlines that do this don't need to do this on every flight. Offering F class on a few signature routes is enough.

Maybe, but if the cabins are reasonably then full someone's paying. It's not all upgrades. We'll never really know if those in J could go F or not will we? There are some excellent offers in F about, perhaps airlines are trying to fill the cabin so they can tell themselves it's worth having one - as has been said, kudos for the airline so they can project a certain image. And isn't it probable that there are more seats taken in J on company business then paid for personally?

Onboard service aside, the F value proposition also includes ground services. This might not be something overly exciting with US carriers, but many international airlines offering great F class products also do a great job with F ground services - think LH/LX/AF/SQ etc.

How do you know all of them are losing money? It is very poor reasoning to make blanket statements without solid data to back-up your claim.

Some airlines don't find it profitable so they replace it. Others still retain it. How can you be so sure sure those airlines that retain it must all be getting rid of it? How can you be so sure that just because some airlines find first class unprofitable means ALL airlines with first class unprofitable?

P.S-If you think UA's first class is the "industry standard" for first class quality and performance, you really haven't flown first class much. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the truth.

Interesting discussion. CX's second flight from ORD & the EWR do not offer F. If I'm not mistaken one of the SFO & JFK flights also switched to no F. Now is CX doing this because it is not profitable or are they just trying to get more business passengers in J?

a better question,"what is the most profitable use of the space?'

AA is cutting F on its fleet. So is UA. So are CX, EK, SQ, LH and others.

It is a niche product with shrinking demand. Some routes/markets can support it and those may continue to see such offerings. But that's the very definition of a niche product.

UA is keeping F on intercontinental flights.

But what exactly is "niche product" definition anyway? If you want, first class has always been a "niche" product since only a relatively small percentage of passengers fly on it. But it is not "niche" from the standpoint of revenue since a big chunk of their profit historically comes from it.

I would have to see their revenue contribution by class to determine if it really is a "niche" product.

Only somewhat. New deliveries (and the last of the 763 conversions) are 2-cabin only right now and there has been no commitment to future 3-cabin products made in any official capacity. They're not ripping it out like LH is, but they're definitely not growing the number of seats available.

And it is, IMO, niche in that only certain markets can support it. That may have always been true but the airlines are finally doing something about it. There's also the problem of Business Class being too good so that it rarely is worth the premium to move up to F. Lufthansa execs went on record lamenting the flat-bed C/J seat as destroying their F yields.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to say that. :) If you look at where F is mostly flown then I'd say you're probably right. I'd say it's not a profit center for many airlines, it's a marketing decision. If they can make money on it then that's probably a bonus.

gotta keep the upgraders happy!

Seriously, United F is a very sad excuse for First Class.

I think it's mainly about just capturing the people who would take first class in the first place... usually those sorts of people do a lot of air travel, and even though when you look at it from a purely cost perspective it doesn't make too much sense, from the marketing and loyalty perspective, it is reasonable.