LASUA1K

It goes away in November.

Indelaware

My only opinion is that the combined number of F an C seats is a small percentage of total seats; therefore, any changes to the number of cabins effects only a small percentage of passengers.


I do not completly discount that CO had a dearth of WBs, but perhaps you think it was foolish to purchase them in the first place, ignoring that many routes simply wouldn't be served without them. You seem to suggest that future growth as a reason that the should not have been purchased in the first place. Should CO have gone to market after purchasing the 752s to get more planes? Yes, and they did. What they should have done would have been to secure a few WBs immediately by leasing from other airlines until new birds arrived from Boeing. (I also think UA should do this today -- or bring some back from VCV, MHV, and GYR.) But even if CO did get a few extra birds to supplement the fleet (or if UA were to do so today), that doesn't mean that they should stop flying the 752s.

dayone

Almost as good as "dearth."

tuolumne

I have no problems with flying a 752 on an intl. leg, especially if it means I'm bypassing a transit abroad. Yes, I think the J seats could be longer and the Y seats a little more comfortable, but the 757 is one that I will miss long after it's gone. All I'm suggesting is that CO put these birds on routes that could clearly support larger equipment only because of their fleet mismanagement. I know that's putting it strongly, but the company could have done much better balancing their growth and equipment availability. The 762s should have never been ordered, and one could make a credible case that the 764s were another misguided decision; There was/is a lack of 777 aircraft. As far as dirth, I didn't want you to get the idea I was stealing 'your' word

Indelaware

Sometimes one must take the growth when it can be had and make the best of the fleet at hand. On a whole, as suggested above, I support the old concept of supplementing fleets through short term leases particularly during seasonal highs -- something which seems to have largely been forgotten by North American airlines.

A hazard of reading too much old English.

dayone

And not using spell-check.

Passmethesickbag

It was during the winter of 2007 when LHR-SFO went down to one daily and they needed to keep the slot warm. And yes, they took revenue passengers (at a very attractive fare) - I used it for two roundtrips to BRU. Received one of the two double upgrades of my life on one of them. They put everybody in C so they didn't need to clean the Y cabin, and a wonderful crew with great spirit decided they'd rather spend the 40-minute flight giving everybody a great experience rather than sitting on their bums.

Passmethesickbag

Surely, retreating from markets that didn't yield enough profits to save PA indicates anything but "stodgy insistence on maintaining this old biz model"! From my perspective, as a customer, it was great when UA operated European short-hauls ex-LHR and flights between JFK, EWR, and BOS. And a single flight spanning the globe appealed in a not very rational way - very cool, but very impractical. But these weren't profitable, and UA ditched them - just like CO ditched DEN, SYD, MEL, BNE, and AKL. With all the aggravation surrounding the merger, let's not forget that at least it's reopened NYC to LHR-based pmUA customers and SYD to US-based pmCO ones.

chinatraderjmr

Sure, but they can't fill anything larger then a 757. They could cut those flights in half, fill a couple much larger planes & save a fortune. They arecnot going to lose any customers w evening flights every 2 hours instead of every hour. Granted, 9 out if 10 pax don't fly that often so the fact they are 757's don't meen much but for frequent travellers (I'm not talking about obsessed FTers like us), many people stay away from 757's TATL. I'm not saying zillions of people but many frequent travellers do

lhrsfo

I'm still waiting to see where the extra slot will come from. It seems to boil down to three possibilities:
First, they've bought a new pair, either from a *A carrier or from a third party (in this respect, the slots that BA were required to relinquish through the acquisition of BD have not yet been allocated) and switched that slot to T4;
Second, they will utilise one of the existing sUA slots, perhaps reducing ORD to 2xdaily and upgauging, or cutting LAX altogether - in either case switching the slot to T4; or
Third, taking one of the EWR slots and consolidating 2 x 757 onto 1 x 777. The problem with this approach is that LON-NYC is all about frequency if you want to compete in the market. UA is already only a minor player with limited frequency (and the crunch is in the westbound, where the market is split between people wanting really early to make a meeting in NY, people wanting middle of the day and people wanting as late as possible to allow for a day's work in London). If UA is serious about competing in that market, cutting frequency would be a mistake.

OtleyFlyer

Weren't they due to get back one of he slots they leased out to other airlines about 10 years ago?? I thought there was still at least one of these nominal UA slots that is being used by someone else (I forget who took them originally).

tuolumne

In 2005, United leased one pair of slots to Jet Airways in a 3 year deal. The same year they signed a 5 year deal with Virgin for another pair of slots. I believe they also sold 4 slots to BA a year before (the JFK ones), to the tune of 10 million Euros.

sbm12

Yes. Are you also aware that fewer will be converted than originally announced. And that some 763s which were in a domestic config are being converter to a 2-cabin international config, not 3-cabin. And that the 787s are coming online as 2-cabin?

The part where the future plans are 2-cabin more than 3-cabin is what I mean by the company is shifting in that direction.

By the end of 2012 (assuming the 763 and 772 conversions finish, which might take a bit longer but it is slightly easier to do the math) here's how I believe the fleet will look:

Two Cabin:
752 - 41
762 - 5
763 - 14
764 - 16
772 - 22
788 - 5
TOTAL - 103

Three Cabin:
763 - 21
772 - 43
744 - 23
Total - 87

If I back out the 788s, the sUA 763s now going 2-cabin and the 76H from the 764 pool it would be 87-80 in favor of 3 cabin. That's not even a 60/40 split. In my world that's not "far more" of anything.

There may be "far more" 3-cabin seats than 2-cabin seats flying but not airframes. That is reality, with actual data to back it up, not just a baseless claim.

Neither. Turns out that you were responding to a quoted post from someone else and I didn't catch that before.
I simply do not believe this happens in sufficient numbers to materially affect yields. There is a very small subset of passengers who have aversion or affinity to various aircraft types. Those are such a small minority that it really doesn't affect booking patterns from the macro perspective based on any data I can find.

tuolumne

3 aircraft. Earth shattering...

And those aircraft are all going to fill in Intl. routes where the 3-class equipment was overkill. either at pmCO, or where pmUA ceeded certain markets (and pulled an IAD-MAD stunt) - that reality isn't lost on anybody, including myself. I will push back on the notion that somehow 'most' of the pmUA intl. route network couldn't support 3-class equipment - that's not true.

One can only hope the UA 787 orders start arriving under a different regime who either reverts to 3 cabin, or to a more advanced J product with direct aisle access. The current 2-2-2 BF product is already pushing 5 years and is getting long in the tooth.

Which is a shame. UA will no longer have anything premium about it.

So what? you wasted your time adding those up, because if you reference my statements, I was talking about intl. configured widebody aircraft. The 752s which make up the back bone of the pmCO intl. operation only have 16J seats - best not to even include them in this discussion.

It's clear there are more 3-cabin Intl. widebodies than 2-cabin ones, and I'd say 'far' more. If you compare on a seat # basis, UA brought over TWICE the amount of J seats to the merger, and even when including the 763, about 1.8x. That means IPTE J out numbers BF J by about 2:1 at the current moment. And on all those IOTE birds, F is offered. Point is, F is a very prominent part of this company's intl. premium product, and will be in the immediate and mid-term future.

Lastly, may I ask why are you chanpioning for a lesser, mediocre product? Do you enjoy sitting in J over F? Have you ever traveled in F? Because as it stands now, calling this mid pack J offering "BF" Is outrageous. There's nothing 'first' about it, certainly not when compared to what DL, US, and soon AA will be offering...And after being spoiled in the F suite to Asia and back, traveling in J feels like a restrictive coffin death bed. Hyperbolic, admittedly, and another first world problem, but I can't hide from how I feel!

sbm12

I don't know that anyone has claimed that. I certainly haven't.

But there are many more markets now served directly by the combined company than those UA offered prior to the merger. The combined company absolutely benefits from having the ability to support routes with an aircraft which is the proper size and configuration for the market.
Why not? They are international configuration aircraft serving international destinations with a product essentially the same as that offered on all the other long-haul aircraft. You've decided to exclude them from the fleet which I suppose is fine for you. But they very much are still flying. I've taken the 752 TATL many times, both in Y and C. The experience has been comparable to the TATL flights I've had on other types. Maybe I'm just too laid back to care about whether there is an extra aisle that I don't need anyways. Having 2 FAs serving 16 pax makes for a great environment IMO. Quick meal service on the east-bound flight and then off to sleep.

I'm always intrigued by people who LOVE the upper deck on the 744 but think that the 752 is too claustrophobic. Basically the same layout. So why the bias?
And still diminishing over time.

Have I? Yes. Will I routinely pay a premium for it? Absolutely not. The incremental value is not there IMO, either revenue or award in most cases. I also actually pay for all my own travel out of my own pocket. Maybe that's the difference. But I have a hard time justifying the difference from a solid C product to a relatively weak F product. Were I paying cash to fly F I'd probably feel the same way.

As for championing the product, I'd much rather see the company offer a competitive C product and invest there versus the F product. I have a much greater chance of benefiting from it personally and I believe that, given global market trends, it offers a better chance for long-term profitability.

There are a few features, like arrivals lounge/day room access in Europe which were very much a F offering from other carriers rather than a C product. AFAIK UA is still the only carrier offering them. It certainly isn't F, but the 2-cabin product was one of the first US-based carriers going flat bed and on more planes than others. The new US/AA product is quite nice. And to get there AA is pulling F out of planes and making Y more crowded. Great deal if you're flying in C. Not quite as much for the other two.

I also happen to travel with my wife a decent amount. I like the paired seats in the 2-2-2 layout for being able to talk with her from time to time. That's something which I don't get on the herringbone layouts. Again, a personal choice but that's one I make.
No need to hide it....I agree that the sUA C seats are quite narrow and restrictive. I don't feel the same way about the sCO seats, and with good reason. They're wider. Go figure.