|
Originally Posted by PVDProf
(Post 20366010)
The new UA just offers a wider range of places I can go in coach, even as 1K. But I can do that on other airlines, too, and with UA's coach not being all that desirable, I'm giving much more weight to pricing, scheduling, and coach product, thus booking away from UA, especially on international travel (though often to *A credited to UA, because I do still manage lounge access and free bags).
UA serves a lot of places, which should make accumulating loyalty with them easy. But they also have to make it worthwhile. |
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 20365473)
2. VX doesn't hold a candle. True. But, look where they fly: NYC, PDX, SEA, LAX, SAN, ORD, DCA, BOS, FLL. These are all cities that I fly to. Whereas you gave me a list of UA domestic destinations that I've NEVER flown to, VX gives me a list of domestic destinations that I actually do fly to. Hence, the size of the network isn't what matters. What matters is if they fly where I need to fly. VX does so disproportionally.
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 20365473)
3. UA has more destinations. Obviously. And, it's irrelevant to me because it's not worth suffering through the abuse just to get 1K status. That was a part of my argument which you conveniently left out so you could create an argument.
Originally Posted by todorovic
(Post 20365880)
Your argument relies on someone's desire to stay with a single airline. The only reason for this is the loyalty and if the loyalty program is sub par then there is really no reason not to spread the spend across many carriers. The argument made by others is that it will take more than network and ops to keep/bring new customers and I think you just agreed with others.
|
Originally Posted by BearDown
(Post 20365677)
With all of the talk about route network, I'm curious about the signs UA has posted in the airports and jet bridges. The advertisement boasts 370 destinations. Does anyone know if that counts partner flights? I'm guess it does, but I did some googling and I couldn't find the answer.
Originally Posted by entropy
(Post 20365938)
it certainly counts regional partners. I don't think it includes *A partners. regional partners account for probably a good 1/3 of their traffic. All of those regional airports, and most mexican airports are RJ only.
|
Here's the bottom line folks - ole whatshisname's "over-entitled" comment is very much like ole Willard Milton Romney's 47% comment - they both wish the general public didn't have such a stark example of their true feelings, but it's a bit too late - this train (er plane) has already left.... HAPPY TRAILS
|
Originally Posted by unavaca
(Post 20365380)
If you want the most non-stop destinations out of SFO on one carrier, UA is the clear choice. Ditto for most of their other hubs.
Your comment above, like the one Smi/J made, misses the point. Where someone fly's, only allows their name to be included in the selection process. The next step in the process, which is choosing one of the contenders, includes a host of variables. In my case personally, UA is getting the nod 50-60% less than in the past. Other factors do come into play now. |
Originally Posted by PVDProf
(Post 20366010)
Indeed. The network was a compelling argument when the question was, What carrier can I fly so that I can get upgraded and treated well on most of my flying? And when I focused that business all on old UA, I managed to get enough status to continue to get upgrades; their network made it easy for someone who rarely goes the same place twice.
The new UA just offers a wider range of places I can go in coach, even as 1K. But I can do that on other airlines, too, and with UA's coach not being all that desirable, I'm giving much more weight to pricing, scheduling, and coach product, thus booking away from UA, especially on international travel (though often to *A credited to UA, because I do still manage lounge access and free bags). UA serves a lot of places, which should make accumulating loyalty with them easy. But they also have to make it worthwhile. Yes, out of SFO, the current UA probably gives me another 10 of my 120 legs a year that are direct, over flying a connection. But some of those are RJs, and often its a non-stop one way, connecting back as the one flight is not a useful time. SFO is different in this way. If you fly a lot, UA may go (on its own metal) to 40-50% of the places you need to go directly. This is far different than at ORD/IAH/EWR where UA goes to probably 90% of the places you might go direct. So the lock in is much lighter as SFO is not a traditional hub and spoke hub for anyone. Now in return for the benifit of avoiding an extra 10 connections, I get to be jammed into RJ-145/CRJ700s for long flights, and the other "benifits" (bad award redemptions, poor food, bad coffee, no pillows, etc) that UA is offering. Given the choice between UA and mainline, better service, and a few more connections on DL, DL is getting a lot of my business. And if the upgrades I get as a GS go away (as they will next year for sure) then UA will get NONE of my business, and the airline that is giving me upgrades (DL) will get it all. Sitting in Y for those few extra directs on UA is not an appetizing deal, and it is (at SFO anyway) where you will probably be with TODs. :D |
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 20364627)
My view is that the network only provides a benefit in two cases:
1. If UA flies direct, at a convenient time, to my destination, and nobody else does. This is almost never true. There is only one destination (SFO-LIH) where UA is the only direct option. For all other destinations I fly to, there is competition, also direct, also with decent schedules. If UA doesn't fly direct, then I can get just about anywhere in the world in the same time that it would take to connect with UA, so UA rarely has any advantage. 2. In the past, the route network meant that I could fly almost anywhere in the world, and I could stay with UA. I did this because I wanted 1K/GS status. I wanted 1K/GS status because of the benefits it provided, most significantly - upgrades. Now that the benefits have been diminished and iupgrades are far less frequent, the benefit of being 1K/GS is far lower than it was before. Therefore, the motivation to stick with UA instead of a competitor is diminished. Therefore, the route network is worthless. Put another way, when I evaluated AA's Exp status match offer, it was not a smart choice for me, because their route network is so small that I'd find it nearly impossible to fly 100,000 miles on AA metal. Therefore, I could not get the benefits that their status offers. With UA, I can get the benefits, but the benefits are diminished, hence not worth having anymore. Therefore, route network = irrelevant. |
Originally Posted by unavaca
(Post 20366225)
Cool, different airlines work for different people. Sounds like VX works better for you....
Either your product and loyalty program differentiates, or the money will be flying out the window to your partners or competitors. |
Originally Posted by pdx1M
(Post 20366723)
My point exactly. And if you think its irrelevant for you without a good FF program, it is even more the case for someone like me who is 1k for life. The only incentive for me to fly UA when it isn't simply the best schedule is to try to use up the upgrade carts they give me. And I used to go out of my way to earn GS.
|
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 20364627)
My view is that the network only provides a benefit in two cases:
1. If UA flies direct, at a convenient time, to my destination, and nobody else does. This is almost never true. There is only one destination (SFO-LIH) where UA is the only direct option. For all other destinations I fly to, there is competition, also direct, also with decent schedules. If UA doesn't fly direct, then I can get just about anywhere in the world in the same time that it would take to connect with UA, so UA rarely has any advantage. 2. In the past, the route network meant that I could fly almost anywhere in the world, and I could stay with UA. I did this because I wanted 1K/GS status. I wanted 1K/GS status because of the benefits it provided, most significantly - upgrades. Now that the benefits have been diminished and upgrades are far less frequent, the benefit of being 1K/GS is far lower than it was before. Therefore, the motivation to stick with UA instead of a competitor is diminished. Therefore, the route network is worthless. Put another way, when I evaluated AA's Exp status match offer, it was not a smart choice for me, because their route network is so small that I'd find it nearly impossible to fly 100,000 miles on AA metal. Therefore, I could not get the benefits that their status offers. With UA, I can get the benefits, but the benefits are diminished, hence not worth having anymore. Therefore, route network = irrelevant. Well said. All things being equal, if I am going to sit in coach, not be recognized as a Million Miler, and board in a group as large as the number of coach seats, I can choose any other airline. United may keep me coming back for Economy Plus, but if I have to sit in an E+ middle seat, I will choose a window or aisle in regular coach. If I have to do that, I have a choice of airlines. Every airline has regular coach - some even have better regular coach seats. I WANT to fly United. I have been loyal to UA since they were headquartered at MDW (thus my name). I have had a mileage plus account since the second month of the program. Yet, all things being equal, they are driving me away!
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
(Post 20364073)
What folks are saying is network / ops are necessary items for successful but of themselves alone are not sufficient for success. There are other factors that matter -- for some it maybe price, for others it may be service, .... loyalty reward .... schedule .....
Network & ops are important / necessary but there is more to a person's choice in provider. Just today in the media I read that while United has been trying to get its merged act together DL has been growing in the NYC area, and just today announced plans to grow at LAX - with mainline metal. Where has United grown lately - except using regional aircraft? (OK, I'll give you some 787 destinations, but, at least for the time being, that if off the schedule.) |
Originally Posted by Karl-MDW
(Post 20369918)
United may keep me coming back for Economy Plus, but if I have to sit in an E+ middle seat, I will choose a window or aisle in regular coach. If I have to do that, I have a choice of airlines. Every airline has regular coach - some even have better regular coach seats.
I WANT to fly United. I have been loyal to UA since they were headquartered at MDW (thus my name). I have had a mileage plus account since the second month of the program. Yet, all things being equal, they are driving me away! As for E+, that's as irrelevant to me as the route network, because I've never flown on an sCO aircraft that has E+ and with the endless aircraft substitutions that are going on, I never know if I'll end up on sUA or sCO, therefore, I never know if I'll have E+ or E-. And, the sCO E- is a torture chamber to me because I can't stand the endless loop of cheap advertising they force me to see from every possible angle and field of view. Four hours watching the same three advertisements repeat and repeat and repeat from the left, from the right, from every angle. It's horrific. More and more, I've found myself stuck on those aircraft. |
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 20370436)
because I've never flown on an sCO aircraft that has E+ . . . Four hours watching the same three advertisements repeat and repeat and repeat from the left, from the right, from every angle. It's horrific. More and more, I've found myself stuck on those aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by EWR764
(Post 20370509)
Well, that's just dumb luck. There are only 9 such aircraft (DTV with no E+) in the fleet, 2.5% of the sCO fleet and 1.3% overall! :eek:
Are you saying that most sCO don't have DTV that are always on with endless loops of advertising? Or, are you saying that most sCO do have DTV that are always on with endless loops of advertising but also have E+ so you can have a few inches of additional legroom while your brain is being fried by the endless negative stimulation from every angle of view? |
Originally Posted by mitchmu
(Post 20370631)
I can't stand the endless loop of cheap advertising they force me to see from every possible angle and field of view. Four hours watching the same three advertisements repeat and repeat and repeat from the left, from the right, from every angle. It's horrific.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:54 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.