AC is going this route on an interim basis to test the waters on two 777s, not fleet wide. It is reducing pitch and going 10 across in economy, so to appease critics it's providing this new in between Y and J cabin. AC's also made elite upgrading very restrictive.

E+ is too valuable for UA to change it. And now that DL and AA have adopted similar seating there's no chance of change. It, and other US carriers, substitute generous upgrading to C/J for elites over the true Economy Plus concept.

The long term trend for UA is to cut F and go with J only in front. With that as a given, let's assess the options.

For long-haul aircraft: What would be the pro's and con's of adding 6 rows of premium economy, then cutting a few rows of E+ and a few rows of E- to make up the difference?

Elites who want to pay Y can still get E+. Kettles still have E- at cheapest possible price. They can sell the Y(Premium) to some people at a higher price. They can peddle up-sell offers to everyone to get into Y(Premium). And, what they don't sell, they can upgrade elites from E+ to Y(Premium) for, say, half the miles it would cost to UG into J.

Seems to me this has something beneficial for everyone.

This logic makes great sense to me, and many FTers I suspect, but I doubt it would fly with the current UA management team.

Remember how everyone from 1K's to credit card holders got put into 'Group 1' for boarding priority and the resulting chaos? When one of our number had an audience with Martin Hand, I believe, a year or so ago, he was told that there were too many gradations in the pmUA status hierarchy to treat them all differently. So it was just GS at the apex, and all the rest of MP categories lumped together (except perhaps silver, which became the new no-status).

This suggests to me that UA would resist further differentiation of its cabins into E-, E+, Y Premium, and J. They are happy to differentiate dynamic pricing for everything they can, but not to differentiate the actual services that are offered. The KISS principle will keep a true premium Y from happening, unless perhaps it's just bundling a drink and a snack in with E+.

Yes, we know that CO culture says "all elites are equal" and we've seen a reduction in benefits that differentiate between the levels. However, did they do this because they generally aspire towards simplicity? Or, did they do this because they thought it was too expensive and they could save money by cutting the complexity? If they believe that "certain" elites are "over-entitled" then it follows that they'd cut benefits to reduce the perceived over-entitlement, with an eye towards cutting costs to increase margins which directly translates into increased benefits for the people making those decisions.

However, I'm not sure if we can draw an inference from that decision to this hypothetical decision because the root cause of that decision was an "all elites are equal" mentality which re-enforced a belief in "over-entitlement" which is further re-enforced by the desire to cut costs, increase margins, to generate higher personal bonuses. When those bonuses are six digits long, the motivation is high.

None of those facts apply to this case. Because Premium Y is not a cost in the form of a benefit that's given away to over-entitled elites. For them to be interested in doing it, they'd have to run a spreadsheet model that shows they'd get higher margins, which leads them to higher personal bonuses. I'd suggest that, if the model showed higher margins, they'd do it, no matter what the other consequences. And, I'd argue, if there are people who are now paying Y and who would pay more for Premium Y but cannot afford J, then, those seats would increase margins.

I get your broader point that they have not differentiated any services, they've just created new fees on top of the same product and made those fees dynamic.

This idea does not match that philosophy, but, it also does not match the conversation about elite benefits because it's not a benefit, it's a potential source of revenue.

This is correct. In my opinion this is Jeff's vision.

I may be mis-remembering, but one of the reports of the audience with Martin Hand contained language that went beyond the 'over-entitled elites' issue and said something to the effect of 'you can't run an airline that treats so many different classes of elites differently'. What I took from that paraphrase is the idea that UA management in its current incarnation does not want to run an airline that is overly complicated.

While I accept your claim that greed drives most of the senior management's decision logic, I would also suggest that concern about capability to execute lies behind some of the lowering of expectations and standards since the merger got into gear. KISS is on the minds of the C suite, not just because they want bigger bonuses, but also because they don't trust their 'co-workers' to be able to deliver multiple levels of service well. The ghost of People Express still floats above the new UA, and I think that premium Y is unlikely to become a part of this company, unless it arrives as a replacement for domestic F.

That's kind of what *A's European members have done with their short and medium haul flights, although they still call the service 'Business.' Take away the lounge access and priority check-in, and you've got premium Y, essentially.

I still don't see the leap from 'you can't run an airline that treats so many different classes of elites differently' to the notion that 'UA management in its current incarnation does not want to run an airline that is overly complicated' however upon reflection I think you're right, if not necessarily for that particular logic.

I do agree completely with your second paragraph. It fits well with what I've observed in this awful post 3/12 era.

I think you agreed with much of what I wrote initially, so I'm presuming that you agree with the logic that Premium Y might well increase margins.

But, I don't see it happening under this regime. So, to answer the question of this thread, we can probably agree that Premium Y is not in the future of United E+ anytime soon.

Agreed!:)

Yet, United has added another - Platinum - tier status. OK, one could note that they essentially dropped Silver at the same time.

I can't wait to see what Premium Y is like on all these RJ's United is using.

Perhaps a box of cheese & crackers to go along with your 5" of extra legroom. Whoo Hoo!

Are you talking about the procedure of attaching the long lever to the end of a bank of coach seats, squeezing out the middle seat, and hanging the class divider behind a different row of seats, each flight?

UA/MP had to because CO's top tier was at 75K and not 100K. It would have pissed off CO elites who'd only earned slightly more than 75K but not 100K to suddenly go from top tier to mid-tier (50K Gold) with hundreds of thousands of others. AA will introduce a 75K tier when it merges the US FF program with its own because US has that tier and it's now the industry standard (UA, DL, AC).

But back on topic, if true PE was deemed viable and profitable for US airlines, DL or AA if not UA would have adopted it by now. None has and the other two have added their own versions of E+. AC has a very different market, and it has only adopted PE on two specially configured 777s because it adopted a uber-high density in the back. It's not converting the rest of the widebody fleet with this cabin. (AA took a slightly different approach on its new high density -- i.e. 10 across -- 777s and left a small E+ type 9 across cabin instead of a true PE cabin.)

Yes. But on many aircraft the middle seat is simply blocked from reservations and there is no piece of fabric between J and Y sections. All you get is a drink or two more than Y and a boxed light meal.

Since I've never actually seen this, can someone explain it a bit more... descriptively?

On BA at least there is a mechanism that eliminates the middle seat by spreading the armrests into it, making the aisle and window seats a bit wider. But seat pitch is the same as the rest of the plane and it's barely less cramped. However I was impressed that they served a hot meal on the short flight LHR-AMS.

Nearly all narrow-body service within Europe has a similar setup. On KLM they don't have the middle-seat crusher and you pay extra for the same seat with better food and drink up front vs. the back. The cabin divider if there is one is on a track and can be moved to magically make business class bigger or smaller, but the actual difference is largely imaginary.