New TV Commercial for p.s.

Old Jul 3, 13, 9:32 am
  #166  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP, UA Platinum, Alaksa MVP 75K, Air Berlin Gold, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,388
Originally Posted by PTahCha View Post
p.s. does have bubbly on board. The quality of the bubbly is not guaranteed, however, but it does make a good mimosa.
Truth!!!!!!
weirdlyndon is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 10:28 am
  #167  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by Infinite1K View Post
Actually the work horse of CO's international fleet is the 757. No wonder they think that a domestic 757 is utter luxury and "like flying international".
That's exactly my point and it illustrates the inability of the CO team to think beyond the CO world-view. I've never flown anything other than 777 or 747 on UA between SFO and any European and Asian city. The idea of flying 11+ hours in an sCO 757 or 767 is preposterous. I'd never consider it. So, it might be "like flying international" on sCO from IAH or EWR but it's not "like flying international" on legacy sUA or any other real world class carrier.

Originally Posted by BearX220 View Post
The Chase card ads are especially hurtful for the UA brand because they sell against the basic UA product. The key message in those spots is: UA is a big hassle, you need this card / talisman to make it less painful. There are very few companies dumb enough to characterize their core products as bad in order to sell upgrades. Sears bath towels are labeled "Good," "Better," "Best." They're not labeled "Poor," "Marginal," and "Good."
I was recently looking at the latest advertising for the "you're in" card and was surprised to see that they've got the same model that they've been using since they took over. The guy who looks like he just got out of a high school in Texas and could be Rainey's son. I don't think there is a company of this size, anywhere in the world, that puts less care or effort into marketing and branding than this organization.

And, the current "advertisement" makes that point clearly.
FlyWorld is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 11:48 am
  #168  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: AAdvantage, MileagePlus(ick)
Posts: 296
WOW what a cheap ad.
Did they pay some AV bachelors students from DePaul pizza n beer to make that?

CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!

I've already forgotten it and instantly went back to thinking about the "It's time to fly" ads.
All of them.
They're all that memorable.
JBEagle1000G is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 12:22 pm
  #169  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,406
That's a very cheap add. It really looks like something WN would come up with.
LASUA1K is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 1:33 pm
  #170  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Our Nation's Capital
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott BonVoy LT Titanium Elite, National Executive Elite
Posts: 832
Originally Posted by mitchmu View Post
That's exactly my point and it illustrates the inability of the CO team to think beyond the CO world-view. I've never flown anything other than 777 or 747 on UA between SFO and any European and Asian city. The idea of flying 11+ hours in an sCO 757 or 767 is preposterous. I'd never consider it. So, it might be "like flying international" on sCO from IAH or EWR but it's not "like flying international" on legacy sUA or any other real world class carrier.
Really? Really?

I've been on numerous 10-11 hour flights on legacy UA 767's. You're living in a dream world. There is a big, big world outside of SFO.
Sulley is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 2:42 pm
  #171  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by mitchmu View Post
I've never flown anything other than 777 or 747 on UA between SFO and any European and Asian city. The idea of flying 11+ hours in an sCO 757 or 767 is preposterous. I'd never consider it.
Suppose they put exactly the same seats with exactly the same dimensions in the 757 or 767. Then why would you care what kind of a plane you are in?

The 787 is advertised as having some advantages, e.g., better cabin pressure and humidity. But as far as I know, the air in a 747 is exactly the same as in a 767. What's the difference?

If this is explained in some other thread I would be happy to have a pointer there.
DaviddesJ is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 3:43 pm
  #172  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LAX
Programs: AAdvantage EXPLAT, Hilton Diamond, SPG/Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Citi Exec MC, Amex Plat
Posts: 1,443
"Flying United coast to coast is like flying United Internationally" Really????? Such a flat monotone voice, what are you trying to tell me? Are you trying to be a smarta**??? Wake me for the ice cream sundae????? WHAT?????????? This commercial just comes off as incredibly arrogant, kinda like a business passenger parading through the coach cabin showing off his business class boarding pass!

This has got to be the crappiest commercial I've seen, how did this get approved???

United needs to pull this commercial ASAP and come up with something much better.

Look at this AA commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPTtIOAls4
The music has got drama, it's got some oomph behind it. It draws emotionally showing that this new AA is going to come out much stronger and ready to kick some butt!

Or this British Airways commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5fSLrVzpxg The music really brings out the class of the product.
matrixwalker2012 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 3:59 pm
  #173  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 8,634
Originally Posted by matrixwalker2012 View Post
"Flying United coast to coast is like flying United Internationally" Really????? Such a flat monotone voice, what are you trying to tell me? Are you trying to be a smarta**??? Wake me for the ice cream sundae????? WHAT?????????? This commercial just comes off as incredibly arrogant, kinda like a business passenger parading through the coach cabin showing off his business class boarding pass!
The commercial is having the desired kettle jealousy effect!
mgcsinc is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 4:47 pm
  #174  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: US
Programs: AA/UA/DL
Posts: 2,665
The Rhapsody in Blue fits all the old UA ads. It sounds great in all the pmUA commercials. However, it sounds really odd with the new commercial or safety video....

fits great in those commercials and they don't just use the raw Rhapsody in Blue and use where it should be appeared. As a musician, I feel my ears got raped when I watch the new commercial with the Rhapsody in Blue.....it just doesn't fit ...

The old commercials look and sound elegant and the new commercial is just low and cheap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9vWC...1CAAFD2374D9BA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVP9lV_YR4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LDrVAONII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qlW...1CAAFD2374D9BA
pigx5 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 4:53 pm
  #175  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by matrixwalker2012 View Post
Look at this AA commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPTtIOAls4
The music has got drama, it's got some oomph behind it. It draws emotionally showing that this new AA is going to come out much stronger and ready to kick some butt!
It's content-free. It tells you absolutely nothing about the airline. Who cares about a list of which planes AA was the first to fly? If UA had hired the same people they could have made exactly the same ad and put UA in it. They would have a virtually indistinguishable list of the airplanes they were first to fly, their hubs, their partners, etc., etc. If you're flying one airline over another because of which ad agency they hired, that seems pretty crazy. Are you going to fly AA because they have 37 Admiral Clubs? Shouldn't you first find out how many clubs UA has?
DaviddesJ is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 5:07 pm
  #176  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: US
Programs: AA/UA/DL
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
If you're flying one airline over another because of which ad agency they hired, that seems pretty crazy.
Then, why should UA spent money on this commercial since no one will choose it because of this ad?
pigx5 is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 5:13 pm
  #177  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K .97MM, IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 55,694
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
Originally Posted by mitchmu View Post
I've never flown anything other than 777 or 747 on UA between SFO and any European and Asian city. The idea of flying 11+ hours in an sCO 757 or 767 is preposterous. I'd never consider it.
Suppose they put exactly the same seats with exactly the same dimensions in the 757 or 767. Then why would you care what kind of a plane you are in?

The 787 is advertised as having some advantages, e.g., better cabin pressure and humidity. But as far as I know, the air in a 747 is exactly the same as in a 767. What's the difference?

If this is explained in some other thread I would be happy to have a pointer there.
One of COdbaUA's brilliant marketing banners hanging in ORD may explain it:

Explore SPACE

Higher ceilings, more cross aisles, more walking space. I will always prefer a 500 square foot hotel room versus a 150 square foot room even if both have identical King Beds.

I will consider the 787 after teething pains are gone due to the humidity - I dry out too easy, carrying saline with me every flight. That would be a decent trade off v the more space in a 747.
uastarflyer is offline  
Old Jul 3, 13, 5:49 pm
  #178  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by pigx5 View Post
Then, why should UA spent money on this commercial since no one will choose it because of this ad?
This commercial---the one we're discussing in this thread---has actual information in it that might influence someone's choice of carrier. There are probably people who might fly UA on these routes and don't realize they have better seats.

I only found out from this thread that DL flies some very nice 767's on LAX-JFK. They might benefit from advertising that, too.

That's very different from, "Fly AA because its ads have good music."

Originally Posted by uastarflyer View Post
I will consider the 787 after teething pains are gone due to the humidity - I dry out too easy, carrying saline with me every flight. That would be a decent trade off v the more space in a 747.
OK. It seems strange to me to prefer the 747 because the ceiling is higher above your head. But if that's the important thing to you, who am I to argue? Thanks for answering, anyway.
DaviddesJ is offline  
Old Jul 4, 13, 6:50 pm
  #179  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: CO Platinum/1K, SPG Platinum/Ambassador
Posts: 1,600
So for those of you wondering if this was a trial run on Facebook or a real ad, it just ran in primetime on WCBS in New York at 8:45 PM. There's your answer.
dparkinson is offline  
Old Jul 4, 13, 7:27 pm
  #180  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by LASUA1K View Post
That's a very cheap add. It really looks like something WN would come up with.
That's an insult to WN.

Originally Posted by Sulley View Post
Really? Really?

I've been on numerous 10-11 hour flights on legacy UA 767's. You're living in a dream world. There is a big, big world outside of SFO.
Please leave the personal attacks out of it.

We're supposed to discuss the topic of the thread, not attack each other.

In response, what I said is the truth. I've flown hundreds of thousands of TPAC and TATL miles out of SFO, and all of them were 777 and 747.

This is not a dream. This is my experience. And, that's what I wrote about.

Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
Suppose they put exactly the same seats with exactly the same dimensions in the 757 or 767. Then why would you care what kind of a plane you are in?

The 787 is advertised as having some advantages, e.g., better cabin pressure and humidity. But as far as I know, the air in a 747 is exactly the same as in a 767. What's the difference?
I find the larger aircraft to be smoother, quieter, and more comfortable. I find the smaller aircraft, to be noisier and less comfortable. There's a tangible difference in how I feel on arrival.

It's no different than driving for 10 hours the cheapest possible rental car vs. driving in a big SUV. Even if both had the same seats, you'd feel more rested in the SUV.

Originally Posted by uastarflyer View Post
Higher ceilings, more cross aisles, more walking space. I will always prefer a 500 square foot hotel room versus a 150 square foot room even if both have identical King Beds.

I will consider the 787 after teething pains are gone due to the humidity - I dry out too easy, carrying saline with me every flight. That would be a decent trade off v the more space in a 747.
^
FlyWorld is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: