Complimentary Beer/Wine Discontinued Jan 1, 2014 for transpacific/asia flights
Jan 1, 2014, 2:56 pm
#241
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,167
Yup. Of course these fools can only see quarter to quarter though. Incapable of growing revenue so cut costs. I'm sure that will do wonders for future revenues.
Jan 2, 2014, 2:45 am
#242
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HaMerkaz/Exit 145
Programs: UA, LY, BA, AA
Posts: 13,167
So how much money are they gonna lose on additional fuel costs because people board the plane heavier since they pre-gamed the flight? 
Jan 2, 2014, 3:52 pm
#243
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Calif./Eastern Ida.
Programs: Amethyst Premier Plutonium Medallion
Posts: 20,640
Jan 2, 2014, 8:49 pm
#244
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
Kinda harsh...
To be fair, I would still like to see the policy written somewhere. I can't imagine they would be so stupid to do this when DL is going out of its way to make itself into the go-to airline.
Perhaps someone with a twitter account can ask if the policy has changed in the last 48 hours since the last person asked....
To be fair, I would still like to see the policy written somewhere. I can't imagine they would be so stupid to do this when DL is going out of its way to make itself into the go-to airline.
Perhaps someone with a twitter account can ask if the policy has changed in the last 48 hours since the last person asked....
http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...s/default.aspx
Jan 2, 2014, 9:08 pm
#245
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1k, SPG Plat 100
Posts: 619
Online too - used to have the exception for TPAC flights noted.
http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...s/default.aspx
http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...s/default.aspx
Last edited by Boo_Radley; Jan 2, 2014 at 9:17 pm
Jan 2, 2014, 9:41 pm
#246
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1968
High Value Flyers are most likely not shelling out for drinks in economy TPAC.
HVFs can be found in any cabin on any given day -- in GF this month when the company is paying, in Y next month when they're taking their families on holiday. It is a grievous mistake to pigeonhole a customer as always up front, or always back in 43B. Most are actually mixed-ticket flyers, despite scattered claims on these boards from people who insist they haven't turned right at the boarding door in decades. Therefore it is not optimal to fawn over all front-cabin passengers, whether or not they have any loyalty pattern, and treat all economy passengers with indifference, as if they'll probably never come back. You make an HVF pay $7 for a drink back there when he knows it wouldn't happen on CX or LH, he may take his next $12,000 spend elsewhere.
Something neither UA nor many on FT seem to grasp is that it can pay to be nice to everybody, and it can really cost you not to.
Originally Posted by mike1968
High Value Flyers are most likely not shelling out for drinks in economy TPAC.
HVFs can be found in any cabin on any given day -- in GF this month when the company is paying, in Y next month when they're taking their families on holiday. It is a grievous mistake to pigeonhole a customer as always up front, or always back in 43B. Most are actually mixed-ticket flyers, despite scattered claims on these boards from people who insist they haven't turned right at the boarding door in decades. Therefore it is not optimal to fawn over all front-cabin passengers, whether or not they have any loyalty pattern, and treat all economy passengers with indifference, as if they'll probably never come back. You make an HVF pay $7 for a drink back there when he knows it wouldn't happen on CX or LH, he may take his next $12,000 spend elsewhere.
Something neither UA nor many on FT seem to grasp is that it can pay to be nice to everybody, and it can really cost you not to.
Of course, that was when all booze was comped in Y, waters brought regularly, and you could pop into the galley to ask for a coffee in between. Starbucks branded. That was just 2-3 years ago.
A baseline reasonable standard of service on the cheap fares can and does influence the next high spend fare decision.
Jan 2, 2014, 11:02 pm
#247
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Interesting logic on fuel burn. How does hubbing in Seattle provide Delta an advantage when they must connect passengers with longer domestic flights isomg less fuel efficient regional jets? Yes, it will be cheaper for Delta to carry passengers from Seattle to Asia than it is for Unites to carry passengers from San Francisco to the same destinations in Asia. Yet, local traffic always outweighs geographic location of gateways cities. If that weren't the case, Delta would hub in ANC.
The disparity in Y amenities is interesting and we will have to wait and see if it drives traffic and yields to Delta. I don't think it will hurt United with US originating traffic, but it should help Delta (eventually) compete better for Asia originating traffic.
The disparity in Y amenities is interesting and we will have to wait and see if it drives traffic and yields to Delta. I don't think it will hurt United with US originating traffic, but it should help Delta (eventually) compete better for Asia originating traffic.
Using a 772ER as an example (which is more efficient on a ASM basis than the 747-400 UAL is flying on many transpacific, the difference is quite pronounced) I did the calculation several years ago for 7700nm and for 6000nm, and assuming $3.20/gal (which was the price then, now is a little low) the difference in fuel cost was $156 per passenger at full passenger load for the extra range.
So look at SFO-HKG vs. SEA-HKG which are direct competitor flights. SFO is roughly 400nm (430 statue miles) further away. That would be at today's fuel prices, and especially on the West bound (into headwinds, which push a 772ER towards the edge of its range) probably another $50-60 bucks extra from SFO, slightly less going east bound.
And I don't get your point re the set up flights being longer to SEA (and note that the cost of the extra range is not so pronounced on shorter flights). Now if you are really from NYC you would know that SEA is 165sm closer to JFK than is SFO, and SEA is 126sm closer to ORD than is SFO. Now were you (let us just say hypothetically) from Houston, and Houston was all that you knew (wink, wink) you might be right, as Houston is further than SEA than SFO, but much, if not most, of the country is not.
This is to say that DAL (which will be flying this route with a recent vintage A330-200, which is a very efficient aircraft) will have a substantial cost advantage over UAL for the fuel cost, but also the longer crew times that UAL has to pay for. This makes it all the more important for UAL to try to attract those who will pay more, and offering steerage level service, low levels no other airline offers, is not the way to attract travelers who have the ability to spend a little more or pick their airline, as many of us can.
P.s. I might add that these numbers are part of why AA will have a structural disadvantage flying from LAX (another 400 miles further away from Asia) or ORD or DFW. AA though is going to compete by putting on BETTER service, nor cheapen the product as UAL is doing.
P.S.S. I found your comment about Delta using "less fuel efficient regional jets" to serve Seattle to be very very funny. I know you are a stout defender of all the "savvy" things Jeff has done, but as you doubtlessly know its Jeff that is using a multitude of "less fuel efficient RJs.", many on flights to Seattle. Delta has retired a number of them (pulled CRJ-200s) and is now using more modern, much more fuel efficient bigger RJs and 717s, which are quite efficient.
Interesting logic on fuel burn. How does hubbing in Seattle provide Delta an advantage when they must connect passengers with longer domestic flights isomg less fuel efficient regional jets? Yes, it will be cheaper for Delta to carry passengers from Seattle to Asia than it is for Unites to carry passengers from San Francisco to the same destinations in Asia. Yet, local traffic always outweighs geographic location of gateways cities. If that weren't the case, Delta would hub in ANC.
The disparity in Y amenities is interesting and we will have to wait and see if it drives traffic and yields to Delta. I don't think it will hurt United with US originating traffic, but it should help Delta (eventually) compete better for Asia originating traffic.
The disparity in Y amenities is interesting and we will have to wait and see if it drives traffic and yields to Delta. I don't think it will hurt United with US originating traffic, but it should help Delta (eventually) compete better for Asia originating traffic.
Using a 772ER as an example (which is more efficient on a ASM basis than the 747-400 UAL is flying on many transpacific, the difference is quite pronounced) I did the calculation several years ago for 7700nm and for 6000nm, and assuming $3.20/gal (which was the price then, now is a little low) the difference in fuel cost was $156 per passenger at full passenger load for the extra range.
So look at SFO-HKG vs. SEA-HKG which are direct competitor flights. SFO is roughly 400nm (430 statue miles) further away. That would be at today's fuel prices, and especially on the West bound (into headwinds, which push a 772ER towards the edge of its range) probably another $50-60 bucks extra from SFO, slightly less going east bound.
And I don't get your point re the set up flights being longer so SEA (and note that the cost of the extra range is not so pronounced on shorter flights). Now if you are really from NYC you would know that SEA is 165sm closer to JFK than is SFO, and SEA is 126sm closer to ORD than is SFO. Now were you (let us just say hypothetically) from Houston, and Houston was all that you knew (wink, wink) you might be right, as Houston is further than SEA than SFO, but much, if not most, of the country is not.
This is to say that DAL (which will be flying this route with a recent vintage A330-200, which is a very efficient aircraft) will have a substantial cost advantage over UAL for the fuel cost, but also the longer crew times that UAL has to pay for. This makes it all the more important for UAL to try to attract those who will pay more, and offering steerage level service, low levels no other airline offers, is not the way to attract travelers who have the ability to spend a little more or pick their airline, as must of us can.
[And I might add that these numbers are part of why AA will have a structural disadvantage flying from LAX (another 400 miles further away from Asia) or ORD or DFW. AA though is going to compete by putting on BETTER service, nor cheapen the product as UAL is doing.]
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 3, 2014 at 2:46 am Reason: merge
Jan 3, 2014, 7:30 am
#248
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K 1MM
Posts: 256
On A tpac flight I was on today, the flight attendants were comping the first 1-2 bottles of wine. They were clearly not happy with the new policy.
Last edited by MCLC; Jan 3, 2014 at 1:04 pm Reason: Remove actual flight
Jan 3, 2014, 7:56 am
#250
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: U.K.
Programs: QR P; HH D; IHG SpAmb
Posts: 774
Free sake was nice on the routes out of JP. On the other hand i will at least have some use for all those coupons i have...
Jan 3, 2014, 8:52 am
#252
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LAX
Posts: 556
it is hard to compete with other airlines. especially intro asia flights. most of asian airlines offer free alcohol!!!!
Jan 3, 2014, 8:58 am
#253
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DC
Posts: 255
Actually the extra fuel burn for the extra range is substantial, this is because you have to carry the extra fuel to carry the extra fuel till you need it at the end, and this is particularly pronounced when you get over about 10 hours of flight.
Using a 772ER as an example (which is more efficient on a ASM basis than the 747-400 UAL is flying on many transpacific, the difference is quite pronounced) I did the calculation several years ago for 7700nm and for 6000nm, and assuming $3.20/gal (which was the price then, now is a little low) the difference in fuel cost was $156 per passenger at full passenger load for the extra range.
So look at SFO-HKG vs. SEA-HKG which are direct competitor flights. SFO is roughly 400nm (430 statue miles) further away. That would be at today's fuel prices, and especially on the West bound (into headwinds, which push a 772ER towards the edge of its range) probably another $50-60 bucks extra from SFO, slightly less going east bound.
And I don't get your point re the set up flights being longer to SEA (and note that the cost of the extra range is not so pronounced on shorter flights). Now if you are really from NYC you would know that SEA is 165sm closer to JFK than is SFO, and SEA is 126sm closer to ORD than is SFO. Now were you (let us just say hypothetically) from Houston, and Houston was all that you knew (wink, wink) you might be right, as Houston is further than SEA than SFO, but much, if not most, of the country is not.
This is to say that DAL (which will be flying this route with a recent vintage A330-200, which is a very efficient aircraft) will have a substantial cost advantage over UAL for the fuel cost, but also the longer crew times that UAL has to pay for. This makes it all the more important for UAL to try to attract those who will pay more, and offering steerage level service, low levels no other airline offers, is not the way to attract travelers who have the ability to spend a little more or pick their airline, as many of us can.
P.s. I might add that these numbers are part of why AA will have a structural disadvantage flying from LAX (another 400 miles further away from Asia) or ORD or DFW. AA though is going to compete by putting on BETTER service, nor cheapen the product as UAL is doing.
P.S.S. I found your comment about Delta using "less fuel efficient regional jets" to serve Seattle to be very very funny. I know you are a stout defender of all the "savvy" things Jeff has done, but as you doubtlessly know its Jeff that is using a multitude of "less fuel efficient RJs.", many on flights to Seattle. Delta has retired a number of them (pulled CRJ-200s) and is now using more modern, much more fuel efficient bigger RJs and 717s, which are quite efficient.
Actually the extra fuel burn for the extra range is substantial, this is because you have to carry the extra fuel to carry the extra fuel till you need it at the end, and this is particularly pronounced when you get over about 10 hours of flight.
Using a 772ER as an example (which is more efficient on a ASM basis than the 747-400 UAL is flying on many transpacific, the difference is quite pronounced) I did the calculation several years ago for 7700nm and for 6000nm, and assuming $3.20/gal (which was the price then, now is a little low) the difference in fuel cost was $156 per passenger at full passenger load for the extra range.
So look at SFO-HKG vs. SEA-HKG which are direct competitor flights. SFO is roughly 400nm (430 statue miles) further away. That would be at today's fuel prices, and especially on the West bound (into headwinds, which push a 772ER towards the edge of its range) probably another $50-60 bucks extra from SFO, slightly less going east bound.
And I don't get your point re the set up flights being longer so SEA (and note that the cost of the extra range is not so pronounced on shorter flights). Now if you are really from NYC you would know that SEA is 165sm closer to JFK than is SFO, and SEA is 126sm closer to ORD than is SFO. Now were you (let us just say hypothetically) from Houston, and Houston was all that you knew (wink, wink) you might be right, as Houston is further than SEA than SFO, but much, if not most, of the country is not.
This is to say that DAL (which will be flying this route with a recent vintage A330-200, which is a very efficient aircraft) will have a substantial cost advantage over UAL for the fuel cost, but also the longer crew times that UAL has to pay for. This makes it all the more important for UAL to try to attract those who will pay more, and offering steerage level service, low levels no other airline offers, is not the way to attract travelers who have the ability to spend a little more or pick their airline, as must of us can.
[And I might add that these numbers are part of why AA will have a structural disadvantage flying from LAX (another 400 miles further away from Asia) or ORD or DFW. AA though is going to compete by putting on BETTER service, nor cheapen the product as UAL is doing.]
Using a 772ER as an example (which is more efficient on a ASM basis than the 747-400 UAL is flying on many transpacific, the difference is quite pronounced) I did the calculation several years ago for 7700nm and for 6000nm, and assuming $3.20/gal (which was the price then, now is a little low) the difference in fuel cost was $156 per passenger at full passenger load for the extra range.
So look at SFO-HKG vs. SEA-HKG which are direct competitor flights. SFO is roughly 400nm (430 statue miles) further away. That would be at today's fuel prices, and especially on the West bound (into headwinds, which push a 772ER towards the edge of its range) probably another $50-60 bucks extra from SFO, slightly less going east bound.
And I don't get your point re the set up flights being longer to SEA (and note that the cost of the extra range is not so pronounced on shorter flights). Now if you are really from NYC you would know that SEA is 165sm closer to JFK than is SFO, and SEA is 126sm closer to ORD than is SFO. Now were you (let us just say hypothetically) from Houston, and Houston was all that you knew (wink, wink) you might be right, as Houston is further than SEA than SFO, but much, if not most, of the country is not.
This is to say that DAL (which will be flying this route with a recent vintage A330-200, which is a very efficient aircraft) will have a substantial cost advantage over UAL for the fuel cost, but also the longer crew times that UAL has to pay for. This makes it all the more important for UAL to try to attract those who will pay more, and offering steerage level service, low levels no other airline offers, is not the way to attract travelers who have the ability to spend a little more or pick their airline, as many of us can.
P.s. I might add that these numbers are part of why AA will have a structural disadvantage flying from LAX (another 400 miles further away from Asia) or ORD or DFW. AA though is going to compete by putting on BETTER service, nor cheapen the product as UAL is doing.
P.S.S. I found your comment about Delta using "less fuel efficient regional jets" to serve Seattle to be very very funny. I know you are a stout defender of all the "savvy" things Jeff has done, but as you doubtlessly know its Jeff that is using a multitude of "less fuel efficient RJs.", many on flights to Seattle. Delta has retired a number of them (pulled CRJ-200s) and is now using more modern, much more fuel efficient bigger RJs and 717s, which are quite efficient.
Actually the extra fuel burn for the extra range is substantial, this is because you have to carry the extra fuel to carry the extra fuel till you need it at the end, and this is particularly pronounced when you get over about 10 hours of flight.
Using a 772ER as an example (which is more efficient on a ASM basis than the 747-400 UAL is flying on many transpacific, the difference is quite pronounced) I did the calculation several years ago for 7700nm and for 6000nm, and assuming $3.20/gal (which was the price then, now is a little low) the difference in fuel cost was $156 per passenger at full passenger load for the extra range.
So look at SFO-HKG vs. SEA-HKG which are direct competitor flights. SFO is roughly 400nm (430 statue miles) further away. That would be at today's fuel prices, and especially on the West bound (into headwinds, which push a 772ER towards the edge of its range) probably another $50-60 bucks extra from SFO, slightly less going east bound.
And I don't get your point re the set up flights being longer so SEA (and note that the cost of the extra range is not so pronounced on shorter flights). Now if you are really from NYC you would know that SEA is 165sm closer to JFK than is SFO, and SEA is 126sm closer to ORD than is SFO. Now were you (let us just say hypothetically) from Houston, and Houston was all that you knew (wink, wink) you might be right, as Houston is further than SEA than SFO, but much, if not most, of the country is not.
This is to say that DAL (which will be flying this route with a recent vintage A330-200, which is a very efficient aircraft) will have a substantial cost advantage over UAL for the fuel cost, but also the longer crew times that UAL has to pay for. This makes it all the more important for UAL to try to attract those who will pay more, and offering steerage level service, low levels no other airline offers, is not the way to attract travelers who have the ability to spend a little more or pick their airline, as must of us can.
[And I might add that these numbers are part of why AA will have a structural disadvantage flying from LAX (another 400 miles further away from Asia) or ORD or DFW. AA though is going to compete by putting on BETTER service, nor cheapen the product as UAL is doing.]
It does seem there is a bigger O/D market in the Bay Area than in SEA (others may disagree), but no one is going to pick UA when they almost always have a far superior Asian carrier as an option on almost all of these routes, esp as UA continues to cheapen its product and devalue it's award program, elite benefits, etc.
Jan 3, 2014, 9:28 am
#254
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
Using my UA award miles I booked a family trip to NZ from LHR and it just seems odd that with Thai Airways:
"The service of wines, spirits, beers and a full selection of soft drinks is always available, and complimentary."
Where with the airline I earn all the miles on, do 99.9% of my flying with, and which is also part of *A, they have just withdrawn it.
"The service of wines, spirits, beers and a full selection of soft drinks is always available, and complimentary."
Where with the airline I earn all the miles on, do 99.9% of my flying with, and which is also part of *A, they have just withdrawn it.
Oct 15, 2015, 7:01 am
#255
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: UA-1K, Hertz-Gold, Marriott-Gold, PC-Platinum, SPG
Posts: 2,777
Is BEER/wine complimentary on TPAC flight in Y these day? Or not?
Trying to convince bro to take a few drink chits from my collection :-)
Trying to convince bro to take a few drink chits from my collection :-)