Bonehead

Sorry-misread your question.

LarkSFO

Those that can afford it (and they are not billionaires), who are not beholden to a legacy US carriers FF program, will buy a seat on the foreign carrier that flies from their US origin to their foreign destination.

How many companies out there still allow GF (or any Int'l F) purchasing?

Perhaps some GS's will direct their F purchase towards UA to make sure their spend is high enough to qualify? And, because they value hard product over soft?

It would be great if we could know of the available GF seat miles on UA, how many:

- fly empty
- are redeemed with miles
- are given to upgraders from C
- NSRA? How often does this still happen
- and, most importantly, are bought with cold, hard cash (even if at a corporate discount)

relangford

To get back to the OP: the number of FC seats between AA and UA in the future is only known to those inside (yes, some of them are FTers). It seems that many people want UGs to FC (as do I) without understanding that the airline has to make money. If not, those seats go. I have noticed that many airlines worldwide seem to be heading to 2 classes, allbeit slowly (even ME and Asian). If I had a crystal ball, I think it would show fewer and fewer FC seats with increased number of J seats in the future as some Y passengers get hooked on the better conditions in J. FC only makes sense in a few markets, as discussed above; most origins/destinations cannot support an FC cabin so that FFers can get upgrades and NRs can get a nice vacation. This seems to be reality.

bhrubin

I've said before, award redemptions.

I'm aware that paid F is a different story. But there are plenty of business travelers like me pay for business class but like to get F awards when traveling for pleasure.

You are missing the point and assuming that there is no value for F for an airline unless it's paid. Unpaid F still CAN be of value to an airline if its award redemptions in that class keep enough business customers who pay for business class from migrating business to other airlines that don't offer F redemptions.

787fan

Thanks for the good laugh. I'm literally rolling on the floor. Even AA fans only brag about being able to redeem for CX QF etc but never brag about AA's own F product.

And let's not even start with BA. Their soft product is nice but that seat is a glorified J. Heck, they can fit 14 of those in the 744 nose section.

Speaking of redemptions, the only thing easier to obtain than CX F is AA's transcon F to LAX and SFO. I know nothing of their loads, but if redemptions are that easy, it might be a sign.

golfingboy

When I flew on EK in F, I was shocked at how liberally they handed out "operational upgrades" to Platinums in J. My flights were full in F and J had a couple open seats, so this leads me to believe that EK doesn't routinely fill up F.

For CEOs and Vice Chairs, they usually use the corporate jet, which they can also use pretty liberally for personal travel. It is often part of the package.

My company - a NY based Fortune 500 investments bank - doesn't pay our Executive Vice Presidents and higher (we have around 200 of them) to fly in long haul F. I am not sure about other companies, but I have a feeling most only will pay up to J.

Surgeons on the other hand can be found in F quite often, but I am not sure if they upgraded or bought F outright. Hollywood business people and certain film people are another group I can think off the top of my head that probably flies in paid F, albeit at a heavy discount. Successful small business owners are another group of people.

I would love to see the statistics as I find this kind of data analytics fascinating, but we all know it is probably a closely guarded secret

bhrubin

Of course no airline is keeping F solely so people can redeem. However, when your national competition has no F at all, it can be more worthwhile to warrant the F to give paying business class customers the chance to upgrade to F or use their miles for F and enjoy a F experience--something they can't do with AA (except for the 5 routes on the 14 planes already mentioned) and can't do on DL. With AA, they do have the chance to use miles on partners, but it is FAR more difficult on OW partners than it usually is on *A partners, and increasingly mile redemption awards are more difficult on ALL partners. (SkyTeam, of course, though DL, doesn't even permit award redemptions in F on its partners!)

With UA likely having more PAID J and PAID F through its routes from EWR, JFK, SFO, LAX, and perhaps IAD, it still may have plenty of incentive to keep its F on those certain routes where the F still gains revenue.

Others have stated that they have inside knowledge that UA won't be adding any F to new equipment. We obviously can't know here if that is accurate. But for the time being, and for some time (at least the next decade), UA will have FAR more offering of F on FAR more routes than anything that AA will have...and DL is not competitive at all in this regard. THAT is a fact for the time being, and likely true for quite a few years from this point.

787fan

Amen brother ... Preach it !

bhrubin

You aren't incorrect. But you and so many others seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. FOR USA carriers, UA wins in offering F. PERIOD.

Why and how don't matter: the FACT is that UA offers F on FAR more routes on FAR more flights than does AA...and of course DL doesn't at all offer F. Not every paying F passenger in a day is going to be able to get F on the seats on CX or SQ to HKG, after all. Some wanting to get to HKG will end up on UA because the inventory for ALL F on all carriers has greatly diminished. Even those amazing foreign carriers have shrunk their F cabins, and that actually helps UA in competing for those F dollars.

We don't need to know why UA or AA or DL flies which route so many times a day or why one might have more cancellations or delays or complaints--the fact is that they have what they have. People speculate endlessly herein on the possibilities more than the 24 hour news channels do on news topics! But the fact is that UA NOW and for the foreseeable future offers F in a way that AA and DL do not and will not. That is a competitive edge for UA in those markets over AA and DL.

No American airline carrier is ever going to offer the SERVICE quality of Singapore, Cathay, Lufthansa, Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, etc. American carriers don't offer it because the paying American public for the most part couldn't tell the difference and doesn't think it as important as customers from other countries overall. That's why DL without ANY F still managed to have the highest profits of ANY airline in the world.

The apple to oranges comparisons and contrasts drawn herein (not necessarily by you to whom I am now responding) really amuse me. Everyone so often compares the best SERVICE/SOFT PRODUCT carriers (SQ, CX, EK, etc) as if they fly all the routes that our US carriers fly--and they don't. They compare UA to competition from abroad, when their real competition is AA and DL more than ever in this consolidated industry. SQ and CX are both amazing--but they can't get anyone from the USA to Europe nonstop. LH and EK are both amazing--but they can't get anyone from the USA to Asia nonstop.

Some people seem to think paying business travelers want to fly in the most luxury--and maybe that's true. But more often than I think people herein want to admit, paying business travelers want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, too...and that means nonstop whenever possible. UA, DL, and AA serve that need from the USA FAR BETTER and with more volume than everyone seems to recognize, and that is why they can profit far more than ANY other airline in the world.

UA may be hurting COMPARED TO AA AND DL right now, but its Q2 profit doesn't suggest it's hurting as badly as some would like to paint the picture. UA's Q2 profit was substantially larger than any of those amazing world carriers from abroad that everyone here loves to laud, after all.

eponymous_coward

What evidence supports your assertion?

And how would that evidence explain Delta's success after withdrawing longhaul F?

bhrubin

I can give no evidence to support my assertion, any more than everyone suggesting that UA is going to eliminate F on its new equipment purchases. I merely point out that everyone is thinking along linear lines that are so tragically repeated herein. No one considers OTHER options that actually might make UA F competitive.

Actually, DL's success without F is evidence to suggest EXACTLY what I'm saying. NOT HAVING F AT ALL, as DL has done, has not precluded it from having the biggest profit of all airlines. There is no given cause and effect, of course.

DL also dropped its F before it had quite the presence on the NYC-London routes as it does now...and before it entered the transpacific markets in the way it has now in Seattle. With the transpacific competition ALL having a true F, I wouldn't be surprised to see DL in the future either decide to reverse course or find it loses compared to UA with a true F. Only time will tell, of course--we're ALL speculating there.

okrogius

You're missing the point. Comparing within the same economic conditions (just like you wouldn't compare European airlines to ME, you shouldn't compare US legacies to Asian carriers), AA actually makes an effort on F. You get a bed topper + duvet, pajamas, and a substantially different menu. On UA you get a soup course. AA is spending money on new seats, whereas UA is just keeping the existing seats around. AA F isn't anywhere near foreign carrier levels, but it's substantially better than UA.

As far as bragging, naturally you'd boast about the better redemptions. How often do you hear boasts about UA F redemptions compared to LH (or the rare NH/OZ)?

LAX/SFO-JFK AA does use their first product as an incentive for paid business traffic, in addition to getting some paid F. Time will tell whether that's a good strategy.

bhrubin

We all see what we want to see, and you also have different opinions than I do on what matters with premium class travel. As I'm sure so many people herein do without realizing it--a blog not always offering the chance to parse all the details as much as we'd like or intend.

AA may very well be making effort on F--but its meager 5 routes flown with F doesn't exactly impress me. Maybe it impresses you because you fly those often. So be it. Not for me.

I also laugh when people talk about amenity kits and pajamas and such on international premium classes--be it in F or J. My husband and I both think it's hilarious that there are websites devoted to such things. We could care less. There may be many who care, of course. But there are just as many (but likely more) who could care less about amenity kit labels and pajamas!

American flyers have been demonstrated over and over again to largely care MOST about the seat quality and IFE--even with the range in what people prefer. Food is important, but the hilarious assumption that some make that food should be up to any gourmet standard is laughable. I've flown SQ and CX First, and I'll be flying EK First in January (along with UA F, fyi.) Yes, SQ and CX food is better...but not even remotely in the league of a great gourmet restaurant on the ground. Which is why I, like I suspect most US business travelers, care most about getting a decent meal in a comfortable seat with good IFE so I can sleep, eat, and entertain myself for a longhaul flight.

That is why some of the details that matter so much on these forums and in blogs are hilarious and likely don't matter to the masses of business travelers or even pleasure travelers looking for luxury. I love a 2-3 star Michelin meal and eat them often compared to most, but when I fly I just don't care as much since it isn't going to come close. SQ and EK and CX try hard to get closer, but there is a reason they don't profit as much as DL, AA, and in Q2 not even as much as UA.

787fan

AA is killing their own F. If it's as good as you claim, AA won't be throwing it away on their entire 772 fleet. And if they're throwing it away because paid F is dying, then it's a waste of money to invest in it.

And it does no one any good if that excellent product you claim only flies to LHR GRU and HKG. The world is a whole lot bigger than that.

artvandalay

I guess if you are into counting the number of F seats each US carrier offers, UA wins. Today, that is. I think most of the experienced posters on this thread are more focused on what to expect from UA tomorrow. We care just as much—in some cases more--about what the future holds for UA frequent fliers next year as we do to what may or may not be happening today. Many plan their travel accordingly, often as much as 330 days in advance.

That being said, fact is, a count of F seats being added to AA vs removed from UA in the months and years ahead paints a different picture from your rosy assessment of today.

If, for some reason, you are a big fan of UA GF, better enjoy it while you can. Its days are numbered.