Eastbay1K

Blanche, LOOK, did you see the size of his first class cabin?
Yes Madge, I did. But it doesn't work very well. I couldn't even put it in the upright position for landing.
But Blanche, that doesn't matter. It is still bigger than the others.
Well, Madge, I'd rather ride the cabin that works, even if it isn't first class all the time.

gengar

Sure it was PMUA, but obviously it was to align with PMCO in preparation for the merger.


Not to mention AA's London routes in general... the 77W is on more than half of AA's LHR flights (including at least one on every destination served except ORD), and I assume we'll see more as they get delivered.

UA-NYC

UA is number 3 now in the USA - DL's bigger.

People fly UA, but the revenue premium PMUA enjoyed pre-merger has now turned into a deficit vs. AA/DL.

bhrubin

I keep saying UA has more transPACIFIC routes than AA and DL. You mention a transatlantic. Apples and oranges.

UA isn't offering F on all its TPAC route markets, either. Even UA seems to get that idea, too. Or perhaps you hadn't noticed that UA dropped F on some equipment from LAX-SFO to MEL/SYD. The new 787-900 route from LAX-MEL will have no F, either. You have no point.

UA's going to have a lot of GF for a while. We can all banter about the reasons for it and the reasons that AA and DL won't have as much competing product in that regard. In the end, however, the fact is that UA is going to have a lot of GF for a while--and that was my original point. 'Nuff said. Thanks.

The rest of your comments was too convoluted a line of thinking for me to follow. Besides, you've already conceded the point: UA will have a true F, and far more than its national competitors AA and DL, for a good time into the future.

eponymous_coward

It looks like the AA order book will put them up to 20 77Ws. I also looked and saw that US (which will soon be AA) redid their A350 order to get A350-1000s.

It will be interesting to see how AA and UA configure them... F or no.

Always Flyin

You obviously do not know what PRASM is, why it is important, and refuse to acknowledge that AA and DL are crushing UA financially, despite UA's purported superior route structure.

A larger route structure is meaningless, as is the 787, when your top fare paying passengers are fleeing to the competition.

United is now a carrier for those locked into captive hubs, those on corporate contracts (and those contracts are diminishing in number), Kayakers, and those who just don't know any better.

eponymous_coward

I don't think that means GF is particularly suited for TPAC operations. UA's fleet is the way it is because they decided on their IPTE configuration almost a decade ago, and they're going to ride it out.

If you could wave a magic wand and say to Smisek "how would you like your longhaul fleet configured today? All for free, just make a wish!", they'd probably do something more like what AA is doing (a small subfleet of F, going to all-aisle access J on all longhaul planes), or what DL is doing/CO did (no F, mix of various lie-flats).

One of their problems is they are somewhat a marginal player in NYC-LON (again, biggest premium market around). I suppose they can rely on SFO-Asia, but they're up against SQ and OZ... oh, and they get $ when NH sells their well-regarded F product. Or LH. Hmmm...

But we can't, and UA's fleet is what it is.

I conceded that point quite a few posts ago.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23422624-post13.html

I don't particularly think that the fact that UA is going to fly those pre-merger cabins for a few more years constitutes a particular competitive advantage that UA has over AA or DL, though, any more than AA's 772 16F cabin was an advantage for the last few years (it wasn't, we have a Chapter 11 that demonstrates that). You seem to think otherwise.

I think it's an accident of history; pmUA decided on that fleet configuration in a different environment and with a different management team than what exists today. Current management doesn't seem to value it enough to do things like enhance the soft product much over what they offer in J, or add it to any new planes coming on the property (note that pmUA had 763s with GF, but current management has elected to NOT add GF to any 787). UA probably has more F seats on more routes than it needs, similar to AA flying 16F 772s, or LH flying 16F 747s up until a few years ago.

It's great if you want to redeem F awards on UA metal, sure (in fact, for your needs it is a good thing that most people don't think UA GF is very good, leaves lots of award/upgrade space). Knock yourself out. Let me know when they announce an A350 with GF, and I might think UA management actually values it, as opposed to "we're stuck with a contract to refit our planes, we might as well ride it out until we need to replace the IPTE interiors, instead of sending new interiors to a landfill and incurring costs for no good reason".

787fan

??? Your link shows USAir having 22 A350-900 on firm order with zero options. I could only presume that's a replacement for 772s and 330s. UA is the one who moved from 359 to 350-1000.

And since AA is so eager to rip out all F seats out of their 772s, I can't really see the rationale to put them back in for the 359s.

bhrubin

The moral of the story of this discussion so far seems to be that few are willing to concede that UA has, and will have for quite some time, far more true F than AA (or DL).

IMO, some are so needing to slam on UA that even something as lovely as having more F requires the UA bashers to come out and share the myriad of theories and explanations for how UA ended up with something that is better than its American competition. But it doesn't matter. UA still will have far more route options with far more F than anything flown by AA (or DL).

As FF business travelers who have tons of credit card spend and who love to redeem awards for F to travel to the places around the world we want to visit, we are delighted that UA will continue to give us the most options for F. We have miles/points with all of the major currencies (SPG, Chase URs, Amex MRs, UA, AA/US, LH, & AK), so we have available all of the airlines from which to choose.

Living on the West Coast, AA is largely worthless to us--since its few F flights are from the East Coast to LHR and GRU. Now, once AA gets its LAX-GRU flight off and running, we would consider that--but if it's only J, then we'd rather take the KE LAX-GRU flight in F.

Living on the West Coast, UA serves us well for leisure and business travel to Asia and Europe, with LAX-LHR, SFO-LHR, SFO-FRA, and SFO-CDG to Europe and LAX-HKG, LAX-ICN, LAX-PEK, LAX-PVG, LAX-NRT, LAX-HND, SFO-HKG, SFO-ICN, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, SFO-NRT, SFO-HND, SFO-TSA, and now the new SFO-CTU route...most of which offer true F. AA offers almost none of these, and DL only offers a few (and none with F).

UA doesn't serve us as well to South America, but then neither do AA or DL. AA's flight from LAX-GRU will help. Otherwise, we have to fly through IAH to reach South America.

We've also taken F to Asia using CX (LAX-HKG) and OZ (LAX-ICN). To be honest, OZ F doesn't blow us away compared to UA F on the LAX-ICN route. OZ had a slightly nicer suite, and much better food, but the IFE was horrible. The CX F is absolutely heads and shoulders above UA (or AA), with a supremely better suite and food, and better service overall...but we've had IFE problems 2 of our last 3 times. We've never had issues flying F with UA IFE.

We've also taken F to Europe using LH (LAX-FRA) and AF (LAX-CDG) and BA (LAX-LHR). Obviously, it's tougher to get LH now using UA miles, but we also collect LH miles for that reason. LH is better than UA, no doubt, in F--but it isn't SO much better that we mind using UA F....and LH J isn't that much better than UA J--though we haven't yet flown equipment with its new J. AF only makes available J, so flying LAX-CDG is more direct for us to reach Paris...but UA F is far superior to AF J. BA F isn't better IMO than UA F on LAX-LHR, but we will try the A380 LHR-LAX flight for the first time in October--which we hope will be better.

The moral of this story is that UA still serves us quite well and we appreciate UA GF--whether it be on miles or upgrade from J paid tickets. Is there better? You bet...but not so much better on all the routes we like to fly.

We're not alone.

Madone59

^

xkr0p

well said.. all in similar situations too, huge mergers, renovated planes, reconfigured networks

PaulInTheSky

1. So 777-200 16F seats in AA are not true international F?
2. Please give me one international route from IAH that offers GF non-stop. AFAIK, AMS, LHR, MUC, FRA, NRT all have BF seats, not GF.
3. DFW-HKG is being operated in 773ER as well.

If you want a legitimate discussion about who has better GF, you better do more research before you say it.

Oh right...Clearly you don't have much acknowledgement of JFK, ATL, MIA, DFW, and even DTW to South America.

xkr0p

I dont think anyone would argue the superiority of UA's network. The face i can fly anywhere in Asia, Central or South America and Europe without crazy connections, at least from EWR, is the sole reason I stick with UA

bhrubin

We West Coasters envy you the flight options you have there in New York. Of course, you do have to deal with EWR, which isn't our favorite UA hub (but better than JFK and LGA to us!), but I'd guess it's worth it for the convenience you get for nonstops almost everywhere you might want to go. Now if only UA would offer a nonstop from EWR or IAD to South Africa...

eponymous_coward

You're right.

Depends on how it sells in the 77Ws, I would imagine- AA probably have time to decide the configurations since they won't get them for a few years. Isn't the argument that 3-cabin F is the best thing ever, and it's not possible for airlines to survive without it?