Sykes

Your statement is a bit too broad. I don't think that anyone will argue that UA has a top tier business (or first) class product. Having said that, I have a number of clients that will pay for full-fare business on UA. Frequency and nonstop options trump all for most of them, and I mostly work with SFO-based companies.

I'm happily willing to accept that customers where every itinerary is a one-stop (or more) itinerary are much more likely to fall into your world view, but there is still a pretty substantial market (and UA needs to figure out how to better compete outside of it), where product matters less.

fwiw, I'll also use this opportunity to add that I don't think we'll see any recobfigurations of the existing international fleet until all-aisle-access business class is ready. We'll see some 3-class aircraft leaving the fleet for sub-par 2-class aircraft, but I expect the next-gen configuration to be introduced pretty soon.

entropy

I agree. while its 'nice', its certainly not worth thousands of dollars.

UA has no idea what "F" is supposed to be.

LH does.

MatthewLAX

I think UA does...they just don't think it is worthwhile.

Always Flyin

I'm sorry you fly United so frequently to earn that many RPUs.

At least on international routes, there are so many far better alternatives out there.

mre5765

So if you are in the center section of BF in which there are two or one seats, and you are asked to swap to the section where a climb over is needed, you will cheerfully do it?

At my age I don't think could even pull that off. And indeed most time, my seat mate wakes me up to force me to rise.


The thing is, if one has requalified for 1K again, one never tastes other fruit, so myopic views prevail. The CFO is counting on this.

Well let's see, I waited until about eight weeks out to book my next USA to BLR business trip paid for with OPM. ITA at that point was showing that UA/LH for its crappy non aisle access product was now competitive (for the first time in four such trips over the past 12 months) in crappy P fares that earn weak PQMs. I was almost resigned to paying the difference out of pocket to stick with AA and BA (on BA I pay up to $120, out of pocket, per segment to pre reserve an all aisle access seat).

Then I search LAX/BLR. And then I saw CX fares $1000 less than the rest of the competition and pulled the trigger.

So for now five trips in a row, for but one segment on old config AA, I've enjoyed all aisle access business class to BLR, paying the lowest possibly business class fare (per my employer's policy).

Yes this is my experience.

AA's modern 1-2-1 business class, the same seats as CX, are fully lie flat and very private. You can't even see your seat mate in the -2- section.

And while it is true AA's fleet still has angled flat that is in the process of being upgraded, it is also true that UA has a 777 it uses on long hauls that does not have lie flat.

This. When a former UA fan boy like me is finally driven away the light bulb goes off when he realizes what he has been missing and starts experiencing other choices.

Really. With that many flights, a PMUA 777 is inevitable, which means that sitting in the center section of the 2-4-2 is inevitable. Enduring that torture to earn a plethora of RPUs to then endure UA domestic F is just odd. And actually with that many flights, the old config 777 is inevitable. Why do fan boys put up with it?

gengar

Well as I indicated, I don't buy GF on UA anymore, so I'm part of the problem. However, in my case the problem was primarily operational issues followed by soft product issues, and not any hard product issues, so for different reasons than relevant to this thread.

Sadly you were on to something with this statement, since said poster has since claimed that AA/TG do not offer a lie-flat seat.

TWA Fan 1

And?

As long as there is a demand for it, people will buy what they want.

That's the essence of the marketplace.

The world will obviously keep turning, but, if the demand for aisle-access is significant enough, will UA be at a competitive disadvantage? That's the question.

But my point wasn't that aisle-access is a superior product, rather that there is no direct correlation between aisle-access and higher fares.

seanp7

If it's for a military service person, or means a family can sit together, you bet I would. Same seat. Not the end of the world, and I rather like window seats...

Cheeky. If you look at my multiple posts within this thread, I clearly mention the consistency issue they both have (and that UA does not have). I've flown both TG & AA. If their 180 degree versions were fleet wide, and they had decent routing, I agree that I would fly them over UA. Unfortunately that's not the case in 2014.

I agree on this.

HeadInTheClouds

I don't need any sympathy. I am perfectly happy with my choices and all the benefits they bring.

While some around here may be borderline orgazmic over their 'alternative' choices, I am enjoying UA-Intl F on at least 70% of my intl flights, I have a happy partner who is GS along with me, I have friends who love me because of the fountain of RPUs UA drops on my head that I can gift them for their travel, friends who get award tickets upgraded all the time... and myself (and partner) who are steadily on track to be GS for life with one of the best retirement benefits ever.

Everyone has free choice here. You can fly who you want, and I can fly who I want. Sympathy is neither required nor desired .

mre5765

You would move from an all aisle access seat to accommodate a soldier so that no one has to climb over him yet you think we are over valuing all aisle access. So iow, if one wears a uniform, all aisle access is important. Well then, you've proven our point: all aisle access is valuable. So who is over valuing all aisle access again?

I don't see how me moving from from my all access seat to a climb over seat helps a family sit together. The family member in the all aisle access seat can swap with the seat mate of the other family member.


UA does not have an all flat consistency issue? You sure about that? Because I am sure they do have a consistency issue. One morning I saw that my all flat aisle seat had been moved. I look at the seat map, and I see this was now an old config 777, a few weeks after UA announced that all TATLs had guaranteed flat seats. No compensation for the lies. No compensation for the paid upgrade to old F to get back my lie flat seat.

That was my last long haul on UA.

Alas, sympathy is an involuntary response from those with compassion to those who make bad choices. M+ miles can't be redeemed on a competitive business class product and they cannot be redeemed at a reasonable price on a good first class product. One then has to have sympathy for those who earn M+ miles.

stevenshev

This. I've said it once and I'll say it again...I fly UA largely because I can buy C and D and fly F (and the space argument above is why). If F goes away, at best I but P/Z, but, more likely, I start flying other carriers.

fly18725

In most cases, there's been a trade for all-aisle access. For AA, it will be the loss of F and much denser Y cabins. Others have smaller J cabins. The only carriers without a trade off are those using the Thompson staggered seat - DL, LX, OS, AC on some - but that only provides aisle access for every seat on a 767.

Of course, Asian airlines can offer more square footage to each passenger because it's subsidized vis-a-vie Western competitors with lower salaries.

That said, I think all aisle access is required for the future and negates the need for F in almost every market. Rather than try to recycle something off the shelf, UAL should follow AA and BA's lead and design a proprietary seat.

HeadInTheClouds

Agree also. I too have found that the A fares can be less than C/J in some markets, and have found myself on them (as Envoy Boy says, in "paid first class"). Everyone criticizes UA for a downgrade in quality (which is fair), but they have definitely lowered the price for GF in a lot of cases as well too. I cannot think of once in pmUA that I ever bought an intl F fare, but since the merger, I wind up with a few A-fares per year without even looking for them.

But IMO direct aisle access J has to be on the radar if they want to remove GF. If they don't, I agree that there is a risk of losing GS flyers. If it's in the cards, then that's enough to keep me happy.

cova

Haven't read all this thread (posting now from the BA F Lounge at LHR). But what a stupid statement. Mr. Rainey has become the "Agnew" of the airline execs.

If AA had made this statement - it would have some merit. But CO's BF or UA's J is no where competitive with the new AA Business seat - all seats with aisle access.

While the CO BF seat is nice it is no where comparable to other less dense J seats - such as the AA new seat on its 777-300. Having to climb over another J passenger if you are at a window - makes this not like F. UA F food has been the same as UA J for some time.

Mr. Rainey should have just quoted numbers and said that F was not profitable and there was little demand for UA's F product.

I think the UA board needs to keep Mr. Rainey locked in his office on his calculator. He isn't CEO material and I hope UA is not setting him up for that position.

TWA Fan 1

I am not advocating for all-aisle access, in most cases, as you write, it definitely has its trade-offs.

When flying with a loved one, in fact, it can be a major detriment.

But I agree with you that, moving forward, we will see more and more all-aisle access as this has become the current "best in class" feature for this level of premium cabin.

Perhaps, just as CO pioneered BF to be a J product with an F seat (of the time), UaCo today should once again rediscover that pioneering spirit and introduce a new BF that features a true contemporary F seat and soft-product at a J price.

Given the reigning approach over at the corner office at the Sears Tower, I'm sure quite a few of you are chuckling reading that...