seanp7

I don't understand this paragraph, or the point, so I'll drop the issue. (NB: there are female soldiers too)

You were very unlucky. Like 1 in 100 unlucky. 100% of my BF flights over the last three years have been fully-flat. If the above experience made you leave UA, then you'll probably leave AA too and would be better suited as a kayaker.

Always Flyin

Ah, yes, the infamous roll-your-eyes emoticon when called on misinformed blustering.

In the post I was responding to, you specifically said AA and TG do not have lay-flat seating in C, when they do. One is supposed to browse through all your fanboy posts to ensure you meant what you said?

Indeed.

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.

harryhood

I wasn't aware that UA even sent barcalounger J 777's on international flights anymore. I thought those were reserved for Hawaii or transcon duty only. I haven't seen a barcalounger 777 in probably 3 years.

seanp7

You seem angry. We are just discussing UA's product vs others and yes, I got lazy on that post by omitting "on all planes" like I mentioned earlier. We can do without the condescension, I think. @:-)

mre5765

I don't believe in luck. It was a route that UA routinely swaps in old config, and the only reason I was on that segment was because of price. The price was low because the market expects the product to be crap.

Kayaking is a possibility and certainly the money I have this year out of pocket on non UA business class reflects that tendency. Until then it is AA, BA, CX. Better business class than UA and LH, and fewer miles to redeem F on CX than F on LH.

Always Flyin

Angry? Not in the slightest. I don't get angry at the content of witless posts.

After all, I am not the one who opted to use the emoticon. Interesting that you are now trying to play the victim after having done so. Of course, if I tried to defend United with such ferocity, I would probably have to be defensive too in response.

rzsionak

If there is no direct correlation between all aisle access and higher fares, then the market probably doesn't value it that much if at all; despite what many FTers think. However, there is a correlation between all aisle access and higher costs per seat, so if an airline can put a denser configuration and get the same fares, that would be the smarter strategy.

I know personally when I look at business class fares, I'm looking at cost, length of travel, and the quality of the airline in general (on-time rate, ease of changes, politeness of staff, etc.). An airline like Alitalia could have full suites in business class and I'm still not going to fly them except as a last resort.

I can bet that most flyers in J (>90%) if offered $200 (or some other not nominal amount) each time they had to step over someone or have someone step over them would take it in a second without complaint. Note: That $200 is basically to account for the revenue difference of having less seats.

Always Flyin

If the marketplace were that rationale, perhaps you would be right. But it isn't.

I agree that all aisle access does not lead to an increase in price for the airline. I agree that a denser configuration allows for greater profitability.

Yet a super-majority of airlines are installing direct aisle access, lay-flat seats in C. There must be a reason, and maintaining market share is the most reasonable explanation.

rzsionak

I would not say a super majority of airlines are putting in all aisle access seats particularly when you consider UA, LH, and BA don't have it and they are three of the biggest airlines in the world. What I think is more likely is that airlines who have other competitive issues (i.e. less desirable hubs, leisure oriented brand) are sacrificing the maximization of revenue to gain market share they wouldn't get otherwise. UA and LH have valuable hubs and business oriented brands (despite UAs efforts to undermine theirs), so sacrificing revenue solely to marginally improve comfort for their customers would probably not be a smart strategy.

seanp7

Several of those, with new all-aisle J configurations, aren't very (financially) well-run airlines, though. Finnair, Alitalia, Iberia, Thai,... I'd say they are just trying to catch up.

bhrubin

Everyone knows it is true that profitable N American/European airlines are moving away from offering a true F class. What this UA exec says is not particularly surprising--so I'm not sure why so many herein are talking about "firing this fool" when the execs/CEOs at DL, AA, LH, BA, etc are all saying the same thing. The fools are those making such comments in complete ignorance of what has been going on in the industry.

Only certain routes will justify offering a true F where there are sufficient paying customers. Duh.

I say we enjoy GF on UA as long as we can. For those who think it's not a big step up from BF, then feel free to keep paying for/redeeming for BF. I'll keep redeeming for GF as long as it's available--since it offers more privacy and space/legroom than BF, and it is superior to the BE offering on DL and the C class on AA.

In the future, I hope UA does a better job with BF--by going 2-2-2 so there are more aisle access BF seats, and by improving the BF seat itself (a little more length for the 6'2"+ passenger and a little more storage space would be nice). Otherwise, the UA BF hard product is quite solid (and IMO as nice as that on DL and AA).

Those expecting UA, AA, or DL to offer C/J class seats that are comparable to the best versions on CX or SQ are smoking something--they don't need to do anything like that with the competition offered by AA and DL. Even UA BF seats NOW are superior to the old LH C/J seats that didn't truly lay flat; LH still has a year or two to go before it upgrades its fleet to the new truly lay flat C/J seats, after all.

The US market doesn't put a premium on service, so neither do our US carriers. Most US based customers wouldn't appreciate nor pay more for the levels of service/soft product on the foreign airlines, so anyone who thinks the US carriers will ever approach that are smoking something, as well. Blame the US carriers all you want, but they are simply responding to the market they serve--and American flyers don't care about that as much as the hard product (myself included). American flyers care more about getting from point A to point B with as decent a seat as possible and a decent meal to not be starving on arrival, and that is what the American carriers aim to deliver. That is also all I want for the most part.

halls120

Only a fool disses his own product. When UA gets rid of GF, he can say those kind of things. While his airline is still trying to sell GF, saying it isn't worth the money is just plain dumb.

bhrubin

He isn't dissing his own product. He is stating facts about his product--which are well known to everyone who flies UA. Ignoring or lying about the facts doesn't sell the product, in case you hadn't noticed, when everyone knows them.

He is justifying the reasons for UA moving away from offering a true F class. These are the same reasons for LH, AA, DL, VX, and numerous other largely transatlantic airlines have moved away from a true F class. If you think his comments affect ANYONE from not paying for UA GF who otherwise would be, then IMO you are out to lunch.

Only a fool doesn't recognize what is happening. Avoiding the truth is just plain dumb.

mre5765

Post of the thread.

Every time that man talks he costs his airline money.

halls120

Telling customers that the product you're selling at a premium isn't worth it? They really teach that in B school these days?