cerealmarketer

Please, show the number that proves United had 'far more' HVF.

In 2010 UA had a $15.10 yield per passenger mile and CO $14.96.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...eat%20Mile.htm

Sorry, both had plenty of high value fliers. And both sides saw disappointment among high value fliers with the way the other ran things.

There wasn't anything special about United or Continental in the grand scheme of things when it comes to premium product. United just decided to inflate the egos of those that put up with its lackluster product more than AA, DL, or CO via the GS program so you are tricked into thinking they had a massively greater pool of whales.

tuolumne

Thanks for posting that, cerealmarketer. I think the issue I have is that while the European airlines are investing in new F and right sizing it to demand, UAL is instead eliminating it completely. Knowing that F sells and makes money on a handful of routes for UAL, it doesn't make sense they'd gut it systemwide, unless of course they always intended to make this airline 2-cabin for capex/complexity concerns.

Further, responding to what I've heard before, I don't think its fair to compare UAL to DL on this front - UAL frankly has the more desirable premium-focused network, so if routes like SFO-NRT/HKG can't make F work, that's not decided by the market, but by the powers that be in Willis Tower.

Lastly, responding to Rainey - if there is such an apparent similarity between the two premium cabins you offer now, how about investing in two new cabin products and increase the gulf between the two? If pmUA could design, order, and install two cabin products on 100 wide body planes, two years after they exited bankruptcy, I'm sure the $1billion dollar profit grossing UCH can do the same (if they wanted).

cerealmarketer

The missing element is this.

UA is a US-based airline, and a single long haul aircraft has to be ready to serve both high premium markets like Transpac, and decaying ones like Transatlantic.

The European airlines have a better base of old money / govt / corporates that still pay for First that *originate* in Europe, which benefits both Americas and Asian routes. Similarly, Asian airlines have the base of Asian firms that are more likely to allow 3 cabin travel, and more rapid wealth creation which has passengers ready to pay for it.

The Asian carrier planes don't have to be ready to serve Transatlantic routes often.

US corporates are the most stingy when it comes to paying for 3 cabin, and US carrier's planes have to be ready to serve both Atlantic and Pacific missions.

So it comes down to will you accept subpar performance from an aircraft on its Transatlantic missions in exchange for capturing some part of the Asian demand?

A lot of words for a decision that potentially involves less than 10 aircraft (the size of AA's 'rightsized' 777-300 fleet).

If UA hadn't pulled out of JFK-LHR it would be an easier decision...having that mission to support the Asia flights for the 777-300 3 cabin let AA more easily make the numbers work.

Bonehead

Let's try this again. You said:

Since you stated that it isn't only an employee cabin, that means that you think it's "...full of revenue passengers, upgrades, and mileage redemptions...", right?

You also stated "...If UA offered a legitimate GF product, it would be full of revenue passengers, upgrades, and mileage redemptions..."

Ergo, you think it's a legitimate GF product because you didn't limit the discussion to revenue passengers.

Always Flyin

This is the United board. You can feel free to discuss other airlines on their boards. But generally speaking, I have no difficulty discussing the pros and cons of any airline.

With UA, there just happens to be almost nothing but cons since this merger.

Too bad United doesn't hear that loud and clear message because UA is most certainly NOT offering a quality C product.

Funny how UA can manage to segregate its two-class 767 and 777s by route from the three-class offerings.

Incorrect. It's 17 777-300ERs already received with F and three more on the way.

Plus AA has A350s and 787s on order and it is unclear how many, if any, will be configured with F.

At the same time, UA is taking delivery of 789s with 6-year-old design seats that offer a sub-prime C experience. It's "good enough" for United.

AA and UA compete on LAX/SFO-JFK. AA went three class. UA went two-class.

Sorry you don't get it. No one else seems to have a problem comprehending it.

spin88

Those figures reflect the "captive hub premium", much greater use of RJs, and (gasp to hear me say it) shorter stage length of pmCO. What I will say is that I have heard from two separate pmCO execs that they were very surprised by the high level of full fare sales by UA in domestic F and J/F internationally, when they took over in 2012, which is something that both said that pmCO did not get. One went so far as to admit that they misjudged what those folks needed/wanted as it was not a market they had before.

I don't think its really debatable that sUA had much more HVFer traffic than did sCO. Part of why pmCO killed off international First is that they had no market whatso ever for it, and they gave away (under Gordo) domestic F as they were not - unlike UA and AA - selling it.

mduell

Those are stage length adjusted, as they note, not actual PRASM.

On actual PRASM, UA was about a full penny ahead of CO/AA/DL in Q1 2010.

gengar

As I've pointed out before, the notion that longhaul F is destined for extinction is a view advanced only by a small (but rather vocal) minority of FT'ers, and simply isn't supported by facts. Many carriers, even outside of the ME and Asia, have committed to the F product - including on types that UA has already chosen not to have GF on. That's the critical distinction in this discussion - that UA is apparently on its way to completely eliminating GF, not just trending it downwards or focusing on specific routes.

Of course, I suppose it's also hard to take FT seriously when people here post that they'd prefer a subpar J product to make it less desirable to paying passengers, therefore making Y>J upgrades easier.


I wonder why there is so much misinformation among FT'ers - this is the second time in as many weeks that I've seen someone here significantly undercount AA's 77W fleet in order to advance their side in the debate (and that's just the posts I've personally seen). Disappointing for this forum's credibility, really.

Just FYI, AA 789's seatmap is more or less finalized - no F, which is not surprising given how AA is using them. The A350 is all US orders so presumably originally planned for no F, and IMO if used as US intended that would make sense - but we'll see if the combined AA changes that at some point (deliveries aren't even scheduled until 2017). They did change all their orders to -900s from -800s, so it's already a bigger plane than US' original plans.

kevanyalowitz

This is the driver behind the defection of HVF. It's also why you can't run a global airline the same way you run a domestic airline that has a handful of hub-captive international routes.

It's no surprise that CO did not have a GS-type program prior to the merger, Chairman's circle excluded, given how tiny it is.

cerealmarketer

I think the real difference between the two airlines was the old Pan Am Asia routes Ferris picked up before the Allegis mess. No other US airline had that nonstop to Asia coverage, which lends itself to long haul premium fliers.

Not because UA had some magical product, but because US companies are willing to pay for business on routes of that length and there was no other choice with a domestic network to feed. DL, NW, CO, AA didn't cut it. Singapore and Cathay have no feed. Call it Pacific captive fliers from the US.

Is that Asia flying Chicago exec any more or less valuable than the hub captive Houston oil people or New Jersey pharma execs?

Not if they're all netting the same stage and cost adjusted yield.

Let's not pretend UA had some magic domestic First population - the airline that went Ted wasn't selling enough domestic First.

It's all about the network - and Asia drove it all.

Global First will continue to shrink because it's the right move for the profile of the network today. Post 2008 what demand was left from US companies for paid 3 cabin First fell yet again. Don't think that Tilton wasn't considering 2 cabin layouts for its next generation. I have heard that from pmUA folks. The last capital decision was made during the height of the bubble in 2006.

I do think though it's not set in stone that a small set of planes keep it. They have about 7 years to make the final call.



UA and CO were half the difference you cite when you look at full year 2010 and not just one quarter. Both about 13 cents.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Yield.htm

Immaterial.

roadkit

No, I did not suggest that nor am I suggesting that.

Im suggesting that UA doesn't force FAs to treat first class like first class because the FAs that work first class do so based on a seniority system UA cannot control, and these are the same employees who know union rules to the letter - mostly because they are all over 60 years of age and have been at this game for a lot longer than a lot of us have been flying the airline.

I am not going to apologize for saying that I would much rather have a young, attentive, Singapore Girl or Boy waiting on me hand and foot for my $15K than put up with a <inappropriate comment removed by moderator> who is more interested in reading the latest edition of People magazine than making sure I have what I want.

And of course it's cultural -- in the U.S. people are almost keyed into NOT treating wealthy/privileged people with any sort of deference -- and I get that. But they somehow can't even figure out how to do it as sort of play acting "This person paid $15K to sit in this tube in the dark for 12 hours; my job is to act like I give a .... and wait on him/her hand and foot. That's my job." Except they can't figure out it's their job. They think its a distraction to their job, which in their mind is taking a TPAC so they can shop in Tokyo, and then fly home and not work for another week.

nerdbirdsjc

Respectfully, the facts work against you. Yes, some carriers will continue to offer longhaul F, but nearly every non-ME3 carrier still doing so is offering fewer total F seats or fewer total routes with F than in the past.

It's not a contradiction to note that 1) Some airlines are investing in F; and 2) The longhaul F footprint is shrinking. It's now more expensive than ever before to maintain a longhaul F product, as Business Class now offers most of the bells and whistles hitherto found only in F, so product differentiation and the value proposition become very challenging and resource-intensive endeavors.

The North American market has a variety of structural factors that make it very difficult to recoup the investments needed to make longhaul F work, and that's why our carriers were the frontrunners in moving to hybrid business/first cabins (CO BusinessFirst in 1991, NW World Business Class in 1993, and AC Executive First, US Envoy Class & DL BusinessElite in the mid-1990s).

It's not at all difficult to envision that United would capture much more revenue operating the legacy UA 777s with 50 J seats instead of 40J + 10F. UA BusinessFirst remains a decent product, and it's something United knows how to market and sell well. Indeed, United would have greater freedom to improve BusinessFirst and chase higher premiums if GF was retired.

cova

CO did have a GS-type of program for a few years prior to the merger. It was called "Presidential Platinum". It was a higher revenue level for those that earned Platinum (75K miles / year) which was CO's top mileage earned level. PP got earlier upgrade window and other benefits.

Pres Plat initially started with a $35K/year revenue requirement, then unadvertised, then of course the merger into MP and GS.

Singapore_Schwing

I thought of this thread this morning when I got an email encouraging me to 'turn my seat into a suite' buy buying up to GF. It made me laugh a little, given the original premise of this thread. Suite seems a stretch for UA GF.

Regarding what's being talked about more generally, the simple reality is that I would strongly encourage anyone considering actually purchasing GF to consider SQ or EK (on the a380) C.

Both are on par or better than UA F, at much lower costs. Redeeming miles or but in GPU's, ok. Buying GF? Seems crazy to me given the other options out there.

gengar

No one has suggested that it's a contradiction. The problem with your argument, as has been pointed out by myself and other FT'ers in this thread and others, is that the longhaul F footprint isn't shrinking.

You can keep claiming to be respectful, but your protests, however vocal, aren't supported by the facts.