ft4lyf

Anther change we will like.

DBCme

Could UA have decided to remove them from the planes but redeploy them in the UA Clubs?

This eliminates the need to write them off. Saving costs by not carrying that extra weight in the plane. And allows for alignment of consistent product in BF across all planes. Self-service means guests can use at their leisure without adding labor costs/duties. And, adds to the F&B value in UA clubs which would be in-line with recent announcements and rollout of upgraded food.

Always Flyin

Consistent product? Is consistency at the lowest level a good thing?

Put the machines in the United Clubs (what marketing genius came up with that name? Probably the same one who thought BusinessFirst on a three class of service (for now) airline was brilliant . . .)?

United cuts its way to profitability. UA takes away; it doesn't give.

EWR764

Would be cool if it worked that way, but no. UA Clubs are slated to all have espresso machines eventually.

worldtrav

Flyer Friendly indeed.

qukslvr619

I get the need for a consistent product; however it wasn't consistently offered so I don't really believe people flying sUA aircraft were complaining because they thought they were going to be on sCO aircraft that offered the machines. Is it that huge of a deal that I won't be able to order an espresso in lieu of the crap coffee? Probably not, but it's just the appearance of stripping away without actually investing back in the product. If there was a net gain, then fine, but it never seems to be the case.

cfischer

one more reason to avoid flying UA metal as much as possible. The espresso on LX and other fine carriers is one of many reasons why I prefer them over UA metal

qukslvr619

Really taking the espresso machines off the aircraft is foretelling of what they are doing with GF. So they stopped marketing/offering passengers the cappuccino, usage went down, and then they can justify pulling them off because the low uptake didn't justify the cost of offering it in the first place. They are essentially doing the same....they are killing off what could be a great product to the point where the extra revenue isn't offsetting the cost of offering a differentiated product. Then they will come out and say "our customers indicated they would prefer a more consistent BF experience and we are eliminating our GF product to focus our efforts on our BF service," but not do much more than a lot of fanfare for a lackluster product.

EWR764

That's all it is... cheapness. Nothing more. Any other explanation is bogus.

I'll never understand why the international premium products need to be the subject of cost cutting.

unavaca

UA nixed the tie-in they had with Starbucks; I can't imagine them spinning up a deal with something even more premium than Starbucks.

PV_Premier

Good, in that case, I'll expect a marked downturn in the postings about these birds in the INTL delays and cancellations thread.

dmurphynj

Not to sound like a Polyanna, but didn't UA Insider mention there were (positive) changes coming to the coffee program?

If they're pulling the cappuccino machines to make room for a Nespresso machine .....

transportprof

While we are dreaming about deluxe coffee makers in the sky, perhaps they could install one of these babies to replace the unreliable espresso makers:

SamuelS

United owes it obligations to it's passengers. Without passengers, there will be no shareholders.


They're not giving it away for "free". It's part of the product proposition paid for by the customer. Along with "free" food in First Class. Or "free" booze. If it is your argument that UA should charge for everything - even in GlobalFirst, I'd question your business sense.


Not sure which industry you work in, but it is typically a pretty slippery slope for a company to regard their customers as "self entitled whiners" and have this level of contempt for their (most frequent or loyal) customers. YMMV.

mduell

The poster was in-part literally quoting UA senior management.