ermintrude

However you look at it, it would be another stealth devaluation to MP elites and likely marketed as an 'enhancement'

sbm12

Some additional renderings leaked.


ETA: Tweet pulled based on renderings being old:

geometry

Thanks! That's looks decent.

What I really want to know is whether or not United will really charge a $400 premium each way over standard economy on TPAC flights and $300 premium each way on TATL flights. (making it $800 or $700 extra per TPAC or TPAC roundtrip)

mduell

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 100% premium on the TPAC fares due to the ongoing bloodbath there, but something more modest like 30% on the TATL fares.

timfountain

I'm sure it will dynamic and route, date etc. dependent.

geometry

hold on... are you suggesting double the price of a coach ticket on TPAC? A couple of months ago, I flew UA ORD-NRT and back for just under $700. I can't picture paying $1400 for Premium Economy ORD-NRT. On second thought.... maybe I can... because I was in E+ exit row aisle seat and it was still excruciatingly painful from ORD to NRT and back.

jsloan

Actually, $1400 is probably too low. This is a niche product. Most carriers are converting a small portion of their seats. If they price P+ to be extremely close to Y, they're not going to make any money on it -- they'll just sell it out quickly and then go back to selling the Y cabin. But, in that scenario, they'd do better cramming in more Y seats anyway. At 8-across by 40" pitch, vs. 10-across and 30" pitch, every 24 P+ seats would take up the space of 40 (!) Y seats. So, I'd expect the average P+ price to be about twice the average Y price.

For some random dates on Google Flights in April, PE on ORD-NRT starts at $1032 on DL.. but it's $2300 on JAL and $2400 on ANA for the nonstop flights. On this particular route, I'd expect UA to be closer to the ANA prices than the DL prices, as UA has long believed that people will pay extra to fly nonstop. For the same dates, DTW-NRT is $2113 on AA/JL with a stop and $2500 on DL nonstop.

The best way to get an idea of what UA will charge is to look at their competition.

dilanesp

It is DEFINITELY a devaluation.

To be very crass, in an industry where everyone is losing money, programs that build brand loyalty are extremely valuable to airlines, because they cut losses.

But in an industry where airlines are making lots of money, they are giving away things that could be sold for additional money. Whereas brand loyalty is less important because there are plenty of customers to fill up the planes.

Hence, devaluation.

sbm12

Where did you get those numbers?

They're probably close, though it also depends on what the cheaper coach fare is. I often see a $200-400 differential from other carriers.

A lot of passengers see $400-700 extra r/t for a trip to Europe or Asia as too much cash. For me the $400 is often reasonable while the $700 is not.

dilanesp

My guess would be it will be more route specific. I could see PE costing a lot on EWR-LHR, for instance, and less on SFO-SGN.

jsloan

Fair enough, and I'm not going to argue with that -- everybody should value the product based on their own needs. OP appeared to think that these prices were ridiculous; I disagree, because they don't need to sell them to everyone. They only need to sell a few of them on each plane.

They're not targeting the customer who purchases $700 RT TPAC fares with this product. I mean, they wouldn't mind turning a $700 sale into a $1400 sale or whatever, but it's not their target market. They're targeting business travelers who can't justify J and people who are already traveling on S+ fares, not K/L fares.

spin88

I think you need to look at PE for two markets (1) business travelers whose companies treat it as "economy", and are buying closer in, and (2) those paying on their own for personal trips. To give an e.g.

- next Monday-Friday, SFO-HKG-SFO. Y is $688 on UA; $819/888 on CX, and $1163 on SQ; PE is $2100 on CX, and $1617 on SQ (adjusting one day back/forward as Friday is sold out on SQ). United is not only getting lower prices in Y (discounting close in to try to fill empty seats), but they are losing out on those able to pay more, and on a business trip, spending the extra $1400 on CX or $900 extra on SQ is well worth it.

- leisure trip SFO-HKG-SFO (Sat 6/9 out, Sunday 6/17 back) In Y I get $908/$1181 on CX (CX has three flights), $958 on UA, and $1219 on SQ. SQ though will give me PE for $1515, on CX it is $2558 for PE.

It appears to me that - in this market at least - SQ is using PE as an upsell to get sales that otherwise might go to OALs. CX is protecting their PE more, and appears to be applying a % increase over Y pricing.

The problem for UA is that unlike CX and SQ (both of which have good Y product in this market, better by far than UA's E+ product) if the price of PE is set to high, the result will not be a loss of the upsell, but in some cases the loss of any sale. Not that I am expecting United to go beyond first order/spreadsheet thinking, they have never been capable of it, but I think pricing needs to take into account the pricing of better competitive Y product where it exists as well other PE pricing. Put another way, assuming UA adds PE to the 77W that PE product will be competing against both CX and SQ Y which has better hard/soft product than UA offers, as well as against their PE pricing.

dilanesp

That UA PE seat is going to be orders of magnitude more comfortable than anyone's coach seat. For this reason alone, I doubt people who can afford it are going to refuse to buy it in favor of flying economy on another carrier.

UA needs to be price and service competitive with other PE products.

mduell

Absolutely, that's in line with what I currently see in my market per post #256

SQ IAH-MAN Y- $900 PE $1800
BR IAH-TPE-PVG Y- $750 PE $1500
LH IAH-FRA-BRU Y- $1300 PE $2600

spin88

I guess I am a little confused by what is "orders of magnitude" better. Using the e.g. that I gave, I can fly on SQ in Y on their 77W, get an exit row seat that gives me 21.3" of seat/arm rest width and 32" of pitch, and if I get an exit row, I get 36" (which I got last time I flew SQ). If I get an upper deck A380 Y seat, I get 23.8" of seat/arm rest. I get similar space on CX/OZ/JAL.

AA is using the same seat that UA is launching on the 787, and it gives 25.4" of width and 38" pitch.

Would I prefer the UA/AA PE seat to the SQ seat, yes. But I don't see if as "orders of magnitude" better.

I do see it as "orders of magnitude" better than the new UA 777 seats which give 19.4" of width and only 34" pitch in Y and is physically uncomfortable to sit in for an hour, let alone 14+ hours. I will fly the SQ/CX/JAL/OZ Y seats, while I will not fly the new UA Y seats that are that narrow. So price matters if UA wants my business (especially when I am on a personal trip) vs taking OALs in Y or PE; price really does not matter vs. UA Y as I will not take it, period.

P.s. and to put a fine point on it, for a personal trip with the family, I would pay $200 or so more/ticket to fly the new UA PE vs taking SQ/CX/JAL/OZ in Y. If you are telling me that my choice is UA Y on the 777 at 3-4-3 vs. UA PE, well then I am going to pay a whole lot more than $200-300 to avoid UA Y, and I have recently paid $500-600 more to fly PE on OALs vs. UA's Y pricing.