Revenue Premium, Leveraging the 752 Fleet to Compete with MINT
Jan 21, 2018, 12:04 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K, AA Plat Pro, VS Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 838
Revenue Premium, Leveraging the 752 Fleet to Compete with MINT
JetBlue has a lower cost base than United, and maybe that’s why it’s able to offer a better level of service at all levels. That said, at the high end, UA used to at least position itself as the premium carrier in the US. All international aircraft were 3 cabin, and PS domestically — in its early days, at least — was the best product flying coast to coast. Today, we see United competing with the likes of Delta, who is trying to recapture that upmarket brand feel. Delta is even redeploying some of its international 75s to tackle premium routes.
I don’t run the books, so don’t have all the answers. I do know that, United, through it’s CO merger, has an asset in the 40+ 752s it has in premium cabin config, at relatively low cycles. If UA can pick up some of those used HA 767s coming offline and backfill the lower density routes, I think United is positioned better than any other US airline to compete with MINT if they wanted to. No other domestic airline has a narrowbody arsenal like this, why not leverage it?
And I know we are seeing some redeployment already, I’m instead talking about a full 752 repurposing to US markets, expanding on BOS-SFO & EWR-SFO/LAX routes to other transcon markets, i.e. SNA EWR.
I don’t run the books, so don’t have all the answers. I do know that, United, through it’s CO merger, has an asset in the 40+ 752s it has in premium cabin config, at relatively low cycles. If UA can pick up some of those used HA 767s coming offline and backfill the lower density routes, I think United is positioned better than any other US airline to compete with MINT if they wanted to. No other domestic airline has a narrowbody arsenal like this, why not leverage it?
And I know we are seeing some redeployment already, I’m instead talking about a full 752 repurposing to US markets, expanding on BOS-SFO & EWR-SFO/LAX routes to other transcon markets, i.e. SNA EWR.
Jan 21, 2018, 12:21 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA Plat 2MM. DL Plat, AS MVP
Posts: 12,752
I’m in the minority, but I don’t find mint all that great. Thr united seat is so much more comfortable. I don’t find the Mint food all that wonderful. And I don’t like the entertainment on JetBlue.
Jan 21, 2018, 6:22 am
#3
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Jan 21, 2018, 6:36 am
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
The implicit assumption is that competing with Mint would be more profitable than what UA has 757s flying today.
Jan 21, 2018, 6:43 am
#5
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
UA already owns the transcon market ex-SNA. There is no competition. And it is a very difficult upgrade to score. What would the company's motivation be to make that change? There are other markets (e.g. SEA, SAN) where there is competition. DL tried the SEA thing a few years ago and bailed. It is trying again in a more limited manner thanks to the B6 play but still not all in.
Beyond that, the implication is that UA can drive better yields running transcons than some Hawaii and short European hops. The current 752 routes mostly have little to no competition and support the higher TATL premium fares. Taking those planes and deciding to fight for $500 o/w transcon F fares seems like a strange decision. Why would you purposefully choose to shift the aircraft to a market where the revenue potential is lower?? There's nothing upmarket about that.
Beyond that, the implication is that UA can drive better yields running transcons than some Hawaii and short European hops. The current 752 routes mostly have little to no competition and support the higher TATL premium fares. Taking those planes and deciding to fight for $500 o/w transcon F fares seems like a strange decision. Why would you purposefully choose to shift the aircraft to a market where the revenue potential is lower?? There's nothing upmarket about that.
Jan 21, 2018, 7:25 am
#6
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Programs: United Gold
Posts: 2,047
Have you flown one of the 752s used for TATL?
did one last month LIS-EWR, and the IFE Interface (which was broken the whole flight!) was designed in the late 1990s. Theyd have to invest good money to make that a competitive transcon product, which they don’t want to do given the investment needed. That’s why it is stuck on the least glamorous and competitive TATL routes..
that said, it’s always interesting to think big picture like this as we can, in the crowd, mimic the kids of things UA has to be thinking about..
did one last month LIS-EWR, and the IFE Interface (which was broken the whole flight!) was designed in the late 1990s. Theyd have to invest good money to make that a competitive transcon product, which they don’t want to do given the investment needed. That’s why it is stuck on the least glamorous and competitive TATL routes..
that said, it’s always interesting to think big picture like this as we can, in the crowd, mimic the kids of things UA has to be thinking about..
Jan 21, 2018, 8:25 am
#7
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,176
Have you flown one of the 752s used for TATL?
did one last month LIS-EWR, and the IFE Interface (which was broken the whole flight!) was designed in the late 1990s. Theyd have to invest good money to make that a competitive transcon product, which they don’t want to do given the investment needed. That’s why it is stuck on the least glamorous and competitive TATL routes..
that said, it’s always interesting to think big picture like this as we can, in the crowd, mimic the kids of things UA has to be thinking about..
did one last month LIS-EWR, and the IFE Interface (which was broken the whole flight!) was designed in the late 1990s. Theyd have to invest good money to make that a competitive transcon product, which they don’t want to do given the investment needed. That’s why it is stuck on the least glamorous and competitive TATL routes..
that said, it’s always interesting to think big picture like this as we can, in the crowd, mimic the kids of things UA has to be thinking about..
Jan 21, 2018, 9:08 am
#8
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SJC / DPS
Programs: AS G75K, UA Silver
Posts: 1,757
I'm pretty sure the 752s that fly TATL get cycled into the 'premium' domestic routes too. A typical routing for them could be LAX-EWR-LIS-EWR-SFO.
Jan 21, 2018, 12:42 pm
#9
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: United Global Services, Amtrak Select Executive
Posts: 4,098
Not only that, but I'm not sure 757s are even allowed to be used for scheduled service at SNA, because of the short runway/noise abatement rules? Anybody know? I do know that there are never any scheduled 757 flights at SNA.
Jan 21, 2018, 1:38 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,450
Jan 21, 2018, 1:42 pm
#11
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 295
Pretty much every OC-Atlanta flight on Delta is a 757.
Jan 21, 2018, 1:44 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,450
Jan 21, 2018, 1:47 pm
#14
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
ORD-SNA was always a 757. Those were the days!