spin88

Or I can take AA in regular Y for $163 RT (N fare) or DL for $104 (BE) or $106 (regular Y) or SWA for $164. [looking at Sept 13-14].

United is more expensive than Delta, and for UA's BE price you can get regular Y on AA and or SWA. Why would anyone fly UA?

United is simply NOT competitive, and anyone who is flying United either has to realize they will pay an extra $30+ on each trip if they want status benefits or they will think about another airline.

WineCountryUA

Hmmm Orbitz and DL.com shows the same prices as UA for those days

Seems DL is to be avoided also.

Kacee

I'm no fan of the BE fares, but whether UA is competitive really depends on the date, flight, and what's important to the customer.

I recently purchased a $178 W fare PHX-SFO. It was actually cheaper than the WN flights around the same time (all over $200), and I get a much better experience on UA, with E+, Group 1 boarding, and a chance at an upgrade (319 though, so probably not going to happen). And three checked bags of course (not that I ever check more than one).

Boraxo

And for me I would instead select WN because I will never buy BE and want an aisle seat. BE makes no sense even to consider because I won't take a middle seat absent IRROPS. But like you I have a bitter taste because I'd rather get UA EQM and reserved E+ seating that I earned by flying a lot of miles on UA this year (and many years).

So 2 (potential) customers, one buys BE, one defects, and both unhappy. See why BE isn't working?

Made the same choice last month for SFO-LAS @$131. The UA fare was cheaper than WN and came with all my perks. The BE fare was even cheaper but I'm not giving up EQM and E+ aisles seats for $30. If this was the case every time then none of us would care about BE.

Exleftseat

It wasn't 40%, rather $ 40.00. $ 170.00 compared to $ 210.00 for his dates.

Exleftseat

Again, this is a 40 minute flight to LAX to catch an International UA flight. The RJ 700 is in a 2-2 configuration, so they don't care. No middle seats. EQMs obviously don't come into play at 350 miles. Neither do LTs. He did WN last time, the terminal change was a bit of a hassle. If he would transfer at DEN, for example, WN would be his choice. Any airport without a terminal change airside is an obvious reason not to go with UA. So, this is a pretty specific situation at LAX.

spin88

weird I must have gotten something odd stuck in my browser as these are not the fares I saw. When I looked again, I get the same results you do, which makes more sense (I was wondering why DL would be cheaper...).

So I can:

(1) take AA or WN and have all of my elite benefits,
(2) I can take DL and give up a seat assignment and upgrades, but get status credit, or
(3) I can take UA and give up a seat assignment and upgrades and not get any status credit.

Give those choices, I am going to fly on AA, and than DL, UA is still the worst package of them all....

emcampbe

In busy times, you may be right. But seeing a full E- cabin "a few weeks out", IME is pretty rare, unless you are going at an extremely popular time - Thanksgiving, Christmas, FL during spring break, trying to leave China at the start of Chinese New Year, going to the city hosting the superbowl for the game, etc. And given an alternative option with seats available, many families with children, for example, may opt to get a ticket for a different flight rather then one where they can't select seats together.

Plus, many people have other reasons for not buying BE. Forgetting completely about the fact there is no PQM earned, one of my biggest reasons I won't buy BE is the lack of ability to make any sort of change - I don't make changes too often, but at least want the option to be able to do it rather than throw away the value. So it's not just about seating.

IMO, that is exactly what the ULCCs count on. Plus people buying the other stuff for which they earn a commission - accommodations, rental cars, etc. - that's why the ULCCs push that a ton more than UA, AA, DL. Look at their ancillary revenues. Yes, lower cost structure is certainly a big part of the ULCC profibility, including the savings for the most part of not operating a traditional hub-and-spoke system like the legacies. I don't have the actual data, but I'd bet if you look at the total, all-in cost for a traveler on a non-stop route flown by say, Spirit and UA, or Sun County and DL, many would report the same or higher cost on the ULCC vs. the legacy.

If you ask me, one of the most surprising things about BE is the lack of opportunities to buy up to anything. I'm not talking about to F, but the ability to buy a seat assignment in advance, for example. I'd bet that change will come at some point. Maybe you can't buy the seat assignment right away (i.e. maybe a week or 5 days before departure), or maybe you will be offered only a subset of availability toward the back of the cabin, but I'd bet that has to come in some way, shape or form in the next year or two.

I do agree with this for the most part, but there are certain elite-heavy routes, such as hub-to-hub, where this isn't the case as much. I agree that the BE buyers also aren't the same ones buying up to E+, but I am curious to your 'shrinking E+ cabins' observations. The only E+ cabins that have shrunk, IIRC, are the CR7 and E70, which had a way higher E+ seat ratio than any other aircraft to begin with. The 66-seat CR7 cabins, for example, had 60 in Y, and 28 of those seats - almost half (46.7%) - were E+. To compare to other aircraft, the 320 have, and for the most part, have always had, 42 E+, with 96 E- now (30.5%). Some of the 320s actually used to only have 36 E+, so on some aircraft, the number of E+ has actually increased with the change to a single slimline configuration.

Of course, one is not going to buy a Q when a G is available, unless the Q offers some advantage that the G doesn't (for example, the ability to use a GPU). But you're probably comparing the wrong thing: its not between a G and Q fare (to use your example), but the difference in many cases between the customer buying if the G fare is offered, but not buying at all (or going to a different carrier that has a lower fare) if the Q is the lowest offered.


Fair point - I wouldn't fly G4 either - but the point is that clearly many will. For a long time, it was ok to ignore the ULCCs because it was a small segment of the market. It's too big now to ignore. UA may not always offer matching BE fares to the ULCC, but clearly, part of their strategy here is to get some of these customers to fly with them instead.

Everyone's situation is different. For example, if you are flying on your own, its different than if you are flying with a toddler (like I do most of the time now). So having a seat next to them is extremely important, and I would never buy BE where i have a risk of not sitting next to them, and no, I'm not someone who is going to make that someone else's problem onboard. But let's not also pretend that seat assignments are the sole reason someone would buy a regular fare over BE - there is also the ability to change your flight (yes, at a fee, still can be a big difference than having your ticket use-it-as-booked or throw it away), bring on a carry on (for non-elites, anyway), and earn PQM. The change thing is really another thing (as I mentioned above) why I shy away from BE. I won't say I would never book it - I can see a situation where it might be the right fare option for me on a very specific type of trip - traveling alone, on a fairly short flight (say, 1,5 hours or less), with UAX being an advantage for this (no risk of middle seats). But for most of my trips, BE, like G4, won't really be an option - it would be more likely to be UA vs. another carrier, but given my status/benefits on UA, it would have to be a fairly compelling price (or potentially, other) advantage for me to choose another carrier.

Something tells me the poster you are responding to, on a CR7, won't get a middle seat, even with BE, but what do I know? Something tells me WN there is better chance of getting a middle (especially if you aren't around at T-24 to secure a good boarding number).

Maybe your profile isn't up-to-date, but based on what you listed, doesn't appear you have elite benefits on AA or WN to take adavantage, so not sure what you first point is about.

For the 371 miles from PHX-LAX, I'm not sure that EQM credit matters much unless you are that close to the threshold. For that difference, basically nothing, I'd book based on the most convenient transfer (UA) or schedule.

WineCountryUA

Need to see if that changes once AA starts offering its BE next month.

Will make no predictions on which will win out, but am fairly sure BE will eventually become harmonized by middle of 2018 with minimal differences and this discussion will become moot. This is the history of airline offerings among the majors. -- like the history of elite levels, PQDs, .... it is just a matter of time.

spin88

I agree, and in fact just bought 4xUA tickets. UA was the same price as AS, but on UA I can get 4 E+ seats (and they had four together on the flight), AS/VX not only did not have 4 seats together, but I can't (as a gold) get 4 extra leg room seats. The Delta flight would have been another $60 more expensive, but I had the same issue as with AS, I can only get two extra leg room seats. Plus once we land in SFO, I can take everyone for a snack at the Centurion Lounge.

The broader point though is that BE is taking those "benefits" that get people hooked into UA and tries to charge UA fliers $30-40+ extra to avoid BE if they want to use them. The upcharge will get very old. Had UA offered me a BE on this trip, there is no way I would have flown UA, and I am not going to make an airline that tries to wing me $30-40+ extra on each trip my business other than sporadically.

no need to wait, we already know what AA is doing: AA is only offering BE on the three lowest fare buckets, plus they give 1/2 status credit. United's version of BE is much broader and more punitive. UA has already backed off BE a bunch (it is now only being offered up to middle level fares) they are either going to have to follow delta (more limited and give status credit) or AA or they will continue to be non-competitive. Kirby has hinted they would need to throw in the towel at some point unless others follow; but the smart play is what DL and AA are doing, which is simply stealing traffic from UA with the "book away" factor, and they will keep some of these customers permanently.

jsloan

The number of flyers who have a meaningful elite status on all three majors has got to be quite small. Non-zero, sure, but there's no way that's a large enough segment of their clientele for UA to treat as a primary concern.

This was specifically a response in opposition to repeated claims that there is this subset of price-sensitive travelers who will purchase BE but would never pay a dime for ancillary purchases. The point is, nearly everyone is looking for the lowest fare available in their cabin of service, so -- given UA'a BE model -- nearly every economy traveler falls into this bucket. (Also, don't be surprised when Basic First becomes a thing).

Why? If there are a set of customers out there that UA can't carry profitably, why risk upsetting everyone else by trying to find a way to cater to them? Are they going to start price-matching Acela, because they're losing travelers to train travel in the northeast? How about Greyhound? You can't run a business by trying to be everything to everyone.

Barring an incredibly important reason to fly UA in that scenario, there's a good chance that I'd drive, or that I'd find another route where the differential wasn't as big, or I'd just skip that trip. The biggest problem that I have with BE is that it makes the customer feel like a chump -- "ha, ha, look how we can squeeze more money out of you." I have paid more to fly UA than their competition in the past, because I felt like I got a better value -- free E+, a chance of upgrades, and luggage if I need it. They still got the money, but they didn't rub it in my face. As for changes -- I love SDC, and do value that quite a bit. However, given that I buy one-way flights whenever there's no price penalty, I often end up with fares that are less than the change fee, so changing -- except SDC -- isn't always an option.

Agree 100%. And, frankly, it doesn't matter to me which one it is. They're all bad.

zeer0

Up to 40%. For example the super competitive SFO-LAX route sees a 40% buy up from BE to regular E on most days. That becomes very uncompetitive when you have AS/VX and WN matching every BE fare, let alone AA who hasn't yet implemented it.

WineCountryUA

While there may be an occasional spot price approaching 40% (could not find any - but may be one of the fare filing errors) but they are anomalous and not representative for the majority of the offerings.

Spot checking a handful of dates a month out (and dates in Oct, Nove also) I see mostly $49 vs $57 (for non-stops - some meaningless 1-stops are higher)
Don't see BE offered for SFO-LAX closer than 14 days

Karen2

I feel like UA has violated all its promises to Million Milers. First, no international upgrades, now BE or E-, however you look at it with no expected perks. Big deal, we get free checked bag (s??). This airline has not been the same since Continental took it over. Who ever heard of a blue carpet?

My husband and I are taking E- on a short trip to see what it is like. But I am pretty ticked about the whole thing and the other airlines doe no service Sacramento well.

DELee

Search: SFO-SEA for 12/22/17 departure

Date of Search: 08/19/17

Delta Between BE and Lowest Economy (T): -$113

Additional Comment: Purchase F (P) for $16 more than BE

David