findark

It would take a lot of very careful statistical analysis, not to mention the non-public dataset, to draw any conclusions. Overall, fares tend to be the same between e.g. UA and SQ because of competitive matching so it's extremely rare for a customer to have a choice between a "high service" and a "low service" carrier where the price difference is nominal but nonzero.

Weatherboy

While you can never say never with United's unlimited cost-cutting, I can't imagine them unbundling lounge access that is so intertwined with the in flight product for the sake of cheapening the experience for non-cash payers.

spin88

I don't think you can draw much information from even the public fares in J. The problem is that UA at least gives 40+% discounts to it's corporate clients. The Apple guy flying to HKG is paying less than half the posted rack rate. It is possible that other high quality foreign airlines gives these type of very large discounts (not my understanding from discussions with people I know who work in companies with multiple travel deals) but you would have to have the internal data to know. So while the fares available to the public may look roughly similar, the actual revenue may be very different, with a different mix of fares.

This is why I say one can not really draw conclusions about how service/product impacts sales, or argue that it does not matter, based upon the decline in what UA has offered soft product wise.

seat38a

But they can sure change the rules, such as not clearing upgrade instruments until at the the gate, one hour before, etc.. That would pretty much eliminate lounge access without technically taking it away.

Air Houston

jsloan

I'm not an insider. If I had the data in front of me, I doubt I would feel comfortable posting about it, even without going into specifics.

I would not be shocked if Apple got 40%+ off of J, but I'd be stunned if they got more than, say, 5% off of P.

Anyway, airlines do publish this information in aggregate, and I know that you know that, because you're quick to point out PRASM and CASM numbers. You can make some assumptions and work backwards.

You don't need to, though, because I can prove my point without relying on any of that. All you have to do is to look at the recent changes in the industry. OZ: removed F. TG: removed F from all regional routes. SQ: removed regional F; did not put F on the A359 or 781; is reducing the number of F seats on the A388. LH: no F on the A359; removed F from the A343, 744, and some A333; no F on the 777X. NH: No F on the 787-8/-9 or -10. AF: 9 F seats on the A388; 4 on two of the 77W configurations; none of the 789. DL: removed F. AA: F is restricted to the 77W; no F on the 787.

I could keep going. The only airlines that are really trying to compete in the F space are the ME3, and even they're cutting back as they're facing questions about profitability -- oh, and BA, who went ahead and included 8 F seats on the 789, although they're going more-and-more three-class also.

Thus, either a whole bunch of airlines are independently deciding that it wouldn't be fair to ask people to continue to fly first class, or it's not profitable, because people aren't willing to pay for the soft product at high enough levels to sustain it. I'm guessing (b).

halls120

I don't think the soft product is the issue. When I decided to reject the upgrade offer from C to F on LH, I didn't do it on the basis of perceived value of the LH F soft product. I decided the extra room wasn't worth the cost.

Unless I'm counting wrong, the UA IPTE birds have 8 F and 16 C seats between doors 1 and 2. In the Polaris configuration, there are 32 seats in the same space. I'll bet those birds are going out with fewer empty seats, revenue speaking, than before.

jsloan

But you did. It's just that the amount of value that you attached to the soft product was so small that it was dwarfed by the hard product's similarity. If you had perceived LH F as having a highly-valuable soft product, that would have influenced your decision.

FWIW, I agree with you. J is a good enough experience. I wouldn't turn down F, and I might pay a small amount for it (or use a GPU; that brief window where you could use a GPU on an LH P fare was great . But I'm not going to pay anywhere near the markup that it takes for it to be profitable.

If your numbers are right, they've converted 8 F seats to 16 J seats (I didn't count them myself, so I'm trusting you . That means they would have needed to sell the F seats for approximately double what they sell the J seats for.

halls120

And that's why I said no to the UG to F. It was almost double the $$ that I paid for the PE to C upgrade, and I can't drink enough decent wine to justify a slightly bigger seat.

What's interesting is that while the C cabin on the 346 was completely full, 5 seats in F were empty - on both flights. LH apparently isn't giving their F product away....

seenitall

The IPTE birds have two closet/galley positions in this area that the Polaris birds do not. So not quite the same F+C to C ratio as you calculate. But your point is still valid. See https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...0/default.aspx

dilanesp

United's partner ANA just announced a new F suites product:

https://onemileatatime.com/ana-new-first-business-class/

So obviously they think there's a market.

fumje

That market is funded by OPM!

jsloan

I covered NH already. Yes, they invested in a new F seat on the 77W, and that's great. But the fact that they didn't equip F on any of their 787 variants is more telling. After all, they couldn't well have put in a new J seat without upgrading the F seat, and it may not have been cost-effective to replace the F cabin. As we've seen with United, it's a lot quicker (and cheaper) to replace seats than it is to reconfigure cabins.

F is a niche product. Maybe airlines can make it work on a limited number of routes, but the trend is clearly toward eliminating it.

PS: ANA allows people to upgrade to F, and frequently allows redemptions in F, even with partner currency. As I recall, your original argument was that F was destroyed by upgrades and "cheap" frequent flyer tickets...

dilanesp

We will see what they allow with the new suites. Most airlines that have that type of F may allow upgrades but pitch the cost very high. The purpose of this sort of product is to sell it.

SEA_Tigger

JAL offers a fully-enclosed First Class suite on their 777-300ER fleet, so not overly surprised ANA feels they now need to do the same on their 777-300ER fleet.

JAL might add it to their A350-1000s (and ANA on their 777-9s) that replace the 777-300ER fleet, but as noted, their respective international 787 fleets do not have First Class.