entropy

Ii don't know, light jets are >4000/hr, and ones that will get you transcon are way more, so that cost is quite high. I would think the firm's security clients get it included with their retainer, some corporate/studio clients have a bulk agreement, and the UA "intro" rate is closer to the real rate than the published one. The UA intro rate might make sense as a novelty for some people.

You'd probably need more .. volume than the HON lounges (especially since LH F itself is .... being removed from a lot of the fleet), so you'd probably want a mix of like full J (as in J J fares, or the lower allowed DZP for GS) and buyups for everyone else. Most people, travelling on OPM wouldn't bother, but plenty would want to escape the zoos of EWR/LAX ticketing lobbies, etc.

OnTimePlease

I'm a DL guy that is now taking trips to QRO, Mexico with much more frequency and pay for a seat up front on United. A 7.5 hour layover in IAH is the best I could do this week unless I want to fly DL from ABQ NM to ATL and then down to QRO. Thus lounge access with the better ticket works and gives me a taste of UA once again. Who knows, after moving our business travel to DL 18 years ago I may just want to move some back to UA. I have had very good experiences as a non-status guy just observing how UA treats people. I can't be the only exec that changes company contracts after quietly checking out other options!

jsloan

And you've just disproven your own point. F is disappearing because it's not profitable. It's probably true that "plenty" would want to escape the EWR/LAX ticketing lobby. It's definitely not true that "plenty" would be willing to pay enough to make it worthwhile for UA. And if you're talking about "full J plus GS," you're really just talking about GS and OPM. I doubt that there are many leisure travelers paying full J -- as, indeed, I doubt there are many leisure GS. (There are undoubtedly some, but I suspect it's a single-digit percentage).

Opportunity cost is the key. When you're talking about F on a plane (or lieflat J on a leisure route), it's a question about how much floor space is taken up and therefore what incremental yield you need to achieve just to break even. When you're talking about a lounge or private checkin area or whatever, you're talking about paying the airport rent for space that could otherwise go to retail -- and, in case you haven't noticed, airports have found retail to be so profitable that it's crowding out seating areas.

JimInOhio

I'm beginning to forget but isn't anyone flying F/J already entitled to check in at the Premier desk? I've been to the one at LAX far more than enough times to know that it's not a "zoo" by any means. Can't remember about the state of affairs at the EWR premier check in.

zombietooth

I agree that domestic F and international J seats will likely experience large cuts in capacity post-plague. I mean, it's really a matter of survival for the US big 3. They are just barely hanging on and are going to have to change their business models if they hope to survive. In my crystal ball, I see a future where PlusPoint upgrades to international J will be much more difficult to get due to capacity reductions and attempts to better monetize the premium cabins.

It also seems likely, based on your analysis, that even the Polaris lounges will end up on the chopping block. A true premium experience cannot be sustained without OPM flyers, and my belief is that COVID has permanently shrunk those ranks to a level that will not allow a profitable venture in that niche.

jsloan

If you're right about the loss of business travel -- and I don't share your skepticism, personally -- then, yes, the Polaris lounges will almost certainly be closed. And I don't know that they can monetize the J cabin much more than they're already doing, but capacity cuts are certainly possible. The high-J 763 configuration doesn't make much sense unless you can sell it to business travelers.

bocastephen

Removing F or J seats and adding more Y seats that no one will buy is not the right answer. The industry needs a mix of products to be desirable, otherwise everyone would be flying Norwegian and Southwest. The main issue is capacity, so I could see the industry trending to smaller aircraft or reduced frequencies on larger aircraft they already own. For example, 3-4 daily IAH-LAX flights on a mix of 787 or 777 instead of 8 daily flights using mostly 737s. That is the most effective way of cutting cost vs cutting the product - right size capacity to match demand without up-ending the product mix ratios where demand for each still exists.

Having said that, I could see the Polaris Lounge concept close permanently, and the dumbed-down service in Polaris inflight remain long term with domestic F style meals and limited amenities.

zombietooth

My skepticism about business travel is partly based on what I was able to do this year via Zoom that shocked me. I was involved in 2 court cases where I appeared and testified via Zoom. I didn't think that would ever be possible. I still got in a ton of travel this year because my job requires my literal hands-on involvement but, if you are an executive and only need a verbal or visual presence at a place, why on Earth would a company fly you anywhere when you can do your visit virtually? Especially since numerous mutated versions of COVID are now spreading around the world with unknown resistance to the vaccine(s), it's likely that the risk of new pandemics is increasing even as we vaccinate most of the population. So I look at reduced OPM travel as a way for companies to significantly reduce liability while obviously still getting the job done, as they have now for at least 9 months. There is the added benefit of reduced travel costs and all of that is likely very appealing to the CFOs of major corporations.

As far as monetizing more J seats, something along the lines of a Dutch Auction for upgrade could probably sell some excess capacity effectively. I know that I would bid on the sure thing rather than gambling with PlusPoints. You are right about most, "your own dime", J-cabin flyers; I would never pay full J fare. If I can't get a P or Z fare, then I am not a buyer and, if I had to be on a certain flight, would then buy a W+ fare in the hopes of using PlusPoints. So a bidding system for cash upgrade would be very interesting to me.

phkc070408

A few points, many of them personal preferences:

1. I agree that Domestic F demand is a lot lower than it was, and retrofitting all domestic NB aircraft with new FlatBed seats is not worth it.
2. As a leisure traveler, while I always Fly Domestic F, I have never, and will never pay the Full Fare price, and very seldom pay anything higher than a "Z" fare.
3. Speaking for myself, in the minority who always buys Domestic F, if I learned that another carrier was offering FlatBeds on all domestic flights and UA wasn't, I think my loyalty would shift.
4. UA (and most airlines) have a huge supply of LieFlat seats that are in idle aircraft. While not a good short term investment, it's worth considering if these seats could attract the minority of pax who are willing to pay for DomF fares.
5. Since FlatBed seats do take up more real estate, it would help to reduce inventory and keep prices from crashing while using existing airframes.
6. Now that the vaccine is being rolled out, we really need to wait to see what the new normal will be. No one knows for sure what will happen to Biz travel, except that 1. it will be different in 12 months, and 2. What we see in 12 months will be a much better indicator of what to expect long term than now.

JimInOhio

If it made sense for UA and others to fly a limited WB schedule between two points vs a heavier NB schedule, wouldn't they have been doing it all along? I don't see how COVID-19 changes that equation other than, perhaps, making it even more desirable to fly a NB schedule. Ultimately, the frequent flyer wants frequency first and everything comes after that.

DELee

I think what United needs to understand in the current era is what the higher paying customer/flyer wants. As a frequent solo non-premium (not buying F/J) business traveler, I'm usually willing to try most any flight options to get to where I need to go and at a decent cost.

In the current era of spoke-hub-hub-spoke that UA now speaks, I end up going with what works if I want to stay on UA and fly to non-hub cities/regions. Otherwise, I can potentially pay a premium for taking a non-stop on another airline if one goes to where I want to fly.

As a leisure traveler with family, my spouse has a direct say in what flight(s) are picked - some of this is driven by schedule ("not too early"), comfort ("what are they serving?" or "are they serving?") and other services (UCs, baggage fees waived as a UA elite, etc.). And I'll pick accordingly based on what we agree to as well as how much we're willing to spend for those items mentioned.

So if the business frequent fliers are not flying, UA needs to understand more fully those who are flying and why they are willing to part with their money for the features that benefits them.

If UA doesn't care to figure this out for domestic U.S. fliers, then they get to be condemned to being hemmed in by DL/AA/B6/AK on one end and NK/F9/etc. on the other.

David

WineCountryUA

Would you pay extra for lieflat? say 50% (seats take >2x space)
This means flying more expensive to operate aircraft, leading to greater negative cash flow unless you are willing to pay significantly more for those seats. Note most UA's lieflat fleet have more seats upfront than domestic F aircraft, so inventory to be sold would increase, not reduce (exception the 752s with 16 seats up front are already in full use)

worldwidedreamer

For what it is worth, the current domestic F product is bad. Flying in Paid F on my own dime a couple days ago IAD-SFO, they did not cater enough food and the crew offered snack boxes versus the meal: a gas station sandwich. No recognition of my elite status, and minimal service in-flight.

Can't justify paying extra for premium UA service when they have difficulty delivering even a basic product.

zombietooth

You are absolutely correct that UA's domestic soft product and service are poor, and that 1K status means little anymore. But, that is not what I am buying when I purchase an F seat these days. All that I am looking for is more room and comfort. Thus, I am always willing to fly any carrier that gives me a better price for an F seat, regardless of their food quality and service.

entropy

You're conflating domestic F , LH F and int'l J. I think there has been and will be (postCOVID) , lots of demand for domestic F. There are plenty of HENRYs who spend on differential fares.

International true F is toast because its expensive to "produce" - between all the exotic F&B, and especially huge amount of floor space dedicated to it, there simply isn't demand for it when J has lie-flat seats. - and there will still be plenty of J demand from UA's hubs post pandemic.

The point for the premium lounge is that there will be some, not lots of demand for it and that it should by design be exclusive enough to never have UA club crowding issues, but accessible enough that its economical to offer