Artpen100

Internationally, UA’s routes have lots of competition from other airlines with better soft product. I’d still buy UA International business class if it was cheaper, but it usually isn’t. I haven’t flown Polaris in probably the last 4 to 5 years. I’ve flown other *A, though, where you can go to the Polaris lounge and then get good food on board (way too much food).

Sykes

There's plenty of competition, but not THAT much from other Star Alliance airlines. If you're flying Star Alliance from an airport with a Polaris lounge then there's about a 90% chance that United is getting a capacity-proportional share of the revenue from the ticket anyway.

IMO, the metal-neutral joint ventures are one of the biggest reasons for the service and catering degradation. When it's UA/LH/LX/SN/OS/AC vs. DL/AF/KL/VS instead of just UA vs DL (or UA vs AF) there is a whole lot less incentive for UA specifically to invest in soft product because customers who care about soft product have superior alternatives that are revenue-neutral to UA.

bmwe92fan

It's a long, sad road to get to a point that we celebrate the fact that "it wasn't cold" on a $6k ticket... And worry about triggers

EWR764

It's the typical UA yo-yo... things degrade so badly, and fall so far behind the competition, that splashy improvements have to be made to much fanfare, and the inevitable downward slide begins anew...

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I guess for UA, this is as good a review as it gets...

spartacusmcfly

The same kitchen at SFO makes Polaris food for SFO-LHR (highly competitive route) and SFO-FRA (legalized collusion route with zero competition).

The food is poor because UA has chosen not to invest in the food yet. As Kirby said, the next major investment priority is to fix the UA balance sheet.

They reduced $3B of debt last year and should reduce another $5B this year. Once that is done, you'll see a soft product investment in 2024.

Sykes

They haven't invested in catering yet because they don't see a significant competitive advantage in doing so. There are a multitude of reasons for that, but I think the JVs are a pretty big impact. The debt impact is a red herring--if catering moved the needle they would have made improvements long ago, but I suspect it's a bunch of additional cost without much improvement in yield. There is a practical limit to how much they can degrade the product before it starts having an meaningful impact, and they seem to be content with, as EWR764 put it, yo-yoing around that line.

spartacusmcfly

Yes, the soft product won't materially improve yield, but it will improve reputation -- which Kirby cares about (given his NPS focus).

Given catering doesn't materially impact profitability, it explains why debt-reduction comes first -- as that materially impacts profitability.

As for the JVs, I agree they harm consumers. The pricing on JV legalized-collusion routes (USA-Japan/Germany/New Zealand) is comical compared to competitive routes (UK/Italy/Spain/China/India, etc.).

Extraordinary1

Don't expect much from an airline where money leads the way.

gaobest

Even in paid F I’m buying food at the airport to eat at the airport or on the plane. I’ll bring snacks and keep them in carryon so they’ll go through tsa without problems.

We all know that airline food is ok or even bad so I just bring stuff that I’ll want to eat. I know it’s not cheap and I’ll just accept that I’m doing it. Part of the travel experience.

ani90

But when it comes to major US, Asian and European airlines there is unlikely to be major difference in safety culture, due to regulation. By and large if flying from US to Tokyo I doubt safety culture can reasonably differentiate to the degree that it can define a clear preference, or maybe I just am not informed enough. That one thing is very important though.

Money leads the way in every airline. They just have different strategies when it comes to how they go about making money. Emirates or Qatar is no less conscious of profit than United. And indeed many of the improvements people suggest are cost neutral, or even cost negative when one looks at indirect gains. It is deficiencies in management or structure that is the problem I suspect.

SPN Lifer

Indeed, there has been tremendous improvement, though I believe those delicious Cheddar and Monterey Jack cheese cubes were the real deal.

[Raises hand.] Though I've never paid a penny for airline lounge beer, I have absolutely no regrets about buying my spousal life membership for the Presidents Club in 2000, albeit not a fan of the ex post facto access limitations.

I do enjoy carrot sticks for my lunches, to bring back warm memories of the Red Carpet Club of yore.

Artpen100

Could be. But every dollar I have shifted to BA and AF/KLM, my current go-to carriers for international, is a dollar of revenue lost to UA. Of course, if UA is filling all of its planes, as they seem to be, maybe they don’t care.

weero

Glad to read the consensus here - I never book intl. Polaris, only ended up in it accidentally thrice last year. And I was a tad shaken by how awful the meals were.

That said, in PP - the class I did normally book - the food offerings are less revolting than they were right after the Iron Covid Curtain came down. Don't know about intl Coach but I assume it to be parallel to PP.

I cannot imagine that to be a good deal. Those C suites look awfully expensive for what they provide. How far out is their write-off horizon? Edible meals got to be way cheaper than those seats.

cesco.g

Just wondering, if there is no pushback from JV-Partners; after all they are booking customers on codeshares operated by UA.
I imagine NH, LX and LH pax facing the UA catering must be pretty annoyed, resulting in some feedback to their carriers.
(pls avoid discussion of LH/LX vs UA food. Thx.)