Are E+ seats devaluing E- customers' value?
Mar 3, 2006 | 8:21 am
#31
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SAN
Programs: UA 1MM/1K, HH Diamond
Posts: 7,294
Originally Posted by itsme
What you say is correct, that is that "E+ seats are provided as a perk, an added benefit for UA's best and frequent customers." What you neglect to say, however, is that E+ seats are available not just to "UA's best and frequent customers" but also to those who while they may not be want to fork over the substantial premium to sit in first or business are willing to pay the supplement to promote from E- to E+. It's not so much elitism as economics.
Personally, if I had non status and walked past an empty E+ on the way to seat 89Q, I'd sure want to know how to get me some status...
Mar 3, 2006 | 8:49 am
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
This thread is completely absurd. Should UA give away F and C seats to General Members too? You know, so they're not devalued.
Next.
Next.
Mar 3, 2006 | 9:24 am
#33
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridge MA (BOS)
Programs: MP 1K - 2MM
Posts: 2,241
real E- is 10 across (3-4-3) on a 777....(emirates and maybe others). But they do get a few points back for great IFE. UA 747 non E+ is pretty low on the E scale.
It does irk me that the person who is the least status and the least responsible can walk up to the counter at the last minute and get assigned an E+ seat because E- is full, while other people pay for it in advance or earn it through status. I would hope that UA is assigning E- seats to any non-status passengers in advance, and when E- is full starts raising the fares.
It does irk me that the person who is the least status and the least responsible can walk up to the counter at the last minute and get assigned an E+ seat because E- is full, while other people pay for it in advance or earn it through status. I would hope that UA is assigning E- seats to any non-status passengers in advance, and when E- is full starts raising the fares.
Mar 3, 2006 | 11:40 am
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: n.y.c.
Posts: 14,059
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
This thread is completely absurd. Should UA give away F and C seats to General Members too? You know, so they're not devalued.
Next.
Next.
Mar 3, 2006 | 12:56 pm
#35
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Programs: AA Platinum Pro, AC *S, Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 9,791
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
This thread is completely absurd.
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
Should UA give away F and C seats to General Members too?
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
You know, so they're not devalued.
There is nothing absurd in this thread, it only seems to be discussing facts, with some opinion thrown in for fun, of course
Cheers
Mar 3, 2006 | 1:00 pm
#36
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Programs: AA Platinum Pro, AC *S, Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 9,791
Originally Posted by yogi
real E- is 10 across (3-4-3) on a 777....(emirates and maybe others). But they do get a few points back for great IFE. UA 747 non E+ is pretty low on the E scale.
AA
UA
BA
KL
PK
SQ
etc etc
Originally Posted by yogi
It does irk me that the person who is the least status and the least responsible can walk up to the counter at the last minute and get assigned an E+ seat because E- is full, while other people pay for it in advance or earn it through status. I would hope that UA is assigning E- seats to any non-status passengers in advance, and when E- is full starts raising the fares.
This is the same concept as an opup. When Y is full, people are put in C even though they didn't pay for it.
Cheers
Mar 3, 2006 | 3:45 pm
#37
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: UA 1P
Posts: 350
Whoa. Thanks for all the replies and discussion (and carry on )
Just a clarification though : I am not advocating that E+ be scrapped (wink wink to some defensive elites here). What I am trying to suggest is that the existence of E+increases pax density in the E- section, thus reducing the comfort (and hence value) of the people sitting there.
Now one can argue whether or not that's good economics for United. I for one think it is. But consider a "regular" flyer who sits in E- in United and then sits in regular E in AA (say), and finds that UA E- is always more cramped and packed than AA, would she then decides to fly AA more often since she does not feels "discriminated" against there?
)Just a clarification though : I am not advocating that E+ be scrapped (wink wink to some defensive elites here
). What I am trying to suggest is that the existence of E+increases pax density in the E- section, thus reducing the comfort (and hence value) of the people sitting there. Now one can argue whether or not that's good economics for United. I for one think it is. But consider a "regular" flyer who sits in E- in United and then sits in regular E in AA (say), and finds that UA E- is always more cramped and packed than AA, would she then decides to fly AA more often since she does not feels "discriminated" against there?