carl92103

Good idea like Singapore: http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...class_seat.jsp

weero

You will rightfully kick me - but I love it that UA charges for booze in cattle class.
The Y flying experience has improved so much since alcohol is hard to get.
People behave better, less noise at night. I'd paid to get non-free booze one the
Pacific flights as well .

chasbondy

I'd settle for integrity instead of improvements. On my last 2 flights, I was informed how fortunate I was that they'd be able to board me because of the overbooked flight. Then, in her next breath, I was asked if I'd like to buy 5 more inches of legroom for $75. What a crock

DogHead

Yob will always be a yob, irrespectively of the cost of alcohol he consumed.
And I always thought that supply of alcohol is subject to FA assessment if pax can have one more or not. When alcohol is supplied for profit, that assessment could go out of window just for profit's sake.

CJ99

While I agree there's not much to be gained by having the best Y product in the skies, there's probably something to be lost by having the worst. Or one of the worst. E- really stinks. Y seat coverings are ratty. And even NW will soon have universal seatback PTV across the Atlantic now that the DC-10's are DC-gone.

For the moment, trans-at E- is comparable to the LH product, but the moment LH gets PTV, UA will have a product most Y pax will try hard to avoid.

JFKLAX321

I doubt UA could do a C life SQ. It just doesn't make any
logistical sense. They need more C seats than that --
IMO. If they refit the 767, 777, and 747 with new, nice
C seats then next time around they can attempt to
compete with SQ, but if they tried to go after SQ from
there current position they are in for it.

SQ F is probably the most amazing thing I have ever seen,
land included . I think UA could make it by offering
an F product like this, because AA's flagship suite (which BJ
now loves) is comparable, and they already have decent
paid F on Asia routes.

As for Y, unless E+ was made a NEW cabin (ie not just more
leg room for elites or for a tiny fee) they could NEVER
profit from the upgrades.

weero

I would intuitively agree with what you say.
But flying UA has taught me different ...

JFKLAX321

Right, but NW has nothing but E- and not a very good one at that.
As a former NW Plat and Gold Elite I know very well that International
Y is not where it is at on NW (if there is anything there at all). I flew
ONCE in Y over the Atlantic, and after that I was in paid C or upgraded
C. I personally do not think UA Y+ and NW Y should ever be compared,
and I flew many times on NW transatlantically.

planemechanic

While that may be true of other airlines I believe the minimum pitch on UA is at least 31 inches. Add 4-6 more for E+.

moondog

i flew nw between pdx and nrt earlier this year in an exit row window with a standard power outlet and avod. i found the experience to be better than anything ua has ever thrown my way in y+ (though i will concede that snagging exit row seats on nw is not always an easy task).

SFO_Runner

Moderators: I suggest we make a new "sticky" topic - "When will UA improve it's economy / business / first class cabin?"



To the elite flyers on this board who have earned the privilege to sit in Economy Plus, the fact that you were asked by UA to pay for Economy Plus is a sign of integrity.

If you're not an elite, then you should have been otherwise charged to "sit in the front of the back of the cabin".

The Economy Plus Access Pass exists for a reason ....

The majority of UA's transatlantic flying now is performed by PTV equipped 767 and 777s.

Looking at next summer's schedule, the only scheduled transatlantic 744 flights are 1 x IAD - FRA, 1 x SFO - LHR, and 1 x SFO - FRA.

transpac-canuck

I can't imagine that he would have explicitly stated that Y will not be improved. That would be a bad PR move. A good CEO would never announce publicly that one of his core products will not improve. What would be the value in announcing that?

An intelligent businessperson would be terrified if he heard his leadership saying this about the company's products. Filling your seats today doesn't guarantee you'll be able to fill your seats tomorrow, especially in such a competitive market. Any company has to innovate and introduce updated products to keep ahead of its competition.

Some of this, of course, is frequency and routing... but the in-flight experience is also important. If they are currently filling Y, that's great ... but I personally don't assume they'll leave Y as-is as a result of this. They're smarter and leaner than they were before Chapter 11, and they need to take advantage of this position to accelerate their performance. That includes Y, and I think they're smart enough to recognize it. (At least, I hope they are... maybe I should gun for Tilton's job.)

There is a strong business case to support improving the Y product, and filling the cabin on popular routes isn't a viable reason to postpone or avoid the improvement.

IMHO, of course!

ORD4R

I have a different view on enhancing international Y, I don't think they should do it. I believe that most Y traveling are far more price sensitive than they are service sensitive. I think a better strategy for UA would be to reduce costs as much as possible in Y. Like charging for international meals(BOB internationally), like enforcing a surcharge for E+ seats, reducing the FA staff in Y, so that the staffing is closer to the minimum required by the FAA. UA Y is never going to compete on quality with the likes of other international carriers, so I would try to compete on price. I know most frequent flyers would hate this but I believe that if you kept some of the perks for E+ and the upgrade opportunities for some Y fares, the Frequent flyers would stay. From my view F & C are about comfort and service, Y is about price. Of course that is just my opinion.

cepheid

I believe the reason chasbondy called it "a crock" is because (to paraphrase chas' post) the GAs said chas was "fortunate to even be boarded" because the "flights were overbooked." If the flights were truly overbooked, doesn't policy dictate that they open E+ to non-elites? If that's the case, claiming the flight is overbooked yet asking for payment for E+ seems like a misrepresentation. Then again, I could very well be misinterpreting the E+ policy on oversold flights.

UA Fan

[QUOTE=ORD4R]I think a better strategy for UA would be to reduce costs as much as possible in Y. Like charging for international meals(BOB internationally),QUOTE]


Well that won't work on intl flights as other countries are not likely to follow suit and the not so frequent flyer will definitely go for whoever offers free meals. Swiss recently re-introduced meals in domestic EU flights. Especially flights to Asia will always have to provide meals due to the prestigious Asian carriers and the long distances involved.