CMV

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

In a note at the end of the WSJ's weekly wine column, John Brecher reports that he flew AA to LAX in F and UA back. Among the wines served on flight and in the lounges, "there was no comparison: United's were far more thoughtfully chosen."

tcswede

I assume that he ment the lesser of two evils ?

Cheers

Thomas

Axey

I don't consider the words "more thoughtfully chosen" over AA's miserable selection "lauding", but to each their own.

nsx1164

Thanks for the reference...

UA Director for Food & Bev is an old friend, and I forwarded this on to him

BenjaminNYC

UA really does choose decent wines in ps C and F. They are the same as international C and F. While they don't compare to their international competition, they are far and away the best domestic wines. AA's three-class F domestic wine selection is poor compared to UA's.

transpac-canuck

With respect to UA's wine choices... I don't understand why they can't put the extra few dollars into getting a "really yummy" bottle instead of wines that are just passable.

I have posted here before about the shelf price of the wines they serve in international F -- they are generally about $12 per bottle at retail. But for just 6 dollars more, they could get a Heitz Cellars Zinfandel or a Silverado Vineyards Cabernet.

Is cash really so tight that they can't spend the extra few bucks? The wine people must have a heck of a challenge working within their budget.

Glad they're better than other carriers, of course...

BenjaminNYC

I don't think $12 is a fair number for Intl F. Maybe Intl C. IME, the wines in Intl F (and ps F) seem to be in the $18-$20 range. I had a champers in Intl F (not available in ps F) that was >$50!

Axey

Remember, wine and food doesn't actually matter. It's all about the seat

transpac-canuck

So, I decided to get some empirical data on this, and you're right about most. Here's what I found from the Dec 2006 menu for ZRH-IAD on a 767. (I searched these prices on Wine.com or Wine-searcher.com, which provide a pretty good sense of the market price of any wine.)

Chateau Camensac 2002 Haut-Medoc (Bordeaux Blend)
$17.48 (from a UK retailer)

Yalumba Barossa Shiraz/Viognier 2004
$18.99 (Wine.com)

Brancott Classic Pinot Noir 2004 Marlborough
$11.99 (multiple retailers through wine-searcher)

So, they're somewhere between $12 and $19 on this particular menu. (I didn't bother searching the whites.)

Of course, United is getting these cheaper than list retail price. I still think they could do a bit better!

I mentioned Heitz above... it's a delicious Zinfandel from Napa...
http://www.e-winegifts.com/shopexd.a...prddetails.htm ($20!)

Anyway, I suppose it's all a matter of taste at this point. I'll do my best to enjoy whatever I get!

BenjaminNYC

Not even that matters. Remember, even for a F ticket, you've only paid to get from point A to point B.

as219

What percentage of paid transoceanic F pax (a) drink wine, (b) care about what they drink inflight, and (c) think the wines are bad?

I ask because it seems to me that it's hard to resolve the never-ending battle between cost-cutting and the happiness of full-fare premium pax. The argument in favor of cost-cutting at each step along the way is probably pretty compelling: "If we switch from real champagne to CA bubbly, we'll save X; if we serve this vintage as opposed to that one, we'll save Y; and if we decrease the average per-bottle cost by 3%, we'll save Z." PS/Int'l F wines may not be all that great, but do they drive full-fare F pax into the arms of CO, AA, etc. (for transcons) or LH, SQ, etc. (for transoceanic)? Is it the wine on LH, SQ, etc. that makes them preferred *A carriers, or, if everything else were the same but the wine of lesser quality, would full-fare pax still prefer SQ and LH?

Put differently: Do you think wine quality is something full-fare FTers care about more/less/the same as full-fare non-FTers?

BenjaminNYC

The answer to all of these is "high". It is not coincidence that the carriers with the best F product also have the best wines. EK serves a red wine that costs $150 retail. If paying pax didn'tcare about wines, they wouldn't bother.

transpac-canuck

I agree that a large percentage of people who fly in paid C and F are not wine aficionados. I'm also sure that people aren't necessarily going to choose their carrier based on wine selection. So, I'm definitley not advocating a $100 bottle on the flight (although, man... that would be nice).

However, from a marketing standpoint, I'm willing to bet there's value in bragging about your wine selection. Even those who don't often drink nice wines would be pleased to hear that they'll be offered some real treats on-board. Especially given that United is positioning itself as a premium product, I'd think they'd be the ones to really push the envelope, even if it's just a few extra bucks per bottle. (I know, it adds up.)

I doubt many people think the wines are "bad" in C and F. The C wines are, imho, "just OK." The wines in F, imho, are "OK for F." But for a $6,000 ticket (C) or $10,000 ticket (F), they are "bad." Especially now that I'm not permitted to bring my own bottle on board.

as219

But here's my question: Given how far UA has to go before full-fare pax would switch from SQ/LH to UA -- isn't improving the "soft product" a little here and a little there simply a waste of money? If UA offered Dom starting tomorrow in transpac F, would you pay $12k for UA? I would think they'd have to change a lot of things, and even then, would you plunk down that kind of coin for UA F? Would you switch airlines over wine alone? If not, then it seems to me UA would be wasting its money by improving its soft product in ways that won't get people to say, "wow, this is as good as SQ/LH."

Of course, this may all be moot: The new F Suites could be a harbinger for good news in the booze department (among others); why spend so much money to improve the HP but not spend a fraction of that on the SP? But then again, it's UA, so who knows?

as219

This is probably true, though again, I wonder, what percentage of full-fare pax even think about these things? FTers are not normal. For example, SO and I were in p.s. F a while back (full-disclosure: upgraded, not paid)...F was totally full, but less than half of the pax had dinner. The FAs were shocked! They even tried to "sell" the meal, saying how good it was, etc., but at least half of F was working and didn't care. It made me wonder how many people simply "fly F" as a matter of course but have no idea what's what when it comes to service. Admittedly, this is one data point; does the experience of frequent P-ers echo mine?