Fleet Updgrade Report: Hard and Soft Product
Jun 25, 2007, 10:10 am
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United 1K and 1MM, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 10,000
Jun 25, 2007, 11:21 am
#92
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,140
Jun 25, 2007, 12:12 pm
#93
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 574
One thing I have been wondering about is whether UA really has to go with a new F product. What if they just went with a very high quality C product instead as Air New Zealand has done. It seems like those seats are excellent. I don't really see UA as the caviar, Dom Perignon and fois grois type of international F airline. Why not concentrate on a really high quality C product? At present, I sure don't see any reason to go with F on an international 767 over C. Sure, maybe I will get an extra entree selection, but that isn't going to make much of a difference to me. Out of three choices, there is usually something I can choose in C. The soft product for a leading F product is expensive. I would think UA might be better served by a very high quality hard C product and an adequate C soft product, but then again, I don't know how some of those corporate contracts are. I am a frequent business traveller, and my opinion is that if UA had a high quality C product, many business travellers would make an effort to fly it over competing products from the other US based airlines.
Jun 25, 2007, 12:27 pm
#94
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Programs: AA EXP, lowly UA 1K; Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold; National EC, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,214
I still wouldn't be surprised if the number of seats in F is reduced either, especially if the seats have to one-up the new C cabin.
Jun 25, 2007, 1:25 pm
#95
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SFO, IAH
Programs: UA MM, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz #1 Gold
Posts: 434
Yet the F product is so vastly superior to the C product. There is a group who is willing to buy it and it is a nice upgrade. You imagine what the IFL lounges would be like if everyone in F/C was admitted... I can see the complaints already.
I still wouldn't be surprised if the number of seats in F is reduced either, especially if the seats have to one-up the new C cabin.
I still wouldn't be surprised if the number of seats in F is reduced either, especially if the seats have to one-up the new C cabin.
And what's so great about the IFL? I've been in it and think it's what UA should be giving in RCC for FREE (e.g., booze, non-packaged snacks). The LHR IFL doesn't even have showers or good food, IIRC. Despite its flaws, UA is genius -- who else could trick pax into 1) paying for RCC, 2) pay MORE for alcohol in the RCC, and 3) PAY for int'l F and think the IFL is a treat. What a joke! LH's SEN lounges are 100x better than any IFL I've been in... and don't even talk about SQ, NH, or SA.
1Konsultant
Jun 25, 2007, 3:03 pm
#96
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
Not even possible!
The booze alone is worth MINIMUM $15 each way. Are you saying LH lounge is woth MINIMUM $3000 RT to the price of your ticket?
Last edited by fastair; Jun 25, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Jun 25, 2007, 3:23 pm
#98
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SFO South Bay
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 3,052
As for the UA vs other lounge compare, I agree that UA RCC is way behind. I spoke with my wallet, and dropped RCC for the first time in 8 years as a member. No more RCC for me. Just not worth it.
But as to the IFL vs other airline's lounges, I think it depends on what you are looking for. I mostly want quiet, Internet access, and minimal food (travel makes me eat too much as it is!!). The UA IFLs I have attended (SFO, HKG, FRA) have been sufficient. As for the SEN lounge, while the food and drinks (beer on tap!) were nice, better than the UA IFL, it was crowded and noisy. Not a seat in the house open during either of my last 2 visits there.
I am no UA apologist, but I cannot say the SEN lounge is 100x better than IFL. Maybe overall equivalent, depending on what you want. Of course, that is damning enough that and IFL would be comparable to a regular Biz lounge of another airline.
But as to the IFL vs other airline's lounges, I think it depends on what you are looking for. I mostly want quiet, Internet access, and minimal food (travel makes me eat too much as it is!!). The UA IFLs I have attended (SFO, HKG, FRA) have been sufficient. As for the SEN lounge, while the food and drinks (beer on tap!) were nice, better than the UA IFL, it was crowded and noisy. Not a seat in the house open during either of my last 2 visits there.
I am no UA apologist, but I cannot say the SEN lounge is 100x better than IFL. Maybe overall equivalent, depending on what you want. Of course, that is damning enough that and IFL would be comparable to a regular Biz lounge of another airline.
Jun 25, 2007, 3:24 pm
#99
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: AA EXP UA 2KMM AMB
Posts: 2,399
Certainly a valid question, considering 1Konsultant's mentioning of SQ. Just thinking about some of the Silver Kris' lounges (even with separate F section) located in NRT, SFO, HKG, KUL and MNL, well, they're really nothing to write home about.
Jun 25, 2007, 3:27 pm
#100
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,999
The SKL's really aren't great either, although I would say they are at least comparable to IFL's: they usually have showers, they have a decent spread, although they sometimes get crowded.
I have to say, I don't think IFL's are that bad. Now they finally have free internet, they are almost never crowded, which is really what I love about lounges, they have a decent snack selection (come on, you are getting a five course meal aboard!), and a good drink selection. I actually kinda like 'em, although some could use showers.
Jun 25, 2007, 3:32 pm
#101
Join Date: May 2003
Location: IAH
Programs: formerly UA GS, now lowly MM lifetime gold :(
Posts: 1,204
I call Bull$h|t. Every IFL (except SYD) I have been to (IAD, ORD, SFO, NRT, FRA, CDG, LHR) is far less crowded and more relaxing than any SEN lounge I have been to (FRA A,B, MUC Schengen and International). The SEN lounges are just as, if not more, crowded than the terminals, except they have some decent catering.
Jun 25, 2007, 3:44 pm
#102
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Programs: AA EXP UA 2KMM AMB
Posts: 2,399
This certainly has been an interesting thread, and I thank the OP for sharing some of these information. Being a relatively new UA flyer, who practically 'grew' up (most of the time looking rather than seating 
) with the current C seats and F suites, it certainly is exciting to be involved as a consumer in this process of fleet interior upgrade. What's fascinating is reading about the possible length of the process. Though we all wish that these changes when finally pushed through could be done expeditiously, given the current maximized utilization of these aircrafts, it is indeed hard to imagine that this would be possible. Still, the most intruiguing qestion is what type of C seat will UA offer?!
) with the current C seats and F suites, it certainly is exciting to be involved as a consumer in this process of fleet interior upgrade. What's fascinating is reading about the possible length of the process. Though we all wish that these changes when finally pushed through could be done expeditiously, given the current maximized utilization of these aircrafts, it is indeed hard to imagine that this would be possible. Still, the most intruiguing qestion is what type of C seat will UA offer?!
Jun 25, 2007, 4:45 pm
#103
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: No longer loyal "over-entitled" 1K
Posts: 3,822
I don't think comparing IFL to SKL or any other C lounge is fair. IFL, as bad as it is, is a still F lounge, and thus it should be better than C lounge regardless of carrier. If you compare, say, SFO IFL to HKG Wing F section or SIN SKL F section, then it SFO IFL (as nice as it is) isn't even in the same league. And don't forget there are FRA FCT too
Jun 25, 2007, 4:49 pm
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,999
I don't think comparing IFL to SKL or any other C lounge is fair. IFL, as bad as it is, is a still F lounge, and thus it should be better than C lounge regardless of carrier. If you compare, say, SFO IFL to HKG Wing F section or SIN SKL F section, then it SFO IFL (as nice as it is) isn't even in the same league. And don't forget there are FRA FCT too
Jun 25, 2007, 4:53 pm
#105
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Programs: UA 1MM, SPG Gold, EVA Diamond
Posts: 1,072
I don't think comparing IFL to SKL or any other C lounge is fair. IFL, as bad as it is, is a still F lounge, and thus it should be better than C lounge regardless of carrier. If you compare, say, SFO IFL to HKG Wing F section or SIN SKL F section, then it SFO IFL (as nice as it is) isn't even in the same league. And don't forget there are FRA FCT too