Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593049)

This is a flawed analysis because you can't just say that even one paid F/P/A ticket before Ted is worth more than zero paid F/P/A tickets now with Ted, because along with Ted, came more seats on the aircraft. More seats = more revenue potential. Given that Ted routes are often high-volume markets with presumably high load factors, it could very well be that Ted generates overall higher revenue than mainline into those markets, even with the F/P/A traffic going to zero.

Originally Posted by JAaronT (Post 8593100)

Losing a single paid C/F passenger from LAS/PHX to say FRA/FCO/ZRH/BRU because they have to endure E- to ORD/IAD hurts a lot more than those extra few seats may gain.

Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593147)

Sure, but don't you think the folks at UA would have factored that in when they made the business case for Ted (and probably continue to analyze this on an ongoing basis)? I guess the question is, what makes Flyertalk folks think they know more than what UA Corporate knows (in terms of Ted profitability on a network-wide basis)?

Originally Posted by rch4u (Post 8593267)

"UA Corporate" has never published financials that show Ted is profitable.

Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593049)

This is a flawed analysis because you can't just say that even one paid F/P/A ticket before Ted is worth more than zero paid F/P/A tickets now with Ted, because along with Ted, came more seats on the aircraft. More seats = more revenue potential. Given that Ted routes are often high-volume markets with presumably high load factors, it could very well be that Ted generates overall higher revenue than mainline into those markets, even with the F/P/A traffic going to zero.

Originally Posted by rch4u (Post 8593276)

More seats also = higher costs from the staffing of an additional FA. "Flawed analysis" again. :)

Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593297)

I do wonder whether going above 150 was the right idea. JetBlue earlier this year removed six seats to get rid of having to staff an extra F/A, which is not a trivial cost. It's possible that UA is looking at various ways to do exactly that.

Originally Posted by DenverBrian (Post 8593332)

If we see a row of F in a 2-3 config, I want my name painted on the side of the plane. :D :D :D

Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593362)

- Removal of two rows of 6 seats, reducing Y capacity from 156 to 144.
- Add a closet and one row of 2 (with closet) and another row of 2-2, for 6 F seats, for a total of 6F, 144Y.

Originally Posted by cepheid (Post 8593407)

Er, really? 2 rows of F instead of 2 rows of Y means that the F rows will have much poorer pitch than any other domestic F. The only way to get that room back is to convert E+ back to E-, which is super unlikely. I don't see how they can put in more than a single row of F unless they sacrifice 3 rows of Y.

Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593147)

Sure, but don't you think the folks at UA would have factored that in when they made the business case for Ted (and probably continue to analyze this on an ongoing basis)

Originally Posted by UnitedSkies (Post 8593297)

Regular A320 has 12F, 126Y = 138 seats
Ted A320 has 156Y.

I think the rumor here is that Ted would go down to just 150 seats, either with a small F cabin or with additional legroom by removing a row of seats.

Originally Posted by MileageAddict (Post 8593952)

I've inquired about the future of Ted with a number of flight and ground crew. Three times I have heard the same story; Ted will be equipped with 16 F class seats.

I've also heard the Ted name would go away and all A320's would get 16 F class seats.