I've read the first ten pages of posts on this issue and everybody seems to have missed what I believe to be the main reason for these "improvements". Cutting meal service will allow UA to not just save the cost of the meals but also to cut the number of staff on each flight.

For anyone interested, at least for the time being AC still includes meals and booze on their transatlantic (and pacific) flights. If you're connecting through IAD, you might want to look at YYZ or YUL as an alternative gateway, although you will have to put up with the inconvenience of clearing Canadian customs. On a positive note, you pre-clear US customs on the flgiht back to the US.

Say what? Food and beverage are pretty much the least important part of a flight experience.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that their lawyers advised them NOT to charge a cancellation fee. They are counting on the odds.

Waiting until the thread has grown over 300 complaints long...

Actually, the BOB selections they will offer are better than the hot slop usually offered. Plus it is the same as they offer on the ORD to Hawaii flights, which are longer.

So, what is the complaint? No hot food, or that they are charging? I'm not sure it is really worth all the flailing here.

Can you explain why not serving a paid meal allows them the reduce staff?

First of all I would suspect their strike price is about as close to the current price as Mars is to the Moon, this isn't going to suddenly move the stock up 700%. That said, and it seems many need a reminder, that's their JOB not just ethically but LEGALLY they have to care about and have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Lastly I bet this was probably mentioned at an exec meeting in the context of: we have changes to catering and staffing to save $X/year, I seriously doubt Tilton et al were deeply involved in this memo or the planning of these changes it just doesn't work that way.

I like it HOT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GYSei66Rh4 :)

Because from time to time I find myself in an E+ seat on a Y or B fare IAD-LHR, and UA will charge me for some food?! That fare can be $1500+. :rolleyes: :td:

My biggest problem is the lack of a HOT offering. A few posts up the poster mentioned AC.

I've flown AC quite a bit and their BOB options are really quite good and wide ranging, including a hot option or two. It's pretty good for BOB.

Then again, for a $2500 RT SFO-IAD I actually do expect a differentiated meal. All around this change is negative, not only for economy pax.

Yea, I noticed it too. Im not sure which will save them more money, not carrying the meals or the staff cuts, but Im guessing the staff cuts.


If you read the initial information it actually says that as a result they are cutting onboard staff. If not everyone in economy gets a meal, and they just have BoB rather than a multi-course meal in business it takes fewer people to serve the meals.

Totally agree on every level. The Board wasn't looking at this like we are. Tilton said "Consultant said X, please approve, Board said Yes." The fact is this is going to CRUSH them with corporate PAX, I hate to say it but they appear to be trying to race to the bottom and they will neither get to the bottom (or the top) with this strategy. They should have move UPscale in my view. It would have made corp clients pay more to have the domestic luxury, they could cut loads where the things didn't support that strategy, and they could have maintained some integrity.

To be clear - this is EXACTLY the point raised by the people in the SF Chron article. Why the HELL would someone acutally pay for an upgrade. UA will gain 7 bucks a box per flight, but they will loose several THOUSAND dollars for business PAX that will fly elsewhere. I myself am not flying UA from IAD to SFO, VX has me in love. Oh, and those 1P's like myself that will take a few flights to make 1k are not going to do it any longer. UA got screwed by a few consultants that were impressed by themselves and told they wanted certain conclusions supported by some unrealistic evidence. I've seen it happen.

+1 You just desribed me. I'm moving my business completely to NW/CO.

Booked my 1st VX flight recently. Cheaper than UA even when I paid $15 extra for a "permium" seat( Same as UA E+) better IFE, newer planes, (hopefully better food choices, ordered and brought to your seat when ever you want!)

Seems like it's a lower fare with equal or better amenities.

Why would I fly UA with options like this?

BTW I'm spending down my UA miles and when they are done, Canceling my MP Visa and switching to "Starwood AMEX:D

I'm going to be interested in seeing how the General Services Administration treats "Buy on board" in figuring the cost of government travel from Washington and whether it will now consider the extra cost of food as either violating United's current agreements to carry federal employees or forcing a differential to be created in pricing United flights