|
Based on a poorly-worded document from UA and interpretation by the media and Flyertalkers, I am still unsure if domestic C class (767/777) will be BOB for free (CBOB = complimentary buy on board?) or BOB at a charge.
Any clarification on this point? |
Time for Domestic Open Skies
Maybe it will take letting in foreign carriers on domestic routes to take out the garbage that is most of our domestic airline service. How about a choice of SQ C vs. UA ps coast to coast? Liquidation ... Open the gates.
|
Originally Posted by UAPremierGuy
(Post 10230206)
I think I'll buy Wendy's (time allowing) in the terminal.
Originally Posted by UAPremierGuy
(Post 10230206)
A sandwich/salad just ain't enough.
Originally Posted by MileageAddict
(Post 10230213)
I am still unsure if domestic C class (767/777) will be BOB for free (CBOB = complimentary buy on board?) or BOB at a charge. Any clarification on this point?
|
Originally Posted by MileageAddict
(Post 10230213)
Based on a poorly-worded document from UA and interpretation by the media and Flyertalkers, I am still unsure if domestic C class (767/777) will be BOB for free (CBOB = complimentary buy on board?) or BOB at a charge.
Any clarification on this point? Regardless, these changes are really :td::td:. :( SkiAdcock, good points. I guess I need to start looking (seriously) for alternative programmes now.. |
I'm surprised by the reaction about BOB in domestic C. The articles and OP suggest that:
Isn't this only a small subset of people's travel patterns, and even then, how often are you in C? Even regular flyers in SFO-IAD, for example, often end up on A319s for schedule/frequency reasons, and those have tiny F cabins. To me, the larger concern is that this is a harbinger of things to come -- that further 'service enhancements' are on the way. I have been concerned about this for a while now, and at the beginning of 2008, decided to fly whichever carrier provided the best product and fare at the time I wanted to fly rather than remain loyal to UA after nine years of being at least 1K or 1K/GS. I fly enough to be able to have status on all three global alliances. Looking back seven months into the year, I find that I usually fly AS/VX along the West Coast, HA to Hawaii, NW/AA mid-con, CO transcon, SQ/NH/CX to Asia, and AF/KL to Europe. I'll likely be EXP on AA, have already qualified for PLT on NW and Pualani Gold on HA, and will only make PremEx on UA. I have half a mind to draft a letter to UA and send in statements showing them my other flying this year. |
Originally Posted by DogHead
(Post 10230158)
Really? On IAD-LHR BA flies 3-4 times a day and VS twice, and IAD is NOT THEIR HUB.
|
Originally Posted by ryan182
(Post 10229115)
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.
|
Originally Posted by ORD_UA1K
(Post 10230465)
I'm surprised by the reaction about BOB in domestic C. The articles and OP suggest that:
[LIST=1][*]It only applies to widebody domestic flights, which are few and far between these days and only inter-hub UA324 LAX 6:00 AM IAD 2:00 PM 752 5h00m UA946 IAD 5:17 PM AMS 7:00 AM +1 763 7h43m versus UA946 LAX 8:03 AM IAD 3:55 PM 777 4h52m UA946 IAD 5:17 PM AMS 7:00 AM +1 763 7h43m |
Looks like I picked the wrong year to finally qualify as a 1K :(
|
Originally Posted by msonich
(Post 10227177)
Ok....so I'm not a big fan of this new UA plan---but government mandating complimentary meal service on an overseas flight??? Is that a joke? Since when does ANYONE ANYWHERE have the right to free food? And the unqualified right to free food??
Look---it's not a "right." It's a benefit. UA is taking it away to the detriment of its own business (or maybe for the benefit---time will tell). Write them, call them, stop flying with them---all fine responses. But forcing them to give away free meals indiscriminately to all passengers is a regulatory state run amok. least that use to be the requirement for Air Force flight kitchens. The was a food safety issue. Since European flights, from the east coast tend to be anywhere from 6 to 9 hours this may present a problem for some United passengers that because of various types of illnesses have to eat every few hours. While I know United, and some members of this board could care less they are still possible lost customer and since they are disabled the airline could face some congressional oversight (Passenger Bill Of Rights") which could state food would have to be available. Sure they could charge for it but what about the food safety issue ?? |
Money Quote: "Staffing will be adjusted to FAA minimums"
Don't be fooled. This is about cutting staff. Selling BOB will do little for the bottom line. Cutting staff on the other hand - huge savings. I have about had it. Timne to burn all my miles and go somewhere else. |
Originally Posted by TravelinWilly
(Post 10226377)
Wow. Just wow. Are we sure this isn't April 1?
UA continues it's sad descent down the toilet...well, it's past that, the toilet's been flushed, so I guess down the pipes that lead from the toilet to the sewer, or wherever dirty toilet water goes (is there a toilet water heaven?)... What some refer to as "formerly free" (e.g., "free meals" and "free bag checking") were NEVER free, they were just bundled into the price of the ticket. The airlines, in an effort to keep the ticket prices from continuing to rise, are now charging fees for things that used to be included in the price. They're not charging for what was free, as NOTHING WAS FREE, ever. Airlines call this "unbundling" and "cafeteria-style pricing" and "a la carte," all cute terms. But at the essence, these are price increases instituted as fees and spread around and attributed to different things. Frankly I’d rather see the ticket price go up to reflect the increase in the cost of service delivery (which includes fuel), but the marketers argue that it’s not fair to make everyone pay for services they don’t consume (e.g., those with only carry-on bags, those who would have eaten before the flight anyway, etc.). Are they being honest with us? That’s for the individual to decide. But if it's not fair to charge the customer for things they aren't using (those checked bags, that in-flight meal), shouldn't the baseline ticket price come down to reflect this new fairness at the same time that the fairness fees start being assessed? Apparently not, as fairness seems to be a one-way street. And think about how AA started charging customers money to use awards. They called it a "co-payment." AAAAAAH HAAA HA HA HAAAA HA HAAAAAAAA!! Not even close, but it was a clever use of rhetoric. It was a price increase via fee. Except by calling it a "co-payment" it was supposed to be palatable, just like “a la carte” pricing. Oh, and look for UA to institute this, too, as was speculated earlier this month. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You can call a fee a "co-payment" - heck, you can call a fee a "gift from God above" - but it's still a fee. Well then, back to planning some upcoming trips! Guess which carrier I’ll continue to avoid whenever possible… Will While Gov of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney claims never to have raised taxes but he put "fees" on everthing. The money still went to the State so, in effect it was a tax. Call it an airline fee but it still is a raised price. But the airlines are advertising fares without taxes or fees. Eventually they will be required to list the ENTIRE price in their ad. The European Union already has made European carriers list the Entire fare in the airline ads. |
Originally Posted by cepheid
(Post 10230031)
I've never enjoyed airplane food and it's only seemed to get more unappealing over the years. I doubt that I would (often) pay $9 for BOB fresh food - I can get equal or better fresh food in the terminal for that kind of money, and I'd probably be doing that anyway given my (recently increasing) dislike of airplane food.
|
Originally Posted by ORD_UA1K
(Post 10230465)
I'm surprised by the reaction about BOB in domestic C. The articles and OP suggest that:
Isn't this only a small subset of people's travel patterns, and even then, how often are you in C? Even regular flyers in SFO-IAD, for example, often end up on A319s for schedule/frequency reasons, and those have tiny F cabins. IMO this "enhancement" is going to come as a real shock to those who actually pay for international C-class tickets and connect to one of these "enhanced" domestic flights similar to how international C/F pax connecting to Ted got a shock. Only this time, they're sitting in the same seat as they were for the overseas leg but getting a box lunch? Whether or not that box-lunch is free (which seems to be unclear as to if it's paid-BOB or free-BOB), it will be disconcerting. A lot of these connecting 3-class flights are sold as "direct" to/from overseas destination, making the service difference even more jarring. I would think that is the type of pax UA wants to attract, not scare off. |
Originally Posted by flyinbob
(Post 10229642)
Well, first of all the fare is for the ride. You likely paid that fare because you wanted a refundable ticket, or you bought last minute on a high traffic route.
I'm just trying a bit of perspective. If you paid $1500, or $2500 when another airline had a seat for $1000 then that's your problem. But if you say you aren't going to fly because of a $10 food fee, I don't get it. Yes, UA's product is pretty second rate, and that is the reason I've bought international tickets on other airlines. But in this age of charging for things like baggage, which I think is worse, all the griping about a $10 food fee seems a bit overboard. Some of the BOB selections are better than the former hot food, so it appears the complaint is about being charged $10. I agree it stinks, but not enough for all the hyperventilating going on. As for the rest, corporate contracts mean that UA is, in most every case, cheaper. You are wrong to suppose that I am creating a problem by artificially paying more. Unlike others, I did not say I would stop flying UA because of this, and actually I think it would be a silly overreaction to make this the deciding factor. I just said it was stupid to make me pay for food in TATL Y ex-IAD. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.