If there were, most airlines would be in jail right now.

Wsj
 

WSJ just confirmed. The picture is priceless.

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008...hts-to-europe/

Lifting foreign ownership bans could highly impact the country's ability to deploy troops overseas. Most US-flagged airlines (including all the majors) participate in the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet which provides substantial airlift support. Foreign ownership could lessen participation/aircraft availability due to foreign policy differences with the US. A parallel to this can be seen in maritime lift - the decline of US flagged merchant shipping has serious implications to military planning. As a previous poster noted, a better way to improve commercial airline service would be an Open Skies agreement allowing foreign carriers to compete in the US domestic market. That may cause Ch 11 filings (reorganization) among some domestic carriers but unlikely to go into Ch 7 (liquidation). Allows the free market to operate while minimizing the impact to foreign policy.

This article has been posted here within this thread a few times already.. it's from yesterday, and the comments about no free food in business class is wrong (according to Liz).

Agreed. Policy is stupid. And you're allowed to make comments according to your feelings and judgement.

It is NOT a Co-Pay, It's a FEE
 

It is a payment, not a co-pay.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

I never thought of the food on any airline as "free" as it was calculated into the price I paid for the ticket.

Thanks for posting this. I loved the picture too - the flowers, the wine bottles, the FA in the white jacket. :) OT - Any idea what plane this is? Domestic F in a 747?

Perhaps this whole "leaked memo" thing is just a trial balloon to gauge customer reaction before actually making these moves? If so, I'd have to guess UA has a pretty good idea of said reaction.

That's a RyanAir flight, DUB-FAO. :p

TATL Y going to BOB and Domestic C going to BOB is being done to reduce staffing, however the savings here are subjective. They are a panic response to the cash burn. The money savings this brings is not going to solve United's problems:

- Union Strife with employees
- Aging fleet [757's and 747-400's] = fuel efficiency is the issue here
- Inconsistent product and product launches (1 year after new C/F, where is it?)
- Customer apathy to United
- No plan to move the carrier forward in regards to markets served and competition.

What United needs is a proper fare structure that accounts for the ticket covering true costs. Any airline NOT doing this is delusional

WHAT DOES UNITED WANT TO BE? A full service carrier, or a cost efficient carrier. Pick the battles and do it, don't go half way.


I would have been more impressed if United just said ALL meal service on domestic was to be removed and Buy on Board would be the new product with C and F getting it in the ticket price.

Then for worldwide international flights, BOB could have replaced ALL Y meals but you could buy it for a discount at ticketing time.


Regarding these changes.... It's not that they are doing the changes, it's the way it's done and who is at the helm when it's done. Tilton and team are not here for the benefit of the employees or customers. They are here to squeeze as much value out of UA before they cash out and the institutional investors can. It's almost as if we accept this that another set of nickel and diming will come along - if we accept that, then another and another and another... Just do them in one go and be done with it, stop pretending these are enhancements and that we are better off for them.

How deep. Can I hug you?

The truth may make no difference to some, but it does to others (me), and the truth is still the truth, no matter what rhetoric the airlines use (and sheep adopt, as it makes no "difference").

Also, FAA minimums means the flight is that much more likely to be delayed or cancelled if even just 1 FA misconnects, is late, goes on sick list, etc (especially when all of the reserves have been depleted).

Because of their higher capacity, this means means having less rebooking options to protect customers on other flights when a full 747, 777 or 767 cancels.

Cutting service to the bone, especially when the carrier already is perceived somewhat negatively by travelers, is not a very good way to improve profitability. UA is going to end up with the lowest average fares in the business for TATL if they keep it up; the value proposition is completely missing.

Ryanair fares with UA costs can only mean one thing. UA is now in line to be the first network carrier in this cycle to go Chapter 7; and I thought nobody could pass up US in that line.