UA's doing us a favor (no cold-turkey withdrawal)
 

AA is probably in the strongest position of any of the domestic carriers. They can outlast both US & UA, and are currently looking forward to one, perhaps two airlines declaring bankruptcy, then they make the move themselves. AA still has a huge pension issue that can only be resolved through bankruptcy, but they have to wait until one or two others go first, because, in this climate, the first to go will not be getting debtor financing. They will liquidate. Once that game plays out, AA will be in excellent position to benefit from reorganization.

So yes, it's possible that we are seeing the end-game for UA here. It all depends upon whether USAir folds first, and if a single carrier folding is enough to restore confidence in the industry. I don't think it will be; I think we'll likely see two before the sky clears (so to speak).

On the bright side, UA's making sure we don't have to go through this cold-turkey. They're working hard to dismantle, bit by bit, the things we've come to know the airline for. By the time they're finished, we may not miss them at all. Very kind of them to do so.

This is what puzzles me most of all. They've now had 48 hours since the memo appeared on the internet, and at least 24 hours since it got picked up by the press. Did Urbanski know what she was confirming when she spoke to the WSJ? How much time do these people need to issue a statement clarifying the memo? Astounding.

Good points, what are they doing @ the PR dept? If they were going to discuss a leaked memo on the record with a reporter they should have had a PR drop ready to go and the webteam all setup with an update. This is ridiculous.

On my last few flights there was an announcement that UA is now a "no-cash" airline and FAs only took credit or debit cards for payment. I was in C or F on those flights (PS) but it now looks like I'd better have my credit cards paid up or I will go hungry in C!

Hope everyone appreciates the irony of an announcement saying UA is a "no-cash" airline! :td::p

Perhaps the slogan should be: Fly the friendly skies of your no-cash airline. ;)

I think right now the cashless flight is a trail, not all flights have the CC machines. That said its a good think to take CC (FINALLY!!) especially since they moved prices from things easy to make change for, $5 to more difficult prices, $6,$7,$9

Now that you mention it, the new prices are probably the main reason UA finally went the CC route! We should have realized prices were going up when the machines first appeared. I first saw them (announced as a trial at that point) about 6 weeks ago I think.

As others have noted, UA now has a complete, utter & total PR disaster on its hands.

Yes and my point about the first B in BOB meaning B, for which I got trashed by certain UA defenders, appears to be true.

The phrase "will receive complimentary beverages and a BOB offering" is ambiguous as to whether the adjective "complimentary" applies to "beverages and a BOB offering" or whether if applies only to the immediately adjacent noun "beverages", with "a BOB offering" thus meaning "an offer to BUY on Board food."

It appears that at least the WSJ is getting it to mean we pay if we're in domestic C on a 777/767.

For that matter, what about the quasi-domestic Mexico-USA non-Ted flights which are 2-class narrowbody but are Y/C rather than Y/F? I was on a Cabo to ORD flight in mainline A320 last year upgraded with e500s which had usual domestic F service and catering, even though it was considered "Business". I think they call these flights C instead of F so as to avoid any sense of entitlement to International First lounges. Will this now be BOB?

Never mind the stupidity of the policy, the lack of a clear message of what the policy really is, is pathetic.

As a few select others may have mentioned 400 or so posts ago, I am not in the camp that is particularly moved by this (for my own purposes). I fly united (1K) for E+ and the occasional TA upgrade to C...that's pretty much it. I think most of the meals are inedible with the exception of some INTL fare. Why won't I switch to AA or CO? 'cause their coach seats suck for 6 hour transcons nevermind TA. I don't care how good the meal, the IFE or the service is (bring an iPod), 30-31 inch seat pitch could render a 3* Michelin meal unpleasant. I can't even open my laptop in those seats. For food, all I want is water and rations...though I would prefer that the rations were a little improved.

If I had my druthers they would raise the prices higher to $15-$20 and try and make it a decent salad or sandwich rather than the choices I have now that I think are inedible. Or, stop trying to do so much and sell me a $5 PB&J. Sell Smuckers Uncrustables for $5 - I'll take three of them...This would at least trump the weird food items in the various snack boxes that are terrible and unfilling. Maybe selling Clif bars for $3 could fill some of the gaps.

As you might be able to tell, I too am an a la carte guy and also believe that you don't get to call balls and strikes from the bleachers. Do I have some sympathy for the lucky few in markets where there are some 3-class transcons? - Sure, but that isn't me...

Despite my personal situation I do sympathize since I can be a bit self-righteous about poorly run companies. These guys at UA couldn't find their *ss with both hands. I feel a bit of shame for giving them my business, but I can eat my pride for 36" seat pitch.

FWIW, I am most upset about the meals being eliminated on the 3-class transcons. In the past month, I have purchased 3 insanely expensive UA coach fares IAD-SFO on 3-class widebodies. (Two U-fares and an M-fare). On this high of a fare basis, I am certainly a profitable customer, and I only chose UA because of the _possibility_ of getting an upgrade and enjoying a nice seat and nice service.

If upgrades are no longer on the table, VX is looking more and more attractive...

As a 1K primarily on LAX/PHL and LAX/JFK, I have to say that I'll probably just move everything over to VX. There is no point in flying PS C now. I think that's abhorrent to make C class pax eat out of a box. Simply not my style so UA can forget it.

Will keep SQ Solitaire Status and move other flying to BD Diamond Club. Centurion gets me Gold in the other programs...

Enough is enough. I never fly Economy except with UA to LAS but this is going to affect FA morale, etc. It won't be pretty.

Time for LH to terminate the revenue sharing agreement on TATL routes !
I always thought US was leading the race to the bottom, but UA seems to be catching up.

I actually took the time to write a letter on this (see below), still waiting for a reply:
__________________________________________________ ___

VIA e-mail: 1Kvoice
VIA Fax: 847.700.2214

Glenn F. Tilton, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Graham W. Atkinson, Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer
UAL Corporation
United Air Lines, Inc.
77 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601

RE: Comments from a 1K on changes in onboard service.

Dear Mrrs Tilton and Atkinson:

I write regarding changes in service levels which were leaked out today. As background I am a 1K on United, have been so for the last three years, and have already re-qualified for 2009 without the assistance of the DEQM promotion. I travel mostly on last minute domestic fares and my home airport is SFO.

I returned to UA in 2005 after having been platinum on CO for the preceding five years. I came back because of E+, PS service (I travel about 10 times a year to NY from SF), and because of the schedule out of San Francisco. Since coming back I have dealt with UA’s major issues which I think are beyond your ability to fix: frequent delays and old aircraft come to mind. I am not price sensitive and will pay higher fares. However, since I travel a lot, an ability to get decent service and “the friendly sky” treatment on some of my flights, is what keeps me loyal to UA. Getting a C or F seat on a SFO-ORD or SFO-DEN or SFO-IAD run, PS, and getting C or F seats with mileage for my family are the times that flying can be fun. Absent these things I would simply CO again, and other carriers (such as VX) as needed.

For this reason, I am concerned to find out that just as UA is rolling out new TV commercials stressing the luxury experience on UA, that UA is actually further cutting back the in-flight experience. The notion that folks will get a BOB snack rather than a meal in C class domestically (where the ticket price is more than domestic F) is totally crazy. No offence, but given the slight difference in price between a C meal and a BOB snack, this is totally insulting to folks who are your best, and much suffering passengers. Why would you nickel and dime the few folks on the plane who give you the most and best business? Moreover, what are international passengers connecting in IAD or ORD or SFO to think? Does this set a “premium” atmosphere? To answer my own question, it makes UA look like AirAsia without the cheap fares.

Further, to – having already cut out a first course from the meal service, and reduced meal service to the levels of domestic F (e.g. my PS flight last night had a hamburger, chicken surprise, or pasta as the choices) – to now cut out the second service, which never happened last night on UA 19 by the way, and further reduce the quality of PS is shortsighted. PS has been going downhill and little cuts like these are just going to drive away passengers who can chose to Fly AA’s Flagship service, or VX’s F service, or book a Continental flight out of EWR, or fly DL which is actually trying to improve its F experience. That you would tamper with the only division that is (according to news reports) making money domestically makes me wonder if UA has a plan for survival.

While I have not dumped UA on this route yet, my partner – who pays for F or C and flies weekly SFO- JFK, and is a 3M miler on UA – is now trying out VX and AA on this route.

Given that CO is entering Star Alliance, and you need to retain premium passengers and your FF elites to stay in Business, I think these cuts are a very ill advised step. Emulating US in loosing its elites should not be your business model.

You think?! :eek:


Some of the guessing going on is, IMO, very wrong and not at all what we are being told. Including the WSJ's info. Robin Urbanski and Jean Medina need to get busy and correct all of this before it gets even more OOC.

In the f/a world (which is where the original document came from!!!) we do NOT have a 2-class service of C/Y. We have domestic F, C, and Y. 2 or 3 class. Very few f/a's know there are biz class tickets in C that book into 2 class F, in fact I'd say 99.9 percent have no idea.

There isn't going to be "oh Mr. so and so is in F, but he is on a C ticket, so he does not get a meal". NO NO NO and NO. OTOH, do not give them any ideas!

2 class F: Meal

3 class F: Meal
3 class C: complimentary BOB

I think we know what Y gets. :rolleyes:

PS is not included in the announcement. For f/a's the company always distinguishes between 3-class domestic and PS. AFAIK, NO discussion of C meals being eliminated on PS.

PS flights are cashless, all other UA flights are CASH ONLY. I can't wait until we get the cashless machine. Making change is going to be a real nightmare now.

This is incorrect information. Read on:

But seriously, what is UA going to do at this point going to correct the spreading impression that (a) there will be no meals in Y on any international flight and (b) all C pax -- including international, including p.s. -- are getting BoB?