JFK flights have been exempted from this discussion many pages earlier as United will still offer p.s. service. Both UA and AA sell and service 3 class from JFK-LAX/SFO.

I was surprised to hear that AA had 3 class service to MIA, so I looked it up. I don't find any 3 class service to either LAX or SFO. Am I missing something?

Yes... look for LAX-MIA-LAX flights on 777's. AA1520/299 are examples today. Only AA 762's and 777's have 3 cabins.

- T

The thread is 55 pages long. I must have missed the exemption ;)

I think the other thing worth mentioning is that when PS started it was way ahead of AA Flagship. Since then, AA has been slowly upgrading flagship and UA downgrading PS. In business on a Flagship flight, SFO-JFK, last year I found myself in a plane configured with new international business class seats and solid state personal video player. Quite a lot better than PS C in every way.

This is why my personal theory is that UA will be able to do whatever they want WRT taking away (and/or charging for previously free) services, as long as they continue E+. It is (I believe) their single unique feature that keeps many of us [that have to generally fly Y] flying UA.

Because there is competition for 2 class F from many other airlines. So they need to offer service similar to the others.

I agreee that they will have to price it differently. But the low number of paying C customers means that it will not make much difference.

I disagree. With the exception of a few routes (JFK-LAX/SFO), there is little appetite to pay for premium services on domestic routes. Indeed, customers have proven to be sensitive to even very small price differences. No other carrier has been able to charge a premium for better domestic Y service. AA gave up on it and UA only makes money on E+ because of the existence of E-. (I would also note that no European carrier offers a real premium cabin. Yes, they have some mediocre food and free booze with a blocked middle seat, but it is nothing like the domestic C services that we are talking about.)

The investment in premium international is the right call. UA needs to sell more seats on international routes rather than filling them with upgrades. Only that will produce the revenue stream to support the kind of service that BA, LH, JL and others offer. (Of course, a lot of people on these boards would have to learn to sit in coach more often.) You are right about the soft product, but that will take a lot of time, given the current employee situation and US labor law. Both the hard and soft product need to be brought up to European levels.

Sounds a lot like AA's failed "More room throughout coach" product...not really the topic of this thread but UA investing money in cabins where people will pay a fare premium seems more solid than "giving away" a better product to people who purchase a ticket soley based on price.

We're both right. You are looking at today and I was looking at September. No 777 in Sept.

Maybe I'm being idiotic and missing something, but wouldn't lower capacity on a route translate to higher prices and fuller flights? Isn't that why routes and flight frequencies are being pared down? I'm not saying that they should charge a premium for E+ if the whole Y were converted...just build goodwill by having E+ throughout the cabin, and accomplish the real goal of reducing flightloads. Also, less seats means less people to serve, which means that the number of F/A's can be re-evaluated. Not that I'm saying that it should be, but it leaves the option on the table, since that's where UA seems to really want to make cuts with these new policies.

I don't disagree with this. The problem is the timing. Given the state of UA's soft product, would you realistically choose to fly their premium cabin on a paid ticket if you had another option available? Their hard product doesn't differentiate them enough to attract the people who are willing to pay a fare premium. If they'd developed both at the same time, I would have agreed and said that they were going down the right path.

Also, how can you seriously attract these premium customers when you're faced with the bad PR from the IAD changes? It's all about perception, and these boneheaded moves pretty much cancel out any ground gained from their new commercials and the new int'l F&C. Given how slow the fleet conversion is, people will form their impressions from complaints about meal service out of IAD, and the slowness of service due to minimal F/A staffing, and not from new seats that may or may not be available until 2010/11. All United has done is devalue the perception of their soft product even more.

I'm too lazy to go back through the whole thread again, but didn't Liz say that 747's use 15 F/A's right now, and minimum required is 8? Think how long anything will take, anywhere on the plane.

The only reason I fly UA C internationally is because I can use my SWU's. If I were paying for it, I'd be on NH or SQ, without a doubt, new seats or not.

The LAX-MIA 777 returns in in October w/the Fall schedule.

OK, I will amend my original statement. Excluding JFK routes (which are unaffected by the changes), UA domestic C service is unique with the exception of intermittent single plane AA service MIA-LAX.

Yes, I do think that you're missing a few points. First, the capacity reductions have two goals: increase fares and reduce costs. Going to all E+ might eliminate enough capacity to help increase fares, but it will do nothing to reduce costs. Average seat costs will skyrocket further. Second, going all E+ will not change the number of F/As given that the FAA rules go in 50 seat increments. Third, goodwill is nice to get but it's hard to monetize at a time when cash is crucial.

Why wouldn't going all E+ reduce the number of F/As? E+ seats take up more room, thus reducing the number of seats that could be fitted into the existing E- spaces. :confused:

I find it interesting that the majority of upset on here is about the removal of meals rather than the 'FAA minimums' on FA numbers.

I remember flying on AC on a 763 from YYC-LHR shortly after 9/11. They had just 5 F/A's and one In-charge. 2 F/A's worked the Exec First cabin along with the In-charge, leaving 3 F/A's for a full Y cabin.

Due to the shortage, and the fact it was a 9.40pm departure, no pre-dinner beverage was served. As 1 F/A worked each aisle with the meal cart, the 3rd F/A was trying hopelessly to follow down the left aisle with beverages, while on the right aisle no one was served. Finally, after the entire Y cabin was served meals, the meal cart F/A's went up to serve the right hand side pax their first drink of the flight - by which time most had already finished their meals some time ago and were putting their trays on the floor etc. so they could try and sleep.

It was total chaos, and extremely poor service. If FAA minimums can be implemented on widebodies and on transatlantic, expect the Y service to become no better than a greyhound bus ride.

I understand that the AFA is filing a grievance about the staffing reduction proposals due to language that indicates that F/As can only be assigned to one cabin, and can assist the service in others, but cannot be assigned to do a planned service in both.

This would really open the can of worms. 2 F/A's for an entire 777 Y cabin??

Even though I'm 1K and live in San Francisco, I am starting to look for other options for the very first time in six years.

Because taking 1 or even 2 rows of seats out of the 757s, 319s and 320s to create all E+ is not enough to take the 757s under 150 seats or the Airbuses under 100 seats. Therefore, no change in the number of F/As required.

Is UA now down to minimum FA on all routes with this latest change? What about p.s.?