Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA PS Service= Plane Stupid?  
User currently offlineXlpants From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7476 times:

I heard that UA's PS service has not been able to attract the high yields needed to make it work. Anybody know? "PS" don't tell me they must be making money because the fllight you flew on was full. It doesn't take much to fill a 100 or so seats, particularly if your giving it away.

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7445 times:

I have no specific information on the UA PS transcon flights - but I certainly would not call UA's attempts "stupid" - UA needed a product on the important JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO routes that would be acceptable to its frequent flying premium customers (the bi-coastal commuters) that had gotten accustomed to widebody service, that would allow frequent flights (as required by those same frequent flying premium customers) and that could be clearly differentiated from the low-cost competition. The PS configured 757 is a unique idea and give UA credit for thinking "outside of the box" and not simply throwing 763s on the route (which would be too big) or simply using standard 757s.

UA certainly knew that for this project to work, the very low density (what is, about 130 seats in total?) 757s would have to go out very full in the First and Business Class cabins all of the time. When UA flew 762s on the transcon routes out of JFK, it was very common for F and J class to be fully booked and Y class being more than half empty......so using the 752s with rather few coach seats was not a big issue.

Is UA keeping its F and J class cabins filled on the PS 757s? I do not know. Are the yeilds high enough to make this project work and keep those premium customers happy? Its probably too soon too tell. But give UA some credit for trying to come up with a unique product designed for the routes in mind.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7375 times:

I don't see how UA's admirable but flawed FJY 757 plan can possibly work on a regular basis. That plane is simply too small to work because F and J alone have to not only be full, but full with high-yield FJ customers, to make the plane make money. This is in addition to the fact that Y must also need to attract many high-yield customers. Besides, UA's new PS service, while impressive and extremely forward-thinking, has failed in its main attempt: to cut into the premium cabin domination AA has on the routes. So far, that hasn't happened. UA's PS service has had little or no effect at all on AA's flights' loads and yields.

I do want to make it clear, though: I don't think that UA's PS="Plane Stupid." On the contrary, I think the idea of a beefed up, premium service transcon product is very impressive and could work, just not on a 757.

[Edited 2005-05-08 02:23:06]

User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7219 times:

Quoting Xlpants (Thread starter):
I heard that UA's PS service has not been able to attract the high yields needed to make it work

You heard correct!

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 1):
UA needed a product on the important JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO routes that would be acceptable to its frequent flying premium customers (the bi-coastal commuters) that had gotten accustomed to widebody service, that would allow frequent flights (as required by those same frequent flying premium customers) and that could be clearly differentiated from the low-cost competition

More than half of the Premium passengers are comp upgrades!

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 1):
Are the yeilds high enough to make this project work and keep those premium customers happy?

Obviously not since the program is limited to a certain market and no additional flights are being added to match the deluge of flights that Delta is adding on the Los Angeles-New York market!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 2):
On the contrary, I think the idea of a beefed up, premium service transcon product is very impressive and could work, just not on a 757

Bingo, per a few NYC based United Flight Attendants passengers are pissed that they miss the 767! In addition the price tag per Installation for each seat for the First product was at a staggering $45,000.00 - A lot of money for a Bankrupt airline!


Regards - Kahala777

[Edited 2005-05-08 03:58:02]

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25328 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 3):
In addition the price tag per seat for the First product was at a staggering $45,000.00

$45,000?

Um - I'm sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble with that figure.

For less than one third of that amount of money, I can fly First Class around the world.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7194 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 2):
That plane is simply too small to work because F and J alone have to not only be full, but full with high-yield FJ customers, to make the plane make money. This is in addition to the fact that Y must also need to attract many high-yield customers. Besides, UA's new PS service, while impressive and extremely forward-thinking, has failed in its main attempt: to cut into the premium cabin domination AA has on the routes. So far, that hasn't happened

I am curious as to how you justify all of those strong claims. Where is any proof? The 757 is an extremely efficient plane. It just has fewer seats, but still provides better seat comfort then the AA 767s. Also if UA can't fill the planes, they don't need 6 or 7 flights a day 1-2 hours apart. AA is happy to advertise that they have the most seats daily from LAX to JFK, but that is not what UA covets. The yields are important, and if UA can fill 6 or 7 757s a day between the cities with enough seats up front occupied, then they will succeed. I am not ready to dismiss PS just because it is a narrowbody. Its a smaller plane, but has more comfortable seats. I honestly feel that if it was the disaster that some are implying here, then UA would have cut frequency to 4 or 5 flights a day, but correct me if I am wrong, but that hasn't happened.

[Edited 2005-05-08 03:58:40]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20679 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7186 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 4):
$45,000?

Um - I'm sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble with that figure.

I'm sure that was the cost of the seat itself, not what they charge to sit in it per flight.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 4):
$45,000?

Um - I'm sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble with that figure.

For less than one third of that amount of money, I can fly First Class around the world.

cheers

mariner

I think he means, that was the price it cost United to install the seat and all equipment related to that seat, not the price it costs a passenger to sit in it for five to six (hopefully) hours.



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7163 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Also if UA can't fill the planes, they don't need 6 or 7 flights a day 1-2 hours apart

How can you be a "Business Airline" and not offer "Business Friendly" schedules? American Airlines, listens to the needs of its business travellers as does Delta Airlines, and Continental Airlines for that matter.

Regards - Kahala777


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7138 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 8):
How can you be a "Business Airline" and not offer "Business Friendly" schedules?

United has 4 flights between 8:00 and 12:15pm out of SFO. I know business travelers prefer options, but I think an 8:00am, 10:00am, noon, 4:00pm and 11:00pm would be enough for UA to offer if they are losing as much money as people predict on the route. AA has more seats in the market, but if UA can provide better service, they should be able to get a niche out of the market. Its true that UA is in a quandry, but I am not willing to agree with the claim that PS is a stupid or a disastrous move.

[Edited 2005-05-08 04:11:55]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7059 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
I am curious as to how you justify all of those strong claims. Where is any proof? The 757 is an extremely efficient plane. It just has fewer seats, but still provides better seat comfort then the AA 767s.

The 757 is an extremely efficient plane, and can very successful serve transcon routes, just now with that configuration. The 757 is a great 2-class plane but to make these 757s profitable with this extremely low number of seats, UA is required to fill virtually every premium seat, every flight, with high-yielding customers, plus fill coach with relatively good yields, which is becoming increasingly harder with the B6 presence and now Song. In addition, as to your assertion about "better seat comfort" verses AA 767s, I know for a fact that there are many frequent flyers on this route who think AA's tried and true 767s are plenty comfortable and prefer widebodies.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
The yields are important, and if UA can fill 6 or 7 757s a day between the cities with enough seats up front occupied, then they will succeed.

That is just the point. This plane is so small, relatively, that the cost to operate the flight is spread over a dramatically smaller pool of seats and thus virtually every premium seat must be filled with high-yield customers to make the plane work.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7025 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 10):
UA is required to fill virtually every premium seat, every flight, with high-yielding customers, plus fill coach with relatively good yield

I don't agree with that statement. You are implying that UA needs close to 100% load factors, with higher then average yields. UA would never have started the PS configuration if this was true. Yes they need more higher yielding passengers with only 2/3rds of the seats available. But unless the business class cabin is filled exclusively with upgrades from cheap coach, then UA will not be facing a disaster. Yes the 757 costs more per seat then a 767, but that doesn't mean that it is a failure. Widebodies have the perception of being more comfortable but the world renowned spacebeds in first class, and 54 inch pitch which is up to international standards. UA needs better yields, but it is not true that they need 100% load factors. I just can't agree that PS is a complete failure because there is no information out there on how it is financially performing other the people that keep asserting that it is a failure.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6957 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
UA would never have started the PS configuration if this was true.

Yes they would have because, as stated above, they really had no choice. They had to offload the old, costly, maintenance-intensive 767-200s and the 757 was the only viable choice.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
I just can't agree that PS is a complete failure because there is no information out there on how it is financially performing other the people that keep asserting that it is a failure.

I never said it was a failure, and I have absolutely no clue whatsoever about United's corporate perception of the p.s. service's financial success, failure, profit or loss but I do have a theory as to why (and how) it came about:

1) UA knew that the 762s were getting on in years and were becoming extremely costly to maintain
2) UA needed to quickly draw down operating expenses, particularly in maintenance, to preserve cash through bankruptcy
3) They chose to get rid of the 762s but couldn't replace them with 767-300s, as that would lead to a glut of capacity and require a frequency cut that would have made UA's offerings uncompetitive with AA's frequency and business traveler appeal
4) Thus UA chose to replace the 762 with the 757s, knowing full well that they would have a huge uphill climb to make the planes profitable, but also knowing that the added cost of the 762 was already making the routes unprofitable
5) They chose to introduce the 757s with a huge splash, a big service upgrade and tremendously upgraded interiors, hoping that the good PR would help them win over some customers and some of the corporate contracts from AA

As I said, I am not stating any of this as fact as I have no idea about the success or failure of p.s. service, but I just think that given the fact that UA is having trouble flying its regular configuration 757s, holding almost 182 passengers, at a profit, I don't see how they could possible be making money with a plane holding just 110 people, especially since I don't see UA garnering much of a yield premium on this route, even in F/J, and even given their upgraded service.

AA, on the other hand, I can quite confidently say has seen almost no impact from these new UA services. AA has seen absolutely no appreciable difference in loads or yields, and some very well-informed people within AA actually think that AA may have benefited from this move by UA as many people prefer widebodies on these routes (we can't discount this fact!).


User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6915 times:

I know a couple of people who have purchased both full fare coach and advance Biz Class rez's on these flights... I think they paid about $350 one way in coach and $600 and change for business... that's not TOO shabby...

then again I'm not a CEO, so I don't know...


User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4914 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SegmentKing (Reply 13):
think they paid about $350 one way in coach and $600 and change for business... that's not TOO shabby

Actually, those fares are lower than a few years ago primarily because of Delta Simplifares. A one-way full Business Class fare a year or two ago on those 3-class transcons was easily over $1000.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26536 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6811 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Where is any proof? The 757 is an extremely efficient plane.

The 757 is an amazingly efficient plane when it has 170+ seats, not when it has fewer than 120.

Basically, the reason UA introduced p.s. is because they lost most of their premium traffic to AA on a route both used to dominate. UA lost many of their corporate contracts to AA (particularly out of LAX) about 4-5 years ago and has not recovered. The idea with p.s. is to protect what yield they have left at the front of the cabin, and it isn't really doing the job as well as they wanted.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6806 times:

What does it cost to operate a 757 on a transcon? $30K? Divided by 110 seats at and 80% load factor. A $340 yield needed to break even? That' not out of the realm of possibility. AA get's a $309 for their 11 widebodies with 158 seats.

User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6793 times:

Quoting Xlpants (Thread starter):
I heard that UA's PS service has not been able to attract the high yields needed to make it work. Anybody know? "PS" don't tell me they must be making money because the fllight you flew on was full. It doesn't take much to fill a 100 or so seats, particularly if your giving it away.

So you HEARD this from someone, but others can't make an argument based on ancedotal evidence. Apparently only your source is good enough. Well then call up UA and lets tell them. It's important for UA to know that someone heard what they were doning was stupid so they will stop right away.

I heard we have alien bodies at Wright Patterson ABF. Don't tell they are there just becasue you haven't seen them.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26536 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6767 times:

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 16):
What does it cost to operate a 757 on a transcon? $30K? Divided by 110 seats at and 80% load factor. A $340 yield needed to break even? That' not out of the realm of possibility

Well, fuel alone probably costs about $10,000 and you still have to add landing fees, MX, capital, crew, etc. Also, if it were that simple, UA would be making a fortune

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 16):
AA get's a $309 for their 11 widebodies with 158 seats.

They can also carry a hell of a lot more cargo, as well as having F/J actually paid for.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMattnrsa From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6753 times:

The seats in FJY on the 757 are more comfortable than their counterparts on the 767-200. I can't imagine the customers would not like them. Did you see the Business seats on the old 767s? They had the "click-click" footrests! I remember those from the Pan Am 747s! Plus the 767s were going to be costing a huge amount to maintain as they all were over 20 years old. The costs of the 757 are much lower, with more comfortable seats and an entire E+ Economy cabin.

As far as other airlines listening to the premium customer (as if UA hasn't), why would DL go to all-Economy flts with Song if they are after these lucrative passengers? They were never a big player with the premium customers in this market, so it makes more sense for them to make this change. Don't look for AA or UA to do this anytime soon.


User currently offlineXlpants From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6733 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
I honestly feel that if it was the disaster that some are implying here, then UA would have cut frequency to 4 or 5 flights a day, but correct me if I am wrong, but that hasn't happened.

They can't, and still remain competitive. They have to maintain the frequency, or they're totally screwed in NY transcons. The've already rolled over and died in EWR against CO.

Quoting Panamair (Reply 14):
Actually, those fares are lower than a few years ago primarily because of Delta Simplifare

Absolutely! UA should have seen this coming. My god, even the genuises at DL saw it coming before Simplifares which is why they put Song on Transcons.

I understand Martin White lost his job, i mean left to persue other opportunities, because of this screw up. i believe he was the "father of PS" Can anyone confirm?

[quote=Dutchjet,reply=1]But give UA some credit for trying to come up with a unique product designed for the routes in mind.

A product that would have been great in the late '90's. This is not thinking out of the box! For a company in UA's condition, this is just plane stupid!


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26536 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6726 times:

Quoting Mattnrsa (Reply 19):
The seats in FJY on the 757 are more comfortable than their counterparts on the 767-200. I can't imagine the customers would not like them.

That was UA's decision, not the airplane's

Quoting Mattnrsa (Reply 19):
The costs of the 757 are much lower,

Not by seat-mile, particularly once you count cargo

Quoting Mattnrsa (Reply 19):
As far as other airlines listening to the premium customer (as if UA hasn't), why would DL go to all-Economy flts with Song if they are after these lucrative passengers?

DL never has had the premium end of the LAX market. They made a lot of their presence through the aquisition of Western, as well as having a good part of the market to the south. DL mostly uses the JFK flights to feed international flights, and the front cabin of those planes are normally filled with JFK O&D or ATL/CVG/East Coast connecting passengers



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6711 times:

3 of those AA widebodies might be full every day at $1000 a pallet. The rest often go empty. I've seen AA go as low as 11 cents a lb for LAX to JFK.

And it is rare that someone on AA is paying full fare. These corporate discounts give a standare 30% off F,C,Y, sometimes more.

And since you seem to know alot about 757 operaing costs why don't you give your best guess on a 757 LAX-JFK flight?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26536 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6684 times:

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 22):
And since you seem to know alot about 757 operaing costs why don't you give your best guess on a 757 LAX-JFK flight?

I would have to know UA's 757/767 pay rates, along with what the FA's cost (as I believe they use more than the 3 they are required to use), plus the total cost of the refitting to p.s., MX cost, cost of full catering for the flight (you have full meals in every class) etc. The only thing I can tell you is that the route would burn about 5000 gallons of fuel at about $1.6 per gallon. that is $70.18 in fuel per seat at 114 seats (that is just how few the plane has). Add what UA pays for everything else (even forgetting all the interest on the debt the airline isn't paying) and costs begin to outstrip yield.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMattnrsa From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6681 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
That was UA's decision, not the airplane's

Not sure I'm understanding your reply, but the seats were one of the symptoms of flying old planes. If all it takes is putting new seats into an old plane to make them profitable, you would still see 727s, 737-200s and 747-100s. The 767-200s were old. They were expensive, needed more maintenance work, and were going to be retired.

So...what do you replace them with? The international planes are needed on international routes. This is one of the few remaining markets that justifies 3 cabins (at least for UA and AA with all of their money-making contracts with the NY and LA players). I can't think of what else UA could have done that would not have pulled planes off international routes but would also maintain the service levels premium customers are used to on this route.

I would be very curious to see figures that show this is failing, especially after UA has ADDED additional frequencies on the PS routes.


25 Uadc8contrail : padcrasher, will take a stab at the cost of a lax-jfk flt.....conservative-$45000.00..divide that by 110 and it comes out to around 400 per person....
26 Padcrasher : 45K seems to high to me. This is a 2475 mile flight. Song is saying they are getting into the low 7's for their system wide CASM for which the average
27 N1120A : That is not what I was saying. I was responding to someone else who was complaining about the 762 seats. UA has some of the oldest 757s out there too
28 Uadc8contrail : sounds pretty close on the casm....thats with fuel built in...i highly doubt deltas fuel is included in that low 7s....1900 ow is for first class and
29 Padcrasher : N1120A Anybody ever tell you, you'd argue with a fence post? It's a Texas saying. LOL...just kidding. Good night...err Good Morning.
30 Uadc8contrail : N11120A, Most of the up front pax in f are not ugs as you have elluded too...if they are please post the info for us to see that they are....
31 Post contains images N1120A : Well, there is this dude from Texas who is about as smart as a fence post and I am perfectly willing to argue with . Aside from that, I am just talki
32 Post contains images Uadc8contrail : N1120A, aside you talking the truth here and the fact that you state that the 57 was designed for and indicative for 1 of ure fav airlines that you wi
33 Post contains images UA777222 : 45K for a seat isn't too bad. You have to have it made, certified, and tested... and installed and maintained... Not to mention prices are sky high! A
34 ORD2PHL : Lots of opinion and little to no facts in this thread at all. ORD2PHL
35 CTHEWORLD : Here are some facts: 30% of UA revenues come from the premium cabin. Most of the front on JFK transcons are not UG, most of those large corporate cont
36 Commavia : I agree. UA knew that maintaining the 767-200s was too expensive and the 757 was the smartest thing they could have done given the (limited) fleet op
37 CTHEWORLD : If you have no facts, then why would you postulate? Your hunch is wrong btw...backed by internal only numbers that can't be shared. The 757 only lose
38 Commavia : Sorry, but the numbers just don't add up, and you don't need to have internal numbers to see it. The reduction in CASM from shifting from a high-cost
39 CTHEWORLD : Well, I happen to know of 2 major LA/NYC companies (large offices in both cities), that were previously UA, moved to AA and, pending the outcome of t
40 Commavia : And that's great for UA, I applaud them, but I would just reiterate that AA sees virtually no competitive threat whatsoever from UA, including their
41 CTHEWORLD : With 110 seats the CSM for the 757-200 is still lower than what it would have been for the 767-200, it is as simple as that. Also, you can't dismiss t
42 Commavia : Why is it that simple? Spreading the costs of operating a 2,475-mile trip over 110 passengers could definitely make a difference vs. spreading the co
43 CTHEWORLD : The numbers are proprietary, but trust me, you are wrong on this. Additionally, Y has been very full and 50% of revenues are made from the premium ca
44 Commavia : I'll take your word for it, then. I don't think AA is too worried about operating planes with slightly less Y legroom up against E+. It has had virtu
45 RoseFlyer : First of all please cool off for a second. Commavia keeps repeating the fact that he doesn't believe that it is profitable to operate 757s with fewer
46 Xlpants : Based on this thread, i would say most people don't need to use anecdotal evidence to show that it's not working. I think they've gotten the call! Un
47 CTHEWORLD : Yes, and UA has record load factors, RASM second only to WN and operational efficiency the best in their history and better than most of the other Maj
48 Padcrasher : One thing is for certain. AA is getting hit in coach by Song, and United in Business and First. Both better at what they do than AA because the focus
49 Dutchjet : Thank you, RoseFlyer, your post above is a very good analysis of the situation (aside from being cohesive and well thought out). I think your analysis
50 Kahala777 : Virgin Atlantic is a big player on the route as well! American Airlines, British Airways, and Virgin Atlantic would have a field day picking away the
51 Xlpants : Now I know why they are in trouble! For a carrier like UA with their stage lengths, no wonder they're in bankruptcy.
52 Commavia : By AA having more Y seats, they can adjust the fare buckets to better match competitive pricing, while UA (with only 72 Y seats per flight) has far l
53 CTHEWORLD : What? No more Flagship Service? AA's F product isn't the same as UA's? Last time I flew AA on JFK/LAX the service was comparable. Has AA scaled back
54 Post contains images UAMAYBACH1239 : AA's load factor are increasing in areas were other airlines have comepletely, pulled out or reduced service dramatically. Its not because of a bette
55 Commavia : No, as far as I know, AA's service is still about the same Flagship Service, but I would think that UA with all the little extras would cost a least
56 CTHEWORLD : Wait, let me infer this correctly. Song and B6 move in to the Los Angeles basin, UAL retrenches, improves their product and adjusts lift to dilluted
57 Commavia : Once again, I never said it was a bad thing. I simply stated, if you look at Reply #2, that UA's basic idea here is very good, but I just don't think
58 CTHEWORLD : Oh, your comment sounded like you were referring to AA traffic in general, as there is no non-stop BUR-JFK nor ONT-JFK, thus a strange comparison. We
59 Commavia : Sorry if I was unclear. And I reffered to BUR, ONT and LGB because these are B6 markets in the LA Basin and AA previously competed with them on JFK-O
60 UA772IAD : Well firstly, you cannot compare it to the DCA-LGA-BOS (Northeast corridor) runs, or the SFO-LAX-SAN routes, which are the MOST business friendly. Th
61 AeroWesty : I've been following this thread, as its entertainment value is quite high, but unfortunately, the facts have been lost in the shuffle. Let me clarify
62 CTHEWORLD : Not here at least, those numbers can't be shared. However, your theory about IAD is valid, and you might just see it validated here pretty soon. BOS
63 AeroWesty : I'll agree with you that IAD would receive p.s. service before BOS would, but the future of BOS as a growing mix of legal, financial and technology b
64 N1120A : Actually, LAX-Bay Area and LAX-SAN were dominated by PSA and AirCal for a long time. Yeah, I have seen tickets in Y on p.s. for $250 RT Are you talki
65 AeroWesty : Oh please. I was talking transcon, not intra-region. I was quite clear on that point. You're typing just to argue. Yup, so have I, with the exception
66 N1120A : No, you made it sound like you were talking about intra-region, particularly when you typed BOS-JFK on the east coast example
67 AeroWesty : Which line did I type BOS-JFK? I don't see it. Please point it out so I may correct it.
68 N1120A :
69 AeroWesty : Excellent. Let me clarify that line since it seems less than obvious to you in a discussion of transcontinental services. Old: AA never ran any excep
70 UA772IAD : I also agree with this statement. And living in Washington, I would love to see this. However, IAD-LAX (and SFO in particular), are all UA hubs. They
71 AeroWesty : I completely agree with you. I've not limited my thinking to solely 757's providing a p.s.-like service. I've been on overcrowded 747's between SFO a
72 BRAVO7E7 : THIS THREAD IS BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. Bring the facts, and then post again.
73 Post contains links DENSFONUA : Many of you have been asking for some numbers, so here some are. Some, however, are assumptions, and in each case I have tried to err on the side of t
74 RoseFlyer : Thanks for your analysis Chris. It still lacks concrete numbers on actual load factors, and a comparison between number of upgrades on AA and UA and t
75 Bistro1200 : I'll go ahead and say it: AA does not have a huge presence in SFO for Asia like UA. BEYOND TRAFFIC: UA is also using the p.s. product to provide feed
76 UALPHLCS : So now we have your MO exposed Xlpants. You got nothing but your own opinion, no data, not statistics, just you saying UA is stupid. Well that should
77 DENSFONUA : True, I do not have the precise load factors or upgrade percentages. But what it does show is that even if 70% of the premium seats are upgrades, the
78 UA744Flagship : Kahala777 doesn't know an Airbus from a Boeing. He wouldn't even know his rear end from a hole in the ground. I love how he spouts off his opinions as
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Is UA's PS Service Doing? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 17:38:20 by SKGSJULAX
UA 29 JFK-LAX PS Service 3 Hours Delay July 31 posted Mon Aug 1 2005 16:59:22 by Aifos
UA New PS Service Pics? posted Mon Nov 1 2004 21:36:31 by UnitedTristar
United PS Service PDX-DEN posted Sat Oct 7 2006 23:34:35 by RampRat74
Future Of United PS Service posted Sun Sep 17 2006 17:21:11 by B742
UA Cutting Service To LHR? posted Sun Aug 6 2006 21:43:26 by Swank300
UA 752 Service Returns To PHX posted Tue Jan 10 2006 06:19:06 by Warreng24
UA: New Service To LIR. Twice A Week posted Thu May 5 2005 15:00:59 by TACAA320
How Is The New UA 752 Service Bwt. JFK And LAX/SFO posted Wed Apr 6 2005 03:33:47 by Jdwfloyd
Which UA Long Haul Plane Is The Best! posted Wed Feb 16 2005 01:20:16 by Paul