The previous poster says this about UA
's LCC variant:
>>"Here's what "Starfish" has to do to be successful, for however long is needed:
- Offer a low competitive fare
- Avoid hubs and related problems
- Quick turn/easy connections
- Reliable service
- Provide tough competition for other LCC's
- Possible force other LCC's to lower fares even further
- Delay/prevent other LCC's from further eroding UA
's market share"<<
Here is my question ---
Why the heck isn't United doing this on their other flights, all the time?
What happens if UA
is successful with their LCC and they manage to drive LCCs out of a market/put them out of business entirely? Does UA
junk the LCC subsidiary and jack the prices up to unconscionable levels?
OPINION: A LCC subsidiary carrier-within-a-carrier is not the answer. UA
(and other so called majors) needs to ____ or get off the pot. It's time to give the consumer what they want.
But the funny thing is now, and I don't understand why people don't see this more readily: The so-called majors are already charging low fares where they have LCC competition. In many cases they are charging less than the LCCs. They are carrying bucketloads of people. The answer is not to throw a starfish, or a jellyfish, or any other aquatically-creature-named subsidiary carrier at the LCC.
They have to become an LCC themselves, head to toe.
The so-called majors do not understand what a LCC is all about.
They think "no frills" and immediately set to cutting all perks, services, and passenger comforts.
The real deal is to retain those things while giving the customer what the customer really wants.
This whole UA
deal seems really ill-advised to me. There is enough schizophrenia in the airline industry now without complicating it further.