This thread has really become a UA
-- fabulous isn't it?!
A couple of things worth mentioning:
bases in LHR
and still in ASIA contrary to popular opinion... HKG
, and Narita. (SIN
were closed in 2003. Also in reference to UA
base only having 3 flights a day, we operated SIN
for just one flight a day!).
's economy plus product accomplishes two goals which must be mentioned... more *noticable* room (5 inches as opposed to AA
's 3 inches) to reward your frequent fliers and still not kill your ASM's. AA
's MRTC product cut too much occupancy (something like 13% originally systemwide, hence their reverting some of their domestic fleet) but UA
's Econ Plus only removed one row of seats per plane thereby offering a better product to those who will appreciate it and without killing occupancy.
's 777's vs AA
's 777- both have PTV's. The problem UA
faces with adding the 4 daily 744's is that the economy cabin only has overhead video.
Returning to the question of whether it makes sense to operate CDG
as a FA
base: as long as the Euro is strong and as long as hotel rooms in CDG
aren't cheap, we'll have a base there. That's always the determining factor! Is it cheaper for lots and lots of hotel rooms or to staff a base there? Contractually for UA FA
's, 60% of all international flying must be done by US bases.
Oh, on a side note, true or not, mentioning BA
's presence in LHR
and the partnership with AA
isn't always a good thing. BA
has had a dark past at LHR
and continues to. SUGESTED READING: Dirty Tricks by Martyn Gregory.
The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better