How would doing away with FC adversely affect yield? Right now you have someone who has paid the lowest fare possible occupying a high yield seat. On a lot of aircraft these days, 1/2 the aircraft is First or Business Class and it's full of people who paid he same fare as the guy who is in the last row in the seat that doesn't recline all the way. If you got rid of first class in some cases you could add another 30 odd seats to the aircraft. More seats equals more revenue. If you want to maintain a high yield product for the few people who are actually willing do pay for it then two or three rows of First Class seats would suffice, as opposed to the 12 you find on some aircraft. Steven Catron wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis W Zeuch" <DZTOPS@aol.com> > To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:08 > Subject: Re: If I ran United... > > > Its a sad joke of what it was 20 years ago when NO ONE was upgraded > > for free and folks up front all paid big bucks and they got some real > special > > treatment (usually) > I've heard this several times, but what exactly has changed? > > > I think UAL and the others should look at doing away with it > completely-its > > gotta be a money loseing deal and if all the majors followed would help > > everyone. > Do that and there's no reason not to fly WN based on cost considerations, > or on a greatly expanded YX clone for luxury. > > So what's their competitive advantage vs. WN then? Certainly not cost. > Or Midwest Express? Certainly not service. > > And who says FC upgrades are where they're losing money? Anyone seen any > hard data?