United’s operation has improved significantly and it’s financial results are quite respectable


They are finally capitalizing on the worlds best hub and route system and their counterintuitive, steady expansion is paying dividends


Yet their latest quarterly results don’t come close to Delta’s


What gives and how do they fix this ?

If nothing else, time . Smisek made a ungodly mess out of UA. Their routes were cut, the product is hands down the worst on the market and lots of high value customers left.

Its going to take time to recover from that.

Back to the OP question.....answers: poor leadership and lack of operational reliability.

As has perhaps been covered already, United is recovering a lot of lost ground at the moment. With the bankruptcy, they contracted a lot, and even more post-merger with CO when Smisek came in to play. Kirby's plan for expansion (regardless of what many may think of him) has worked well for the company. United still has a lot of work to do to regain lost market share domestically and continue its growth. Expansion and growth in and of itself, while generating more long term revenue, create short term expenses that will continue to impact the company for a while. This spring and summer, UAL is utilizing its fleet as much as possible, while taking into account the 767/777/787 fleet undergoing Polaris mods. Lots of CapEx expenditures with crew room & terminal refresh programs, Polaris lounge construction and an upcoming refresh of its long-haul/ international economy product which is long overdue.

One reason I can think of is its small domestic footprint compared to its rivals. Consider these things

A. They don't have a megahub like an ATL/DFW

B. They lack a true SE hub

C. They are often in 3rd/4th place or lower compared to AA/DL/WN in airports outside of their hub markets

D. They haven't figured out how to get the proper scale in places such as ORD, DEN, IAH. Scott Kirby's recent decision to bulk up the mid-continent hubs was a great start, but more is needed, particularly at ORD and DEN.

E. They fly too many regional jets compared to AA/DL, particularly too many 50 seaters. Upgauging alone would improve domestic margins nicely.

IMO, UA has the best international network of the US3, but they are the weakest domestically. If they could address their domestic holes, they'd far surpass DL and AA and become the premier US airline.

Antarius wrote:

the product is hands down the worst on the market

I'm guessing you haven't traveled on BA in the last decade, particular in C.

Amazing how much damage an identity crisis can cause.

My take from a flyer that has been some level of elite for past 17 years solid and from having many friend that travel and the reasons why they have left UA:

1) Too many 50-Seat RJ's on routes that should all have first class. High End Elites chose other airlines because of this. 50-Seat plans are fine to small cities are are expected, but shouldn't be flying to bigger cities that business travelers go to. Examples: OMA, DSM, BHM, DTW etc.

2) I know 2 current Delta Elites here in DSM that switched from AA because DL has PTV's in every seat, they both love them.

3) I know a former UA 1K that switched to AA from UA here in DSM because AA has a daytime ORD-LHR flight that you can connect to from DSM. UA might want to consider this.

4) I know a former UA Elite in California that switched to WN because the last flight of the day going west from Omaha is at 5pm which doesn't allow for a entire day of work. There used to be an 8pm flight. This was a $50,000+ traveler too that UA lost because of short shortsightedness. Even though that particular flight wasn't making Money, if several 1K's took it, you should keep it going. I know I used to take it and it was always full but probably not profitable on it's own with the fares.

5) During the winter, the first flight of the day on ORD-OMA is at 10am! You can't expect to have loyal, year-round business customers with a departure that late for 2 months. Most the year ORD-OMA 8am flight is mainline, for 2 months in the winter it just doesn't exist! If they want to keep elites and not send AA business on a silver platter, they should at least fly a 50-seat plane in the morning during those slow months, even if it loses money. Otherwise you run away your elites.

6) You can't work a full day in Florida and then get home to either DSM or OMA that night. UA has zero later departures from FL most of the year vs DL which makes it easy to work a full day and come home.

7) DL looks at where high dollar flyers are going and adds one-off nonstop flights to accommodate. For example Austin, TX. UA and AA are ahead of DL right now and there are crazy amounts of high dollar elites living there. If DL adds nonstop flights to about 10 business cities from AUS, over a period of 10 years, AA and UA will lose 50% of their high dollar elites and DL will gain them. Long term play for lots of money! UA should really look at AUS hard before DL adds nonstops and gains Elites there. If UA added LAS, SAN, SJC, BOS, CLE and maybe RDU from Austin, UA would be in a strong position to keep their elities and gain new ones that pay a large premium. UA should have done this at BOS too but they have already lost that battle with all the DL adds. BOS will get worse for UA in the coming years because of that.

Positives on routes that I'm familiar with:
OMA-EWR now flying 3x daily to match Delta both ways with good times all day long. This will attract elites on both ends.
DEN-OMA now is flying a 8am flight year-round. This also helps to keep elites happy. They also recently added a 8am DEN-DSM flight too. Big plus for business travelers.

Please just discuss the issue respectfully without resorting to personal attacks. If you can’t do that, avoid the thread. Better yet, if you don’t like what a particular user has to say, use the foe button and save us the time it takes to delete all the childish back and forth.

joeljack wrote:

My take from a flyer that has been some level of elite for past 17 years solid and from having many friend that travel and the reasons why they have left UA:

1) Too many 50-Seat RJ's on routes that should all have first class. High End Elites chose other airlines because of this. 50-Seat plans are fine to small cities are are expected, but shouldn't be flying to bigger cities that business travelers go to. Examples: OMA, DSM, BHM, DTW etc.

2) I know 2 current Delta Elites here in DSM that switched from AA because DL has PTV's in every seat, they both love them.

3) I know a former UA 1K that switched to AA from UA here in DSM because AA has a daytime ORD-LHR flight that you can connect to from DSM. UA might want to consider this.

4) I know a former UA Elite in California that switched to WN because the last flight of the day going west from Omaha is at 5pm which doesn't allow for a entire day of work. There used to be an 8pm flight. This was a $50,000+ traveler too that UA lost because of short shortsightedness. Even though that particular flight wasn't making Money, if several 1K's took it, you should keep it going. I know I used to take it and it was always full but probably not profitable on it's own with the fares.

5) During the winter, the first flight of the day on ORD-OMA is at 10am! You can't expect to have loyal, year-round business customers with a departure that late for 2 months. Most the year ORD-OMA 8am flight is mainline, for 2 months in the winter it just doesn't exist! If they want to keep elites and not send AA business on a silver platter, they should at least fly a 50-seat plane in the morning during those slow months, even if it loses money. Otherwise you run away your elites.

6) You can't work a full day in Florida and then get home to either DSM or OMA that night. UA has zero later departures from FL most of the year vs DL which makes it easy to work a full day and come home.

7) DL looks at where high dollar flyers are going and adds one-off nonstop flights to accommodate. For example Austin, TX. UA and AA are ahead of DL right now and there are crazy amounts of high dollar elites living there. If DL adds nonstop flights to about 10 business cities from AUS, over a period of 10 years, AA and UA will lose 50% of their high dollar elites and DL will gain them. Long term play for lots of money! UA should really look at AUS hard before DL adds nonstops and gains Elites there. If UA added LAS, SAN, SJC, BOS, CLE and maybe RDU from Austin, UA would be in a strong position to keep their elities and gain new ones that pay a large premium. UA should have done this at BOS too but they have already lost that battle with all the DL adds. BOS will get worse for UA in the coming years because of that.

Positives on routes that I'm familiar with:
OMA-EWR now flying 3x daily to match Delta both ways with good times all day long. This will attract elites on both ends.
DEN-OMA now is flying a 8am flight year-round. This also helps to keep elites happy. They also recently added a 8am DEN-DSM flight too. Big plus for business travelers.

Not sure about the points specific to DSM but for sure sure Delta is very attractive. Very reliable and comfortable but also very expensive. I have started to fly UA because of this. UA does have a good international network both to Europe and Asia.

In short UA has an opportunity.

let me try this again, and word it a little differently. It could be a bunch of things. Its not out of the realm of reasoning to consider the possibility of bad corporate contracts that 'give away the house'. Is it 'the' single reason? probably not but hey, all things need to be considered. Its probably a bunch of little things as opposed to it being one single item.

DL have done a really good job on capex that UA lagged and they brought good cheap mainline aircraft..

I am.a UA flyer now just bc they are in Star, but they lack consistency in product...I'll tempered crews DL crews are always cheerful UA are just there. I had one argument with UA FA recently as she told memto.put my bag under my seat and I said no I'm putting it in thy he locker as being 6'4" I needed the leg space.....just extremely unprofessional

As others have mentioned UA are trying but they need to speed things up, but I do see an improvement most of the time

Here’s one that I don’t think anyone brought up. DLs hubs are in smaller markets with less competition. Looking at fares paid at MSP, DTW, and even ATL, UA can’t charge those in a place like ORD.

United is just slacking way too much on their product whilst relaxing on the proceeds of their corporate contracts. Both hard and soft products are very underwhelming from United and they don"t operate in a vacuum, so it's not surprising that Delta would perform much better comparatively.

Fargo wrote:

One reason I can think of is its small domestic footprint compared to its rivals. Consider these things

A. They don't have a megahub like an ATL/DFW

B. They lack a true SE hub

C. They are often in 3rd/4th place or lower compared to AA/DL/WN in airports outside of their hub markets

D. They haven't figured out how to get the proper scale in places such as ORD, DEN, IAH. Scott Kirby's recent decision to bulk up the mid-continent hubs was a great start, but more is needed, particularly at ORD and DEN.

E. They fly too many regional jets compared to AA/DL, particularly too many 50 seaters. Upgauging alone would improve domestic margins nicely.

IMO, UA has the best international network of the US3, but they are the weakest domestically. If they could address their domestic holes, they'd far surpass DL and AA and become the premier US airline.

I agree especially with B, C, D, E.
UA can do more point-to-point or at least hub-point-point-hub flying to fix it short term, but they do need an ATL or CLT. And they know this.
UA can use their existing hubs (especially as ORD reconfigures and they get more gates) to do a lot of the domestic flying that AA and DL specialize in
UA desperately needs to upgauge their RJ flying. 50 seaters are expensive CASM wise, and don't support first class well.

Others mentioned that UA was contracting . . it was sad to see them slip from 1st to 3rd at LAX despite having the most real estate. Apologists said UA should concentrate at SFO - but letting the 2nd largest metro area wither on the vine is never a winning strategy. I'm glad they reversed that.

The one place I disagree is who will end up in first place 5 or 10 years from now. UA has the ingredients to compete for the top spot IF they avoid self-inflicted wounds. But neither AA or DL is just going to let UA grab back marketshare. The 2020s will be an interesting decade.

Short answer is that UA faces the most competition of the US legacies. They're running a great airline, very arguably the best in the US for operations and overall product. But they don't have pricing power like DL, and that tempers their revenue somewhat. They're gaining on it though. Their financial results are impressive considering the vast international and domestic competition they face.

I think they’ve turned the corner and will shrink the gap. The full financial benefits of Kirby’s strategy to regain their “natural market share” have not been realized, as it’s still early days. However, the last set of financial results had a few leading indicators that show UA on the up swing. They’re no longer trying to shrink to profitability.

Fargo wrote:

E. They fly too many regional jets compared to AA/DL, particularly too many 50 seaters. Upgauging alone would improve domestic margins nicely.

This. They need a pilot agreement where they fly more A220-100 or E2-195 in return they are allowed more modern (heavier) 76 RJs.

DL worked out a compromise, when will UA?

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Fargo wrote:

E. They fly too many regional jets compared to AA/DL, particularly too many 50 seaters. Upgauging alone would improve domestic margins nicely.

This. They need a pilot agreement where they fly more A220-100 or E2-195 in return they are allowed more modern (heavier) 76 RJs.

DL worked out a compromise, when will UA?

Lightsaber

They don’t need a new pilot agreement for that. The current contract allows for this. UA could order E195/A220 tomorrow and unlock more 76-seat aircraft. Kirby doesn’t want to pay mainline pilots to fly a 100-seater. It’s as simple as that.

UA has launched a lot of new long haul routes in the last couple years which generally take a while to become profitable. Delta has been much more conservative. I'm sure this is a contributing factor.

MSPNWA wrote:

Short answer is that UA faces the most competition of the US legacies. They're running a great airline, very arguably the best in the US for operations ...

I'd love to see you argue that effectively. Go for it. On-time, completion rate, baggage handling, complaints - pick your operational metrics.

UA has a cost problem in labor productivity. The total wage bill is far higher than Delta's for about the same RPMs.

A lot of people who've posted here appear to have no familiarity with the P&L statement.

The margin gap between the 2 have shrunk drastically in the past year. And for Q1, UA is continuing to project unit revenue growth whereas DL projects flat to 2 points growth. Can we stop dumping on UA and worshiping DL around here?

UA simply doesn't have something like ATL/DTW/MSP where they completely dominate the region. They have great hubs, but each hub face strong competition from a nearby airport or in the same airport.

Now that UA has done a good job of chasing ULCC off from aggressively expanding at their hubs, they are strengthening their midcon hubs and getting more profitable. They will do fine going forward with the current leadership.

NYKiwi wrote:

. I had one argument with UA FA recently as she told memto.put my bag under my seat and I said no I'm putting it in thy he locker as being 6'4" I needed the leg space.....just extremely unprofessional

That's a Federal Aviation Regulation, though. It's not optional, it's literally the law.

ual763 wrote:

NYKiwi wrote:

. I had one argument with UA FA recently as she told memto.put my bag under my seat and I said no I'm putting it in thy he locker as being 6'4" I needed the leg space.....just extremely unprofessional

That's a Federal Aviation Regulation, though. It's not optional, it's literally the law.

If that is his only carry-on bag then he has every right to put it in the overhead bin.

Don’t forget United also has hubs at 5 of the most expensive airports in the country on a CPE basis. And DEN and IAH don’t exactly have cheap CPE numbers either.

http://visualapproach.io/most-expensive ... passenger/

joeljack wrote:

7) DL looks at where high dollar flyers are going and adds one-off nonstop flights to accommodate. For example Austin, TX. UA and AA are ahead of DL right now and there are crazy amounts of high dollar elites living there. If DL adds nonstop flights to about 10 business cities from AUS, over a period of 10 years, AA and UA will lose 50% of their high dollar elites and DL will gain them. Long term play for lots of money! UA should really look at AUS hard before DL adds nonstops and gains Elites there. If UA added LAS, SAN, SJC, BOS, CLE and maybe RDU from Austin, UA would be in a strong position to keep their elities and gain new ones that pay a large premium. UA should have done this at BOS too but they have already lost that battle with all the DL adds. BOS will get worse for UA in the coming years because of that.

Problem is UA already has a large hub 165 miles to the east in IAH, it would be extremely redundant to build a focus city of p2p flying in AUS. DL on the other hand doesn't have a Texas presence and could build up a significant operation there if it gets enough gates. UA would be better off trying build a SE hub in BNA rather than focusing on AUS.

flyguy84 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Fargo wrote:

E. They fly too many regional jets compared to AA/DL, particularly too many 50 seaters. Upgauging alone would improve domestic margins nicely.

This. They need a pilot agreement where they fly more A220-100 or E2-195 in return they are allowed more modern (heavier) 76 RJs.

DL worked out a compromise, when will UA?

Lightsaber

They don’t need a new pilot agreement for that. The current contract allows for this. UA could order E195/A220 tomorrow and unlock more 76-seat aircraft. Kirby doesn’t want to pay mainline pilots to fly a 100-seater. It’s as simple as that.

Why is this? They can build up the hubs with more connections all they want, but do they not realize the margins would be better if they added more mainline? DL is operating 100 seaters successfully, why can't UA?

tphuang wrote:

Now that UA has done a good job of chasing ULCC off from aggressively expanding at their hubs, they are strengthening their midcon hubs and getting more profitable. They will do fine going forward with the current leadership.

Please expound more on this. Last I checked, UA faces large WN stations at every hub except EWR and NK/F9 have been making inroads in ORD, IAH and DEN.

Also, I may add that they'll never be able to strengthen ORD to where it needs to be as long as AA hangs around.

Antarius wrote:

the product is hands down the worst on the market.

In my opinion, UA is second to DL among the US3 when it comes to product. It's worth noting that I almost always fly in economy, but certainly from an economy passenger's perspective (which is by far the majority of passengers) I'd pick UA over AA almost every time based on recent experiences.

The only area where I like AA more than UA from a passenger experience perspective is that they've done a better job of cutting back on the 50-seaters and upgauging to large RJs across their network. I completely agree with other posters here that UA hasn't drawn down 50-seaters fast enough... They still show up semi-regularly on some long routes and some routes between major cities (IAH-CLE, as an example of both grievances in one route!).

Fargo wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Now that UA has done a good job of chasing ULCC off from aggressively expanding at their hubs, they are strengthening their midcon hubs and getting more profitable. They will do fine going forward with the current leadership.

Please expound more on this. Last I checked, UA faces large WN stations at every hub except EWR and NK/F9 have been making inroads in ORD, IAH and DEN.

Also, I may add that they'll never be able to strengthen ORD to where it needs to be as long as AA hangs around.

Good points but Southwest is hardly
a ULCC !

How much is Delta profiting by their many investments in other airlines? That seems to be one thing that differentiates their income from other airlines. They own 49% of Virgin Atlantic and AeroMexico.

I think United is working on closing the gap. They are actively working to connect less people in EWR, and pushing connections via IAD. Moves like that are what they need to be more "delta like" UA focus on DEN is a great move also. Amazing hub for connections (costs are low for UA hubs) (less delays not crowded airspace) . Great hub to make money on connections for UA. ORD, LAX should only be when needed for connections DEN should be focus.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I think United is working on closing the gap. They are actively working to connect less people in EWR, and pushing connections via IAD. Moves like that are what they need to be more "delta like" UA focus on DEN is a great move also. Amazing hub for connections (costs are low for UA hubs) (less delays not crowded airspace) . Great hub to make money on connections for UA. ORD, LAX should only be when needed for connections DEN should be focus.

ORD and DEN should be the focus for UA connections, since they are among the (if not the) best geographic US hubs in the country. ORD should be the ATL/DFW with 1,000+ flights and a good mixture of domestic and international connections while DEN should be the CLT with 600+ flights mainly focused on domestic.

TTailedTiger wrote:

ual763 wrote:

NYKiwi wrote:

. I had one argument with UA FA recently as she told memto.put my bag under my seat and I said no I'm putting it in thy he locker as being 6'4" I needed the leg space.....just extremely unprofessional

That's a Federal Aviation Regulation, though. It's not optional, it's literally the law.

If that is his only carry-on bag then he has every right to put it in the overhead bin.

I assumed locker to mean the the storage well built into the business class seat.

ual763 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ual763 wrote:

That's a Federal Aviation Regulation, though. It's not optional, it's literally the law.

If that is his only carry-on bag then he has every right to put it in the overhead bin.

I assumed locker to mean the the storage well built into the business class seat.

Some people outside of the US refer to the overhead bins as "lockers".

Antarius wrote:

If nothing else, time . Smisek made a ungodly mess out of UA. Their routes were cut, the product is hands down the worst on the market and lots of high value customers left.

Its going to take time to recover from that.

Agree with everything you said besides the product being the worst in the market. That statement is so far from the reality it's laughable.

TTailedTiger wrote:

ual763 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

If that is his only carry-on bag then he has every right to put it in the overhead bin.

I assumed locker to mean the the storage well built into the business class seat.

Some people outside of the US refer to the overhead bins as "lockers".

Ahh, makes sense. In that case, yes, he should have definitely been allowed to put his stuff up there if there was room.

boeing737max wrote:

Antarius wrote:

If nothing else, time . Smisek made a ungodly mess out of UA. Their routes were cut, the product is hands down the worst on the market and lots of high value customers left.

Its going to take time to recover from that.

Agree with everything you said besides the product being the worst in the market. That statement is so far from the reality it's laughable.

Their intl J is a decade behind AA and DL. I'm not referring to Polaris that's on 20 planes - I'm talking about the rest of their product.

Their domestic J isnt anything special either. Well, all 3 have some good some bad about them. And inconsistent.

I wasnt clear earlier, so my apologies, but I wasnt comparing UA to NK on the worst part. Just the US3.

Fargo wrote:

joeljack wrote:

7) DL looks at where high dollar flyers are going and adds one-off nonstop flights to accommodate. For example Austin, TX. UA and AA are ahead of DL right now and there are crazy amounts of high dollar elites living there. If DL adds nonstop flights to about 10 business cities from AUS, over a period of 10 years, AA and UA will lose 50% of their high dollar elites and DL will gain them. Long term play for lots of money! UA should really look at AUS hard before DL adds nonstops and gains Elites there. If UA added LAS, SAN, SJC, BOS, CLE and maybe RDU from Austin, UA would be in a strong position to keep their elities and gain new ones that pay a large premium. UA should have done this at BOS too but they have already lost that battle with all the DL adds. BOS will get worse for UA in the coming years because of that.

Problem is UA already has a large hub 165 miles to the east in IAH, it would be extremely redundant to build a focus city of p2p flying in AUS. DL on the other hand doesn't have a Texas presence and could build up a significant operation there if it gets enough gates. UA would be better off trying build a SE hub in BNA rather than focusing on AUS.

It isn’t about location or connecting passengers. It is about getting high fare passengers where they want to be and fast to keep them loyal and then connect them at their hubs like IAH to all other destinations that don’t have enough margin and O/D passengers. Look at BNA and RDU, both close to ATL and DL has a nice focus city at both.

Fargo wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

ORD should be the ATL/DFW with 1,000+ flights

Ya, if only the weather would cooperate!

UA has so much potential to blow AA and DL out of the water it’s not even funny.

DL/UA would have been an awesome merger vs DL/NW and UA/CO.

codc10 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Their intl J is a decade behind AA and DL. I'm not referring to Polaris that's on 20 planes - I'm talking about the rest of their product.

47, to be exact, with 60 to follow in 2019... and as for the rest of the product, like the Polaris Lounge?

You can argue till the cows come home. The reality is in the numbers. If those 60 were there now and maybe a couple of years ago, maybe the OP wouldnt be asking this question. The rest of the product is the rest of the fleet missing Polaris still.

But since he/she is, maybe the homer talk isn't answering their question?

Echoing what earier posters have said, it's largely due to things on the domestic end of the business. Even though Kirby's moves to bulk up their connectivity in the interior of the country have worked out well and quickly, it can't be ignored that UA won't be able to grow them to the same scale as AA/DL's ATL/DFW hubs and they'll lose out on the economies of scale that provides. UA management often argues that their hubs have the most O&D demand but they haven't been able to translate that into actual revenue premiums due to the next point:

Even though building connectivity will pay dividends in places like Chicago, it doesn't change the fact that they will continue to have less pricing power in their hubs than AA/DL.

I think they'll still have opportunities to close the gap since Kirby's tenure is still young, but those aforementioned headwinds will always be there.

UA at IAD is tenuous in that the currently low CPE depends upon subsidies that MWAA takes from DCA. When that stops, and the Virginia state subsidy expires, CPE will probably go from $16 back up to $26 or higher. That's a significant risk for UA's plans at IAD.

Antarius wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Their intl J is a decade behind AA and DL. I'm not referring to Polaris that's on 20 planes - I'm talking about the rest of their product.

47, to be exact, with 60 to follow in 2019... and as for the rest of the product, like the Polaris Lounge?

You can argue till the cows come home. The reality is in the numbers. If those 60 were there now and maybe a couple of years ago, maybe the OP wouldnt be asking this question. The rest of the product is the rest of the fleet missing Polaris still.

But since he/she is, maybe the homer talk isn't answering their question?

Fully agreed. Further, it’s not as though Polaris is anything revolutionary. It’s very similar to the product Delta has had in its A330 for several years. Slightly better than the 777 and 767 products nearing 8+years of age. I’m a UA1k and I’ve stayed with them for two reasons. The first, ANA. I need them for onward connections to SE Asia and absolutely love their product and service. The second, singapore. I need a non-stop from the US and for that it’s United that works for me. GPUs help also. But, Delta’s latest J seat on the a350 and updated 777 blows Polaris out of the water. If United is just catching up with Delta’s outgoing product, United has a problem. You hit the nail on the head I’d say. If ANA were in SkyTeam I’d be gone. I’m not a huge fan of KE nor MU, this DL no longer works for me.

Blloydtbird wrote:

Antarius wrote:

codc10 wrote:

47, to be exact, with 60 to follow in 2019... and as for the rest of the product, like the Polaris Lounge?

You can argue till the cows come home. The reality is in the numbers. If those 60 were there now and maybe a couple of years ago, maybe the OP wouldnt be asking this question. The rest of the product is the rest of the fleet missing Polaris still.

But since he/she is, maybe the homer talk isn't answering their question?

Fully agreed. Further, it’s not as though Polaris is anything revolutionary. It’s very similar to the product Delta has had in its A330 for several years. Slightly better than the 777 and 767 products nearing 8+years of age. I’m a UA1k and I’ve stayed with them for two reasons. The first, ANA. I need them for onward connections to SE Asia and absolutely love their product and service. The second, singapore. I need a non-stop from the US and for that it’s United that works for me. GPUs help also. But, Delta’s latest J seat on the a350 and updated 777 blows Polaris out of the water. If United is just catching up with Delta’s outgoing product, United has a problem. You hit the nail on the head I’d say. If ANA were in SkyTeam I’d be gone. I’m not a huge fan of KE nor MU, this DL no longer works for me.

You're the first person I've seen who likes the new Delta suite. There's a long thread about it on another website and those people were saying it felt very claustrophobic and tight with the door closed. They preferred the old seat on the 744 and A330.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Blloydtbird wrote:

Antarius wrote:

You can argue till the cows come home. The reality is in the numbers. If those 60 were there now and maybe a couple of years ago, maybe the OP wouldnt be asking this question. The rest of the product is the rest of the fleet missing Polaris still.

But since he/she is, maybe the homer talk isn't answering their question?

Fully agreed. Further, it’s not as though Polaris is anything revolutionary. It’s very similar to the product Delta has had in its A330 for several years. Slightly better than the 777 and 767 products nearing 8+years of age. I’m a UA1k and I’ve stayed with them for two reasons. The first, ANA. I need them for onward connections to SE Asia and absolutely love their product and service. The second, singapore. I need a non-stop from the US and for that it’s United that works for me. GPUs help also. But, Delta’s latest J seat on the a350 and updated 777 blows Polaris out of the water. If United is just catching up with Delta’s outgoing product, United has a problem. You hit the nail on the head I’d say. If ANA were in SkyTeam I’d be gone. I’m not a huge fan of KE nor MU, this DL no longer works for me.

You're the first person I've seen who likes the new Delta suite. There's a long thread about it on another website and those people were saying it felt very claustrophobic and tight with the door closed. They preferred the old seat on the 744 and A330.

Perhaps a bit tight, but the privacy is worth it. The UA777 Polaris seat is quite tight as well, saving for the bulkhead seats which I generally go for. The footwell is ridiculously narrow in the others. My favorite seat of them all is the ANA First Square but I don’t get to use them often enough. The short of it is, United’s latest product is 7 to 8 years behind that if DL.

Blloydtbird wrote:

The short of it is, United’s latest product is 7 to 8 years behind that if DL.

If that’s the case why is DL light on international premium cabin seats relative to UA,instead of the other way around? DL 777s have 37 premium seats compared to 50 on UA. The A350s have 32. The UA 777-300s have 60 seats up front, with no DL plane having anything close to that.

The superiority of the DL seats should intuitively drive larger premium cabins. The number of modification lines coupled with new deliveries, UA is set to more than double the number of Polaris seats this year.

Back to the original question, UA expanding internationally while DL shrinks (cutting HKG is still a surprise) seems to indicate the issue is on the domestic side. DL’s fortress hubs without the significant competition seen by UA is a DL advantage, though UA’s domestic expansion should help to narrow the gap.