US Airways unveils 767 Envoy seats

[PHL]

What about NWA or CO? Basically the same seat? CO BusinessFirst NWA WorldBusinessClass

yes. The new Envoy seat will be more on par with those, as well as the AA one. Although, NW's WBC looks to be a winner with 176 degrees of recline. Point being, these new seats are a HUGE improvement and if the service level improves then the overall Envoy product would be a valid competitor to the others.

 

[phlus2]

if the service level improves then the overall Envoy product would be a valid competitor to the others.

That is one BIG IF - what makes you even begin to think these bozos can improve service? They don't even know what kind of service they should be offering. When you use Denny's or IHOP as your model, there isn't much hope for Envoy service any time as long as these yo-yo's are in charge.

To be competitive, you also have to have some level of confidence that the plane will actually get to it's destination within a reasonable amount of time. Remember the 2 day delay to Germany this summer?

 

[phlus2]

[And why is LCC only putting the upgraded seats on 10 767's and not the A330's?

Come on now - why in the world would they decide to provide a consistant product - it makes flying on US more fun because you never know what kind of service you are going to get and what kind of seat you are going to get. This will just make the passenger experience even more inconsistant. Since deep down inside, I think they know that they don't have a high level of repeat customers anyway - why even strive to provide the same product across all aircraft types? And we all know "People aren't willing to pay for premium services" so who cares about the product being delivered anyway!

And although I'm certainly no fan of Bush - the SandCastle could learn something from him - under promise and over deliver - but Tempe seems to always get it backwards - over promise and under deliver.

 

[US1YFARE]

over promise and under deliver.

Wrong, wrong, wrong...they haven't even delivered. Which promises have they kept even partially...not one.

 

[Pacemaker]

Yes, if we could only go back to the good 'ol days at USAir, when the airline lost 5 BILLION DOLLARS in the decade-and-a-half prior to the merger. Judging by those results they were clearly on to something.

 

[Elevation]

The fact that these westies think that having a product that even tries to compete with other AMERICAN carriers is "grand" says alot about how insulated they are in the industry. Coming from a dirty, cheaply run Vegas vacation style airline where cheap as possible is drilled into your head you can see how anything above a domestic first class product seems lavish to them.

They are replacing them on East planes because they are not competitive, what would you suggest on an old 767 that's going away? The latest and greatest like BA or VA? These seats are fine, similar to CO, AA and NWA.

They do not know the market and do not understand it. They do not understand the brutal competition from foriegn, mostly state-owned carriers, who are able to and do offer something "grand". American carriers know they can not be an Emirates, Virgin Atlantic, or Singapore, but they need to hold thier own or get creamed. The domestic market is over save for a few surviving legacies, and mostly point to point (real) LCC service. US Airways has the highest costs in the industry, its ticker symbol is a joke, they will never be an low cost carrier, they are a network legacy carrier. International is where the money is for legacies- still attracts a premium and no LCC competition or even the possibility of it.

They don't understand that US Airways has a huge advantage and disadvantage in the transatlantic market. 40% of TA travelers originate east of the Mississippi. US Airways is the biggest airline east of the MS, carrying more passengers through two major hubs, and has extremely valuable slots and real estate in some of the busiest airspace in the world. They have a hub in a major US port city that is geographically a perfect gateway, has high demand for intl travel, and lucrative cargo.

They have the disadvantage of being a very late player to the game. They are historically known as a short haul airline, not an international carrier. They by far have the smallest intl presence of the Big Six, with no South America, and are the only with no transpacific service at all. They have the disadvantage of a poorly set-up hub airport and uncooperative city officials. They have a miniscule fleet of only 19 widebodies, by far the smallest of the majors, 10 of which are ancient 767-200s. Thier transatlantic gateway sits between New York and Washington, two even higher O&D markets. The New York market, an hour away, is the number one gateway to and from Europe in the country. Finally, again, highest costs in the industry, so US Airways needs to charge the same or more than it's US competition for both it's economy and premium product.

This is an airline that needs to pull it's socks up and start competing. They cannot be an LCC, and they are the lamest duck of the Big Six.

Starting from last place after many years of bankruptcy and poor planning cannot be over come quickly. The new A350's,A340's and A330's will start the revitalization of a dilapidated fleet and a international expansion that will be competitive with its peers. USAirways will be in China, Tokyo and TLV with a solid product by that time, not the worlds best but respectable.

 

[US1YFARE]

One lame excuse after another...you don't hear DL or NW or UA boohooing about bankruptcy. CO had 2 bankruptcies and look at them. Those airlines are not at war with their customers. The arrogant management team is inept and uses the customer as the cause of every problem they have. US may one day have a respectable product, but loyal customers will be gone and your reputation will be even worse. An Admirals Club rep told me that she has customers willing to pay for a hotel rather than take US these days.

 

[JAMAKE1]

Perhaps Senior Management at USAirways isn't interested in targeting their former frequent flyer base such as the Chairman's Preferred, Gold, and Silver members. Perhaps they are more interested in targeting a less sophisticated segment of business travelers who are willing to pay a slight overage to sit in a premium (used loosely) cabin that isn't quite up to par with other network carriers, that is more business casual. Perhaps the numbers crunchers in Tempe have figured out that there is a significant segment of this population that will pay for the product being offered...as it is...and they can fill their planes with said group. If this is the case, then the elevated fares need to be more in allignment with that of a LCC model and additionally, USAirways will need to exit the Star Alliance. Perhaps they could partner with Spirit Airlines to capture a greater Carribean and Central American presence (and who offers a more paralleled premium cabin product). And the former Chairman's Preferred, Gold and Silver members can either opt for this watered down Las Vegas-style business casual product, or take their business over to AA, CO, DL, and UA, who are still trying to cater to a more discerning premium customer base...

And Pacemaker, I don't entirely agree with your statement. Those $5 billion in losses had a lot to do with a hodge podge fleet mix and bloated labor costs. Both of which have been streamlined. I think USAirways needs to define what kind of carrier they really want to be. If it is watered down business casual, then fine, market said product to their new target audience. Management appears to be wanting to have its cake and eat it too: Being a hybrid carrier with a watered-down product while also wanting to maintain some vestiges of the former USAirways; mainly an inflated revenue premium wherever they can get away with doing so, while also wanting to keep the customer base that is accustomed to a higher level of service, perks, and priveleges for the price paid. For those folks, they are continuing to get considerably less value for their dollars spent.

 

[phlus2]

I think USAirways needs to define what kind of carrier they really want to be. If it is watered down business casual, then fine, market said product to their new target audience.

I agree 100% - But - even if they can decide what type of carrier to be - they have to then be able to deliver that product - and so far they havn't proven they deliver anything. Even a watered down business casual product should have clean airplanes, realtively on time flights, a web site that works, and you know the rest of the list...................................

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> USAirways will be in China, Tokyo and TLV with a solid product by that time, not the worlds best but respectable.

Ha ha ha! 那將是天您傻的美國沙漠居民!

 

[Elevation]

One lame excuse after another...you don't hear DL or NW or UA boohooing about bankruptcy. CO had 2 bankruptcies and look at them. Those airlines are not at war with their customers. The arrogant management team is inept and uses the customer as the cause of every problem they have. US may one day have a respectable product, but loyal customers will be gone and your reputation will be even worse. An Admirals Club rep told me that she has customers willing to pay for a hotel rather than take US these days.

Historically USAirways was never in the international league of any of those carriers, yet mentally you think you deserve to be, why? Comparing CO to US is probably the most accurate you can get:

first bankruptcy 1983,
throw in a couple mergers (peoples ex, frontier)
2nd bankruptcy in 1990
followed by a big international expansion
poor customer service

Sounding familiar? took them about 7 years to turn that one around and now they are highly regarded.

 

[JAMAKE1]

Why do you feel so compelled to defend what has become a scrappy airline? I became a CO frequent flyer right after Lorenzo was ousted and CO's service in the Pacific never fell to the levels that US is today. US cannot even provide the basics such as an efficient check-in process, a clean boarding gate and aircraft cabin, and IFE that isn't broken, let alone consistent on-time performance. So what is it about USAirways that you feel so compelled to defend? And for the record, CO's big transatlantic push did not start until well after Gordon Bethune showed up...and their Business First product was introduced under Robert Fergusson's leadership, not Bethune's. I just don't get why you continually feel that you need to justify your company's poor product and dismal performance.

 

[longing4piedmont]

Why do you feel so compelled to defend what has become a scrappy airline?

Ignorance and Arrogance is deadly combination. You will have to forgive them has they have NO clue, but think they know everything. It will be the death of this airline.

 

[Travelpro72]

Longing....that is dead on accurate.

 

[FlightChic]

Are the tray tables going to look orange like in the picture? Yuck!