While United Airlines appears to be in hot water for the leak of information concerning its top corporate contracts, I tend to think this is much ado about nothing.
Apple does a lot of business with United Airlines. Wow, what a surprise. United flies twice per day between San Francisco and Shanghai, offers a far-better product than smoke-filled China Eastern, and is a natural fit for the tech giant. Why so many seats? Presumably because Apple engineers need to visit production facilities and Shanghai is the closest major airport.
Curious who are @United largest global corporate accounts? @Apple is in the top spot and contributes very much to success of SFO international flying especially the Shanghai service #UnitedAirlines #United #Apple #SFO #PVG #Shanghai #China pic.twitter.com/HNvIrz8wDg
— LAflyer (@LAflyr) January 11, 2019
There has been all sorts of lament about leaking this information, and to be sure, I also would not want this info leaked. But really, it’s not big deal. If anything, it gives Apple something to boast about.
Four Reasons Apple Can Be Proud Of Its United Contract
First, Apple is a great company that cares for its employees and flies its people in business class on longer flights. I know because I work with Apple employees at Award Expert. Apple is creating not only high-paid jobs in the Silicon Valley at its own company, but for so many others in the region. Imagine the multiplier effect of these massive annual airfare purchases. Apple funds flight attendants and pilots, gate agents and tickets agents, cleaning crews and catering staff. There’s a big ripple effect in the local economy from Apple’s spending.
Second, face-to-face meetings remain the centerpiece of doing business right. That may sound a tad ironic from the creators of FaceTime, but noting replaces in-person meetings or seeing your actual product, not just images of it.
Third, contract re-negotiations are right around the corner and now Apple has an extra bargaining chip.
Finally, Apple got a heck of a good deal in its contract. Look at the numbers in the poster above. If we are talking about 50 business class seats in each direction daily, that’s 18,250 round-trip tickets per year. Divide $35 million by 18,250 and you see that Apple is paying less than $2,000 per ticket. That’s an incredible deal. In fact, even if the numbers mean only 25 seats in each direction, $4,000 for a round-trip ticket to Shanghai in business class still represents a very good deal.
CONCLUSION
Good for United. Good for Apple. Kudos to Facebook, Roche, Google, and the others on the list as well. Travel is an essential part of business and the numbers are neither embarrassing or shocking. Yes, United should have (and will) do a much better job of guarding this information. But I really don’t see a problem in the numbers themselves.
Remember that even if Apple is paying $4000 round trip, those tickets are 100% refundable and flexible which is an added value above paying a fairly cheap price
Doubtful. Usually the way these contracts work is that they commit to buying a certain number of seats every day/week. I know that’s how it worked with a couple other companies on the list. There’s no flexibility if you are forced to buy the seats, you are paying whether or not someone is sitting in the seat.
and yet all you hear on Flyertalk is a bunch of worthless losers parroting the “UA lost Disney contract for leaving JFK” line but never bother to use their pea brains to think about all the contracts UA might have gained from the massive boost in frequency to both SFO and LAX.
And that’s before mentioning AAPL’s market is 4.3x larger than DIS. These losers actually prefer to support the company that’s worth far less than Apple.
The age old adage is true – losers of the same feathers flock together.
UA capacity NYC-LAX/SFO has declined…increase in EWR capacity has not compensated for the elimination of JFK.
(but you are likely paid by UA to constantly praise them so…)
Apple cowtows to leftist fanboys. Their challenge is this: how do you reconcile giving $150M to evil fossil fuel burning and CO2 spewing airlines (instead of using your own technology such as FaceTime) and still maintain your faux green Street cred? Other more level headed people will question whether this kind of exorbitant spending is why they have to spend $1400 to stay on the Apple bandwagon. I’m glad I ditched them.
@WR2 : just because you’re a worthless loser who don’t work hard and can’t afford quality doesn’t make others a fanboy.
You sound like a sad bitter old man. I hope things turn around for you.
hahaha i’m barely 36yo loser
Let’s stop the back and forth here.
I hate to be picky – but Apple dropped the word Computer from its legal name in 2007 🙂
“Second, face-to-face meetings remain the centerpiece of doing business right. That may sound a tad ironic from the creators of FaceTime, but noting replaces in-person meetings or seeing your actual product, not just images of it.”
Especially true for engineering/manufacturing. “Hey Apple we’re having a problem with building your LCD screens. Something isn’t right in our process.” Engineer comes on-site, notices the chart for the humidity in the clean room is way over the limit, problem solved. Moments of serendipity like this are what keep continuous improvement moving forward. You’re not going to get all the answers you need just by asking for them over the phone.
Apple is a repulsive company. It loves to promote itself as ‘community focused ‘ and caring, sharing, warm and fuzzy , in the same way Starbucks does ( and both very successful in doing so, appealing as they do to the lowest common denominator). Clever.
The reality is different…they could care less about the countries in which they manufacture and sell. They don’t pay tax ( eg their tax fines: €19 billion in Europe alone) if they can get away with it, engage in deceitful pricing arrangements, mislead and con consumers with planned obsolescence and incessant but unnecessary product launches; moan, whinge, whine and carry on like pork chops at every turn when things don’t go their way.
This is not a “great company”, rather one profiteering via flogging second rate technology to ill-informed consumers and at inflated prices. They pay lip service to world /community engagement but in reality serve mammon.