As Spirit and Frontier struggle, United, Delta, and American lean harder into premium travel, quietly reshaping air travel into something fewer people can afford.
United, American’s New Premium 787-9s
Matthew has covered the rollout for American’s 787-9P (Premium) with a heavy front cabin distribution from Business to Premium Economy and United’s followed suit. This week an official seat map for United Airlines’ (delayed) 787-9 premium-heavy version has business class seats extending over the wing, and United Premium Plus Cabin (Premium Economy) followed by Economy plus through more than 2/3rds of the aircraft.
UA: new 789 official pic.twitter.com/J81V7KQPb7
— JonNYC (@xJonNYC) December 17, 2025
American’s seat map is similar for its 787-9P. For its new Airbus A321-XLR, with range capable of achieving nonstop flights from its east coast bases to western Europe and to Brazil from Miami to Rio de Janiero, 1-1 business class seating is followed by a true Premium Economy cabin and economy plus through the wings; more than half the plane.
Considering that Economy Plus on United and American’s new Boeing 787-9 aircraft for long haul flights are equivalent to what used to be first class and then some. They offer leg rests, alcoholic beverage service, an amenity kit, and a 2-3-2 configuration. But the extras like noise cancelling headphones, USB ports, IFE (in flight entertainment) with hundreds if not thousands of choices and automated seat controls exceed even the old First Class features. It makes sense that the carriers want to capture as much as a Premium Plus seat can deliver.
Economy Is Shrinking, Basic Economy More Punitive
In the case of the United premium 787, standard Economy class is an afterthought. It offers 142 above standard economy seats on an aircraft with just 226 total seats. Just rows 35-44 are standard Economy. Compare that with United’s famed “coffin class” high-density 777-200 fleet that the 787-9 is replacing, with just four rows of “United First” of 53 rows.
It’s not just that airlines are embracing a shift toward the premium traveler and capturing more spend. This week American Airlines, without any advance notice at all, indicated that Basic Economy fares would no longer earn Loyalty Points or Aadvantage miles. That no notice change has earned the scorn of X users and national media.
I pointed out last week that United management, namely CEO Scott Kirby, is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On earnings calls the carrier boasts about United’s top growth category being Basic Economy fares mirroring the ULCC market while at the same time calling the model dead.
American is doing the same in its “premium pivot” that then penalizes Basic Economy purchasers. I have flown on plenty of Basic Economy fares as an American Airlines Executive Platinum member mostly because the restrictions didn’t apply to me or those in my traveling party. American is confident travelers like me are going to just buy the standard economy fare, but it will also lose customers who are unwilling to pay a premium for the same seat.
The problem with that pursuit is that of the Big 3 carriers, Delta had already operated with these punitive measures in place, American now joins the ranks leaving just United (undoubtedly soon to follow) with earning potential in the cheapest fare categories.
Making A Case For Re-Regulation
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 lowered fares for all flyers by allowing open competition in a free market setting. Prior to this routes were granted by the government and fares were set ensuring that airlines could fill planes and make a reasonable profit. With the absence of regulation, the government had to again step in offering Essential Air Service contracts whereby it would guarantee service to smaller markets by offsetting unsold tickets under the cost of operating the flights by paying airlines any shortfalls.
The free market clearly won for many routes, and without it we wouldn’t see $6 flights on Frontier or $39 sale fares on Southwest.
However, if the major flag carriers are going to make the majority of their aircraft a premium to the lowest economy fare, and punish those who book them with punitive measures, and Spirit can’t survive on its own (Frontier is not far behind) how else do we ensure travelers have access to affordable flights?
As noted last week, Spirit brings prices down for all travelers, not just its customer base. But without Spirit there to depress pricing, prices will rise and the only alternative is that flying is once again reserved for the wealthy as it once was.
To a certain degree EAS routes are a form of regulation by the government to ensure that it’s not only major cities that receive transportation options. And if market forces create the joy of incredibly cheap fares, the market has to also be allowed to collect a premium where it’s due.
A third option emerges. A government-run airline to compete with the Big 3 but subsidized as city transport services might fill a gap. Amtrak does this now and without it, there would be relatively little to no rail service in the US. It’s only been in the last few years that Brightline began offering high speed options between various Florida stations.
Conclusion
This is a case of carrot and stick, not “or.” Airlines capturing the premiums that passengers are willing to pay at the moment is capitalism at its finest. In theory, this should create more opportunities for discount carriers, not fewer. The problem in that logic is that Frontier and Spirit, for example, won’t fly the routes that United and American’s 787-9s will. For the most part, they simply can’t due to segment distance. But in cases where they could (New York to London), Spirit and Frontier might be dead before they have an opportunity to respond to market demand.
What do you think?
Good report, Kyle. Wow, what a difference the 789 vs. that awful 2-4-2, rear-facing, ‘coffin’ seat on the 772.
nice post
>>”United, Delta, American Make Flying a Premium Privilege”
Huh? A small number of new widebody aircraft are coming in with larger J cabins, sure, but for the most part, narrowbodies are being densified across the industry. Furthermore, economy fares are at their lowest in a long time, adjusted for inflation. The premise of this article is wildly off base.
Economy fares may be cheaper at the moment (I pointed out in a prior post today and last week that relatively this is the case) but this is about the future. Replacing a 777-200 with 346 seats, most of which were in economy with a 787 with 242 seats 2/3rds of which are at some premium above economy means that going forward the future looks different than it does today. Those economy prices don’t stay low if Spirit is gone either. And even prices somehow stay low without any pressure to keep them low, fewer seats make them harder to obtain domestically. I also pointed out that this is mostly for long haul flights in which Spirit does not fly and Norse has pulled back leaving relatively few economy alternatives across the Atlantic for example.
UA converted older 772As to that high-density configuration for low-yield hub to hub and hub to Hawaii flying in large part because those A’s are range limited and have plenty of cycles left on them. After adding 4 772ERs they are only 23 of UA’s 230 wide body aircraft, the rest of which are used primarily for long haul international flying. Comparing the two as if the high density 772s are representative of what international flying used to be is false. Remember, first class, business class (Connoisseur on UA) and coach?
You also mistook Economy Plus for Premium Plus when you compared it to “what used to be first class.” Economy Plus is nowhere near what first class used to be.
It couldn’t be any clearer, UA & DL did a better job of offering customers exactly what they want internationally and that is more premium options which makes sense due to the length of the flights. Domestically, aircraft have far fewer premium seats and basic economy has been a key to the network carriers’ success relative to the LCC and ULCCs.
Deregulation has been an overwhelming success.
Lower Fares: Inflation-adjusted base fares dropped; 47% decrease in real price per flight by 2022 from 1978 levels.
More efficient: 56% load factors in 1977 compared to 80-85% today allowing lower individual fares.
Increased Travel: Passenger miles flown increased from 227 million (1978) to 1.1 trillion (2024).
More Competition: New business models (like Southwest’s low-cost approach) emerged, increasing options.
Increased Service: Flights to smaller communities increased over 50% in the first 20 years.
Safety: Fatal accident rates per million miles flown dropped substantially post-deregulation.
Sorry, but your dog don’t hunt.
@rebel – Deregulation has been an overwhelming success… to this point. If Spirit vacates markets and American, United, and Delta shrink economy further, it’s more than the evaporation of a carrier, it’s multitiudes of seats. It’s as if looking at the radar of a hurricane due to make direct landfall and saying “it’s been mostly sunny today.” That may be, but the impending doom is on its way, just because it hasn’t taken place yet doesn’t mean the friendly skies will stay friendly, in fact there’s little data to suggest it will.
UA is planning on adding 101 new large narrow body aircraft (NK has 102) this year alone.
Network airlines were grossly mismanaged for decades which allowed ULCCs & LCCs to prosper, but that has changed. Technology and product segmentation especially basic economy and no change fees have made the network carriers with exponentially greater city pairs that hubs offer, a better value proposition. Up-gauging has made more basic economy seats readily available.
If managed properly the hub and spoke system is a more effective and efficient airline system for the vast majority of domestic markets. Competition and the ‘invisible hand’ are working.
Absolutely agree about just how off base this article is…deregulation has increased the number of hard products (regular economy, extra legroom economy, premium economy, business, and business plus for US carriers, first class still on some international carriers) where there used to just be first class and economy prior to deregulation, and there’s multiple levels of fares that include or don’t include refundability, seat selection, cabin luggage, checked luggage, priority boarding, lounge access, etc. One of those things that can now be included or excluded is earning miles and status qualification.
“how else do we ensure travelers have access to affordable flights?” Maybe the author should look a bit closer and recognize that by offering a lower cost, lower tier of ticket that doesn’t include miles / status qualification (which btw, a ULCC also would not have since they generally don’t have mileage / loyalty programs), AA IS ensuring travelers have access to affordable flights. They offer a similar product to ULCCs, and many different tiers of higher products, depending on what you want and would like to pay for, at all sorts of price points, including ones that are much lower than inflation-adjusted, pre-deregulation airfares. Looks like affordable flights have been ensured!
The premise of this article is that we need to reregulate airlines or introduce a new, government owned airline because the author is miffed that with the cheapest, most basic tier doesn’t include a particular bell & whistle that they like, and they don’t want to pay more for it. Should we also propose regulations and new government enterprises because I didn’t receive a Polaris Studio seat for my economy ticket? Or that the dealership didn’t give me a new Mercedes when I only want to pay for a used Toyota?
The article isn’t talking about the current environment. It is projecting headwinds. The principal argument is that the ULCC competition that led to BE class in the first place is evaporating, so we will see airlines restrict BE and eventually eliminate it. If you disagree with that, but the basis can’t be the current market.
He’s talking about long haul, where these new planes will fly. They will compete against these long haul low cost options:
Transatlantic:
Low-cost: Norse Atlantic
Low-cost: French Bee
Low-cost: Air Transat
Low-cost: LEVEL / Eurowings if including ones owned by airlines in the US3 / EU3
Other budget options: Icelandair, Aer Lingus, Air Tahiti Nui, TAP, Air Canada 6th freedom (for US to EU), Condor
Other airlines offering very basic economy fares: all of the full service carriers
High Density economy on full service carriers: Air France 777 (frequently flown to Montreal and occasionally to other North American destinations), Air Canada high density 777
Transpacific:
Low-cost: Zipair
Low-cost: Air Premia
Other budget options: Air Canada sixth freedom (for US to Asia)
Other airlines offering very basic economy fares: all of the US full service carriers at least, less familiar with the options that the different
Potential future low-cost: Tway (already has Vancouver, but no US flights)
Other competitive pressures: EVA + China Airlines + Starlux + in some cases Delta / United all flying into Taipei and offering connections to other Asia destinations
A lot less on the TPAC side than the TATL side, but that’s always been the case, other than when the Chinese airlines were dumping capacity.
The idea that there’s no competition with US ULCCs going out of business, as illustrated by the new AA and UA 787 configurations, is still nonsensical
Right now, the big 3 don’t make a profit on the flying side of the business. Look at airfare from the regulated era, adjust for inflation, and you’ll discover I can fly cross country in F for less than my grandparents would pay for Y. Re-regulation might be something airlines would like to increase airfare by eliminating competition. It is not a solution for savings for pax.
@This comes to mind – I made the same notes in this and another article. I agree, it’s cheaper today than it was 20 years ago, but these aircraft are just coming into the system, few of them will be focused on the domestic market, and those that will won’t face price pressure from Spirit that is causing the current pricing structure. When that goes away and there aren’t any more seats in the back to sell, what will happen then?
Kyle, “these aircraft are just coming into the system, few of them will be focused on the domestic market, and those that will won’t face price pressure from Spirit that is causing the current pricing structure. When that goes away and there aren’t any more seats in the back to sell, what will happen then?”
In the last ten years the big three network airlines have added about 550 net aircraft of which less than 100 are wide bodies and they are planning adding about 200 new narrow bodies in 2026 alone.
The market is speaking and deregulation has and will continue to be a resounding success.
Quite a few flaws with your logic…let’s start with Amtrak, it is funded by the taxpayers, very mismanaged and still wildly expensive for popular routes (have you looked at the cost from NYC to WAS or BOS?). A government run airline – lol – yeah that will be run efficiently and not just paid for by taxpayers. If you are flying for business, your business should be paying for it otherwise you are flying for leisure. There is no constitutional right to have taxpayers fund a cheaper vacation. The airlines are all publicly traded companies, if their model of premium heavy doesn’t work they will adjust back, otherwise they should operate however they want and their executives answer to the shareholders. Anyone is allowed to invest in the market and share in the profits and take risk on the losses. As ‘This Comes to Mind’ pointed out, credit cards and points programs make a fortune for the airlines, it’s not all about people in seats when it comes to airline profitability. If you can’t afford the price of the plane ticket, how are you affording the rest of the vacation? should you be flying if the difference in fare of a few hundred dollars is going to stop you from putting food on the table? Americans have this idea that ‘luxury’ is their right – like the whining starbucks workers demanding 80K a year for pouring a cup of coffee saying they can’t meet basic needs in picket lines with their brand new iphones, apple watches, air jordans and north face jackets.
Have you ever considered that some of us don’t want travel to be democratized? I can’t stand the trailer trash in sweats and pajamas wandering through airports, and the less said about the screaming children running around all over the place, the better. Democratization of air travel means appealing to the lowest common denominator, and these people have made it abundantly clear that they have no clue regarding social graces and how to behave in public. Let the fares go up and keep going up. Then maybe, just maybe, some of the human garbage will come to understand that flying is a privilege and not a right.
The U.S. ‘Big Three’ want it all and they want it their way…
Poor people can take Greyhound. It’s better if we don’t have to see them and their pajama wearing asses at our airports.
I think the one data point you use to support your argument is incorrect.
United’s high-density 777-200s and premium-heavy 787-9s serve completely different markets. The 777s are used for domestic hub-to-hub and Hawaii flying, while the 787-9s will be used on international routes with strong premium demand. So, these 787s will not be replacing the high-density 777s. Given the ongoing issues with the Pratt engines that power some of United’s 777s (including the high-density models) it’s an open question how long those aircraft will stay in United’s fleet, but if they are retired they likely be replaced with a similarly-configured, high-density aircraft.