ORDnHKG

Just did a trip report with tons of pics

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-...etto-bird.html

mike1968

WOW...that pushes a hot button..this is precisely what's wrong with this merger. this is NEW/ASPIRATIONAL for domestic F??? It's crap CO and looking through the pics it looks like we'll be getting more crap CO seats and service. If this is impressive to a CO frequent flier, that just reinforce what a terrible mistake this merger is. This was standard pmUA F domestic...filling drinks, being attentive, referring to F pax by name... before this abomination of a leadership team took over and started driving folks away. Unfortunately looking through some of these trip reports (the F meal...really?); the horrific seating, this is anything but a game changer...especially if this plane is ever used on thin long-haul routes as intended. they'll be lucky if they trick someone into a one and done situation.

I also don't agree with the analogy, although I agree with the sentiment, but a global WN is doomed to failure. I think Laker tried it. Network is also not impressive when the service and seats are craptaculurly done by CO...think Aeroflot...largest airline in the world at one point, but would you willingly fly them in a competitive market?

I also don't follow the logic that the masses will try this a few times. If this very uncomfortable looking plastic plane is supposed to fly routes like DEN-NRT, IAH-AKL...how much O&D demand is there really going to be for the average economy traveler? Most folks that would need a connect or here are going to take another flight or go with a foreign carrier...even in Y once word gets out.

I also can't help to think how many cancellations; diversions to ANC for a few days; or who knows what else once the electronic sink sensors start to break/malfunction in the lavs given the UA by CO maintenance track record these days.

This was the last true game changer IMHO...+10 inches on the fuselage/8 seats across and the largest window I remember...I'll admit the seats looks as uncomfortable as a modern day CO seat, but there's always tradeoffs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta3Z0XlknPc

(if links aren't allowed, youtube United DC-10 1970)

Now that was Friendly Skies luxury (even worked when they went to 9 across in the 1980s/90s)

Rpcfly

Not to hijack the thread but....are you serious !!!! Most of the F/A's i get on TATL and TPAC flights in F and C are certainly not even close to what you describe.

chinatraderjmr

I don't get this plane at all. Forget Y. I wouldn't fly long haul Y on any plane but if I had to, this is the last plane I'd get on w those narrow seats. In C, the cabin is to small. Looks crowded w no room to stretch & walk around. As far as the wings, engines, window shades, etc. big deal!!! The 747-8 has all that anyway w much more room. At least NH, LOT, etc are putting a bar for C class to get up and stretch

I may be the minority but I'm staying away from this thing
DC-10, 747, 777, 380 - these were all game changers that made the customer more comfortable. 787, game changer as well but to make the airline more comfortable, not the passenger

QBK

Now that's a really interesting question -- assuming that the point of UA's 787 is to grab a particular market (not FlyerTalkers):

1. Does that market exist (and is it big enough to justify the business move)?
2. Will the new UA and its 787 actually get those travelers?

I don't have any special knowledge, but I suspect the answer to the first is "Yes". It's not just DEN-NRT. That route shaves an extra connection off of DEN-{SIN,KIX,BKK,...} -- every route where you have to connect through NRT. And it also gets passengers originating in COS, IDA, and every other town whose air service goes through DEN. So COS-DEN-SEA-NRT-BKK becomes COS-DEN-NRT-BKK, which actually makes a difference to some people.

Is it a huge market? No. It wouldn't fill a 747. But that's the whole point of the 787 (in addition to being cheaper). And I suspect there are enough "average economy travelers", who prefer fewer connections, to fill that jet.

The second question hinges on whether "the average economy traveller" is going to shun the 787 down the back. Unfortunately, I think this is a case where FT intuition is just horribly wrong. We're savvy consumers of air travel. Most passengers aren't. Most of my friends and colleagues -- even regular travelers! -- don't know or care how to find out if their flight is going to be on a regional jet! They just show up at the airport and say "Hey, what's with the little plane?" They don't choose seats in advance. And they gape in total incomprehension if I ..... about 752s across the pond. The airplane is just a place where you go for a while and try to hibernate, and then you're in another place and life starts again.

UA has been successfully packing those passengers into the back of 744s. They file onto 752s for 9 hours on IAD-CDG. And they man the oars on 753s from LAX-EWR. They expect air travel to be like dentistry -- painful, necessary, and over as soon as possible.

So, yeah, I think they'll fly the 787. It's a faster dentist. And once it's flying, enough of us will shrug our shoulders and book E+ or J and say what we say now about the 744. "Hey, at least I'm more comfortable than the kettle in 61E!"

DeaconFlyer

This hits it spot on. The 787 is not a plane designed for FTers. It's designed for those who don't care about what plane they are on, they just want to fly cheaply and directly.

So many here may think it was a bad move by UA when judging it only with their own blinders on, but thankfully UA doesn't make decisions solely based on what's best for its most picky clients.

XLR26

Agreed. I've seen the exact same thing happen countless times. I'll be sitting in the first row or two of a CRJ and as the other passengers enter the cabin you can just see the look of shock/suprise in their facial expression. Then they'll just blurt out to no one in particular, something like: "Wow. I can't believe how small this is."

UA-NYC

May fly directly, but I doubt it's going to fly cheaply for the passenger. It will fly cheaply for UA, but there's nothing to say they're going to pass that cost savings onto the consumer, esp. on a long, thin route.

Boghopper

"The [OP] doth protest to much, methinks" comes to mind. No need for ad hominem attacks, characterizing someone as a "child" does not help your argument. As for "blatently untrue" [SIC], I'm not sure what your're talking about.

The fact is they did maximize the number of Y seats, and no amount of wordsmithing/dancing can change that. In the case of creating capacity "maximize revenue" = "optimize for revenue", which is what they did. In the "international WN" model UA is pursuing more seats equals more revenue. The physical space on the aircraft is fixed, you see, so "optimize for revenue" = "minimize personal space". And "minimize personal space" = "minimize comfort". Therefore "maximize revenue" = "minimize comfort". A fair restatement of this is maximize revenue at the expense of comfort (or in other words, minimize it). Which is what the OP said. Far from "blatently untrue" [SIC], it's in fact exactly right.

No amount of pretty lighting and fancy windows are going to change the fact that the seats are smaller, and closer together, than on UA's other widebodies. This does seem to be consistent with UA's strategy of discounting the value of repeat business in the Y cabin. The Y cabin elites are "overentitled" and the sooner they can get rid of their benefits the better so they can get down to their mass market cattle transporting business. The more such perks they remove the more they can sell to the kettles. As the ad says, get the Explorer card (and pay the fee), and "you're in" (which includes in line ahead of me in the "premier" line). Whether this all works or not is an empirical question that will play out in the coming quarters, but I think Smisek & c are making a pretty big bet on limited data (data that includes earlier lowest common denominator carrier efforts such as Laker Air).

P.S. Many did fly Y on the 787 to try it out (and when I say E I mean all E, the E you're talking about is "E-") but won't do so again. Read the board.

AviatorAce

I'm on tonight's LAX-IAH flight in 27A and it looks like my upgrade won't clear . I always prefer the exit row (i.e. 21 on the A320), however I'm a concerned about the door slide taking up too much space like on the 757. Anyone have any preference of seat: 27A, row 16/17 or just any E-Plus seat? Thanks!

JOSECONLSCREW28

If you want a window, I'd suggest moving off of 27A and into row 16 or any available E+ seat with a window, If you really want an exit row, I'd move off of 27A and into 27BC, or 27JK.

CaptainMiles

27B and 27C have the same lack of window as 27A. How would moving from 27A to B or C add window?

16A and 16L do have windows.

lhiltz

I was hoping to try the IAH/AMS route on the dreamliner - when doing research last week it was listed at being the 787 but today when I booked it was back to a 767-300, is there anyhope it might be a change back to the 787 - my GPU has cleared! This is for Jan 16, 2013

SeaRaptor

Last report I saw said they aren't swapping to the 788 on IAH-AMS until 3 February.

JOSECONLSCREW28

I know that . I was saying if he wants a window then to move off the exit row and into a different E+ seat like say row 16. If he wants the exit row, then just stay in the exit row.