skyhy

Want to burn some orphan UA miles (leftovers from the CO days) - am about to book a few award tix from NRT-US in coach and have the choice between either a 747-400 NRT-SFO-PDX or the 787-8 NRT-DEN-PDX (this itin takes 5 hrs more !)
I'm familiar with the 747 and the Dreamliner, however not familiar at all with UA's products since I hardly ever fly with them.
Since these itins will be coach anyway, does it really matter or is there a distinct difference and should I choose one over the other ?

TIA!

Exleftseat

I think you are between a rock and a hard place. Both seats in coach are awful. I tend to think that the '87 seat is worse than the '47 seat, but then my experience stems from their exit seats mainly and I am tall and don't have a model figure.... UA had a chance to make a difference on their '87s but as usual they crammed too many seats in there and it shows. I would go for the shortest trip length to get it over with as quick as possible. Look at the various seat threads on FT to make a more educated choice. Enjoy your trip.

eleeut

seats on 747 are a bit tighter in standard coach class (31" pitch and 17 wide) vs. 787 (32" pitch and 17.3 wide). Also, no personal IFE on 747 v. personal seatback entertainment on 787 which could be significant if you haven't prepared or aren't carrying your own.

not UA specific, but someone else may want to advise on clearing CBP at DEN v. SFO as that may have some weight as well.

zrs70

If you are burning the miles, you should consider other *A carriers as well.

noah

I second the recommendation to look at other carriers.

NRT-SFO on ANA, NRT-YVR/YYC on Air Canada worth considering.

skyhy

Thanks so much - I was leaning to the same conclusion and opt for the shortest itinerary, which is starting in AKL and takes already about 27 hrs.

Are you serious - these days on a 11½ hr flight no IFE ?

Yes, Air Canada thru YVR is another option for my dates, but again, I'm not familiar with their product as compared to US Carriers - how is it ?
Will do my homework and check award availability on ANA - is it worth it ?

DawgmanOH

Yep. On UA, in 747 Y, no IFE. There is no WAY I would purposely book the 747. If you have to do UA, go with the 787. Time will pass quicker.

zabes64

Since you won't be in economy plus, any airline other than United back to the US is your better choice.

StingWest

Can't you buy up to Econ Plus - this is a lot of hours of flying.

I liked the 787 a lot - I was in C though, don't know about the Y seats. And I do think there is something to the fact that having higher pressure (and higher humidity) in the cabin makes for more comfortable flying. Some people said it made no difference to them so YMMV.

And bring your own entertainment no matter who you fly!

Tchiowa

I agree. Coach Narita to San Francisco is going to be painful whichever airplane (or airline) you choose. The less time you spend in one of those seats the better.

eleeut

If you count bulkhead projection screens and overhead monitors, there is IFE... The 747 is is the least favorable in Coach! I am spoiled by not having failed a UG TPAC in over 4 years now but my turn will come up again soon enough. I avoid the 747 unless I can confirm. I've also forgotten that UA charges 100+ for E+ on longhauls if you can't get it outright due to status.

I still have yet to fly in a 787, perhaps I will wait until the 789s are introduced.

ORDnHKG

NH is worth it but AC not so much.

For NH, you can even see what kind of meals you are getting for the month and for the route even in Y, so you would have some kind of expectation.

I suggest other than checking availability on awards, but also go to each airline's own website to check on their services as well.

Kacee

You might also look at OZ through ICN. They have a much nicer Y product than UA, with 33-34 inch pitch and 18" wide seats. Downside is the extra connection (though ICN is a very nice airport).

emcampbe

Since we're talking about Y, I disagree on both counts (can't comment on J).

NH is going to be the 77W to SFO, I think, and those Y seats are pretty bad, IME. While they are 34" of pitch, basically equivalent to E+, they slide forward rather than going back to "recline". I felt like I had very little room in a full row on ORD-NRT. And to be honest, the service on NH when I flew them was not really any different than I've had on UA long-haul. I know others rave about it - but that's my experience, anyway.

Personally, I would rather fly UA in E+ (though it might be a tough call on a UA 747 in Y vs. ANA 77W - would definitely fly a UA 777 over an ANA one). ANA IFE is also clearly not designed with a North American customer in mind. Some hollywood hits, yes, but I would say very much more geared toward a Japanese/Asian customer.

AC I haven't flown TPAC, but I have flown TATL recently. Seat was fairly comfortable, food decent (but nothing like TK, SQ, etc.). Fairly friendly crew, at least on my flight. In terms of IFE, they were among the first in North America to get AVOD at every seat - the system they use on their 777s are pretty dated. Less choice than UA, but better than ANA. AC is nothing special, but IME, a better choice than ANA. The only thing to be careful of, and this part is all from what I have heard, is to avoid their HD 777s (the ones with PE), unless of course you can sit in PE. The reviews of those are terrible - you can see the AC forum for the threads there - however, I don't think those generally fly to NRT (could be mistaken).

BearX220

I've done AC TATL on A330s and 763s in the back cabin and it was good. AC has a 763 on YVR-NRT at present. I'd try that first, then the ANA service via SEA, then OZ.

If you absolutely have to fly UA metal I would go for the 787, not because it's good but because the 744 dispatch rate / delay incidence is so awful. Stay away from the UA 744 fleet.