Need advise on UA flight NRT-US
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 53
Need advise on UA flight NRT-US
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!
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!
#2
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 5,577
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.
#3
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: WAS
Programs: UA 1K MM | Marriott LTT | National Car EE
Posts: 694
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.
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.
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA Plat 2MM. DL Plat, AS MVP
Posts: 12,752
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!
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!
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 53
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.
Will do my homework and check award availability on ANA - is it worth it ?
Last edited by l etoile; Jun 30, 2014 at 10:34 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Programs: UA PM, DL PM, Bonvoy Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 1,293
#8
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Växjö, SE/Washington, DC
Programs: AA ExPlat, UA 1K (2MM)
Posts: 1,159
Since you won't be in economy plus, any airline other than United back to the US is your better choice.
#9
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: near to SFO and LHR
Programs: BA Gold, B6 Mosiac, VS, AA, DL (and a legacy UA 2MM)
Posts: 2,274
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!
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
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.
#11
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: WAS
Programs: UA 1K MM | Marriott LTT | National Car EE
Posts: 694
I still have yet to fly in a 787, perhaps I will wait until the 789s are introduced.
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: ORD, HKG
Programs: UA*G, AA Emerald, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt globalist
Posts: 10,279
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.
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,461
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).
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,890
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).
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).
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
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.