tyroner

Indeed - and if I had known I would have been packing it. But I was scheduled on Air NZ....

weero

Is this for real?

I always thought that "streaming IFE" is codespeak for not having anything at all and then being able to say that "it is down for safety reasons".

LoungeBum

You are right.. My bad, to many flights got me confused , I did the SFO-HND on a 772

I have done the IAH-NRT-IAH on both 772 and 788...

dko3tgk

I agree with the original poster. I think many are missing the point. I lived in SF for 2 years. And I primarily travel to Asia. Being stuck in 744 Y is torture. I had to do it a few times in middle seats. How can a transpacific flight for that many hours have no seatback IFE? And just replays of "Elf" on the blurry CRT overhead, which can't even be viewed from many seats. No power, so I can't watch anything on my laptop. And 3-4-3 meaning that everyone is burdened by getting up and letting people in and out all the time.

I've also flown on top deck a number of times and yes its private and spacious, but to risk UA 744 economyis not worth the risk if I don't clear my upgrade. Ever. A 777 C class seat on UA is totally fine if it means I may end up in Economy on a 777 vs. 747.

UA needs to change the seats or retire the planes. I refuse to fly UA NRT-SFO now that I don't live in SFO anymore.

LordTentacle

I've got 700,000 BIS on the 744 in Y all of it on Syd->sfo/lax

I started out with a G3 Pismo powerbook with 3 spare batteries
These days I've got a HP 2570p (100wh batt) and a Ipad 4th gen
I could care less what the plane has, I wont go bored, and i wont have to wait nearly as long for a loo

I love the 747 and wish they would bring it back

drvannostren

Yea, but what color is the horse?

It is all about personal preference, but I do agree a little bit. There's an expectation now that with a major airline no long-haul flight should ever really be without AVOD. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way, but I don't imagine so.

I don't want these on the south America routes btw, those are mine! UA flies more appropriate planes to Central/South America (northern) at least. It's pretty much all 737s which are decent but if you're flying overnight to BOG it sucks if you're in J and can't lie flat, but that's just a luxury. It's a short enough flight. The 757 is a better choice but they only do it during high season.

weero

I agree 100%. I value proper IFE a lot more than E+ these days. The bad or nonexistent IFE on UA paired with the abominable foot are the main reasons I stay clear of UA coach these days.

Another key element of IFE is that it keeps the families and kids quiet. So even if the streaming thing were for real, it would not really do the same job as an SQ style AVOD.

QBK

This discussion is fascinating to me. FT has lots of broad consensuses -- e.g., J >> Y, you have the right to recline your seat, Koito seats stink, nuts must be warm, etc. So it's fascinating to see a subject where people have totally different perspectives, especially when it doesn't immediately mushroom into a religious war (e.g., kids in F, TODs, UA-vs-CO, seat recline).

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm kinda with LordTentacle on this one. I'm okay with the 747 in Y (even to SYD), but that's because I have my own careful strategy:
1. Make sure I get 45C or 45H (or the other exit row in an emergency),
2. Bring fully charged devices,
3. Bring a good book,
4. Use a suitcase or camp stool for a footrest,
5. Ambien.

Basically, if you get an infinite-legroom seat and view it as a camping experience, I think the 747 can be fine. I mean, I just flew SYD-SFO in J, and the only things I did with the IFE were: (1) checked the map, and (2) scrolled through the entire list of movies and didn't want to watch any. Instead, I ate dinner, had 3 glasses of wine, slept for 9 hours, and happily read a Kindle book for 5 hours. Which I could have done reasonably well in Y too (albeit with worse food, wine, and sleep).

On the other hand, if you're really depending on being entertained -- or if you can't select one of the good E+ seats -- then, yeah, the 747 is a catastrophe. For example, if I was flying with my 6-yo daughter, I'd have a totally different perspective. The IFE really is a huge plus if you have kids (although a carefully prepped tablet can substitute pretty well).

Bonehead

Comments like this would mean more to me if there was some indication of a poster's size. Someone 5'7" and 140 lbs is going to have a very different view of a small space than I would (6'3" and linebacker-like).

littlewinglet

My problem with the ancient UA planes is they seem to have very bulky armrests, which even when raised all the way, still protrude far from the space between the seats. This matters on those half-empty flights where I can make a poor man's business seat out of 3-4 coach seats in a row. Also, seems like overhead bins are smaller and often don't fit the larger carry-on suitcases.

eng3

Comparing BF, seeing that the seat on the 787 and the pmCO 777 are the same, I'd say I prefer the 787 overall over the 777 just because stuff is newer. Plus the higher pressure/humidity, bigger windows are kind of nice. It's certainly better than the pmUA 777 IMO. Still prefer the upper deck of the 747. Its nice to actually have some storage room.

mduell

That's sort of exactly the problem with UA's 787 config - they are they same. On an 18" narrower fuselage.

eng3

So the width of the BF seats are less than on the pmCO? I've flown the 789 once, and prior to that I was in the middle section of a pmUA 777 so it was hard to compare width since I think all of them are too narrow

Kacee

Same design, not same size.

awestphal

....ehhh.... what? Barcaloungers on a 772? in 2015? Am booked HNL - LAX - FRA on United in F for the HNL - LAX sector. Seatguru shows this one as a 772 with 38' pitch in F. And I was under the impression that the Hawaii widebody flights would all lie-flat...