EWR764

The staffing issue isn't a predicate for litigation... there'd be no proof, only circumstance. Further, there are no doubt more compelling operational reasons to shift 787s to the West Coast, and labor clearly is not the primary reason for the move. Still, it presents an interesting (un)intended consequence of the decision.

I'd put money on that. A GFL at the renovated LAX T7/8 is wishful thinking, unfortunately.

JOSECONLSCREW28

All of the FA training classes graduating between July 24th and December 18th are sUA and quite a few of the most recent graduates are under 30 years old and some have already been sent on international trips one did a ZRH trip and the other did a BRU trip.

LordTentacle

If the SYD routes all switch to 787 I'm done with UA and switching to VA or AA
the seats are horrid on the 787 vs the 777 (J+Y) and losing the option of doing GF when flying paid J kills it for me

sad cause I was going to hit 900k lifetime by june next year... guess it will never hit 1M...

EDIT: I wonder if I book some GF now if I can force UA to book me over to F on NZ....

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I guess you missed the post about a new UA lounge (not UC, not GF) for "special" people - GS, BF, celebrities.

Posted by ua1flyer in his thread (in page 51, w some follow-up):
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...air-gs-51.html

From Mr. Tom:
"Wow!!!! Great News! Just finished a great sit down with the managing director of premium services. Great guy. More importantly for all of you (me included) that have been not happy with the United Clubs, help is on the way. I don't want to steal all of Michael's thunder, but a Premium lounge will be coming to both Newark and LA among others. After an lengthy conversation, he filled me in on extensive improvements in several areas including food, design, staffing etc, and the overcrowding issues. Great talk, Great news. 2016 will be a year that puts more smiles on the faces of United Club members!"

Me thinks this post by ua1flier suggested the demise of GF at LAX.

minnyfly

Makes a lot of sense for UA to do this. First it means less trouble swapping aircraft and crews when necessary. Plus the 787s are the best UA aircraft for LAX. The 789 is an almost perfect capacity replacement for the 772, and it's better for the long-range Australia routes. It will match up better cost-wise in these competitive markets. And it also has arguably UA's best 2-class product. Obviously the J product could be better, but Y is excellent.

EWR764

NZ has no F, their Business Premier is a J product.

Great to hear, but I'll believe that when I see it. My understanding is the major innovation at EWR will be a restaurant-within-the-lounge (run by OTG) that will be an 'exclusive' experience, but you'll pay for it.

LordTentacle

Your right... I forgot NZ retired the last 747 last year

Replace NZ with QF/AA

IAH-OIL-TRASH

My impression from the conversation is that since LAX will lose GF, the new lounge area once envisioned for GF will be re-positioned as a more exclusive (and much fancier) "UC-Deluxe" that will only admit GS, BF, and whoever UA deems special (Sorry 1Ks. Come on in Snookie). The regular UC will remain as is and cater to lesser people (credit card passes, members, *G in coach).

mduell

Are you kidding? The 787 is tied with the 747 for the worst longhaul Y product in the fleet. You can bring your own entertainment on an iPad, you can't bring your own inch or so of seat width. Add that to the brighter cabin on daytime flights and the awful padding and it's a stinker.

But the capacity makes sense for UA's thinner and thinner longhaul routes out of LAX... gee I wonder why they're getting thinner...

EWR764

SFO-ICN will be 789 from 8/1-10/21/16, coinciding with a major seasonal decline in premium travel in that market. Should stay 747 the rest of the year...

I'd be all for that. Fingers crossed...

JOSECONLSCREW28

Somewhat off topic but figured I would post here. The company is pushing for and prefers the sCO style base system of having seperate international/domestic/speaker bases, while sUA and their MEC prefers combined bases and co-terminals (ie JFK FAs serving all 3 NYC airports).

channa

Any idea why that is? It would seem that the company wants CO style work rules due to flexibility (and I can understand their position), and in this case the CO approach would limit their flexibility (e.g., a domestic FA can't (or does not have to) work an INTL flight, or can they?)

Jorgen

Even NZ's 747 didn't have an F cabin for the last (not sure how many) years of its operation.

But sure, if you want to pay for F across the Pacific then by all means fly QF, UA was never a good option anyway.

JOSECONLSCREW28

Domestic FAs can work international flights they just can't bid them. I've had several international flights where I've had domestic based FAs work international trips (EWR - OSL, EWR - HAM, EWR - LIS) to name a few. Also quite a few of the new hire sCO SFO based FAs have Chinese visas in case they are called to work the CTU flight.

why fly

J is superior to J on the UA 777. However Y on a 787 is horrific, the seats are too narrow.

fly AA its seats in Y are 10 across on its 777 so they will be just as bad as the UA 787.