I take a very different message from this. 99.9% of us would have always taken a wide-body over a narrow body. We can all name the advantages. The 757 - which we collectively like domestically, got a book away for not being a widebody.

On a domestic mainline leg, the slimmed 737 is as low as it goes. Yet, more than 50% of people will not ride the new UA 777? Will take the lowest of the low 737 over it? And on only a 5 hour flight?

On every route the new 77W at 3-4-3 is going to be used, there will be options. Same with the 77HD. People who avoid flying on the 77W/77HD for a 5 hour flight, sure as hell are not going to take it for 14 hours 30 minutes to Hong Kong.

The negative reaction is stronger and more immediate than I expected from FT, but is consistent with the uniform "avoid" posted on places like Seatguru and travel blogs. see e.g.:

"TERRIBLE. Avoid this plane if any possible. 3-4-3 configuration is miserable. It's just too narrow. Slime line seats are very hard and have almost no recline. No screens, just personal device entertainment which only worked for 30 minutes max. No internet. 6.5 hours of misery. I generally like the UA 777s even for long hauls to China, but this new config is just AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL. "

"Nonstops to/from Hawaii changed at last minute from 2/5/2 to 3/4/3 configuration. (Our original seat assignments were scattered.) This seat wasn't bad in terms of extra legroom in bulkhead, but terrible in terms of seat width. And lack of seatback IFE screens is appalling. "

"seats unfit for humans-too narrow. Can't even lean into misaligned window wells. Last minute substitution from 9 to 10 abreast on oversold flight was obviously preplanned because most window seats were gone before "flight change" text was sent. "

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Un..._777-200_9.php