Originally Posted by
sbm12
The full phrase is "Substitution of aircraft type that provides different classes of service or different seat configurations;"
I'd be surprised if you could say 3-3-3 to 3-4-3 qualifies. And the seats are basically the same in Y.
The phrase "seat configurations" does not have any standard definition of which I'm aware. To me, 3-3-3 vs 3-4-3 is a change of seat configurations; they were configured 9-across, and now they're configured 10-across. Do I expect every UA representative to agree? No. Do I think it's possible that someone will? Sure; it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the words, and, barring an applicable definition, the common English meaning of the words should apply.
If UA intended to exclude Y seating arrangements, they should have said so -- or, better yet (from their perspective), left the clause out of the CoC entirely.
I do agree that the seats are basically the same, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort of trying to convince someone about it. It's not nearly as bad as going from a 9-across 772 to a 10-across 772 would be (in that it was already pretty tight on the 787). OP may find more sympathy using the 787 vs. non-787 approach. But, given the way that UA has chosen to write their contract, this isn't an unreasonable request.