Originally Posted by
dkc192
I get this reasoning and can sympathize a little with the current state of airline ops, but IMHO you only get to play this card a couple times before it gets old and you lose customer trust. First a 772HD on IAH-LHR, then another on IAD-MUC, and now this, all in the span of what, a month? 752s and 772HDs are not valid long-term spare aircraft for routes that are more-or-less Polaris guaranteed and sell PE.
Originally Posted by
uastarflyer
exactly
You also aren’t getting hoodwinked by the “but would you rather they cancel?” nonsense.
Originally Posted by
PTahCha
(shrug) The airline is damned either way, and the best alternative is to get as many people to their destination as possible. If you happen to be on all 3 flights that had an aircraft substitution, well go buy a lottery ticket.
And that's 3 flights out of how many flights that operated with their assigned aircraft?
I also don't think that's a fair criticism. If United starts regularly subbing true-Polaris aircraft with planes with PMCO or PMUA business seats, criticism will be warranted. But, if the alternative is to cancel a transatlantic flight, then subbing a 752 for a 763 is obviously preferable for customers -- especially if you can fit all the passengers on the plane.
Now, as a passenger, I might be inclined to gripe about it and request a voucher in return (maybe $250 if I'd upgraded or bought an award ticket; $500 if I'd actually paid for J). And I think it would be fair to request a re-route via IAD, EWR or BOS if I really cared about the seat. (As it happens, I understand the PMUA business seats are better-padded than Polaris; for a short night flight like East Coast-LHR, it might be a better option.) But I don't think there's yet evidence that UA has decided to defer investment in Polaris by engaging in risky aircraft scheduling and then relying on inferior aircraft when its operations fall through.