No, they were good enough. In fact, UA has stopped taking delivery of bunked aircraft, and will get no more. We have quite a few aircraft with the 3A/3J rest configuration, and that's the way any new aircraft intended for markets over 12 hours will be equipped.

The real story is somewhat more complicated than what you related. When the 777 was being contemplated for flights over 12 hours, the First Suites did not exist. It's an FAA requirement (not ALPA) that flight crew rest facilities for flights over 12 hours have a lie-flat bed. Since the F seat did not qualify, UA was required to build a bunk facility in the 777 if it wanted to fly the airplanes over 12 hours.

The bunk facility is not a great one. It's not terrible, but it was not designed with the aircraft, and was essentialy a band-aid fix. It's literally like sleeping in a closet. It's also not possible to really sit up in the bunk, which might be desired at some point on a 13.5 hour flight leaving at 11 a.m. Once the F suites came on the scene, they became the preferred rest facility, which is why the new aircraft are now equipped with curtains at 3A/3J.

If you want to blame anyone for this fiasco, the best person would be the former VP for flight ops, Hart Langer. When the 777 was being designed, UA had quite a bit of input into the process. Hart was adamently opposed to any pilot rest, and he said UA would never fly the airplane farther than Europe regardless. A short 5 years later and the airplane starts Pacific service (no way to forsee that!). If UA had requested a rest facility at the time the aircraft was being designed, it's very possible that Boeing would have developed the overhead rest facility currently being offered as a retrofit. The 777 would then have had a bunk room (like the 744), and we would never have had any of this mess with curtains, moving lavs, bunk rooms, business class seats, etc.

--Mark Rogers