TWA Fan 1

Now, that's a whole new tone of argumentation.

Everything in this post is reasoned and thought out.

Obviously, no need to fly UA if you don't want to, and a lot of what you are writing I think is pretty incontrovertible.

Just a couple of notes, though:

1. You assume everything that UA could bring to the table, would be at its worst. International first class, for example. Sure, UA intl FC does not compare to an SQ FC suite on an A-380. No question about that. But then again, I think much the same could be said of CO's BF (remember, CO doesn't even have intl FC).

But why couldn't the combined airline adopt intl FC on the routes where it makes sense, and add the elements of the CO product that appeal to you? Would you still refuse to fly that, even on one of your unrestricted SWU?

2. It's not accurate to say that UA's 763's are "dirty old birds." They have been refurbished with lie-flat J and brand-new and very pleasant interiors throughout.

Now, on the other hand, let's hope that management and the pilots' unions can agree to raise the scope clause so that the +-50% of domestic departures that are now on ERJ-145's (where I know you fly coach since that's all there is...) can be at least in part replaced by UA-style CRJ-700 and ERJ-170's, where you will be able to settle in--for a change--into a nice UA-style first class seat...

Or maybe you never fly any regional jets? I guess that's why they have Gulfstream G5's

Or is it Greyhound?

All the best,

TF1

gawhite411

I don't think anyone thinks UA is going to change its F to compete with foreign carriers. Of course CO BF doesn't. But it isn't priced to. it's priced as a business product. And is okay for a business product.

I try like hell to avoid RJs. Doesn't always work.

TWA Fan 1

Don't we all?

In the past four years--without trying to--I have not ridden in a single CO mainline a/c domestically (I have flown TATL, all in paid BF).

It's been all RJ for me...all based on my destinations.

Now, I'm not complaining, really. I could have taken other carriers and connected just to fly mainline, but I wanted the convenience of non-stop.

On the other hand, if some of those planes would have had E+ (or FC for you, since you only fly up front) I think that would have been a huge +.

Hopefully, CO gets something like this out of a merger with UA...

Let's keep our fingers crossed and let's keep an open mind...

Steph3n

I dont mind the 145s, q400s and saabs to some markets but PLEASE PLEASE something better for MSP, CLE, PBI, VPS and so many more, 145's are just not that great for 2+ hours! Better than 1 hour on a CRJ200, but still they deserve more. DAL probably will be seeing the 145's for a while due to but otherwise, there is a big need for 70 seat AC.

milepig

This is true of the INTL 763s, but the domestic version is indeed pretty grim.

A more interesting question might be what will happen to the mix of CO birds with BF and the UA planes with F and C. I could certainly see offering 3-class service on the true long-haul flights XPAC, etc., and using the 2 class CO birds on TALT and other shorter INTL flights, at least until they decide how to reconfigure the entire fleet.

TWA Fan 1

A big question indeed...one of the biggest issues to work out pretty quickly will be whether the new UaCo continues the long-standing CO policy of the greatest possible operational simplicity...if this holds, then we should be prepared to see all 3-class service go bye-bye, including UA PS, and the retirement of numerous a/c...

Of course, UaCo is not only much larger airline than the old CO, it's also much more complex, so let's hope that CO will understand tha one size does not always fit all...

TWA Fan 1

That's just it.

Every legacy carrier in the U.S. has small RJ's with an economy-only cabin for short hauls.

But CO, because of its scope clause, can make you fly over 3 hours in the Brazilian Pencil.

Those longer RJ flights need larger RJ's, with FC and, hopefully, E+

ssullivan

777s do not have to mean no personal air vents. CO's are just configured that way. All of UA's widebody fleet has personal air vents.

I've always found it annoying that CO chose not to equip the 767s and 777s with them, especially since I've found CO tends to keep the cabin too warm for my personal taste on long international flights.

And, given the choice of upgrading to a domestic F seat on a 737, or an international business class seat on a 767 or 777, I'll take the widebody anyway. When I go to LA for work my preferred routing has become the UA international 777 service to LAX out of IAD. I also try to always hit the 767 or 777 on flights between EWR and IAH. I find it to be a better ride overall, often with a more comfortable seat and better IFE.

ssullivan

The interiors were upgraded in the first and business cabins on the international 763s. Go back to economy on those planes and it's obvious where the renovations stopped.

The domestic 763s have seen even less refurbishment. There's still room for improvement on both fleets, but, they are better than they once were. CO's 767s are still much nicer overall, in part due to having the newer 777-style interior.

TWA Fan 1

All agreed. Still, it is not accurate to say that all UA 763's are "dirty old birds."

Also, although the planes may not all be renovated throughout, for those of us who like a wide body, it's great to be able to expect them with far greater frequency on UA than on CO, where, aside from the odd repositioning flight IAH-EWR, you will never see a wide body doing domestic in the Lower 48.

Now, if one doesn't like wide bodies, there is obviously no benefit to flying an older 763 vs a newer 739...that's definite.

TWA Fan 1

One more note about refurbished interiors.

UA has refurbished some of its 757 fleet (all through, incl Y) and these interiors are beautiful and the seats far more comfortable than the horrid Koito monstrosities that CO has put in all their planes.

gawhite411

[QUOTE=TWA Fan 1;14859460]All agreed. Still, it is not accurate to say that all UA 763's are "dirty old birds."

QUOTE]

My post was in reference to the post about 763s on domestic service. So I really only meant to refer to those. i have never flown them.. But if the UA apologists on the UA board call them dirty birds, I'm willing to rely on that as a fair assessment.

channa

The term is ghetto bird. I'm not sure if that's derived from the age of the aircraft of the fact that the crew is not the most professional in the industry.

TWA Fan 1

[QUOTE=gawhite411;14859903]Fair enough.

Dirty old bird = ghetto bird.

I got the point.

I have flown on a domestic 763 and they're not the greatest...no question.

Then again, they are not dilapidated and for me it's nice to be able to fly a little wide body domestically once in a while.

Someone who doesn't care about wide bodies would not want to seek out a UA ghetto bird....

TWA Fan 1

But when the merger happens, will they, in fact, become the most professional in the industry?

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one...(it's just a joke, of course)