Boogie711

Whoa - of course the seats themselves are similar. But - "The lavs are a drag, I suppose?"

No. Just no.

Imagine this - 50 minutes before landing, you're thinking "Hmmm... I should probably pee." Then the pilot comes on and says "We're anticipating turbulence, so we're going to turn the fasten seatbelt sign on early... you've got about ten minutes."

You're now competing with a whopping 65 people per toilet.

Hell to the No.

HLCinCOU

Um, OK. First, UA has the exact same number of lavs. Second, your original point appeared to be that CA was packing way more pax into the same amount of space. My point was that's not true, because you ignored the space taken by premium cabins. Having fewer lavs is a drawback...but it's not evidence that they are using the same floospace for more people, which is what you claimed.

davistev

He already acknowledged that

Boogie711

I have NO Idea what you're reading. I re-read my quote, and my point was entirely based on the Lav's. I'm not sure what sort of weird spatial conspiracy crap you're trying to accuse me of here, but no - a seat is a seat.

But not being able to pee? Yeah, frankly, that's an issue.

And yes, UA does have 'the same number of Lav's." They have six, AC (not CA, by the way) has six. So, using that logic, an entire office complex with only a port-a-potty is the same thing as a 1 bedroom apartment. They're the same because they have the same number of washrooms.

It's a ludicrous assumption to make, isn't it?

Anyway, in a"Six Washroom Space" Air Canada has managed to shoehorn an extra 90 people on board.

What's that you say? That's not a fair logical argument to make? Air Canada actually devotes more physical space to a larger crowd?

Sure they do. BUT... where are the extra lav's then? That's right - they're not there.

It's a miserable flying experience. I made absolutely no claim whatsoever about lack of physical space. I told people not to fly it.

HLCinCOU

Well, you know what you were thinking when you wrote your comment, so fair enough. But I can tell you for sure that when I read it, it absolutely did not occur to me at all that the lavs were the thrust of it. And looking at it again I don't see how any normal person who didn't already know that was your complaint would take it that way. Here's what I was reading:

"...even United, on the SAME airframe, puts a whopping 92(!) less people in economy class..."

The SAME airframe! 92 more people! That sounds like you're saying they packed the airplane tighter to me. Especially after you pointed out in the prior post that HD means "high density." And given the fact that you were responding to somebody who noted both planes had the same number of seats/row. Nowhere in the post do you mention not being able to pee as your problem...but you do mention density and more people on the same airframe. That reads completely like a people/area conversation.

Well obviously that's a wild exaggeration, but point taken; CA has almost 30% more pax/lav vs. UA, and that's not good. If I had thought your comment was at all about the lavs/pax ratio, I wouldn't have taken issue. But your post doesn't read that way to someone not already inside your head. Not at all.

HLCinCOU

I just re-read the whole thread and now I'm even more mystified how you can think anybody thought your main point was about the lavs. You didn't even mention lavs in a sentence until you responded to my comment. Your first comment said nothing except the "high density" line...how's that supposed to be about lavs? Clearly Jasper didn't think that's what it was about, or he wouldn't have mentioned the seats/row similarity to other carriers. Clearly olouie thought the conversation was about people/area, given that in agreeing with you he said he "felt crushed" on the HD. Then you go into "more people on the SAME" airframe. The lavs are mentioned in the numbers supporting that other argument. But they aren't given even one sentence of the actual argument.

In other words, when I wrote the last comment I figured, "OK, I didn't read it that way, but I'll take Boogie's word for it." But now that I've re-read, that's frankly a bit hard to swallow.

Boogie711

This has ventured into the ridiculous. Thank you, HLCinCOU, for the reading comprehension lessons.

My point remains, the 777HD on Air Canada is bad news. Everyone have a great day now.

(Except for the people reading this on the aforementioned plane... I'll just say "I hope your day sucks less once you get off that plane.)

usafltg

I'm confused.... I can find no reference via google or by the forum search as to what "dl.com" is, and www.dl.com is not a real website.

If I try to look up any HKG flights on aa.com for november / december, i get prices in the $1000 range.

I'm looking to make the trip on AA metal, but trying to figure out where you guys are getting these prices from... ?? I'm originating from ORD and trying to take the 77W airframe from either LAX or DFW and back again so I can use my systemwides for upgrade to Business.

usafltg

I'm confused.... I can find no reference via google or by the forum search as to what "dl.com" is, and www.dl.com is not a real website.

If I try to look up any HKG flights on aa.com for november / december, i get prices in the $1000 range.

I'm looking to make the trip on AA metal, but trying to figure out where you guys are getting these prices from... ?? I'm originating from ORD and trying to take the 77W airframe from either LAX or DFW and back again so I can use my systemwides for upgrade to Business.

Jasper2009

DL = Delta Airlines; www.delta.com

FlyingChuck

Noticed some good fares in the other direction.

HKG-LAX
MU: $371
AA: $419
ANA/UA: $424

ianmanka

The fare war continues even further.

$287 HKG-LAX-SMF/RNO/FAT on AA

DL pushes it even lower:

$246 HKG-SEA-SFO
$267 HKG-SEA-PDX-SLC-FAT
$267 HKG-SEA-SLC-RNO
$267 HKG-SEA-SLC-EKO
$267 HKG-SEA-GEG/BOI-SLC-EKO
$281 HKG-SEA-BOI/GEG-SLC-IDA

Flyerhandle

Are these fares only ex-HKG?