But none of those are delivered yet. The sCO order covers the early deliveries while the sUA order is planes yet to come.

I've sat in both. I can tell the difference. It is significant, and more than a half inch.

Not the only factor, of course, but if I don't fit in the seat space I've been allocated without contortions then I'm disinclined to choose that aircraft/airline for future travel. I still book it sometimes. But I have to consider the chances of rubbing shoulders with a neighbor and what the overall experience will be.

Thanks, didn't realize they pushed them back as well. Also didn't realize PMCO ordered that many 787s. That is why I thought they were taking PMUA deliveries now.

Having flown in the back on United's HD 772s and 773, a number of times when my upgrades didn't clear, I don't prefer it for cross country and would not take it over an ocean.

Not that I'm specifically daring anyone to do it, but I would seriously encourage you and others who haven't experienced it to fly a segment of 4 hours or more in those seats. If you have any width along your shoulders, especially as a male, and if you get the opportunity to sit next to someone who has even broader shoulders than yourself, you'll unfortunately find out how poorly United Continental has decided to treat its customers in Y by going to 10 across.

Per se, I have not flown in 10 across seating on AA or any other airline so far. If you or others have done so, I'd and others on FT would welcome your comments.

David

Did it about 10 years ago on EK. Maybe because guy next to me was small had no problem. Then again, it was a two and a half hour flight, though it was booked FULL.

I've flown UA's 77W in E+ at least 5 segments this year, all p.s. With the tight width and hard slimline seats, I'd say 5-6 hours is the max tolerable amount of flight time for this kind of seating situation. And at 5'9 and 150 lbs, I'm essentially average in terms of body proportions.

Every time I get on these planes, I hear passing comments from seatmates on how tight and cramped this plane feels. These aren't people who have much "awareness" of the difference between 3-3-3 and 3-4-3, but they are nevertheless aware of how uncomfortable the plane makes them feel.

Moin!

For me it is totally unbearable but I am 190cm and 90kg (6'3 and 200lbs for the non metric population ;-). I flew the 77W once from HKG to SFO (12 hour flight) in the exit row middle seat (was a late booking). I couldn't sleep at all and given that they also tightened the isle and eliminated nearly all the space where you could stand before, so you also could not really get up and stretch legs. I decided that for me that was my first and last flight on this bird, at least in in economy, I'll fly it in two weeks in Polaris, though only from EWR to SFO.

I totally understand how people make buying decisions on the economy seating on this plane and I will be one avoiding it despite the fact that my main FRA-SFO route is switching to it soon. But I'd rather connect or fly LH PE then getting on this plane in economy again.

So long
-Ralf

Because if they don't they will be the losing the businesss of many like myself who opt for UA over other airlines only beacuse of CH9.

The B77W is a new aircraft too and does have it installed.

I've flown the LH 747s in Y (both 744 and 748) and they're unbearable because of the misaligned footwells,which UA has put on the 77W. So o will do my best to avoid that plane in Y or at least get exit seats.

Im an optimist, so could there be a tiny smidgen of hope here. The 772 will be replaced by the A359 in 5-10 years so let's just upgrade J to Polaris and leave economy alone? That's saves on retrofit costs.

UA and AA have retrofitted J without doing Y before to save costs. In those days it was bad for Y. To not retrofit the 772s this time around would be good.

Optomist or fantasist?

Unfortunately United HAS to do 10 across in the 77W. It is the only way the seat counts (366) get up to what the 77W is replacing: the 747 (374).

If they didn't do 10 across, it would be well short of what the 744 could seat. If they did 9 across, they would only fit about 336 seats in the 77W.

I did 9 hours on one of the 10 across AF 777s a few years ago. That was the first and last time I've subjected myself to that miserable experience, and I'm never doing it again. One of my upcoming trips includes a UA 789 in Y. If my pending upgrade request doesn't clear, I'll be SDCing myself to a different flight at T-24.

Ive ridden the NZ 777 in Y at 10-across. Definitely tight,but the NZ service made it tolerable. However the 787 at 9-across I've been in countless times TPAC and have no complaints with that width. I'm also fairly large at 6'2" and 105kg

I've been lucky with similar seatmates in the past. Unlucky, too. It does affect the comfort of the seat.
And AF, KL, EK, QR, AA, NZ, CX, etc. The continued implication that this is a UA thing and not an industry thing is tiring.

I've done it on multiple airlines. You seem to ignore the many times I've stated that.
If that's the only reason you're buying UA tix then you are very, very, very, very much in the minority of the millions of passengers UA carries every year.

The misaligned footwells are annoying. But not as bad as the narrower seats IMO.

Agreed, but that's not going to happen.
It becomes a question of CASM versus revenue premium over the competition. If UA (or any airline) can charge 10% more on it flights because it offers a more comfortable seat then that airline can afford to have fewer seats on board, keeping the total per-trip revenue of a flight on par with others. But consumers have proven time and again that they won't pay that. Despite the random assertions on sites like this.

In the simplistic spreadsheet version of airline economics pushed by the Hunter Keays of the world, this is correct. But the reality is far different. Airlines make money by (1) having a higher load (less empty seats) and (2) by getting more of the group of business travelers who pay more, and buy later when prices are higher. To profit, an airline does not charge 10% more on every ticket, they must simply obtain a higher portion of the traffic when prices raise. A better mix of fares is how to outperform. This is why overall PRASM is a good indication of how well an airline is doing.

What United is doing - and this thread and others show - is driving away the segment of travelers who are paying more to fly Y, but can't afford/company will not pay for J.

I get that AF flew bone crushing configurations head to head vs ULCCs (running 9x on 333s) on routs to overseas beach destinations, or that EK has used these configurations hauling people to/from SE asia via the ME. But none of this says anything about how these bone crushing configurations will work, in reality, for an airline with high labor cost which is kept afloat by and large by FFers and business travelers who is flying mostly Americans, who perhaps it ought to be pointed out are statistically the largest people in the world.

It takes a while for people to catch on to how bad these configurations are (and AA put 3-3-3 in MCS at first, and only has a few planes with these ultra tight configruations for elites, United is the "discomfort leader" at this point).

This said, it appears that you and I agree that the A350 is a much more comfortable plane than the B787 in Y, and that is even more true with the 77W/772 in 3-4-3. As such it remains a good thing that United appears to still be keeping the 350 in the mix.

I understand this theory. I've yet to see any data that supports it. Got any to share??

Fare and schedule remain the dominant factors. Loyalty and comfort matter but they trail significantly. That's real world studies based on lots of travelers, not the niche, self-selected segment that plays here on FT.

AF is running 10-abreast on its 777s to such beach destinations as JFK. Ditto KLM. Air Canada is doing it on its horribly leisure routes like Australia, China and Hong Kong.

Yes, the tighter seats launched on leisure routes but they're rapidly expanding across the industry. I do not agree that it is reasonable to dismiss it as a leisure-only phenomenon.

Some airlines are also addressing the challenge with premium economy. I'm certain UA will too, eventually. What's old is new again in the cycle of splitting the difference in on-board comfort and ticket price.

Also, I think 9-abreast 330s are a different beast to 9-abreast 787s or 10-abreast 777s. Plus there's the 10-abreast 350 flying today on Air Caraibes, so it is possible on the Airbus models, just less common due to overall trip costs on those models compared to similarly sized Boeing frames.

Only a few with 3-3-3 MCE (MCS is the old VX product) and that's not the direction the company is planning to move going forward.

Indeed, we do agree on that. Always good to find something where that happens.

I certainly am. I have taken many flights on UA of 14+ hours in 3-3-3 across 777's and never really had a problem.

I took an ORD-SFO flight in 3-4-3 with an average sized person in the middle and was horribly uncomfortable. Something about the way I need to position my shoulders and lean a little to the side causes a lot of pain in both my shoulder and lower back areas after a few hours. It's truly uncomfortable and not something I will tolerate on a long flight.