uastarflyer

The launch customer set the mark at 8. I agree with your point though that UA isn't alone in cheapening it.

Seat comfort, can't say there would be much difference either way - not sure why SG says one way or another. Usage-wise, the set of 2's are great for couples, or singles hoping for a hot seatmate. And the overhead bag bins are better aligned to 2-5-2 in terms of location/reach and capacity distribution (i.e. the bin above the 2 is at best sufficient for 2 passengers).

My guess is perhaps by 2:1 margin PMUA customers prefer 2-5-2 over 3-3-3. The market went 3-3-3 though, and UA now too.

joshwex90

True, but LO, who I believe was the second airline to release their 787 seatmap, set it at 9.

The only thing I can imagine is that either way, you end up with 4 aisles and 3 middles, but in the 2-5-2, all the middles are together, and you end up with 2 windows that are probably more ideal than they are in 3-3-3. (Same reason I prefer row 44ABKL on PMCO 772 barring ELR.)

sxf24

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/5.0.0.1067 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

First, the 787 was designed for either 8 or 9. It's not like CO just decided to go with 9 across.

If the 747 is not a fair comparison because it is an outdated or uncomfortable aircraft, why are people complaining that it is not being used on intra-Asia flights? I guess it seems like preference is a moving target or that anything that is not "PMUA" is automatically bad.

colpuck

If you watch the dreamliner CNBC program you'll notice that demo seats they are sitting in are 9 across and they were complaining about them.

joshwex90

Which program? You have a link? (Or is it up-thread...search doesn't seem to be working)

colpuck

It is the one that came out at the end of September.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43925643

uastarflyer

And in 2-5-2 only one person per row is 2 seats away from an aisle. In 3-3-3 two persons per row have to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle.

CO did decide to go with 9 across.

You are free to make the seat width comparison, however the aircraft has been running around for at least 2 decades with 10 across and 17" width (or less). Just meeting the same spec isn't progress.

As to intra-Asia, this has to do with offering United Int'l Business class service (and United First). Not seat width in Y. But if all flights to SIN and SGN were shifted to a 777 then we'd have both the 3 class service, E+ and wider seats in Y. As of today, HKG-SIN-HKG has none of those, thanks to CO.

If you're arguing to put the 787 on HKG-SIN-HKG that is a reasonable compromise.

sxf24

On other consideration is that most current AVOD IFE systems require a "box" for every three seats. You need 2 boxes for a set of 5 seats, increasing costs and reducing space under the seats of twice as many passengers.

Perhaps I should have said that CO did not come up with the concept of 9 across seating. It has been an option since the beginning of the program.

Well, if you want to exceed historic specifications, you should be willing to pay ticket prices at least equal to the rate of inflation. Since you're paying less for airline tickets, it is hard to argue that you deserve that much more, especially once the price of oil is considered.

Bottom line, if the 747 is acceptable equipment, then CO's 787 should be to, particularly once you consider that every conceivable aspect of the passenger experience, except for Y seat width, is vastly superior to the 747.

uastarflyer

ANA will show otherwise (I'm sure at the moment they're gouging the 787 flights).

There is no Int'l F and much fewer Int'l C seats (and much much fewer Y seats). That is a very conceivable aspect for customers.

What's left? Oh wait, that's all the stuff Boeing put into the 787 product that CO couldn't take out. @:-)

joshwex90

Hopefully, we'll get to that great point when there's no longer a need for a box. It'd be great if we could stream to the PTVs as opposed to the current system, thereby avoiding the issue of the box (and perhaps allowing even more content,) AND, no problem of batteries dying, not having a device that can stream, bandwidth overflow...

Solid point

sxf24

Yeah, for those freeloading-expect-the-world-for-nothing-elites are going to miss out on the generous international upgrades. At least those of us who pay for premium class seats will get something worth paying for.

uastarflyer

Folks buy C as well. CO's RJ-737 can't compete. No E+ either.

By putting everyone in the freeloader bucket, you've gone Godwin it appears.

Once again, any customer goodness on the 787 will be because of Boeing and in spite of CO. That's the fundamental essential point.

sxf24

This thread is about the 787, which will have a very competitive C class for people that buy C seats and E+ for elites that don't. Outside of a single inch of seat width, the amenities available to passengers, including those selected by CO, will be superior to any other aircraft in the CO/UA fleet. If you need that inch that much...

If you'd like to continue whining about intra-Asia equipment, there's a thread for that.

uastarflyer

False. United International First (available on PMUA 747, 767, and WIP on the 777) trumps any UA or CO C.

The 787 is a fine aircraft, thanks to Boeing. CO management chose to sub-optimize it for the customer, no thanks to them.

It compares unfavorably to how United helped shape the 777 for the better.

sbm12

So you're saying the aircraft is no good because the 95% of passengers who do not fly in F won't have that as an option on the config of the first few deliveries??

I thought we were talking about the coach cabin. You seem to be all over the place here in terms of what is or is not acceptable and why.