Michael D

Those workers in South Carolina would probably argue with you about that.

UnitedSkies

[QUOTE=LA_Traveler;17195957]Correct, and that in itself should also make one feel less tired after a 12 hour flight.

SFOtoORD

UA will be the first US carrier to have this plane which is a bit of a differentiator.

The cabin pressure is nice.

But I think the real advantage is that it allows carriers to open up routes that wouldn't have worked before. I think this will be real advantage for UA the next couple years.

jgreen1024

Better South Carolina than China. I think at this point we should be grateful for any manufacturing job that doesn't leave the country. And had the unions realized that long ago, we might not be in the offshoring mess we're in.

wco81

Still represents a race to the bottom.

On the show they had on a worker who had been with Boeing for 22 years. She made $67k. CEO made something like $22 million.

Of course with all the offshoring, there are going to be states which will lowball to bring in companies.

UnitedSkies

Great point. And it isn't even about longer range, etc.. it's about better economics. For example, if a given route say ABC-XYZ today can't be served because it's unprofitable, a 20% improvement in costs may make this kind of route profitable and thus "make the cut."

mduell

How many jobs have been lost from the Washington facilities since the plan to open up in South Carolina? Zero. Zip. Nada.
Speaking of states providing subsidies, Washington gives Boeing a ton. But not enough to overcome the business continuity risks of dealing with unions who like to strike every few years. The Boeing facility in South Carolina voted out the union they had under previous ownership when Boeing took over the facility.

UnitedSkies

Here's a pretty good article describing the benefits of the 787s for those who are interested.

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...928-1kx4a.html

BF263533

Higher Humidity - I moved to Florida 30 years ago, and for greater comfort, the goal has been to reduce humidity. On CO, Thai, and ANA aircraft because of the lack of personal air vents I sweat quite a bit and my undershirt is wet from the long hot flight. With higher humidity and if there are no personal air vents to cool me down, I will be dripping wet. Like a day in Florida with poor air conditioning. An 80 degree day in Arizona tends to be more comfortable than in Florida.

ANA appears to have 8 across in coach. Has UA published its 787 configuration? 9 across in coach may be more comfortable like the higher humidity.

kmfdm91

You aren't missing much, except for a few things - mostly negative. Those are all reported in depth across FlyerTalk of course.

But, my experiences were much better in Y (SQ, SIN-MEL) than C (LH, JNB-FRA) - the Y service (upper deck in back) was amazing and had a great feel with better than average service, however the C service was awful and easily reminiscent of Y service (they handed out the menu, but served meals from the cart without any niceties)...

That said, it was really neat for me to think that there was an entire plane of poor saps beneath me along the whole length of the aircraft.

Finally, getting back on topic, I will be excited to fly the 787 and I do believe that UA will get a competitive advantage (depending on the route(s) they choose) for at least a few months/year(s) before the rest of the competition get the jet - at least for airplane geeks and people that hear about it, assuming it gets positive feedback by the masses - which i'm sure it will.

-jeremy

eponymous_coward

Staying resolutely off-topic...

I think EK probably did the A380 "right" in C: the lounge is sweet (something SQ and LH didn't bother with), and I think I would be perfectly content with seat 23K without being in F (the comment here about the pitch on that seat being more than adequate for a tall person isn't lying). I was very happy to have snagged an award trip on one before this became impossible with miles in a USA-based airline.

(OK, threadjack over.)

I tend to think the UA 787s will be corporate and boring in C, if reasonably competent, because, well, that's how USA airlines do C- DL, AA, UA, all with sedate colors, dark plastics in grey or blue, nothing really exciting. Would that any of them had the design sensibility of a VX and were willing to, well, actually THINK about design.

The competitive advantage will be that UA can start doing much more interesting point-to-point routes. They've already started with IAH-AKL. I would think SFO-SIN's on the list too.

dinoscool3

Neither are a competitive disadvantage. The majority of both are/will be used on thin routes, routes that they wouldn't serve anyways, so in fact they are at an advantage as other carriers aren't flying wide bodies to that place (if flying there at all). Even though many UA people hate the 757 on TATL routes, many love it as they can fly direct to their destination, without a connection in Europe.

halls120

^^

While I have not experienced the Boeing "Sky Interior" or VX's gaudiness first hand, from photos and videos I prefer a sedate color scheme over a carnival.

TA

Having 787s in the future will be as much a competitive advantage as having 757s now is a competitive advantage.

Perhaps there's a short time when it confers some advantage, but time and again shows that technology like this simply lowers the costs, until everyone has the same.

Airlines will continue to beat each other up over the same pool of passengers with the same kinds of margins, and we'll be back in the same situation.

True advantage comes from something deeper than airplanes... Everyone can buy airplanes, and consumers really won't pay more for a particular one...

lhrsfo

Most people have no idea of what sort of plane they are flying (except, perhaps, on the A380) and no interest in it either. What they care about are personal space (pitch, width), the condition of the interior and whether the exterior paint is peeling. All of these are within the gift of the airline. Yes, UA, we are talking about you.