Mike Jacoubowsky

It's interesting to note that there's no supplemental oxygen in the cabin at 37,000ft; all regulation of oxygen is a function of cabin pressure, so when you're pressurized to an 8,000ft equivalent, you get the oxygen that would be available at... 8,000ft. Which is fine, as long as you're not trying to run a marathon on board.

I think the biggest improvement in raised cabin pressure (5,000ft on the 787) will be found in our eardrums during take-off & landing, especially landings. Ever had a head cold and felt like your ears were going to explode during a landing? The difference of equalizing pressure between 5000 vs 8000ft and perhaps sea level could be huge.

Whatever, like so many other FTers, I look forward to flying in different planes and would like to try a 380, even if it had to be in coach. The big advantage the 787 has over the 380? No chance of an uncomfortable 14 hour flight in Y in a 787!

Regarding seating, I expect UA, and every other domestic carrier, to cram us in as tightly as practical. What would really be great would be to see airlines figure out that they could carry more-profitable cargo and make lots more $$$ per flight if they cut back on human cargo. Won't happen, but that's my dream. Cargo pays the bills, and people get the frills.

Exleftseat

+1

Nothing better than upstairs in the 747^

TomA

Ok, that's just bizarre. Everyone else is usually freezing.


But the seats are tighter up there...

Haha... as I've said several times, the most valuable 1K benefit is the luggage allowance. The rest is frills.

BF263533

Not that bizarre. There are a lot of posts here on Flyertalk about Asian carriers being too warm. If you grew up in a colder climate you are used to much colder temperatures, except for those with thryoid problems. On some trans-ocean flights I had to have the cabin temp lowered. If there were personal air vents, I could have used the vent to lower the body temperature. On one flight I told the captain I was at the point of passing out because of the heat, and either land the plane in Iceland or lower the temperature. The temp was promptly lowered.

Personal air vent permit a warmer cabin, and for those who too hot, for health reasons they can lower their body temp with the personal air vent.

TWAB747nomore

Good for Jeff

I vote for the 747-800I


and New 777-300s


i would be ok with about half the 787s that are ordered

RTWSTARALLIANCE

UA probably said the same thing when they were the worldwide launch airline for the 777. In my opinion it is not only the plane that makes the airline it is also the service and amenities. I'll catch my first ride on the 787 in Japan early next year regardless of how much it costs. I was happy to pay for SQ F and EK F to try the A380. Of course I selected strategic flights to spend the least amount of $.

kmfdm91

Count me in that group - my last OZ flight (HAN-ICN, red-eye) was awfully hot and with the lack of a personal air vent, I was NOT comfortable, especially when arriving in Seoul at 05h00. However, the in-flight service was attentive and courteous - even for an overnight! ^

+2 (My wife and I). The LH380 was a dreadful experience in C; I would have easily rather had Y on the 380 (and more miles in my account/award) than flown C. I'd deal with the surly service and the lack of pretty much anything 'business class' on UA and fly with flat seats, nice AVOD and a much MUCH smaller cabin on a 767 than take LH's 380.

As far as I could tell - LH didn't do anything special for their A380 experience; At least in C. SQ did it for Y and I heard earlier in the thread that LH did it for Y...but after taking it once in C on LH, I will attempt to avoid this plane on LH completely until they make some improvements!

-jeremy

5khours

Read in Hemispheres that the 787s will be equipped with 36 lie flat, premium economy and regular economy. Interesting that there is no First. I wonder if this is an indication of future direction. Any ideas on which routes they will use the new birds?

sbm12

The company has made it clear that they will be operating some routes with an F cabin and some without, depending on what the market will support. Given that the 787s are supposed to be flying long, thin routes it makes a bit of sense to go with 2-cabin; if there was high F demand odds are there is already service.

As for markets, IAH-AKL is supposed to be the first long-haul market that gets the new plane. IAH-LOS was supposed to also have it but they're putting a 777 on there instead so that they can start it this November rather than waiting until next November when they'll start to have 787s in the fleet.

mherdeg

I thought the story was that the first 787s the airline would take delivery of were from a CO order, where the 36J configuration was a given. (That story always seemed a little holey to me -- couldn't they change the order if they really wanted to invest in an international F product?)

rankourabu

wait, what????

do you mean Economy Plus (cuz there is nothing premium about it)

5khours

1. Since the 787 is better able to fly long thin routes, this should be a big advantage. I will almost always fly non-stop over 1 stop regardless of airline, price, etc. JAL already announced NRT-BOS. If UA follows and uses the 787 on new routes, they'll definitely get business from other carriers.

2. For anyone who spends any time going from sea level up to the mountains, you will know there is a big difference between 5,000 feet and 8,000 feet especially the first 24 hours regardless of whether you're skiing, hiking, running a marathon or just sitting on a couch reading magazines.

GottaGoFlying

My thoughts were the same as yours. Hope this is not a preview of the future direction of UA.

sbm12

Yes, they could change the configuration if they wanted to and specify an international F product. They don't want to and they've explained why.

And, yes, it is E+ and E-, not Premium Economy and Economy.

born sleepy

If you guys think UA's 757s are ancient, you haven't been on AA's decrepit old beaters. Ratty and nasty even in F.