CMK10

I'm probably in the minority on this but I'm happiest to see more service to FAY. It's an easy drive for me here in Durham and I'm sure it will come in handy. Plus, parking at FAY is cheap and the airport ridiculously easy to use.

halls120

We aren't comparing pmCO 762's and pmUA 762's.

Several people don't understand why, in 2000, pmCO ordered 762's instead of 763's or 764's. It's a legitimate question - if the 762 decision was so brilliant, why not explain it?

CALMSP

it was a good decision at the time. it allowed a market to be reached that was high in premium, but low in economy seats. The economics of the plane were valuable to CO with fuel prices for barrels in the 20-30 range.

rob_flies_ua

I'm with you in the minority; I've long wondered why UA didn't serve FAY from IAD as they can now offer great connectivity to the middle east, asia, and central pacific for military folks. Plus I was sick and tired of having to go SFO-IAD/ORD-CLT-FAY

halls120

Interesting. I'm not sure I would have counted on fuel prices to remain at the 20-30 dollar range, but that was a risk they apparently accepted.

thanks for your constructive response.

cesco.g

The EWR-ZRH 764 will reduce flexibility re the ZRH-EWR/IAD flights. With both city pairs currently run by 3-class 763s, the earlier IAD plane goes onto to become the EWR plane, which leaves at 10h10 a.m.
The 764 will have to turn-around in 1h30, leaving little margin of error.
Unless the EWR flight will leave earlier from EWR and/or later from ZRH.

CMK10

Alright an agreer! I wouldn't say no to FAY-IAH either but I would imagine as they dropped GSO-IAH this is probably not likely.

LASUA1K

The only thing absurb is CO ordering an aircraft that was 5 years outdated. Its absurb that you continue to defend the decision.

Boraxo

CO is not the only airline at fault. LH ordered new 380s but installed the same crappy angled business class seats, thus guaranteeing that customers who have a choice will fly BA or UA lie flat instead. At least give CO credit for installing lie-flat on most (all?) of its long haul. Though I gather this excludes(ed) Latin America.

tuolumne

Agree

Because they contribute a small amount of premium seats proportionally. 3-cabin equipment each offer 3-4x the amount, per aircraft. Suddenly those 47 752s are equivalent to only about 13 777s - And against with the 46 pmUA 777s, that adds up, which is why the UA IPTE J seats still far out number the legacy BF ones. CO simply had different intl. route structure, flown with smaller aircraft. That's fine.

I won't fly in the 747-400 upper deck - the seats are the same length as the CO BF seats in the 752/763/4, I.e. too short.

Further, you discount that the upper deck offers the largest storage compartments of any J product in the combined fleet.

It sounds like your using your own spending rational and expanding it to cover more than yourself. You may personally not see the 'incremental' gains as worthy of your dollars, but there are absolutely those who buy walk up F who would disagree, especially on the prime important business centers this type of equipment is offered offered on.

UA had an over abundance of premium-heavy aircraft, but not to the extreme, "it doesn't make any financial sense" levels it has been painted as.

And can you explain to me why the company couldn't invest in *both* products? UA rolled out an F and J product which were at the top of their primary domestic competiton for yeas after their introduction. All too often I see these imaginary tradeoffs that must be made, used as some attempt to excuse or justify a certain course of action - the truth is the company has the ability to invest in both a world class F and J product, it isn't one or the other. You see what AA is doing with their new 773s? Case and point.


AMR is retaining F suites on all their NYC-SFO/LAX transcons in addition to their 773s, which will be servicing many of the very same premium intensive routes the 3-class UA equient currently does. This doesn't fit with your claim that there is no tangible benefits for a US-based carrier to chase and offer an F product. COdbaUA has made a business decision, mid-long term, to discontinue servicing the F market and focus on offering J only. This does not mean there is no market there to serve if they wanted to spend the time and money to do so, which pmUA *did*. CO over delivered in the J area, but left F to AA/UA for years (I.e. they decided not to play in that market, even though they could have very well made a small F product work to cities like LHR/HKG/NRT over the last decade)

Maybe you are just used to having only 2 cabins and the idea of a 3rd is so foreign to you that you are predosposed against it? The CO seats, as I've been saying since 2008, are shorter than the UA ones and have very small foot cubbies. Very difficult for my 6'2" frame to sleep (FYI this is also why I will avoid the 744 u/d)

May I ask you how and why you so sure it doesn't, besides because thats the way pmCO did it? UAL Corp. spent hundreds of millions on a new premium product in 2008, expanding the F product to the 763s, to the surprise of many. Do you do that when your network doesn't support said product? You can argue about changing demand for F - I've heard those same lines verbatim going back to 2003, when the same CO flyers were trumpeting how F was done. Didn't happen then, and isn't happening any day soon.

UA-NYC

Indeed - I talked to an AA insider, who basically admitted as soon as UA declared they were getting out of the domestic 3 class business, AA was more than happy to swoop in and take it from them - thus, the 3 cabin A321 order.

They're not making that investment if the market isn't there.

golfingboy

What you forget is that AA is going to rip out the F cabin on the 772s and make the 772s J/MCS/Y only.

47 777s X 12 F seats = 564 F seats they are taking away. And for the 77Ws, they will only have 8F seats on a significantly bigger aircraft. AA is ceding the international F market on many levels except for a few lucrative routes.

Yes, there are lucrative F markets out there that can support such product, but you imply that in the majority of routes UA flies can support F which is not true... Mainly LHR/GRU/SIN/HKG/NRT can support the F cabin.

Only select markets will continue to have an F product with AA and the majority of the AA markets that currently have F service will lose it.

As for JFK-SFO/LAX less and less and less people are paying for F over the years. UA for the last few years have not sold close to 50% of the total F seats flown in a given year. Tons of C->F upgrades, F mileage redemptions, and non-revs flies in F. There was no point in flushing money down the toilet just for the sake of competition. Yes AA is thrilled and will continue to support the market, and the JFK transcons will be more profitable for UA. Win-Win for both airlines.

Yes, it is there, but not big enough for two airlines to serve it.

TWA Fan 1

Agreed that--at face value--it's a little odd that those of us who profess to love the bigger, dual-aisle planes, also then insist on flying on the upper (single-aisle) deck of the 747.

I'm one of those people.

But I think it's not quite as irrational as it may appear on the surface.

First, while the upper deck of the 747 is indeed only a single aisle, it's also quite a bit wider than the 757. The upper deck of the 747 is 16'6" while the 757 interior cabin width is 11'6".

That translates into a cabin that is about 30% wider...and therefore less claustrophobic.

There is also an impression of privacy on the upper deck that you don't get in the 757 premium cabin, which is separated by a curtain from Y.

Finally, and I realize this appears contradictory, there is the dual impression of being on a big plane (which I like) and being in a smaller private cabin.

But regardless of the intangibles and impressions, the fact is the upper deck of the 747 is quite a bit wider than the 757.

rkkwan

Based on Boeing's own diagrams for the 744, when putting typical 3-3 economy seat on the upper deck, shoulder to shoulder it's 4ft11.5in for each set of 3 seats, plus 1ft5in for the aisle, so shoulder to shoulder it's only 11ft4in. Your 16'6" number is on the floor, and probably includes the enclosed storage space.

Similar diagrams for 3-3 seating on the 757 shows 4ft11in for each set of 2 seats plus 1ft8in for the aisle. So, basically the same on both.

I don't have the numbers, but the roof is probably lower on the upper deck of the 747 as well, which is why they can't put the larger bins.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...s/7474sec2.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...ps/753sec2.pdf

CALMSP

without going into detail on company information? No. I'd love to expand more on that, but there are certain things I will not make public in writing about the company in a non-sponsored format.