glasnost7

I was afraid that they passed up on the opportunity to make it an especially game-changing plane in terms of passenger comfort and the pictures/video I've seen of small-to-average sized passengers squeezed uncomfortably close together seems to confirm my suspicions. Sure, there are 20 more seats for revenue. But anyone who's flown a 737 immediately after a 320 or a 767/777 will tell you that the extra inch makes a difference and 2-4-2 is a vastly more passenger-friendly configuration.

I probably won't go out of my way to fly the 787 unless I'm in paid C or can confirm R/RN.

QBK

I've been pondering the "game-changer" language emphasis in Jeff's video spiel while reading these posts. After all, the near-universal response by FT types is more or less "Meh" -- yeah, the tech is cool, and the windows and pressurization are a minor plus, but for genuinely frequent fliers and road warriors, it's all about the seat at the end of the day. And by all reports, the UA 787 seats range from "It's not too bad" (BF and E+ bulkhead) to "Ow, ow, ow" (E-).

For a while, I thought the "game-changer" language was management narcissism -- that UA management was basically congratulating themselves and the shareholders. After all, the 787 does change the game from management's perspective. It's cheaper, more flexible, more efficient. It opens up routes like DEN-NRT and IAH-AKL to profitability. But, if that's what they mean, crowing about it to passengers seems stunningly obtuse.

But I've changed my mind -- partly. I think UA management does see it as a positive game-changing force for their valued customers. It's just that we (FTers) are not those customers.

It's a game-changer for passengers who hate flying, and want to minimize the time between Point A and Point B. For passengers who loathe multiple connections, fear airports and layovers, and love nonstops. For passengers who see the flight as a necessary evil, and don't distinguish between seats except maybe "window or aisle?" And for passengers who just want cheaper tickets.

As I said in another thread, I think UA's vision is to be a sort of globe-spanning WN, with a dense network of thin "niche" routes. They've seen the fantastic success of WN's domestic business model, and (probably correctly) concluded that there's room for that model internationally. Lots of nonstop flights, a tolerable BF product for business flyers, E+ to keep mid-level frequent flyers in the fold, and the densest possible E- seating to keep ticket prices low for price-conscious buyers.

So, no, it's not gonna be game-changing from a comfort perspective. In fact, the little perks (higher pressure, better windows, lighting, IFE) serve as an opiate for the masses. In some complicated calculus of pain, they balance out the loss of seat comfort.

And, at the end of the day, I think it just might be a game-changer for a lot of passengers -- just like WN. But I'm realizing that we're not the target market.

Dsybok

That's because all PMCO coach seats seem to be hard as concrete. Actually I have sat on concrete that was more comfy. 767, 757, 737, doesn't seem to matter, they apparently went to the same masochist supplier for all their Y seats, and sadly I am not at all looking forward to a 787 flight now that I see more of the same. The ancient beat up A319 seat with a falling apart seat back pocket was 10X more comfortable today compared with the last several flights I took on CO planes.

Did not one UA/CO executive ever sit in one of these seats before deciding to go with the CO supplier on the 787 instead of the UA supplier?

Koko

I would not want to go on one long haul in my usual paid C. Just not worth it, nothing that special. The only way would be if they did have some spectacular routing that would make my life incredibly easier. Otherwise, I would prefer a 747, 777 or 767 on UA. Seats just are not that great and other interesting fun things wear off after 30 minutes.

UnitedFlyGuy

The FAs have full control over the windows.

DocTravel

Well after reading this thread, I have to say I am no longer looking forward to a 787 MR later this month. I really hope they change the planes now.

I even went out of the way to fly a 787 route to Asia in early 2013 but thats looking like a bad idea for a Y seat now. Wonder if they would allow a route change as it was just 3 days ago?

Thanks for the reports Guys.

Snareman

Could anyone tell a difference with the lower pressurization?

dmodemd

There's the plane and how the carrier equipped it. Surely, the 787 was made to be a completely new generation of flying. The carrier has the option to expand on that by equipping it to be a new experience, or to equip it as a workhorse to maximize people and minimize expense. UA chose the latter. I will certainly avoid the UA 787 for international flights in coach.

fastair

So are you aying it has a standard economy confirguration and they maximized capacity by retaining the few extra rows by eliminating economy plus, or did they choose to remove a couple of rows of seats, thus reducing their capacity and adding economy plus.

I already know the answer to this question and it directly contradicts your statement that UA equipped it to maximize people and minimize expense. If you want to see what maximizing people on this airframe can be, look at LAN. 28 more seats on LAN.

AndyPatterson

Neither -- instead, it is nine seats per row in E, while some other carriers are using eight seats per row. E+ isn't that much of a benefit with narrower seats!

QBK

E+ is a good thing, and UA deserves credit (from the I-value-comfy-seats community) not only for putting E+ on the 787, but for expanding it throughout the PMCO fleet. So, no, this is not a case of unconditionally maximizing capacity. That would be the no-E+ config of the 753.

But there is a real issue here, and it's the choice of 9-abreast seating. The 787 is 7 inches wider than the A300 family (which is usually 8-abreast) and 16 inches narrower than the 777 (which is usually 9-abreast). So each carrier has a choice:

(1) Use a 2-4-2 config (like ANA), which is moderately more spacious than the A300 series, and if combined with E+ and the inherent virtues of the 787 would indeed be game-changingly comfortable (compare to the A380, which is 19 inches wider than the 747 and usually configured the same way).

(2) Cram the 777's 3-3-3 layout into a plane that's 16 inches narrower (UA).

So, while the UA 787 isn't a slave ship, I think it's reasonable to say that the choice of a 17.0" seat width is a case of choosing capacity over comfort. It's not the narrowest seat anywhere, but I think it's tied with AF's 10-abreast 777 for narrowest seat in the international majors.

username

I actually feel the opposite - 100%. The sUA Y seats are terrible - the cushion feel worn and deflated. The sCO 737 Y seats are a lot more comfortable.

UA-NYC

IMO the most worn-down, beat-up, threadbare UA Airbii seats will always be heads and shoulders better comfort-wise than any CO 737 seat, no matter how new

Dsybok

I guess we could go around and around on this, but I feel like you are the only person on the planet who thinks this.

I have had so many back to back opportunities this year to fly both, mostly domestically and even on short 2-3 hour flights, the CO seats are downright awful. I never considered needing a neck pillow in 17 years and 700,000 miles on UA until this year, and I don't think its just getting older that is the cause.

Like others have said, its nice to have fancy windows and mood lighting and some of the other features, but all we really care about is the seats, and for that, UA has not done anything game changing with the 787. In fact, with people getting larger and larger every year, it seems like maybe they have taken a step back.

Tunapalooza

Yes, United included E+ on the 787 as that is standard across the fleet (or is intended to be, in time). Eliminating E+ to maximize capacity really wasn't an option on a United-branded, mainline aircraft, was it? As has been well covered on this forum and in this thread, United opted for nine across seating in economy rather than eight. That is the source of the "maximizing capacity" complaint and I think every sentient being reading this forum and thread knows it.

LAN is also has nine seats across in economy, but doesn't offer anything like E+. However, it offers more pitch throughout economy (32") than United offers in E- (31"). Just saying.