Consolidated "I've Flown on UA's 787" Thread (Reports, Experiences, Etc.)
Nov 5, 2012, 11:19 pm
#61
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
While I in no way consider it a "game chaging" aircraft, the way ETOPS was, or the 747 was for over water flying, I don't think "game changing" ever meant to lose money on the aircraft so under $200 people flying ultra long haul routes to secondary markets could have "the ultimate" in comfort at the expenceof long term viability of UAL corp as an entity by reducing potential revenue on every flight even more. As others have posted, "game changing" in reality is that it will be able to bypass hubs, and can be profitable into some smaller long haul markets given the lower operating costs. Reducing operaing revenues by an equal amount as reducing costs is not the way to make more money.
Last edited by fastair; Nov 5, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Nov 5, 2012, 11:33 pm
#62
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
The 28 seat difference is forward of door 3. Most significantly, LAN only has five rows of business while United has six. The additional six J seats probably take up the real estate of some 18 Y/Y+ seats. So right here there is a 12 seat difference. The remaining difference (14 seats) is attributable to the Y+ pitch.
Nov 6, 2012, 1:06 am
#63
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NCL
Programs: UA 1MM/*G. DL Gold for one more year.
Posts: 5,305
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.
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.
Nov 6, 2012, 1:47 am
#64
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM, Marriott Life Plat, various others of little note
Posts: 2,763
But that 1 inch more throughout nets a total of 28 MORE seats for lan after the rather substantial E+ adjustment, so it isn't quite an even trade off. For those that want 8 across and E+, would result in 20 less seat, (48 less than LAN) for 199 total seats. The entire economics of flying ultra long rangewith such a reduced revenue would take many of those markets off the table. ANA doesn't exactly fly in the sam competitive markets that the North American carriers do. It currently fits as a capacity replacement to a 767, but to remove 20 more seats would suck the potential porfit right out of the aircraft. UA's config gives almost 50% of the aircraft (108/219) to some sort of a premium seat, be it BF or E+. Using 8 across, more than 50% of the seats would be eithr a BF or E+ premium seat, and as a very large % of those are given away in terms of a loyalty perk vs cash in the bank, I think it would be a very unfavorable return on investment, especially to 2ndary long haul markets where each ticket sold of addl capacity is addl $$ with the only extra cost being marginal fuel per passenger and 1 extra flight attendant (and I doubt it will be staffed at FAA minimum for ultra long flying anyway as I am sure contract issues will staff them heavy for crew rest, so that cost may be moot.)
While I in no way consider it a "game chaging" aircraft, the way ETOPS was, or the 747 was for over water flying, I don't think "game changing" ever meant to lose money on the aircraft so under $200 people flying ultra long haul routes to secondary markets could have "the ultimate" in comfort at the expenceof long term viability of UAL corp as an entity by reducing potential revenue on every flight even more. As others have posted, "game changing" in reality is that it will be able to bypass hubs, and can be profitable into some smaller long haul markets given the lower operating costs. Reducing operaing revenues by an equal amount as reducing costs is not the way to make more money.
While I in no way consider it a "game chaging" aircraft, the way ETOPS was, or the 747 was for over water flying, I don't think "game changing" ever meant to lose money on the aircraft so under $200 people flying ultra long haul routes to secondary markets could have "the ultimate" in comfort at the expenceof long term viability of UAL corp as an entity by reducing potential revenue on every flight even more. As others have posted, "game changing" in reality is that it will be able to bypass hubs, and can be profitable into some smaller long haul markets given the lower operating costs. Reducing operaing revenues by an equal amount as reducing costs is not the way to make more money.
Nov 6, 2012, 1:58 am
#65
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 83
exit row 27J or regular e plus 19D. please give me some suggestion.
Nov 6, 2012, 3:25 am
#66
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA 1K 25 years/2MM, Honors LT Diamond, AVIS & Hertz Prez Club
Posts: 4,753
Exit Row 27J for sure.
Also, for the commenters just up-thread, regular E on the UA 787 is 32" not 31. That's why LAN and UA have the same seating after of the 3rd door.
I think 5 rows of BF and a couple more rows of Y and eight across would have been an excellent idea for this airplane. Maybe fewer upgrades, but the seat comfort in Y would have at least made the ride more tolerable for a long flight.
Also, for the commenters just up-thread, regular E on the UA 787 is 32" not 31. That's why LAN and UA have the same seating after of the 3rd door.
I think 5 rows of BF and a couple more rows of Y and eight across would have been an excellent idea for this airplane. Maybe fewer upgrades, but the seat comfort in Y would have at least made the ride more tolerable for a long flight.
Nov 6, 2012, 3:55 am
#67
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Programs: AA,UA SLV, SPG GLD,Hyatt GP Plat.,National Exec., Hertz Platinum
Posts: 237
here's a pic from E+ on the 787
Nov 6, 2012, 4:12 am
#68
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: IAH
Programs: UA nada, Hyatt Disc, Hilton Gold
Posts: 846
Regarding outlets... one more small difference. Non-bulkhead rows have a USB port by the video monitor, which allows to connect a player and presumably play your own audio and video through their system. Bulkhead seats seem to not have this feature (unless there is a USB port somewhere and I missed it).
I don't believe that you can pipe media into the AVOD screen through the USB port, but it's definitely good for keeping your devices charged (just like the ones in BF).
Nov 6, 2012, 4:18 am
#69
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
So, yes, while you can charge your device, I am not too sure that you can do that and still enjoy UA video or audio content.
Nov 6, 2012, 7:46 am
#70
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maine
Programs: UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Plat, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 706
Does anyone know what the aisle sizes are between United's 747, 777, and 787? I recall seeing a comparison of that earlier and thinking that it would be noticeable on the 787. Or better yet, what is it compared to ANA's 8-across birds?
In my opinion, any gains of "passenger comfort" from the 787 climate control will be lost sitting in a narrow seat on a transpacific flight. I'll gladly fly this bird in BF though!
In my opinion, any gains of "passenger comfort" from the 787 climate control will be lost sitting in a narrow seat on a transpacific flight. I'll gladly fly this bird in BF though!
Nov 6, 2012, 7:49 am
#71
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
Wow, that picture sure makes Economy look like a Regional Jet. UA missed out with this configuration.
Nov 6, 2012, 8:10 am
#72
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: EWR
Programs: SPG LT Plat/P100, UA 1K 1MM
Posts: 532
Nov 6, 2012, 8:10 am
#73
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now MFE... formerly SEA and DCA
Programs: Now UA free!, AA Ex Plat, AS MVP, Marriott Titanium for life
Posts: 664
Nov 6, 2012, 8:11 am
#74
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Haven't flown UA, but have flown NH NRT>SEA. Minor difference. More noticeable on arrival than during the actual flight.
I agree with those who say it's more of a game changer for the airline than for the pax. The only real benefit for pax will be for those who will be able to use new non-stop routes where before they had to fly through hubs.
I agree with those who say it's more of a game changer for the airline than for the pax. The only real benefit for pax will be for those who will be able to use new non-stop routes where before they had to fly through hubs.
Nov 6, 2012, 8:27 am
#75
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Our Nation's Capital
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott BonVoy LT Titanium Elite, National Executive Elite
Posts: 832
I was on a recently converted 764 over the weekend (for the first time) and noticed the USB ports by the monitor as well. They stuck out in my mind because the pmCO 752s don't have them, leading me to wonder if those are completely different seats; perhaps the replacement for the Koito seats that pmCO still has to flush out of their planes? I actually thought the screen itself was better than those on the 752s as well.
I don't believe that you can pipe media into the AVOD screen through the USB port, but it's definitely good for keeping your devices charged (just like the ones in BF).
I don't believe that you can pipe media into the AVOD screen through the USB port, but it's definitely good for keeping your devices charged (just like the ones in BF).