QBK

I could be missing something, but I don't think the seat layout pictured in this thread makes sense for a 73G. However, if you ignore the E+ labeling, it's exactly the right layout for the 735 without E+.

According to SeatGuru (which usually gets its geometry right, even if the advice is debatable), the E+-configured 73G has 3 rows of F and 18 rows of economy seating (7,8,10,11,12, and 20-32), while the non-E+ version has 3 rows of F and 19 rows of economy (7,8,10,11,12,14, and 20-32).

This layout has 18 rows of economy, but gives up a row of F. Why? There's 36" of missing space -- enough to make the whole economy section E+, which ain't gonna happen.

I also notice that Row 14 is suspiciously wonky. It doesn't have E+ spacing, and it's either blocked out (likely) or completely booked (unlikely, since the rest of E+ is wide open). I think this is a franken-seatmap -- possibly intended to be a placeholder because they don't know which kind of 73G is going to fly this route. Or maybe just a computer error. Or (most likely) it's a 735 with no E+ (in particular, note that the bulkhead in front of 1E/F is a closet, not a galley as on the 73G).

Point is, there is no plausible reason to take out a row of F while keeping only 18 rows of E/E+. If the seat map showed 19 rows of Y, the OP would have a case, but it doesn't.

SFOPhD

My guess is that it's a 737-500 v2 8/106 (http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...37/500/v2.aspx) with E- mislabeled as E+. Like others, I'm going to go with website glitch.

Vunder31

I've seen 757-200 seatmaps with up to six rows (10-21) showing as exit rows with limited recline and window seats missing in some rows. You never know what you'll find when you open your reservation...

IAH-OIL-TRASH

It's an error. Notice row 14 is greyed out. Either that, or the worlds dumbest sextet decided they wanted that particular row of non-existing and non-reclining seats. Its a 735.

whitethunder

I am seeing this too on a flight YEG-IAH next may, seat map says its a Boeing 737-700, but only they 8 F seats show up, 7,8,9,10,11,12,14,20,21 are E,+ and 22-31 are E-

if this is for sure chaning I say booooo on UA, I always routed my flights through IAH as its the only mainline service from YEG........

UA-NYC

Same reason why we question the E145 seatmap that shows up on a TATL flight

chinatraderjmr

I have NEVER used this line on FT. AFAIC people who say this are either rude or just trying to start something. So it shocks me that I'm saying it myself but I can't think of anything else to say. UA is in business to make money, not give you an upgrade at the expense of revenue. PmUA made a lot of money with E+ which is the only reason CO Kept it. It's certainly not "garbage" for the people forced to fly in Y. I don't see what your complaint about. 8 F seats is plenty if you only need 1 or 2. The problem it seems for you in not the fact there are less F seats but less of a chance to upgrade. No problem, either find a flight operated w a different aircraft or BUY AN F TICKET!!.there, I said it

rankourabu

Arent all those flights just placeholder planes until real schedules are loaded?

Right now, real schedules are loaded until Feb.28.

Take a look at Feb.28 SFO-LAX - it shows the real planes operating, then take a look at March 1 SFO-LAX - all placeholder A319s.

Take a look at Feb.28 SFO-EWR - the right mix of 752s, 738s is loaded - then March 1 - still all 738 placeholders.

This pattern repeats itself every few saturdays when new schedules are loaded (until last saturday, schedules were loaded until Feb.13 - and everything beyond that was placeholders)

I think its great that the placeholders are the planes with least F seats in the fleet - that way noone will be complaining of a downgrade of equipment when real planes are loaded.

palmetto86

This.

The placeholder for 737-700/A319 is almost exactly this same, since they don't know what will be where. It's why row 14 on 737-700 placeholder map is always blocked entirely--no row 14 on A319s.

LHCVG

FWIW, I booked my Xmas flights home in May, and sometime over the summer it switched from an Airbus to a 73G. For the longest time, in showed 8F, but I just looked now and we see 12F. So it's certainly conceivable that they may be currently updating their 73G seat maps. I can't say when this was changed, but it definitely was within the last week or so.

It shows rows 7-21 as E+ and 22-32 as E-.

halls120

Some people believe simply believe that everything pmCO did was right, and everything pmUA did was wrong, and nothing you say is going to change their minds. To think that E+ didn't make money means that Jeff Smisek decided to adopt it across the entire fleet even though it was a money loser. How likely is that?

seagar

What I find interesting is when I booked the seat in F (I am leaving a day earlier than wife) and tried to book her in first on the same flight, same 737 700 designation the following day, I was told that F is full. The agent said that the two rows are full and all she could get was E/E+. With the hundreds of flights each day @ 4 seats/plane, it seems odd that UAL would swap planes later in the game and forego the higher fare sale and revenue.

This doesn't make sense but not much seems to anymore with CO/$misek.

aacharya

I never saw complaints on the pmUA forum about the eight F seats available on the Aerobii. I don't see why it's becoming an issue now, if CO is following a UA model.

Personally, I also do not like the 8 seat F planes. Took one SEA-EWR the other day...

LHCVG

I am obviously no expert, but from my PMUA legacy, I can say that 8F doesn't bother me too much as I write that off to a much greater opportunity for "better than E-". For instance, take DL's "most F in the industry" ads - that's nice, but it works out in the end to more F seats, a handful of EC, and that's it. On a 319, our chance of getting extra legroom (let's face it, that is the big difference, even if a wider seat is nice) is much greater than the competition. Given the frequent talk about lack of paid F pax, UA probably figured out that they tend (not always, but tend) to see at least 4 seats out of every 12 on those getting comped as ug's anyway, so why not make more room for paid E+?

aacharya

Like I said, I'm okay with it. But it seems that we're getting the same pmUA folks with "a change we'll like", and "COdbaUA" again, when basically, we're changing to what UA used to do, instead of what CO did. Isn't that what they wanted?