UA 896 v. UA 116 in C?
Apr 9, 2013, 10:28 am
#16
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: AA, UA, GE
Posts: 5,123
My mission was comfort on a long haul flight, miles were secondary (though, a close second 
) The EWR flight seems to be significantly more expensive though- and since work is footing the bill, that might have an impact.
Either way, many thanks for the feedback. I am leaning pmCO if I can swing it.
Final dest is CMH, for what it's worth.
) The EWR flight seems to be significantly more expensive though- and since work is footing the bill, that might have an impact.Either way, many thanks for the feedback. I am leaning pmCO if I can swing it.
Final dest is CMH, for what it's worth.
Apr 9, 2013, 10:52 am
#17
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WAS, LAX
Programs: AS 100K
Posts: 1,330
Originally Posted by star_world:20562216
I'd take PMUA 2-4-2. Even though it's less private, the beds are bigger and a lot more comfortable. (I'm tall though). If you're under 6' it won't make a difference. ORD will save you a little time on the trip. With GE and no bags the transfer from international to domestic is a breeze at ORD.
- By what metric do you deem the sUA seats to be more comfortable? I've flown extensively on both and they appear to be almost identical in terms of padding, etc.
- If you're under 6ft, it makes a huge difference - you will have significantly more space (both actual space for your body, plus personal space including storage) in the sCO seat. I'd argue it makes much less difference if you're over 6ft - that's when the two products become close from a decision perspective
- How is the ORD transfer from T5 to T1 any more of a "breeze" than a transfer in the same building in EWR, or at worst a (shorter) monorail ride to Terminal A?
At *best* some of the points here make the decision close. I don't see anything compelling though.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the horror of not being able to look at the moving map while listening to music or returning to your movie yet
Once through, the C17 showers were very nice though ^
Apr 9, 2013, 10:56 am
#18
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: Marriott Titanium Elite, UA Silver, AA Gold
Posts: 494
Apr 9, 2013, 11:06 am
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: AA Ex Platinum
Posts: 161
That's my outbound, I'm really looking forward to it. I have a few days in Tokyo, and then I end my trip in HK.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:09 am
#20
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
these topics come up on a seemingly weekly basis. The bottom line is, if you're tall (6'1"+), the United setup is preferable given the beds are longer and the footwells larger. The caveat is that the bulkhead rows in the Continental setup have very large footwells that are larger than anything offered on the other setup, though the length is still lacking.
Other nuances include the CO seat having 1) more personal storage for small items (small shelf near head), 2) a privacy partition (though more for show than use), 3) a colour display on the IFE remote (which I always wished the UA seats had). 4) All front facing so little privacy incursions. 6) slightly wider (although both seats have collapsible armrests making this less important than the length issue, which can't be easily rectified)
The UA seats, however have 1) a superior AVOD system - better looking, speedier interface, the ability to bookmark programming and exit to map (CO setup deletes programming position, if one accidently exits out) 2) what appears to be higher encoding on the AVOD content (The CO one is definitely lower resolution and thus doesn't fit the screen in the same way the UA one does) 3) A preferable location of the charging/headphone jacks (CO setup is above your head in aforementioned shelf, so plugging in and working on a laptop is awkward IMO, with wires dangling over body) 4) slightly cushier cushions (YMMV), 4) rear facing seats, for better or for worse (I prefer them for novelty's sake, as well as them being nicer to sleep in given the head is elevated higher than the feet).
Neither seat is perfect, and it truly depends on individual requirements. For me, I go out of my way for a United bird as I'm tall and have major difficulties sleeping in the short CO seats, which I find myself confined in.
Other nuances include the CO seat having 1) more personal storage for small items (small shelf near head), 2) a privacy partition (though more for show than use), 3) a colour display on the IFE remote (which I always wished the UA seats had). 4) All front facing so little privacy incursions. 6) slightly wider (although both seats have collapsible armrests making this less important than the length issue, which can't be easily rectified)
The UA seats, however have 1) a superior AVOD system - better looking, speedier interface, the ability to bookmark programming and exit to map (CO setup deletes programming position, if one accidently exits out) 2) what appears to be higher encoding on the AVOD content (The CO one is definitely lower resolution and thus doesn't fit the screen in the same way the UA one does) 3) A preferable location of the charging/headphone jacks (CO setup is above your head in aforementioned shelf, so plugging in and working on a laptop is awkward IMO, with wires dangling over body) 4) slightly cushier cushions (YMMV), 4) rear facing seats, for better or for worse (I prefer them for novelty's sake, as well as them being nicer to sleep in given the head is elevated higher than the feet).
Neither seat is perfect, and it truly depends on individual requirements. For me, I go out of my way for a United bird as I'm tall and have major difficulties sleeping in the short CO seats, which I find myself confined in.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:27 am
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: AA Ex Platinum
Posts: 161
these topics come up on a seemingly weekly basis. The bottom line is, if you're tall (6'1"+), the United setup is preferable given the beds are longer and the footwells larger. The caveat is that the bulkhead rows in the Continental setup have very large footwells that are larger than anything offered on the other setup, though the length is still lacking.
Other nuances include the CO seat having 1) more personal storage for small items (small shelf near head), 2) a privacy partition (though more for show than use), 3) a colour display on the IFE remote (which I always wished the UA seats had). 4) All front facing so little privacy incursions. 6) slightly wider (although both seats have collapsible armrests making this less important than the length issue, which can't be easily rectified)
The UA seats, however have 1) a superior AVOD system - better looking, speedier interface, the ability to bookmark programming and exit to map (CO setup deletes programming position, if one accidently exits out) 2) what appears to be higher encoding on the AVOD content (The CO one is definitely lower resolution and thus doesn't fit the screen in the same way the UA one does) 3) A preferable location of the charging/headphone jacks (CO setup is above your head in aforementioned shelf, so plugging in and working on a laptop is awkward IMO, with wires dangling over body) 4) slightly cushier cushions (YMMV), 4) rear facing seats, for better or for worse (I prefer them for novelty's sake, as well as them being nicer to sleep in given the head is elevated higher than the feet).
Neither seat is perfect, and it truly depends on individual requirements. For me, I go out of my way for a United bird as I'm tall and have major difficulties sleeping in the short CO seats, which I find myself confined in.
Other nuances include the CO seat having 1) more personal storage for small items (small shelf near head), 2) a privacy partition (though more for show than use), 3) a colour display on the IFE remote (which I always wished the UA seats had). 4) All front facing so little privacy incursions. 6) slightly wider (although both seats have collapsible armrests making this less important than the length issue, which can't be easily rectified)
The UA seats, however have 1) a superior AVOD system - better looking, speedier interface, the ability to bookmark programming and exit to map (CO setup deletes programming position, if one accidently exits out) 2) what appears to be higher encoding on the AVOD content (The CO one is definitely lower resolution and thus doesn't fit the screen in the same way the UA one does) 3) A preferable location of the charging/headphone jacks (CO setup is above your head in aforementioned shelf, so plugging in and working on a laptop is awkward IMO, with wires dangling over body) 4) slightly cushier cushions (YMMV), 4) rear facing seats, for better or for worse (I prefer them for novelty's sake, as well as them being nicer to sleep in given the head is elevated higher than the feet).
Neither seat is perfect, and it truly depends on individual requirements. For me, I go out of my way for a United bird as I'm tall and have major difficulties sleeping in the short CO seats, which I find myself confined in.
Apr 9, 2013, 11:50 am
#22
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Jersey
Programs: UA MM 1K, AA MM Gold, Marriott LT Platinum
Posts: 3,235
You'll need to take an AirTrain ride from B to C. It really doesn't matter that much, though, since even if you were arriving at C, you'd still need to go back through Security after clearing Customs.
Apr 9, 2013, 12:09 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,415
ne can drop off any checked baggage for the onward journey at B, however, regardless of the departure terminal.
Apr 9, 2013, 12:16 pm
#24
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,199
No question - the PMCO aircraft and service are superior, and the connection at EWR will be much easier. I flew NRT-ORD with a reconnect last summer and having to exit the terminal, get on that ridiculous outside tram, then have to deal with those TSA morons yet again is a royal pain, although the EWR transfer from inbound int'l to domestic/int'l outbound is only marginally better.
The easiest transfer is IAH, but that would require HKG-NRT-IAH-x
Regardless, just take the PMCO flights where available and leave at least 3 hours to connect onwards. EWR delays are more likely to be in your favor on the outbound connection vs delaying your inbound flight from HKG that departed when EWR weather was favorable - only a thunderstorm event over/near the field or a major snow event would divert your inbound.
The only PMUA option I would consider is the 747 to SFO if I can get an upper deck seat.
The easiest transfer is IAH, but that would require HKG-NRT-IAH-x
Regardless, just take the PMCO flights where available and leave at least 3 hours to connect onwards. EWR delays are more likely to be in your favor on the outbound connection vs delaying your inbound flight from HKG that departed when EWR weather was favorable - only a thunderstorm event over/near the field or a major snow event would divert your inbound.
The only PMUA option I would consider is the 747 to SFO if I can get an upper deck seat.
Apr 9, 2013, 12:40 pm
#25
Apr 9, 2013, 1:23 pm
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,172
UA 896 v. UA 116 in C?
Tuolomne's post is detail oriented and well put together. Having never flown CO in C, I now have a vivid image of wires dangling and touching my neck - yikes!
Apr 9, 2013, 1:33 pm
#27
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K (MM), DL, AA, AS, HHonors, SPG, Kimpton, Hyatt, IC PC, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), Hertz PC
Posts: 7,231
Can't speak for the ex-CO aircraft (only flown J on the newly configured 764 once), but on the ex-UA 777, the seat width varies pretty dramatically from one seat to the next. I found 7J to be wider than 10K and 9H, for example.
Apr 9, 2013, 3:39 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,167
No question - the PMCO aircraft and service are superior, and the connection at EWR will be much easier. I flew NRT-ORD with a reconnect last summer and having to exit the terminal, get on that ridiculous outside tram, then have to deal with those TSA morons yet again is a royal pain, although the EWR transfer from inbound int'l to domestic/int'l outbound is only marginally better.
No question that it's in the eye of the beholder about which sXX subsidiary has the better equipment/service
Apr 18, 2013, 8:31 am
#29
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: AA Ex Platinum
Posts: 161
Thanks so much for everyone's feedback, I just booked and my final routing is:
UA3521 CMH-ORD E170 Y
NH11 ORD-NRT 77W J
UA116 HKG-EWR J
UA4581 EWR-CMH Y
Thanks again for all of your feedback!
UA3521 CMH-ORD E170 Y
NH11 ORD-NRT 77W J
UA116 HKG-EWR J
UA4581 EWR-CMH Y
Thanks again for all of your feedback!