|
History of UA's Royal Pacific Service?
I picked up two decks of playing cards today at an estate sale. They are labeled United Airlines Royal Pacific Service.
When did UA have this Royal Pacific Service? Which destinations were served? The gentleman who owned that house extensively traveled to Japan. [IMG]UAPlayingCards.jpg[/IMG] There was also one deck of Pan American playing cards ("world's most experienced airline") which I picked up as well |
I think those were the original Pacific routes that UA picked up from PanAm
|
The first time I flew UA to SYD from LAX in F in the early 2000s, the senior purser who had been with UA for many decades referred the flight as "Royal Pacific Service" through PA. There was nothing royal about the flight but she provided excellent service in F. SYD must be one of the routes back in the days when they offered true Royal Pacific Service
|
Smithsonian collection
e-bay -- deck of cards did concept pre-date 1985 Pan Am aircraft purchase? Tokyo, Hong Kong 1983? Royal Pacific poster http://boardingarea.com/frequentlyfl...-747-200-1987/ http://boardingarea.com/frequentlyfl...-747-200-1987/ |
Yes, these are the cards. Thanks for posting the eBay image. My attempt to upload my picture was not successful.
A 747 with 135 seats in F and C! It really shows how much air travel has changed during the last 25 years. |
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
(Post 21206392)
Smithsonian collection
e-bay -- deck of cards did concept pre-date 1985 Pan Am aircraft purchase? Tokyo, Hong Kong 1983? Royal Pacific poster http://boardingarea.com/frequentlyfl...-747-200-1987/ http://boardingarea.com/frequentlyfl...-747-200-1987/ On the 747: 35 FC seats...35! 100 Biz Class seats, can you imagine? This is the part I loved: Business Class seated 100 passengers in an uncomfortable looking 2 x 4 x 2 configuration Wait 2 x 4 x 2 configuration? Uncomfortable? The comments after the posting are funny, one said, "Imagine if UA tried pulling 2x4x2 biz class on a 777??" Can you imagine, a 2 x 4 x 2 configuration in Biz Class....oh wait... Thanks for the links! |
On balance UA's 747 F today is better than it was in 1987. Today's F class has seats which lie flat, inside of mini cubicles with full power, lots of audio and video entertainment, wifi (nearly 50% of the 747s) and better amenity kits.
The food and beverage service in '87 was better (Dom, caviar, beef roast cut in front of you) but this is offset by today's suites, international F lounges of UA and Star carriers (which were sparse or non-existent in '87). Also, I believe UA's 747s are faster, quieter, and more fuel efficient today than the ones used in '87. |
Wow, this is a walk down Memory Lane!
United's Royal Pacific Service predates UA's purchase of the Pan Am routes. UA launched SEA-HKG/NRT and I believe GMP and the moniker for these new routes was Royal Pacific Service.
In 1982 or 1983 when Pan Am was still around in its original form I flew UA for the first time from HKG-SEA-DEN-BWI. I wanted to try it. Customs in SEA was so bad everyone missed their connections. The agents walked up and down the lines at Customs reminding everyone it was not too late to fill out their forms completely but once they got to the agents they would be done for. And it worked, many people were scribbling away on their forms as I recall. It was very memorable for me, having only flown SQ SFO-HNL-HKG before. (Did you notice none of these routings are around any longer on UA or SQ with the exception of SEA-NRT?) And after missing my connection I was rerouted SEA-ORD-BWI and on the last leg got to fly on a brand new 757, just days in UA's fleet. We marveled at the overhead screens staggered down the length of the aisle and the size of the engines. I don't clearly remember if UA kept the Royal Pacific Service name for very long after the purchase of Pan Am's Pacific division but I can tell you it started before then, when UA finally got route authority for Hong Kong, Tokyo and Seoul. |
I flew UA SFO-SYD today on a 747 and was puzzled by the CSM's PA reference to 'Royal Pacific Service' . I asked if I heard right and was assured that I did.
The F service was quite good, at least in terms of seat/bed, space and IFE. The cabin crew service was definitely not 'First' standard - might have been in coach. No passenger status recognition, no interaction, precious few smiles. Just did a job. Overall the UA F product I thought made for a comfortable journey, but it was well short of the Asian/Australian carriers' F product. |
The name "Royal Pacific Service" went the same way as "Concierge Class" - a name United once tried for its business class (C). I think that the name - at the time - was too sophisticated and difficult to pronounce, and I think that UA sold the name to Air Canada.
Now, the term "concierge" is in wide use in the USA. United - in many ways - used to be ahead of its time. Now....UA seems to try (poorly in my opinion) to follow DL - even if it means a rush to the bottom. |
Originally Posted by Karl-MDW
(Post 21208000)
The name "Royal Pacific Service" went the same way as "Concierge Class" - a name United once tried for its business class (C). I think that the name - at the time - was too sophisticated and difficult to pronounce, and I think that UA sold the name to Air Canada.
|
Looking at that old seat map and seeing reference to smoking/non-smoking sure took me back and not in a good way. So glad that's gone. God, those planes REEKED and I remember a horrible BA flight LAX-LHR that was so smoky towards the lavs in Y there was a stinking gray cloud back there. Coughed and hacked the entire way. Still can't believe it was ever even allowed in the first place.
|
Air Canada also had "Connoisseur Class" during the early 80s. I thought United was smart to reinforce their brand by calling it "United First" and "United Business." "BusinessElite" sounds too "desperate for an upgrade."
"Royal Pacific" sounds too close to Thai ("Royal Orchid,") and United started North Atlantic flights in about 1990/91. "Connoisseur" was still used fora while when they started flying trams-Atlantic. United Global First (hate the name, but they had to differentiate from domestic) still has a wonderful hard product. The food needs help, but it's WAY better than the Charlie Trotter mess from the past. Above all, the crews have almost always been indifferent, even surly. Maybe that will improve one day (I'm not optimistic.) I'm okay without caviar, I don't like to be doted upon, but the life-hating attitude of the crew ends up defining the Global First experience. It's been that way for years, and I don't know how United can fix it. |
this look back, reminded me of http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...tro-terms.html
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:26 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.