Last edit by: FlyHighInTheSky
![](https://www.united.com/web/format/img/travel/aircraft/777/777-300.jpg)
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/inflight/aircraft/777/300/default.aspx
UA Orders Boeing 777-300ERs / 77Ws w/ 1-2-1 Polaris Business, 3-4-3 Economy
#1276
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
That's not true at all: AA and AC are going or have gone narrow. As are airlines like NH, EVA, LX, KLM, AF, NZ, BA, etc.
DL are one of the few exceptions, LH look ok for now (except for their upcoming 77X, which at least isn't as bad as the 777), similarly for SQ.
United are merely following what most of the market has already done. Which is bad, but it's also reality.
DL are one of the few exceptions, LH look ok for now (except for their upcoming 77X, which at least isn't as bad as the 777), similarly for SQ.
United are merely following what most of the market has already done. Which is bad, but it's also reality.
AA's 77Ws are 3-3-3 in E+, but Parker is intent on finding a low spot to lie in...
The point of my post was that while some argued that eventually everyone would go 3-4-3 because people don't care, well that is just not correct. There are airlines like AirCanada (which now has the worst JP Powers Scores of any NA airline, except Frontier) that went early to these configurations, and I think are properly paying a price in reputation. BTB, the 2017 scores are:
SWA 807
B6 803
AS 758
DL 758
AA 736
WestJet 736
UA 716
AC 709
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![spin88 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1277
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I guess assembly-line J is better when you can't upgrade.
![fly18725 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1278
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
United was forced in some ways to go high density due to not having as good of a FF/traveler base after 5 years of Jeff's mismanagement.
I think the problem is that the 777 forces "non-managed" travelers to either pay the same to fly in a sub-par J product (since UA has to keep its prices high due to corporate discounts) when they could go with another better airline for the same $$$$, or due to the lack of a PE product, fly in a horrible coach experience. Neither are good ways to retain traffic.
YMMV
![spin88 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1279
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Actually, I am far more likely to be buying 4 PE seats on Delta for family trips
And on a business trip, I many buy J or PE, depending upon the situation. I will not be sitting in any of United's Y seats that are .6" narrower than the seats on a 737. ![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
But while a bunch of people said that there was no doubt that DL would go 3-4-3, the economics were just so certain, no book away, well they (and you) were incorrect.
![Wink](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
But while a bunch of people said that there was no doubt that DL would go 3-4-3, the economics were just so certain, no book away, well they (and you) were incorrect.
The economics are still there for 3-4-3. What I've seen mentioned recently and makes total sense is that DL may have an operational need for 3-3-3. JNB-ATL pushes the limits of the 77L. It's highly likely that DL could not add 25-30 passengers if it wanted to. So that means the 77L isn't going 3-4-3. And if the 77L isn't going 3-4-3, then it makes less sense to switch the smaller 77E fleet.
So it's quite possible that the reason that DL is staying with 3-3-3 has nothing to do with customer comfort or 3-3-3 being superior economically.
Sources? It makes no sense. If they chased away J traffic as you say, they should be leading the charge with shrinking their J cabins. Instead they're the lone holdout.
![minnyfly is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1280
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
You may not be sitting there, but plenty of people will. I've done it. I'll do it again. I've felt much more uncomfortable before in an 18" 717 seat than a 10-across 777.
The economics are still there for 3-4-3. What I've seen mentioned recently and makes total sense is that DL may have an operational need for 3-3-3. JNB-ATL pushes the limits of the 77L. It's highly likely that DL could not add 25-30 passengers if it wanted to. So that means the 77L isn't going 3-4-3. And if the 77L isn't going 3-4-3, then it makes less sense to switch the smaller 77E fleet.
So it's quite possible that the reason that DL is staying with 3-3-3 has nothing to do with customer comfort or 3-3-3 being superior economically.
Sources? It makes no sense. If they chased away J traffic as you say, they should be leading the charge with shrinking their J cabins. Instead they're the lone holdout.
The economics are still there for 3-4-3. What I've seen mentioned recently and makes total sense is that DL may have an operational need for 3-3-3. JNB-ATL pushes the limits of the 77L. It's highly likely that DL could not add 25-30 passengers if it wanted to. So that means the 77L isn't going 3-4-3. And if the 77L isn't going 3-4-3, then it makes less sense to switch the smaller 77E fleet.
So it's quite possible that the reason that DL is staying with 3-3-3 has nothing to do with customer comfort or 3-3-3 being superior economically.
Sources? It makes no sense. If they chased away J traffic as you say, they should be leading the charge with shrinking their J cabins. Instead they're the lone holdout.
Delta did not made this decision due to operational reasons. They clearly ran the numbers, but likely more deeply than Ua's spreadsheet analysis, and realized having a good reputation, and avoiding book away was more important than a theoretical extra few y passengers.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Last edited by WineCountryUA; May 26, 2017 at 8:42 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)
![spin88 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1281
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,568
Not true. Had they kept 9 across in Y on the 777s, I'd have been very happy.
maybe the economics are there, but when it comes to comfort, 10 across doesn't cut it.![Thumbs down](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif)
![Thumbs down](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif)
Once the 9 across is gone on UA, I will only fly UA long haul when I can upgrade to business. Otherwise, my business will go to DL and the airlines that have real PE.
maybe the economics are there, but when it comes to comfort, 10 across doesn't cut it.
![Thumbs down](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif)
![Thumbs down](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif)
Once the 9 across is gone on UA, I will only fly UA long haul when I can upgrade to business. Otherwise, my business will go to DL and the airlines that have real PE.
![halls120 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1282
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I think PE will come to United. It is a question of when.
![fly18725 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1283
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Atl-jnb is 8425 sm, the 777lr (in a heavier 317 configuration) has a range of 9844 sm.
Delta did not made this decision due to operational reasons. They clearly ran the numbers, but likely more deeply than Ua's spreadsheet analysis, and realized having a good reputation, and avoiding book away was more important than a theoretical extra few y passengers.
Delta did not made this decision due to operational reasons. They clearly ran the numbers, but likely more deeply than Ua's spreadsheet analysis, and realized having a good reputation, and avoiding book away was more important than a theoretical extra few y passengers.
Everything that's public indicates it's a lucrative route for DL, and that would absolutely affect their 77L configuration decision. A 5th of their 77L fleet is flying it every day. DL's 777s are already very dense, and they are flown on some very long sectors (the 77Ls will soon be flying three city pairs over 7,000 miles long). Performance for all of them would be affected with another 25-30 seats. It could easily tip the spreadsheet back to show keeping 3-3-3 as being more economical.
![minnyfly is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1285
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I would not hold my breath....
. Searches don't turn up anything on an issue, and since DL has been using the 777lr on the route since 2010 (before then they did a fuel stop in Dakar, and flew with a 763) I think we would have heard if there were issues.
The published range with a configuration with 317 (about what it would be if DL had gone 3-4-3) is 1425 miles longer than this flight. Any "issue" is going to be going to JNB as the trade winds flow west, and there are reports that the flight can sometimes take up to an hour longer to get to JNB when the winds are strongest.
The runway at JNB is 14,500 feet, and even in winter (their summer) they ought to be able to go at MTOW, but because they have the winds with them for much of the trip, and have another 1425 of range in any event, they will not need the full MTOW of the airplane.
Bottom line is that claims that Delta was some how forced into sticking with 3-3-3 on their 777 fleet due to a single route are bogus. The reality (perhaps uncomfortable for those who continue to hawk the trope that "airline travel is a commodity" and the economics of 3-4-3 were self evident) is that Delta, having sat back and watched the response over the last year/year and a half to United using 3-4-3 on its HD and now 77W product, and AA using it in Y- on its 77W, and on its few rehabbed 772s, made a choice to not go with this ultra-tight/uncomfortable configuration.
This sets Delta up to market itself as the "premium" comfortable airline, and this move was in some ways presaged by Delta running ads in their inflight mag touting that unlike other airlines they were using the "comfortable" 3-3-3 configuration.
Don't be surprised to see this message start to show up in Delta's advertisements.
![Big Grin](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
The published range with a configuration with 317 (about what it would be if DL had gone 3-4-3) is 1425 miles longer than this flight. Any "issue" is going to be going to JNB as the trade winds flow west, and there are reports that the flight can sometimes take up to an hour longer to get to JNB when the winds are strongest.
The runway at JNB is 14,500 feet, and even in winter (their summer) they ought to be able to go at MTOW, but because they have the winds with them for much of the trip, and have another 1425 of range in any event, they will not need the full MTOW of the airplane.
Bottom line is that claims that Delta was some how forced into sticking with 3-3-3 on their 777 fleet due to a single route are bogus. The reality (perhaps uncomfortable for those who continue to hawk the trope that "airline travel is a commodity" and the economics of 3-4-3 were self evident) is that Delta, having sat back and watched the response over the last year/year and a half to United using 3-4-3 on its HD and now 77W product, and AA using it in Y- on its 77W, and on its few rehabbed 772s, made a choice to not go with this ultra-tight/uncomfortable configuration.
This sets Delta up to market itself as the "premium" comfortable airline, and this move was in some ways presaged by Delta running ads in their inflight mag touting that unlike other airlines they were using the "comfortable" 3-3-3 configuration.
Don't be surprised to see this message start to show up in Delta's advertisements.
![spin88 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1286
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,568
This sets Delta up to market itself as the "premium" comfortable airline, and this move was in some ways presaged by Delta running ads in their inflight mag touting that unlike other airlines they were using the "comfortable" 3-3-3 configuration.
Don't be surprised to see this message start to show up in Delta's advertisements.
![halls120 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1287
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
![Confused](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/confused.gif)
What I said is what DL says. You can take their word for it nor not.
The published range with a configuration with 317 (about what it would be if DL had gone 3-4-3) is 1425 miles longer than this flight. Any "issue" is going to be going to JNB as the trade winds flow west, and there are reports that the flight can sometimes take up to an hour longer to get to JNB when the winds are strongest.
The runway at JNB is 14,500 feet, and even in winter (their summer) they ought to be able to go at MTOW, but because they have the winds with them for much of the trip, and have another 1425 of range in any event, they will not need the full MTOW of the airplane.
The runway at JNB is 14,500 feet, and even in winter (their summer) they ought to be able to go at MTOW, but because they have the winds with them for much of the trip, and have another 1425 of range in any event, they will not need the full MTOW of the airplane.
Runway length isn't a savior. There are occasions when a 20 mile runway wouldn't matter at DEN. Wheel speed is also a limiting factor.
It pretty much already has. And I would expect it. We're talking about an airline that sees no problem lying to its customers for fraudulent purposes. Absolutely they will try to advertise a comfort advantage. Whether the reasoning is true or not, they won't care.
![minnyfly is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1288
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,568
DLs seats are going to be wider than UAs on their widebody aircraft once UA goes 10 wide in the 777s. How is DL lying?
![halls120 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1289
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Here is a link to their web-site on their seats: https://www.jal.co.jp/en/inter/servi.../skywider.html
They also run ads touting how much better they are than ANA.
![Embarrassment](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/redface.gif)
![Confused](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/confused.gif)
![Big Grin](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![spin88 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#1290
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
JNB-ATL is often weight restricted, requiring seats be blocked. I don't think there is a link where Delta says this. Delta has not commented publicly on its 777 reconfiguration so I doubt a link can be sourced for that.
We can put several pieces together to understand that Delta can't increase the empty operating weight (OEW) without impacting performance on JNB-ATL, and possibly other routes. This may prohibit a densification of Y. Delta could also be saving money by not reconfiguring Y at all. Regardless, I think we can agree that United is not Delta and that the airlines are pursuing different international strategies: United with a large J cabin supported by a denser Y and Delta with a smaller J that will be sustained without upgrades, enabling Y to remain unchanged on 11 airplanes.
We can put several pieces together to understand that Delta can't increase the empty operating weight (OEW) without impacting performance on JNB-ATL, and possibly other routes. This may prohibit a densification of Y. Delta could also be saving money by not reconfiguring Y at all. Regardless, I think we can agree that United is not Delta and that the airlines are pursuing different international strategies: United with a large J cabin supported by a denser Y and Delta with a smaller J that will be sustained without upgrades, enabling Y to remain unchanged on 11 airplanes.
![fly18725 is offline](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)