1kBill

Sorry to digress, but how is this possible?

A friend of mine said the same thing a few years ago, without elaboration. Of course I may have shut him down when I said that was just about the dumbest thing I ever heard from him.

LASUA1K

I would rather sit in a middle seat on a 777 over any 739.

Bring me 3 x 10 across 777 any day on my ORD-SFO flights.

Air Houston

The J seats on the sCO 777 are significantly wider than on the other aircraft types. The width data that can be found in various on-line sources does not accurately reflect the actual comfort of the seats. The extra width on the 777 is significant. I can sleep on the others but I sleep much more comfortably on the 777 seats. (I have very broad shoulders and definitely notice the difference.)

Always Flyin

A slim-line, 10-across configuration in Y on the 777s?

Longer boarding times?

Insufficient overhead space for bags (number of bins stay the same, but number of passengers increase)?

Insufficient number of lavatories just like the bins?

FAA minimum number of flight attendants so you can wait a long time for your beverage?

Baggage delays due to the number of bags and the same number of [outsourced] personnel handling them?

Your wish is SMI/J's command.

LASUA1K

Yes, everything you say above is worse on a 739. You try deplaning from row 30? You try to find overhead space? How long does it take to get a drink on a fully loaded 739 in the back? Longer boarding times? Nope, with twin aisle its faster. Overhead space, i've never had an issue on a 777 and one more seat per aisle is not going to hurt me. The 739 is worse in every way you describe above. The 739 is an awful aircraft to fly in and I'd rather stand on a 777 than fly on that little Gumpy wanna be 757 that UA has tried to make it.

The above is more true for a fully loaded 739 than a 10 across 777.

What UA is doing makes sense. Less flights more seats, less delays and bigger aircraft flying routes like ORD-DFW, AUS, SLC, etc.

It's a good move by UA. As much as I try not to give them credit, this actually makes sense.

riphamilton

i've been watching these 777 reconfig threads like a hawk; there has yet to be anything other than speculation as to the seating up front.

i hope it'll be a lie-flat, but i can understand why a/c making domestic hub turns wouldn't need that.

kevanyalowitz

I don't care how wide the seat is, if you have just ~6 inches for your feet (sCO J seat) its not good for sleeping.

Always Flyin

The content of this post is based on ignorance since the comparison is to an existing 777 and not the high density configuration UA is proposing.

My comments are valid and true. United wouldn't be doing this if it didn't intend to cram far more people on the planes. Based on UA's business tactics since the merger, it will not improve the customer experience. There will be more rows due to slim-line seats and reduced pitch and another seat in each row. UA will not provide the support necessary for all those additional passengers, before during or after the flight.

JOSECONLSCREW28

The reconfigured 777s aren't getting slimlines.

GoAmtrak

If they're getting 10-abreast, I'll call it slimline till the day I die. Doesn't matter how thick the seat is, the width is just painful in that config (and I'm a fairly small person).

LarkSFO

10 across is not a slimline.

Please don't misuse terms and try to pass them as fact.

(Agree with you though, 10 across will be a strong incentive to find a way in to F on these aircraft.)

LASUA1K

So you quote me on me saying i'd rather fly this over a 739 and it means 0?

Again, no slim line either. Every complaint you raised above is false. Boarding will be quicker, you will not have an issue with baggage, you will deplane faster. A wide body, may hold more people, but the last person in a 777 will get off before that last person on a 739.

Again, this 777 will be more comfortable to fly, even with 10 across. Let's not act like it won't.. UA is trying to maximize it's mainline fleet, and this will allow 1 777 to take 2 739's aircraft and deploy elsewhere.

Again, I usually don't defend UA, but in this case, it actually makes business sense and Customer sense. I'll be more comfortable in the 777 than I will be on the other option, which is, a slim Airbus, or a slim 738 or 9.

And if they do get flatbeds, First will also be better, and as someone who pays for ORD-SFO F, often, it's a better ride.

So you can debate, that it's going to be awful, yes worse, than other 777's, but it's better than any single aisle aircraft UA currently has.

UA will have a better First seat on that route than AA, and in my mind, will be a more comfortable experience than the slim airbus, or the thin Boeings in coach.

Let's try to not just yell at UA for everything, this is a good move.

Kacee

Agree it will be better than the awful 739s, and it is consistent with where much of the market is heading.

That said, I wish pax were not so willing to accept (and continue to book) too densely packed economy cabins with inadequately padded seats. And that UA would at least follow AA, and stay at 9 across in E+.

LASUA1K

Isn't AA 10 across now? And the 787 is just as bad as what the 777 will be.

Not defending UA, but if I can get away from the awful 739's and fly a cramped 777, I'll take it. The 739's are the worse aircraft (outside of regional) that are currently flying.

I hate the idea, but a better First Class seat will help me out.

I wish UA had bought the 321 instead of those 739's. Oh well..

worldtrav

But some of them have game changing lovely blue lights. Flyer Friendly!