goalie

Still dead

cfischer

there are some great deals to Spain from Canada.

juphihh

I have been flying Hamburg-Newark on United several times and I must say that I really enjoy the former Continental 757s. Their economy class is pretty comfortable and they offer great entertainment.

United is currently "upgrading" some of their transatlantic routes, using 767s instead of 757s. At the end of October, they will start using a 767-300ER on the route Hamburg-Newark.

Apparently those planes do not even offer VOD in economy class and only have tiny screens. Does anybody know if United is going to upgrade their economy class on this type of plane? I will be going to Newark on Nov 7th and I am pretty diappointed about the fact that they seem to still have the very old economy cabin. If they dont upgrade soon, I will start using Lufthansa again and accept a stopover in Frankfurt

EWR764

The former CO 757s may be pleasant in Y, but in the winter, ex-HAM, if you want to make it all the way to EWR without a visit to Gander, the 767 is right airplane for the job.

The three-cabin 67I fleet will be converted progressively to the two-cabin 76E layout, with the first ship already in HKG for reconfiguration. By the summer, close to half of the remaining 67I fleet should be finished. AVOD, power, new seats and larger Y bins are part of the package.

In the meantime, the 67I fleet is almost finished with the installation of wifi and streaming PDE, which approximates the content available in the hard-wired systems on much of the international fleet, provided you bring your own device (and extra power). I think it's a reasonable compromise as the 67I fleet has a comfortable Y seat.

LASUA1K

Sorry, but the 767-300 is the MOST comfortable aircraft in Y that UA has. It's a small TV, it's looped video, but it does have 9 channels of movies.

You will be fine, and best of all, you will make it without stoping.

lixiaojuventus

I'm a bit surprised that people now start saying good things about the 757 on TATL. In the past the main theme here seems to always bash them for the fuel stop.

lhrsfo

I wish they'd put the old 767 back on the West Coast routes I do. The seats are far more comfortable, especially valuable the longer the flight.

dmurphynj

I'm not surprised at all. The 752 is a good ride on a good bird, at least to me. I get that many are wistful for the days of yore when 707's and 747's ruled the skies, but those days are pretty much gone.

The plan was originally to scrap the 763's, but holding on to them, running them across the pond, and moving the 752's to a stronger p.s. fleet out of EWR makes a lot of sense to me.

Those 757/767 birds sure are hard to kill. Great planes, both of them. Well designed, well engineered, and HIGHLY versatile. Their biggest weakness is fuel efficiency, and with oil prices being low right now, the pressure to park those birds in the desert goes away a bit.

At the end of the day, the 752 really wasn't a bad ride at all across the pond. I personally think it's a bit of snobbery to say "wide body or nothing" to Europe... especially from EWR, it's really not much further than the flight I take to SFO routinely, and let's be honest -- doing EWR-SFO on a pmCO 752 is a helluva lot better than doing it in an A319 with slimline seats.

Those 752's really are good birds with tons of life left in them... I never thought they were a problem to Europe. And if I had the choice of, say, 6 dailys EWR-LHR on a 752, or 2 dailys on a 763 EWR-LHR, I'd pick the better schedule every time.

FTstudent

I'm glad to hear these will be reconfigured to 2-1-2 BF. That's great news. I was hugely disappointed to see the 2-2-2 BF config showing up on more routes. The 2-1-2 floor plan is one of my personal favorites.

I really enjoyed my TATL 752 trips in BF. It was a good ride and felt a little more personalized from the FAs. I'm probably the minority, since similar threads in the past favor the widebody, and then there's the fuel stop problem.

halls120

It's not "snobbery" to want an aircraft that can make the trip back to the US without stopping for fuel.

It's not "snobbery" to want an aircraft that has better access to the lavs.

It's not "snobbery" to want a more comfortable seat on a long flight.

channa

The size difference is not that big between the 752 and 763.

- The 752-INTL has 169 seats
- The 763-Two Cabin has 214 seats

So if you want to substitue 6 x 752s, you'd need 5 x 763's for approximately the same seat count.

I think that many would agree that 5 frequencies still provides plenty of options and would prefer the larger aircraft.

Now in a market where it would be 2 flights vs. 3, that may be a different story. But at 5 flights, roughly evenly distributed, that's plenty of options to find a workable flight for most people.

kevanyalowitz

Huh? How is the crappy sCO 2-2-2 seat on the 772 and 789/9 OK, but its not OK on a sUA 763?

For me, conversion from 3-cabin to a cramped 2-cabin config with only 5 (row 1) passable seats means that I will either be paying the absolute cheapest P fare or upgrading from Y. In the 3-cabin config, I'm willing to pay much more for GF or a significantly higher fare C fare in order to upgrade to GF. Way to go UA!

EsquireFlyer

And let's be honest--if UA was trying to fly A319s to Europe with slimline seats, people would be up in arms about that too. That's not snobbery.

transportprof

Shhh. Don't give them any ideas. Air Canada already flies an A319 to LHR, and WS is still flying a 737 to DUB for a few more days of its summer schedule.

EsquireFlyer

And BA flies an A318...