![]() |
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25128610)
I'm sitting on a newer a320.
I'll take it over the 739 every day of the week. Although the lack of power is absolutely inexcusable on an aircraft that relies on PDE. |
Originally Posted by johnden
(Post 25129791)
I can live without entertainment, I can live with long bathroom lines (time to stand is good for circulation), and I can live with knee-crushing seats.
However, slimline/lower/shorter seats combined with weak/non-existent cushioning is a killer. It makes the entire experience painful instead of "just uncomfortable". There are still a lot of airlines (including pmUA) that pay a little more for extra cushioning. Why the move toward park-bench-like seats? I get that they save a little money, but I don't think it is that much. Do passengers really not care at all about seat cushioning and form? Or maybe some airlines, including the new UA, really don't think about comfort at all? pmCO even skimped on padding in the BusinessFirst cabins (compared to pmUA), no excuse for that. Who would intentionally pick/design a J seat that is less comfortable than it could be to save a few dollars? Not talking about density here, just an extra cm of padding. So little to ask. For example, imagine if your employer tried to save $10 by ordering less padding for a $200 office chair that caused back-aches for all of the staff. Why would an airline do this in a premium cabin? It is only a matter of time where this slimline design is the standard among the big 4 no matter what the age of the plane is. This is revenue motivated to get elites who demand comfort to simply start buying more premium tickets out of frustration that their desire for a minimum standard of comfort is no longer being met. In this way an elite does not have to play the upgrade game and gets their seat of choice confirmed at the time of purchase. |
Originally Posted by Pi7473000
(Post 25125838)
Try flying the 2 class 777s or 787s. The Business class on those planes feels old and outdated as well! The economy seats feel much less comfortable than on the 3 class 767. They also don't even have GlobalFirst! I prefer the 3 class 767 over either of those planes for comfort in all classes.
|
Originally Posted by poisson
(Post 25126211)
I generally fly with foreign airlines because the planes are in better shape and the service is better.
I only went with United because they were $200 cheaper than every other option. I don't fly enough to research every aspect of every airline. Its interesting because the competition has better planes at around the same price (depending on dates). Guess we'll see what my return flight is like.
Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
(Post 25126356)
So in other words, UA is reconfiguring these planes which have superior premium cabin seats to crappy outdated 2-cabin seats. They will feel no newer than before, and the screens in Y will continue to be the same size but with VOD.
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25128610)
I'm sitting on a newer a320. Newark to San Diego. Six hours.
No seatback screens. No radio. No overhead movies. No power outlets. The seats feel about as comfortable as the new York subway. Oh how I wish for an outdated plane. I fear my back will kill me tomorrow |
Originally Posted by char777
(Post 25129351)
Were you not aware that all United Airbus aircraft now offer satellite Wi-Fi and free streaming on almost all major devices? Did you check? Or was it not operational on this flight? Just curious.
I usually book away from the A319/A320 fleet now just because I find those slimline seats to be exceptionally awful, but at least they all have a superior WiFi system and a pretty good selection of movies to watch. I'm sure I'm not the only one with the issue. Even though three announcements were made explaining how the system worked, it seemed like maybe one out of twenty people were using it. Fifty movies with no battery to watch one is not an amenity Oh, and the FA made an announcement clarifying that there are no power outlets on board, and sorry. I just don't understand how purchasing ten overhead lcd monitors to show a movie would have broken the budget on the aircraft. |
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25128670)
"No entertainment on a six hour flight? I hear JetBlue has free direct tv! " |
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25130159)
The movie selection was in fact great. There's just no such thing as a smart phone that will have enough battery to get you through the flight with juice left over for your destination.
I'm sure I'm not the only one with the issue. Even though three announcements were made explaining how the system worked, it seemed like maybe one out of twenty people were using it. Fifty movies with no battery to watch one is not an amenity Oh, and the FA made an announcement clarifying that there are no power outlets on board, and sorry. I just don't understand how purchasing ten overhead lcd monitors to show a movie would have broken the budget on the aircraft. |
Originally Posted by REPUBLIC757
(Post 25128249)
This was standard the non-AVOD CO entertainment system that was available in Y on the 762, 764, & 777. It was installed in the late-1990s/early 2000s and not modified until they were replaced with current day AVOD systems.
From what I recall (flew a CO 762 between EWR-LAX-EWR in 2004) it was looped. Programs had countdown screens as to when you could join in and watch a movie. I believe there pause, FWD, RWD functionality, but only for a selected batch of movies that you tuned into. I can't confirm what functionality they had since it was 10+ years ago. I think AVOD went into the pmCO 752s and 777s during a typically lengthy :rolleyes: upgrade starting in 2008 and not completing until 2012. The 764 didn't get AVOD until they were reconfigured with lie flat in 2012? I think. FT thread on CO's 752/772 AVOD conversions. |
Originally Posted by Kensterfly
(Post 25125660)
We're looking at a trip to Paris and I see UA flies 757s CDG to EWR. Really? I can't imagine a TATL on a single aisle aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by idayvuelta
(Post 25128393)
It's really incredible the number of people who have never flown quality carriers (foreign or domestic) and simply have no idea how much better the competition is.
|
Originally Posted by Cargojon
(Post 25131134)
Define quality carriers. I've flown J on SQ, does that count?
I was very disappointed when BA bought them out. |
Originally Posted by Cargojon
(Post 25131134)
Define quality carriers. I've flown J on SQ, does that count?
Originally Posted by poisson
(Post 25128480)
In your experience, what are the better carriers?
-Virgin America, Jet Blue, Delta (int'l domestic) I think are all better experiences by a measurable amount than United. American needs to finish its merger and still has some old old old J flying around, but I think will end in a better place. -Lufthansa - old J is a joke but otherwise it's a quality airline. Y is a little tight. -British Airways - Perhaps not what it used to be but much more professional flight attendants, much much better J catering and seats, better lounges, Y and Y+ a little better. Austrian and Swiss are miles better. -Turkish has wonderful food and good seats plus a great lounge in Istanbul. -Pretty much all of the major asian carriers. SQ, JAL, ANA, Garuda, Cathay. Even aspects of Air China compared favorably (though it uses the Continental seat). In some cases (SQ and jokes aside, Malaysia) the service is wildly better in Y, J and F. I will never forget being in Y on a lightly-booked flight on Malaysia and being addressed by my last name the entire flight by the flight attendant. EVA distributes pijamas and serves Krug in business. -For what they purport to be, I also have had good experiences in Y on the LCCs (AirAsia, Tiger, Jetstar). Professional crews, reasonable fares, reasonable costs for add-ons like extra seating. -The Mideast carriers are controversial but by all means do a better job in flight in all classes (on the ground/customer service is another story). -South African Airways has a very reasonable J product with good wines and decent seats. |
Originally Posted by KnightInWhiteSatin
(Post 25130056)
Those 3 class planes are an utter embarassment. It looks old, smells old, and has overhead bins sized for cameras only; and only a person in the last century would love the antiquity.
|
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
(Post 25130309)
This is interesting but irrelevant if that person is then prepared, next time, to book JetBlue even if it's $5 more. It has been proven beyond any doubt that the great majority of non-frequent flyers will not pay extra for extra bundled amenities.
Given the choice of JetBlue or United, people are picking JetBlue to the point that they now dominate Boston and had a part in pushing United out of jfk. And again I argue this is because it is known that JetBlue offers a consistent fleet. When you buy their ticket it's not a gamble what amenities you get |
Originally Posted by KnightInWhiteSatin
(Post 25130056)
Those 3 class planes are an utter embarassment. It looks old, smells old, and has overhead bins sized for cameras only; and only a person in the last century would love the antiquity.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:10 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.