|
Outdated planes
This was my first ever flight with United. I flew from EWR to CDG in a 767-300. It was probably the most outdated feeling large body plane I've ever been in.
I only go to Europe every few years, and usually just fly with whatever airline is cheapest/most convenient for me. In the past I have flown with Continental, American, and Air France. The Continental aircraft I was in 8 years ago was more up to date than UA's 767-300. I remember there being a 6-8" touch screen in coach and you could select what you wanted. My recent flight with United had a screen that was the size of a game boy and you could only select channels with movies and shows that had already started. Has anyone else noticed this? Are all UA Europe flights this outdated? |
You were on a pre-merger UA 767.
Since you always fly the cheapest airline, this doesn't really matter to you because you'll use UA again if it's cheaper than alternatives. |
Originally Posted by poisson
(Post 25124849)
This was my first ever flight with United. I flew from EWR to CDG in a 767-300. It was probably the most outdated feeling large body plane I've ever been in.
I only go to Europe every few years, and usually just fly with whatever airline is cheapest/most convenient for me. In the past I have flown with Continental, American, and Air France. The Continental aircraft I was in 8 years ago was more up to date than UA's 767-300. I remember there being a 6-8" touch screen in coach and you could select what you wanted. My recent flight with United had a screen that was the size of a game boy and you could only select channels with movies and shows that had already started. Has anyone else noticed this? Are all UA Europe flights this outdated? |
I think this neatly encapsulates why airlines won't invest in the Y product. People always buy the cheapest fare, whether they like the product or not. They don't even do any research to find out if there's a significantly better product for only $1 more (UA has plenty of flights to Europe with the features the OP wants). They would not pay $5 more for significantly better food but will pay a multiple of that on BOB or airport fast food outlets. The message is clear.
|
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
(Post 25125024)
I think this neatly encapsulates why airlines won't invest in the Y product.
I also suspect it represents a significant majority of the flying public. |
Originally Posted by PATRLR
(Post 25125492)
^^
I also suspect it represents a significant majority of the flying public. |
Originally Posted by nyr2299
(Post 25125574)
Majority of people who fly planes, but may not be a significant majority of those who are on the plane. Case in point - I fly 100 times a year. The average american flys 2x per year. While I represent 0.1% of the public when it comes to flying, I and flyers like me, represent 30%+ of the passengers on a given plane (based on the upgrade lists which are 40 people deep for a 150 seat airliner). Plus, people like me pay higher fares, so we may represent as much as 50% of the revenues on the plane, and if you think about it along those lines, most of the profit.
(And I agree with comments below about the quoted figures - these are essentially made up and don't reflect true airline economics.) |
Originally Posted by nyr2299
(Post 25125574)
I and flyers like me, represent 30%+ of the passengers on a given plane (based on the upgrade lists which are 40 people deep for a 150 seat airliner).
Plus, people like me pay higher fares, so we may represent as much as 50% of the revenues on the plane, and if you think about it along those lines, most of the profit. |
Originally Posted by Lion06Fish
(Post 25125344)
Would you have rather been on a single aisle sCO 757 which does the TATL market? Divert for a fuel stop and spend an extra night somewhere bc the crew has timed out? UA has pulled several of the sCO 757 out of the TATL market and swapped with the aged sUA 767 so that it will make it across the Atlantic (if the plane doesn't have a MX).
If you think that's bad, you haven't flown to Asia on their 747s! It was ridiculous to have such an aircraft on a long haul. |
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
(Post 25125024)
I think this neatly encapsulates why airlines won't invest in the Y product. People always buy the cheapest fare, whether they like the product or not. They don't even do any research to find out if there's a significantly better product for only $1 more (UA has plenty of flights to Europe with the features the OP wants). .
First, 95%+ have no idea that the plane quality varies within the airline on the same route, and that theres any way in advance to know what it is. When you look up flights on Expedia, it is not like a hotel where it lists the amenities. When people see United at x, AA at x+$10 and Delta at x+$20, theres no differentiation at all on the booking screen aside from trip time. Second, I know MANY people who will absolutely switch to Jetblue Or Virgin rather than flying United etc if the price is within a reasonable range (maybe $50 price dif for a 5 hour flight). It helps that those airlines have very consistent products. You know youre getting free TV, and you know youre getting snacks and you know youre getting more room. Youre not gambling on plane type, per-merger, legacy, etc etc |
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
(Post 25125024)
I think this neatly encapsulates why airlines won't invest in the Y product. People always buy the cheapest fare, whether they like the product or not. They don't even do any research to find out if there's a significantly better product for only $1 more (UA has plenty of flights to Europe with the features the OP wants). They would not pay $5 more for significantly better food but will pay a multiple of that on BOB or airport fast food outlets. The message is clear.
Where is K Mart today and where is Target? |
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 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 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.
The Y seats on 3-class 763 (which OP is complaining about here) are generally considered the most comfortable Y seats in the UA fleet. Yet some people would apparently prefer a 17.3 inch wide, barely padded slimline seat, so long as there's flashy new touchscreen AVOD. |
Originally Posted by poisson
(Post 25124849)
This was my first ever flight with United. I flew from EWR to CDG in a 767-300. It was probably the most outdated feeling large body plane I've ever been in.
I only go to Europe every few years, and usually just fly with whatever airline is cheapest/most convenient for me. In the past I have flown with Continental, American, and Air France. The Continental aircraft I was in 8 years ago was more up to date than UA's 767-300. I remember there being a 6-8" touch screen in coach and you could select what you wanted. My recent flight with United had a screen that was the size of a game boy and you could only select channels with movies and shows that had already started. Has anyone else noticed this? Are all UA Europe flights this outdated? UA 767 > AA 767 |
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25125717)
I disagree.
First, 95%+ have no idea that the plane quality varies within the airline on the same route, and that theres any way in advance to know what it is. When you look up flights on Expedia, it is not like a hotel where it lists the amenities. When people see United at x, AA at x+$10 and Delta at x+$20, theres no differentiation at all on the booking screen aside from trip time. Second, I know MANY people who will absolutely switch to Jetblue Or Virgin rather than flying United etc if the price is within a reasonable range (maybe $50 price dif for a 5 hour flight). It helps that those airlines have very consistent products. You know youre getting free TV, and you know youre getting snacks and you know youre getting more room. Youre not gambling on plane type, per-merger, legacy, etc etc When you shop for a car, you receive extremely prominent information related to price but also to fuel economy and many, many other features of the car. Not to mention seeing pictures of and perhaps sitting in the car. That's not the case when you use most websites to purchase airline tickets. To be sure, this is changing, especially with the updated UA website (and DL's website, etc.). They are applying some of the most fundamental research findings of decision theory and marketing, which is great to see. For sure, there will be disappointments due to irrops and inops, but a small dollop of proactive customer service and compensation should be enough to smooth that over, even by UA. Of course whether that happens in practice is a different matter. All of this comes down to the fact that, when it comes to airlines and airline tickets, people on FT know what questions to ask. For most passengers, they don't (and we shouldn't expect them to either!). That's the difference between regulars/enthusiasts and everyone else. And so if the information is not available, they wouldn't otherwise know to ask. People don't run automatically run counterfactuals like that. |
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. I flew RT MSP to Iceland once on Iceland Air. 757. About six hours. That was bad enough. On the return, the aircraft didn't even have a mid cabin lav.
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25125717)
First, 95%+ have no idea that the plane quality varies within the airline on the same route, and that theres any way in advance to know what it is. When you look up flights on Expedia, it is not like a hotel where it lists the amenities. When people see United at x, AA at x+$10 and Delta at x+$20, theres no differentiation at all on the booking screen aside from trip time.
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25125717)
Second, I know MANY people who will absolutely switch to Jetblue Or Virgin rather than flying United etc if the price is within a reasonable range (maybe $50 price dif for a 5 hour flight).
|
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 autobahnal
(Post 25126077)
All of this comes down to the fact that, when it comes to airlines and airline tickets, people on FT know what questions to ask. For most passengers, they don't (and we shouldn't expect them to either!). That's the difference between regulars/enthusiasts and everyone else. And so if the information is not available, they wouldn't otherwise know to ask. People don't run automatically run counterfactuals like that.
But I would love if Expedia showed flights in a chart format like this Airline Price Flight time Free Snack type Onboard entertainment screen type Onboard entertainment video type? (on demand vs looped) Onboard music type? Seating layout Seat width Leg room Power outlets? Baggage policy Wifi, cost? Boom. Customer could easily scan and compare. Hmm, United is $25 more but offers on demand video on that flight and slightly wider seats? Sold! Most people shop by price because they are only shown flight time and price. Imagine shopping for a hotel online where youre only told the name, location and price, and not bed type, availability of pool or gym, etc etc. Even Priceline with the mystery hotel stuff has a list of amenities youd be getting when you bid. $20 more but theres a pool? Sold! |
Totally agree with the OP. The EWR-AMS route seems to use these planes on a regular basis during the peak tourist season. On UA I get the sense that this plane is about 25 years old based on the tiny overhead bins, dated interior design and the tiny pixelated economy class viewing screen.
According to my quick look-up on Wikepedia, the 767-300ER first entered service on AA in 1988 and it had some design improvements in 1993. Even with planned interior renovations, I wonder what the lifespan of this particular plane will end up being. 30 years? 40 years? |
Originally Posted by JOSECONLSCREW28
(Post 25124878)
You were on a 3-cabin 763 which has looping entertainment. Those aircraft are slated to be reconfigured to a 2-cabin configuration identical to the current 2-cabin 763s (The current 2-cabin 763s have interiors identical to the 764) and no not all of the 767s to Europe are like the one you flew on some are 764s and some are 2-cabin 763s.
|
Originally Posted by G702TT
(Post 25126279)
Even with planned interior renovations, I wonder what the lifespan of this particular plane will end up being. 30 years? 40 years?
|
Originally Posted by poisson
(Post 25124849)
In the past I have flown with Continental, American, and Air France. The Continental aircraft I was in 8 years ago was more up to date than UA's 767-300. I remember there being a 6-8" touch screen in coach and you could select what you wanted. My recent flight with United had a screen that was the size of a game boy and you could only select channels with movies and shows that had already started. Has anyone else noticed this? Are all UA Europe flights this outdated? So really, if you want to be technical -- aside the overhead bins, really no difference between flying CO or UA in Y 6-8 years ago.
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 poisson
(Post 25126211)
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). |
Originally Posted by REPUBLIC757
(Post 25126712)
8 years ago CO did not have any AVOD systems on any of their aircraft. 762, 764, & 777 was all looped video with a remote control. The sUA 763 (3-class) also have looped video. The only difference is the sCO WB's had new overhead bins back then.
So really, if you want to be technical -- aside the overhead bins, really no difference between flying CO or UA in Y 6-8 years ago. Not a fan of this move either since the sUA Y seats are more comfortable, but at the very least they are keeping the 763s around and not foolishly dumping them like they are the 757s. The plan up until a few months ago was to retire ALL the 3-class 763s. |
Funny, the UA 763 are my favorite widebody to fly in coach -- most comfortable seats (from back before all the flyer_unfriendly slimlines like the 787 torture devices) and a good number of seats with great legroom (18AB, 21DEF, 22ABKL).
Couldn't care less about the PTVs, I prefer my own entertainment over what any carrier offers in any cabin. And the bins fit my carryon just fine. |
Originally Posted by REPUBLIC757
(Post 25126712)
Not a fan of this move either since the sUA Y seats are more comfortable, but at the very least they are keeping the 763s around and not foolishly dumping them like they are the 757s. The plan up until a few months ago was to retire ALL the 3-class 763s.
|
Reliability of the 763 is my biggest problem. Very disappointed to see that all the IAH<->LHR daily flights next June will be back to 763s (for a while now it's been 763x1, 788x2). They are old as dirt and have frequent major mx delays. :(
|
Originally Posted by Cargojon
(Post 25126807)
I'm going to disagree with you here. I flew pmCO to HNL around 2006 on a 767 and their IAH-HNL flight had AVOD in seat entertainment. 2 years later I flew ORD-OGG on pmUA on a 777 which was dark - no AVOD, etc. Granted my sample size is small but similar routes and CO clearly had the better setup.
The 764s didn't even get AVOD installed until around the time of the merger. 777s were first in the 2008-2009 time frame, then the 757s which only had overhead before that. ORD-OGG was a domestic 777 for sUA with overhead screens only. Now with the streaming content, they are officially dark. sUA started the IPTE 777 refresh program in 2007, but they were slow and not all were completed until 2-3 years ago. |
Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
(Post 25126916)
Agree in part, but the 2-cabin 763 and 764s are truly an awful premium cabin experience. High density, short on bathrooms, assembly line service. There is nothing premium about them besides an uncomfortable flat bed with tiny footwells. So, in that regard, they may as well be retired if they are getting converted.
Plus, if I'm not mistaken, didn't UA rip out some Y restrooms to get the J-class seating config they wanted to during the 2-class conversions? |
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
(Post 25125024)
I think this neatly encapsulates why airlines won't invest in the Y product. People always buy the cheapest fare, whether they like the product or not. They don't even do any research to find out if there's a significantly better product for only $1 more (UA has plenty of flights to Europe with the features the OP wants). They would not pay $5 more for significantly better food but will pay a multiple of that on BOB or airport fast food outlets. The message is clear.
Originally Posted by jamesinclair
(Post 25125717)
I disagree.
First, 95%+ have no idea that the plane quality varies within the airline on the same route, and that theres any way in advance to know what it is. When you look up flights on Expedia, it is not like a hotel where it lists the amenities. When people see United at x, AA at x+$10 and Delta at x+$20, theres no differentiation at all on the booking screen aside from trip time. Second, I know MANY people who will absolutely switch to Jetblue Or Virgin rather than flying United etc if the price is within a reasonable range (maybe $50 price dif for a 5 hour flight). It helps that those airlines have very consistent products. You know youre getting free TV, and you know youre getting snacks and you know youre getting more room. Youre not gambling on plane type, per-merger, legacy, etc etc
Originally Posted by NewportGuy
(Post 25125740)
Because people look for bargains is not a reason to create a crap product. Just look at what happened to K Mart and Target. K Mart took United's approach. Treat everyone like hillbillies, assume they don't care about dirty stores or poor merchandising. Then along comes Target, showing that you can provide a quality product AND show respect for customers without sacrificing the bottom line.
Where is K Mart today and where is Target?
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 REPUBLIC757
(Post 25127344)
Agreed that the 2-class 763/764 absolutely do suck from a premium perspective. The footwells are reportedly smaller than even the 757 -- and I was never a fan of sCO pod seating from the start. In short, it's a subpar product but at least the 21 aircraft are not leaving the fleet.
Plus, if I'm not mistaken, didn't UA rip out some Y restrooms to get the J-class seating config they wanted to during the 2-class 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 Kensterfly
(Post 25127390)
But does it beat being back in Coach?
|
IDK, I find the refurbed 764 to be quite comfortable, in back and up front. and I'm not a small dude. :D
|
Originally Posted by REPUBLIC757
(Post 25127325)
I'm telling you, AVOD did not exist on CO in 2006.
The 764s didn't even get AVOD installed until around the time of the merger. 777s were first in the 2008-2009 time frame, then the 757s which only had overhead before that. ORD-OGG was a domestic 777 for sUA with overhead screens only. Now with the streaming content, they are officially dark. sUA started the IPTE 777 refresh program in 2007, but they were slow and not all were completed until 2-3 years ago. |
Originally Posted by Cargojon
(Post 25127790)
Maybe my memory is a little fuzzy. Perhaps it wasn't true AVOD but a bunch of channels on the PTV's at the time w/the moving map. I think there were some games and such too.
|
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 25127383)
The problem is that when that person sets foot on the plane (see our OP) the experience matters... It impacts their willingness to fly that airline again, and the brand reputation, and that in turn impacts what people will pay, regardless of the actual experience they will get. E.g. Y seats on the sUA 772 are not bad (soft product is another matter) but someone jammed into a sCO 787 slim line is not likely to want to repeat the experience. The average passenger does not pick and chose equipment, they just avoid the airline for all purchases. We see this day in and day out on the UA board where people say they avoid ANA. ANA has some of the best equipment and experience out there, but it also has some real dogs, but even many knowledgeable folks don't take the time to figure this out, they just don't book ANA. United runs this risk every day, with every passenger, when they run dark/old looking equipment, have sub-par food, and have industry leading cancellation and delay rates.
This is why e.g. Delta has a revenue premium over United, and why United's (which used to have this revenue premium) lost it. VX's revenue is growing. Overtime people are not stupid... +1 and you are a perfect example of why United's decission is so short sighted. You booked United ONLY because they were $200 cheaper. If you figure that United had to similarly cut the ticket price by $200 for another 150 people on that flight (I am assuming they can sell a few tickets w/o such discounting) then United has left $30,000 on the table. That kind of money shows why shorting your product, and offering sub-part product is penny wise, but pound foolish. If I had known the plane would be so outdated, I would have gladly paid a little extra to have a more up to date plane. Unfortunately it's rather difficult to determine what kind of amenities you are getting on board without doing research. |
Originally Posted by poisson
(Post 25127842)
Maybe so, but every time I check flight prices it varies widely on who is the cheapest. For the dates I chose, UA was the cheapest. A week later, Canada Air was cheapest.
If I had known the plane would be so outdated, I would have gladly paid a little extra to have a more up to date plane. Unfortunately it's rather difficult to determine what kind of amenities you are getting on board without doing research. The experience onboard certainly matters, and I definitely agree with an earlier poster that that's a key piece of the state of the industry. But, when people lament the commodification of coach and the race to the bottom based on price-sensitivity, then they are making an argument about the information that customers (or, as VX likes to call them, guests) use when making purchasing decisions. At those moments, the info they have most readily available is (a) price, (b) schedule, and (c) any positive or negative memories from previous flights. Amenities onboard are, with limited exception, not mentioned. This is changing, but slowly and still in not-totally-helpful ways -- e.g. the new UA website lets me choose connection airports, but gives no other potentially-helpful information about why I should prefer one airport over another. I'd love to know that an airside connection at EWR might require a bus ride, whereas one at ORD can simply involve running and neon lights :) |
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.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:35 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.