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 It was probably the most outdated feeling large body plane I've ever been in.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 Are all UA Europe flights this outdated?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.

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.

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.

^^

I also suspect it represents a significant majority of the flying public.

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.

Just because people fly frequently or are even elite doesn't mean they are any better informed. I know plenty of people here in the bay area who have UA status (essentially by default) and know literally nothing about the fleet or how the FFP works.

(And I agree with comments below about the quoted figures - these are essentially made up and don't reflect true airline economics.)

I'd love to know the real figures. You are basically saying 30% of the capacity on a plane are frequent flyers. Maybe that's true, but my guess is the number is less when averaged over all flights and not just FF heavy routes. Even if 30% is correct, I suspect the actual number that care about anything other than price is less than half of the FFs.

That addresses who the airline should care about, not who cares about the airline.

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. Through much of the flight there was a very long, and awkward line for the TWO rear lavs. The FAs zealously guarded the FC lav against the unwashed from coach. But they finally gave up lest they face a bunch of people who had peed in their pants.

It was ridiculous to have such an aircraft on a long haul.

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

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?

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.

787s already feel outdated? I'm hoping to fly one TATL in J next Spring.

Great example of how appearance trumps substance for many.

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.

Try flying AA's 767-300, the ultimate example of outdated planes. No PTV's not even in business, only the overhead screens in the aisles. Not only that, AA installed newer overhead bins only in the front half of the plane, leaving the older style ones in the back.

UA 767 > AA 767