IAH-OIL-TRASH

UA does not promise Polaris seats on the route - all it promises is lie-flat seats. The OP may consider it a downgrade, but is still getting what UA promised.A swap to a 737 would be a downgrade, recognized by both the passenger and UA. The CoC clearly allows for aircraft swaps and everyone who expects to get the exact airplane they bought tickets for are often ignoring reality.

HaleiwaFlyer

I think a reasonable person would consider changing from a newer hard product (Polaris) to an older hard product a downgrade, regardless if both are considered lie flats. All award point travelers who go from Q-Suite to non Q-Suite flights view it as a downgrade; from Turkish Airlines new business hard product to the old one as a downgrade...we can keep on going with examples. The OP booked Polaris hard product equipped flights for that specific hard product. Only on FlyerTalk do we nit pick the nuances of CoC to justify saying changing from a newer hard product to an older one, as not a downgrade.

Even as a seasoned flyer, and the vast majority of UA travelers on the Hawaii thread agree that the change to the 777-200 high density is considered a downgrade compared to Polaris equipped hard product. OP has a valid complaint, and is not ignoring reality.

cfischer

UA does not guarantee a specific product and there is no such thing as 'Polaris' domestically. Whether this is perceived as an inferior product is IMO meaningless as far as 'downgrade' is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be happy w/ that change either and SDC onto another flight ... but I know a seat config is never confirmed when I book a flight. All seasoned flyers know that.

mduell

UA doesn't even market these flights as Polaris when you buy the ticket; they offer "Business/First" which has included many different seats over the years.

If you end up in a recliner that doesn't meet the Business/First norms, you get compensation.

HaleiwaFlyer

No one is arguing that there is no Polaris service domestically, but it doesn't negate the OP chose the flight for the Polaris hard product equipped planes. Are you saying domestic flights have no Polaris hard product equipped flights, so they magically disappear because it is a domestic route? What is that Polaris metal icon in the front right wall of the plane, even if it is flying domestically?

It is assumed domestic fliers are choosing Polaris equipped hard products for that reason, not because they think it is international service. It is apparently not meaningless to the OP, since he/she posted it here as a complaint. Knowing equipment swap can occur does not mean a "downgrade" didn't happen, and trying to imply equipment swaps can occur at anytime to negate the OPs complaint is quite frankly saying people should not complain at all. Lastly, consumers like reliability, and that one experience perhaps has cost United Airlines a future return customer, even though it is only one experience. Not everyone is a seasoned flier, and to downplay the OPs complaint only antagonizes this flying community.

mduell

That's not a thing United sells; they don't sell any specific hard product on any route, systemwide.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Hopeful expectation v.s. broken promise. As pointed out, if UA was to promise different levels of lie-flat seats on Premium Transcon routes, they’d market different levels of lie-flat seats. On Premium transcon, all they promise is lie-flat seats. Some are nicer than others. Some people prefer the 772HD seat, other prefer the Polaris pods. Sure, the OP can complain he/she doesn’t like the swap, but that doesn’t mean UA did anything evil.

I select seat 1A on a 753. UA swaps for a 737 and I’m still in 1A. Disappointed? Sure am, but UA has not “downgraded” me. My hopes were “downgraded”, though. I’ll roll with it. It is what it is - can’t complain about UA delivering less than they promised. UA didn’t promise a big footwell and UA doesn't promise a Polaris hard prodiuct seat. Show me where UA does.

WineCountryUA

This is what the OP did post
OP original posted believing it was a recliner, which we all seem to agree to be a valid complaint if true.
Once the OP learned of the actual situation, the concerned changed.

And as many have posted, the older equipment has some advantages / preference for the non-single flyer.

HaleiwaFlyer

So United went through the trouble for you to choose a seat with a specific hardproduct configuration, and gave you flight details in order to compare hard products for nothing right? Because nothing is guaranteed as they only sell fare buckets not hard products…..

HaleiwaFlyer

I agree with you that there is no promises and that isn’t the argument here. The seat selection menu have distinct seat icons, why else would United put distinct seat icons unless United themselves want to showcase a difference in their own hard product??? Otherwise, every icon would just be a recliner seat. Because a business class ticket is the same right??

The OP posted the following too:" I wouldn't otherwise fly SFO-EWR, but am expecting to confirm based on previous experience with it, that JetBlue Mint provides superior service and product for SFO-JFK.(and honestly, have not encountered this level of shenanigans for SFO-JFK even with AA)"

The experience for the OP left a negative UA consumer experience, and doubtful he will choose UA again after this experience (maybe the OP can clarify?). His original post indicated he was willing to give UA another shot after a prior bad experience.

My point is that we tend to skew our perspectives as frequent fliers that we let a lot of things slide and brush them off during operational issues. Most consumers don't view it that way, and we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to airlines because for most of us, flying is a passion/enjoyment and understand the minutia of airlines. But how much leeway should we give as consumers?

Lux Flyer

It's far easier to program your seat map display to only consider the layout of the aircraft and update the legend accordingly, then it is to make the seat map display change depending on both the layout and the route that aircraft is flying on. In UA's eyes, lie-flats on a domestic business route are the same hard product regardless if it would have been marketed as Polaris internationally or not. Passengers can get a flight change or voucher if their flight changes to not have a lie flat at all. But all UA is marketing, and is quite clear from the seat selection process, is a lie flat seat in a United Business cabin, there is no further commitment beyond that.

I think your argument works against the point you're trying to make. The average consumer isn't going to care, or probably even know, whether it is a "polaris" hard product lie flat seat or the old lie flat seat. They're booking and see that they're going to get a lie flat seat, and when they fly they get a lie flat seat. The issue isn't the big deal it is being made out to be here unless you have the perspective as a frequent flyer to even know there is a difference between the two styles of seat. At which point you should also know enough that on a domestic business flight the specific style of lie-flat seat isn't guaranteed.

halls120

Correct, but since UA generally charges more for a F seat SFO-EWR flight on a 757/767/777/787 airframe than on a 737 F seat on the same route, I'd better be getting some compensation if I pay for a lie flat and end up in a recliner.

colpuck

There was a song can't remember the title, but there was a line..."bet you think this song is about you" which kind of sums up OP's experience.

The issue isn't really with OP's A/C, that was just a downstream effect of what did happen. The issue was with the EWR-LAX flight on 6/13 and probably even before that. The A/C scheduled for that flight developed a fault somewhere, maybe deferrable maybe not. But the end result was about 18hrs before the EWR-LAX ops knew that they had a flight on paper but no metal to operate it. For whatever reason the best course of action was to take N793UA that was scheduled on several SFO-EWR turns and send it to LAX. Okay that solves the problem EWR-LAX, but created one for EWR-SFO-EWR, OP's original flight. UA has N773UA available but it was scheduled for overnight MX at SFO. As OP's flight was originally canceled, I think that was something in the overnight MX package that was non-deferrable and was going to drop dead, I.E. ground the A/C if not fixed. But UA had time, remember we were still a ways out from departure on a weekday flight. The people in charge of A/C scheduling talk to tech ops and probably reg affairs to see if the task that could be extended. Maybe there was even a call to the FAA to get approval. (deferrals can only be extended twice before the FAA has to sign off on them.) Anyways the extension was granted for at least 72 hrs as N773UA just got its overnight last night. The extension allowed UA to build a new flight to get everyone to EWR. Which I am guessing OP was on.

WineCountryUA

No that is not true, the type of aircraft used is not a factor in fares. Plus UA does not schedule non-stops SFO-EWR with 737s.

The fact that SFO-EWR is a lay flat PTS routes, UA may try for higher fares by competition will be the real factor.

Buster CT1K

I agree that UA does not consider this a "downgrade." Nevertheless, it seems like a very legalistic approach to quote the contract of carriage (CoC) to a passenger/customer instead of addressing the customer's actual concern.