golfingboy

I believe IAD-CDG will get the reconfigured 763s down the road as well.

Have you ever flown in the new BE seats? Those seats are light days better than the old sCO seats, and I think the headrests on those seats are much better than UA's tiny uncomfortable Y headrests.

I believe those seats can be found on the reconfigured 764s, 737s with the sky interior, and maybe the 752s [I am not sure about that one].

ASEFlyer

So, this aircraft will eventually be on the SFO-IAH-LIM-IAH turns? If so, do we think IAH-LIM will remain eligible for complimentary upgrades? I wonder if we'll see EWR-LIM replaced with a 763 as well.

sbm12

When IAH-LIM was operated by an aircraft with the BF seats recently they killed the CPUs on it. Only when they switched back to the old seats did they revert to the CPU program. As for EWR-LIM switching to the 763, my guess is that it will depend on loads/demand and cargo. If they don't otherwise have use for the 763 versus the 752 then they can easily make that swap.

EWR764

Have you sat in the seat? Did you know that they are using the B/E Aerospace Pinnacle instead of old CO's Koito seats? Currently, these seats are only installed on the 9 retrofit 767-400ERs and the N674UA (67E). Have you flown on them? If not, trust me, they are much better than the old CO seats. It's not even close. These seats are good.

I'm not sure how sUA flat bed J is "much" better than the seats being installed on the 67Es. Sleeping comfort is a matter of preference, but there is no doubt that the BF seat is wider and offers more storage space than the sUA seat. Also, the sidewall pivot bins are larger on the 67E than on the 67I.

Yes, the F seat is good, but a given route needs to generate more paid F demand in order to receive three-cabin service. It appears ORD-AMS and IAD-CDG do not fit that bill, and the newly-reconfigured 767s are an improved inflight experience for nearly all passengers.

The 757-300s operating to Hawaii have E+ and a much wider F seat than was previously available on the domestic 767-300ERs. Sure, the downgrade from widebody to narrowbody is unfortunate, but the vast majority of mainland-US flying these days is operated by 737/757 anyway. At least UA still has 767/777 service from SFO/ORD/DEN/IAH/IAD/EWR to Hawaii.

CO777DAL

No, once it goes to BusinessFirst plane, BF rules will apply. CO did this a couple years ago with the 752.

ASEFlyer

Boo...that was a nice, long free upgradeable flight. I guess now the only way to get down on complimentary upgrades is through PTY.

LASUA1K

Question is have you flown UA business? Are you judging due to the 2 2 2 versus 2 1 2 configuration? The UA seat, believe it or not is wider. I've sat in both, and the UA seat is far more superior. It's not angled either. Have you flown pre merger UA? Not to make this a UA or CO thread, but again the UA Business seat is wider.

Are they getting new seats? I sat on one from IAH-ORD and my butt was sore. Also, the ghetto bird had more first class seats, but with UA selling upgrades for cheap, most passengers will be sitting in those bad bad E+ seats.

The new ghetto bird is trule the 757-300. I love the 757 my favorite plane for takeoff, but the 767 is way more comfortable for a passenger!

ORDGuy79

Looks like ORD-AMS is reconfigured and will go out on its first flight tonight:

http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....267&highlight=

The net effect for the premium cabin and E+ from the pre-merger 763 isn't very comforting:

Old: (F/C/E+/E-) - 6/26/70/77
New: (F/C/E+/E-) - 0/30/49/135

There is a blurb in this press release that says, "The reconfigured 767-300 is just one more example of how we are redefining air travel by providing our customers more choice, greater comfort and better value." I, otoh, remain baffled how a 6% decrease in premium cabin space, a 30% decrease in E+, and a 75% increase in E- is providing these things.

chasbondy

The 767-300 looks terrific with the new suites, but I havent seen the 777, 747 or the 380 suites yet. But if you're not in least a E+, transatlantic sucks. Your usual ORD pig slammed his seat back during the meal service, bruising my knees and spilling the dinner and drink all over me and instead of apologizing, he said he has control of his seat and can do what he wants, and the FA agreed. I told him as a pig, he probably does, as a human being he doesn't, and I kneed him all the way over except the 5 times he whined to the FA.

LASUA1K

ha hilarious.....

rob_flies_ua

The reconfiguration is from 2-class domestic to 2-class international. No 3-class international 767s are getting reconfigured to 2-class.

ORDGuy79

The ORD-AMS flight had the PMUA 3-class but now it is replaced with the 2-class reconfigured cabin. Even if it is not the exact same 763, the reconfigured cabin is a significant downgrade on this TATL route (especially the 20+ less seats in E+).

EWR764

Yes, somewhat extensively in both products. The numbers don't point to the same conclusion... the sUA IPTE C seat is 19" wide with armrests raised, 23.5" wide with armrests down. The sCO BF seat is 22" wide with armrest raised and 25-27" wide with armrest down.

You may prefer the sUA seat, and that's an entirely reasonable opinion to have. I find it to be a very comfortable, pleasant product once you get over the 2-4-2 arrangement on the 777 and 747 main deck. It's also good for traveling with a companion. I've never had a problem with the rear-facing seats, either. In fact, I get a kick out of them, especially on takeoff.

The sCO BF seat has noticeably more elbow and shoulder room. I'm not a small guy so that makes a difference to me, but at any rate, I'm just glad to have a flat bed. Look on the bright side... you could be flying AA J and seeing the world from a whole new angle!

Was it a reconfigured 764 (no) or one of a handful of Sky Interior 737s? If not, then you didn't have the new seats.

That, my friend, is called progress!

A one-size-fits-all approach is probably not the best way to maximize systemwide profitability. There are some mid-size markets that may call for such a premium-dense configuration, and those markets will get the three-cabin 67I, unchanged in number, to meet the demand. On the other hand, less-premium markets will receive aircraft with higher ratios of E- and two-cabin aircraft to better cater to the needs of that particular city pair.

This is by no means a death knell for premium-dense configurations at UA. There are still at least a dozen 777s due to go in for IPTE mods into a very rich layout. UA could easily adjust the E+/E- ratios if they needed to, but they haven't. With such a large fleet, some of the drawbacks of operating a variety of configurations disappear with economies of scale.

Further, I see nothing wrong with the company attempting to maximize revenue on a given route. Let's face it, with stiff SkyTeam competition in the local and beyond markets (daily KL 747), ORD-AMS is hardly a marquee route for UA. (cf. IAD-CDG)

golfingboy

F sales suck on ORD-AMS... They usually only sell 1 or 2 seats per flight on that route.

IME, it is rare for E+ to be booked full on international flights and often a good chunk of customers cannot select seats since E- is full and they have to wait until the airport for the agent to assign them into the E+ section.

Domestic routes is where I will be concerned with the # of E+ seats, internationally not so much since they are almost always wide open.

LASUA1K

? Just wondering if it's free AVOD, or is it the old 767 UA style with 9 channels looping?