cstead

One of the highlights of the last weekend's Fleet Week Open House at SFO was the opportunity to fiddle around with the New C and F seats, and have a few people from WHQ on hand to answer questions. I wanted to pass along some info from a conversation held between myself, Tintangel, cricketeer and N from WHQ (who I assume is either the product manager for the New C/F or at the least very high up on the project org chart).

First off, N was extremely frank with us. Surprisingly so. Among the things that he admitted include:

• UA knows that their service will never be as good as NH, SQ or CX (we knew that)
• UA knew that their products were lightyears behind (we knew that)
• N, and possible others, fly the UA AND competition's premium cabins with some regularity (we always assumed they were clueless - they still may be)
• UA knows ps F is in bad shape (see above)

It was pretty shocking honestly to hear someone from UA admit that they realized they could never compete on service, but to get some honesty was very refreshing.

The conversation was very much a "tell-me-what-was-on-your-mind" type of approach, and N was happy to answer. Among the top design requirements:

• C had to be full flat
• Powerports and AVOD IFE
• C had to be full flat
• Weight was not an issue

In addition, N mentioned that the approach to C was evolution, while F was very much just to refresh with one twist - it had to be able to work on the 763 fleet. A result of this (perhaps a design requirement?) was close to 80% parts commonality between the two seats.

We all noticed the lack of storage in C, which they are aware of. Because of the desire for full flat, they had to sacrifice something, and it ended up being storage. As for the flimsy tray table in F, he mentioned that a retrofit is being investigated that would give it a similar support plate that the C seat has.

The conversation moved along to ps, and when we asked if there was any thought to moving the new C seats to replace the Spacebeds, he just kind of smirked and shuffled his feet, but sort of said no. N was acutely aware that the Spacebeds, well, suck - that they're falling apart, the whole in the back where the IFE should go looks tacky, and that they receive a fair amount of negative feedback (he did mention that both customers and UA are very pleased with the C cabin on ps - something we can all agree on^). He said that they are looking into a variety of things, but if you ask me, we won't be seeing new C on the ps birds. I just don't see how you could fit 12 of those in the area currently taken up by the 12 Spacebeds. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they'll move the old 763 F seats to ps.

Last question I asked him was about the strategy of promoting the product on certain routes - essentially dedicating aircraft to routes, which is an expansion on the original rollout (dedicated to SFO-IAD and IAD-ZRH runs) but sort of against industry norm (maximum utilization of the aircraft). Specifically, I asked if it was done out of the need to more adequately compete on certain routes, and what type of backlash they were prepared to accept when an aircraft goes tech and the product disappears. The response was that they felt that there were certain routes where they felt they could maintain the service with high reliability, etc, etc. I followed up by asking why it was so heavy on IAD services and less so on ORD services, and also why on the FRA routes where presumably the rev-share with LH made it less of a pressing matter - and that all HKG and SYD services would seem like the most important routes to get dedicated new product for obvious reasons. He didn't have an answer for it, and didn't quite seem to understand what I was getting it. Not wanting to press him further, I thanked him and wrapped up my time with the demos.

All in all, I am impressed with the seat. Yes, its a little narrow, more so than a herringbone IMO, but it still seems very fresh and innovative. It was great to hear some details and insight into what drove UA to get this seat, and fun to talk to a person who seemed as passionate about a seat as we all are

anc-ord772

Thank you very much for sharing. Would be interesting to see if they know how the recent soft product "enhancements" are working out. Probably a little early to know.

MatthewLAX

Thanks for sharing. I don't understand why UA has to concede that their soft product can never compare to NH or SQ.

dcsnowwake

thanks for sharing.....anyone ask why they didnt update economy at the same time?

worldtrav

There are 26 C seats on the ps equipment, not 16.

lucky9876coins

I think he's talking about F, which would be 12 seats, since he's talking about Spacebeds.

PanHam

Admittance is the first step to fixing the problem . . . .

andersjt

If I read this right, the suits at WHQ think the only way they can compete is these new seats that have their own draw backs? What am I missing that they think that any effort to improve service is not a good investment?

worldtrav

Thanks, and as you say the number is 12 not 16. No wonder I'm confused

anc-ord772

... and how do they think it got there, magic?

ninja138

Union FAs past their prime. Need I say more?

cricketer

Thanks, cstead, for posting this (and saving me some typing)

One more point that was amusing to me was that when I told him that I found the new UA C to be (far) more comfortable for sleeping than the new SQ C, he wouldn't accept that! My size 13s have a problem with the narrow footwell, but that applies on almost every lie-flat seat on the planet.

The concession of the service gap was frank, but disappointing. More pertinently, I'd say that some of the service I've received to and within Asia, and also to and from LHR (the LHR based crews) has been right up there. You'd hope that UA would aim high, to give themselves a chance.

The other admission was that there was no intention or plan to try and compete with SQ and CX on hard or soft product, but they felt that they could compete strongly with NH with the new C product.

He did also indicate that this all started with the observation that they had to update the 767 fleet in premium cabins, and that ended up rolling over into an across the board revamp. They seriously considered keeping the existing first class and just touching it up, but decided that that wouldn't swing with a simultaneous overhaul in business.

cepheid

Even without asking, I can provide an answer which I'm fairly certain is close to the truth: there's just no money in it and it would cost way too much. People buy C/F for the seat (and the service), and the profit margin is huge, so it makes sense to put the capital investments there - the ROI will be maximized. There are also fewer seats so even if you spend a significant sum per seat, your total expenditure is strictly capped.

People buy Y not for the seat or for the service, but for getting from point A to point B, and hopefully (but not exclusively) without severe discomfort. UA needs to make its Y tolerable, but there is otherwise very little incentive to improve it, not only because very few competitors have a better product but also because the majority of people who buy Y place a much higher priority on price, schedule, and route (in that order) than on comfort or amenities. Moreover, on these widebodies, there are hundreds of Y seats; any investment would have to be relatively meager in order to limit the capital expenditure, and as argued above, the ROI would be minimal at best.

UA did update Y somewhat - the seats got new cushions and some of the paneling looks newer (or at least cleaner). On the 747s, the Y layout was updated, and the old projection screen was replaced by a large LCD (plus smaller LCDs on the side bulkheads). That's all they did, and really, that's all I would really expect them to do, given the consumer mindset and especially in today's market.

UAX_Brasilia

Is there any pictures of either of the new C or F that are actual Cabin pics? I haven't seen one, and I can't find one (I am usually very good at finding things on the internet )

Paella747

You typed the words right off my keyboard! I was just going to answer "Unions".