FRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2336 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22766 times:
Please enlighten me. What exactly is "new" about the interior of the aircraft? Have all 3 classes received an overhaul or is it this half ass bull sh*t that is all too common these days on US carriers where only one cabin (either business or first class) is redone? Why can't they just do them all (including economy) all at the same time so as to introduce a COMPLETELY new product/flying experience for ALL passengers involved?
"Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9106 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22592 times:
Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 1): Please enlighten me. What exactly is "new" about the interior of the aircraft? Have all 3 classes received an overhaul or is it this half ass bull sh*t that is all too common these days on US carriers where only one cabin (either business or first class) is redone? Why can't they just do them all (including economy) all at the same time so as to introduce a COMPLETELY new product/flying experience for ALL passengers involved?
Wonder when will they install PTVs in economy class
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22490 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): The First Class suite has been replaced with a new model and Business Class now has true lie-flat seats.
Economy seating remains unchanged, but since it's a revenue sink on a per-seat basis, this is really a surprise? The projection screens have been replaced with large LCDs, I believe.
First and Business are totally new, Economy (if they did the same thing to the 744 that they did to the 763) has LCDs instead of the projectors, new carpeting, new seat-covers and they would have re done the bulkheads getting rid of the sunset motif. Also Y+ is now in between doors 2 and 3 instead of 3 and 4.
Iloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 771 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22477 times:
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 5): As it is, one assumes that Economy Class passengers are not (or there are not enough who will pay a premium) and so they get what they are willing to pay for.
It doesn't matter! There is no excuse for not overhauling Economy Class as well! EK, SQ, and CX all offer PTVs with AVOD in Economy. They may not be the cheapest, but their fares are affordable. I am so sick and tired of hearing a lot of the U.S. carriers' excuses why they can't upgrade their products in all classes! I mean, HELLO????? EK, SQ, and CX all have products that put our carriers to shame! If an airline like UA wants to call itself a true "international" airline, then they need to match and/or exceed their Asian counterparts. ENOUGH OF THE EXCUSES!!!!!!!!!! JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13735 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22317 times:
Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 12): It doesn't matter! There is no excuse for not overhauling Economy Class as well! EK, SQ, and CX all offer PTVs with AVOD in Economy. They may not be the cheapest, but their fares are affordable.
There is an excuse if it's not economically viable.
Now this economically un-viability can stem from issues regarding reputation, flight frequency, branding, inflight service, perceived quality etc... Even if these things were dealt with, a market may be so competitve that the payoff on the investment would take too long etc..
And again, you have a choice. If you are flying to London you could fly an American carrier or you could fly Virgin Atlantic which offers good inflight entertainment options.
For a flight to Asia, I would argue the best option would be Singapore Airlines for reasons that are not needed to be elaborated upon.
Jbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22260 times:
Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 9): PTV's will not be installed on UA 744's. The weight of such a system would become a serious issue on UA's long routes that already push the range limits of the 744's such as ORD-HKG, LAX-SYD, etc.
Which is very interesting given QF has it on their flights for LAX-MEL and makes economy a very enjoyable experience... ie unless UA has their ticket prices significantly cheaper QF will get my $$$ every time.
Bingo...as long as UA runs the numbers and they come back saying that adding AVOD in economy doesn't add enough to their bottom line to make it worth retrofitting you will never see it in Y on a UA 744. Now whatever replaces the 744 will almost certainly have it however.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 22080 times:
There are a number of reasons why UA will not install PTVs in the 747 fleet:
The weight penalty.
The cost. UA would need to source new seats to replace the current seats. They would then need to re-wire the Economy cabin. And all that work needs to be certified. It would not be cheap across the board - the cost of the system, the cost of the installation, and the lost revenue while the 744s are out of service to be retrofitted. And yet, UA would not be able to charge extra for the PTVs over what the competition is charging.
Premium cabin yields on UA are lower then they are on SQ, CX and EK so UA can't use them to "subsidize" Economy Class benefits.
UA continues to fill the back of the plane even without PTVs.
QantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 22047 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 18): Quoting Jbernie (Reply 17):
QF has it on their flights for LAX-MEL
QF has the 744ER on that route so weight is less of an issue.
Yes but they did use the RR-powered standard 744 for years with IFE in Y on the route before they had the ERs. Granted, fuel prices were a lot lower then too.
UA 777s were among the first US carrier to have in-seat IFE for economy class.
I would not fly a long-haul without IFE in Y if I had to fly Y, but a lot of people would if they paid less for the ticket. I don't blame UA for making an economic decision. No doubt they have done their numbers and are willing to sgement out the Y travellers who insist on IFE on 744 routes and determined the cost benefit was not there.
Now, back on topic... the new UA product looks great and can't wait to try it!
Do what I do, fly SQ, CX and the rest of the Asian couriers when you have a choice. Complaining and shouting about it on A.net won't help a thing.
I personally think it's an improvement that UA upgraded their F and J classes, that's where the money is anyways. By the way, UA isn't that cheap across the Pacific, SQ and CX have better sales from what I've seen.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21415 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 21868 times:
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 5): If Economy Class passengers were willing to pay a premium for the Economy Class products that United flies then perhaps they would have revamped it.
True. UA has such poor Transpac Economy service that any customer willing to pay a premium for better service is going to fly on another carrier.
Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 16): So true... and next week I will fly between HKG and SIN in economy... with Cathay, even though it will cost me twice as much as UAL would. Exact same time, both flights direct.
Yep. You provide a better experience, you can charge more. If you provide a bare bones experience, you can't.
But that's not to say it's wrong. UA has decided that they would rather provide a less competitive Y product and take more cargo if possible, and use any excess weight to improve the premium cabins. That's their choice. Maybe not the best choice, but it's their choice.
DL made the same choice with the 763s. AVOD would add weight, weight that they couldn't use for cargo. Cargo won, due to higher profit than picky Y pax.
LH seemed to have that same philosophy in Y longhaul, though I think that is changing now?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Iloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 771 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 21849 times:
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 21): Complaining and shouting about it on A.net won't help a thing.
Good point. I probably shouldn't have shouted. I just get so frustrated that America doesn't have a carrier that is up to par with EK, SQ, CX, etc. The United States deserves an airline of their stature. I flew UA to China from the Midwest (via ORD) because I really had no choice, as the Asian carriers didn't offer good enough connections from their hubs (NRT, ICN). I would have had like 30 hour waits in NRT or ICN. I would have flown an Asian carrier if I had had the chance.
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 21): By the way, UA isn't that cheap across the Pacific, SQ and CX have better sales from what I've seen.
You got that right. For my trip to China, I spent $1,800 r/t. Now for that price, I would expect a PTV with AVOD, and I didn't get it. If I could have flown KE, I would have, because they averaged $400-$600 cheaper. And I would have gotten a PTV with AVOD AND extra legroom! IMO, UA simply has no right to charge a premium for an inferior Y product.
: The ORD-IAD flts start on the 19th of April.
: That is a 320 and 319 respectively so why would they upgrade such a small a/c insted of one of the 2 763 or 1 772?