bcoz From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 358 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8423 times:
The recent tangent in the "UA/CO deal with CLE" thread regarding IFE on CO 739s vs. UA 752s got me thinking....
Any rumor, innuendo, speculation regarding the future of Ch. 9 with a merged product? I really hope it does live on, as it is one reason why I'll go out of my way (and pay more) to fly United mainline.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5338 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8141 times:
Greetings from a loyal CO flyer.
The only rumors circulating are sourced from people who DON'T have any inside info. So take the following with a handful of salt grains, but speculation on flyertalk is that ch9 will disappear. The UA pilots hate it, and have been trying to get rid of it for ages, apparently. And it would be very easy to use it as a bargaining chip, or simply to eliminate it during fleet-wide IFE simplification.
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6081 posts, RR: 56 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8129 times:
If they hate it so much, why don't they simply just turn it off ? It's up to the captain's discretion to have it on or off.
I have no idea but I really hope it stays, together with Airshow is the best IFE around.
The777Man
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5338 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8055 times:
Quoting The777Man (Reply 2): If they hate it so much, why don't they simply just turn it off
Many do; I haven't been on a UA flight where it was actually turned ON in years. Which is a bummer- I miss it.
dispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1185 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7918 times:
I concur, I was jumpseating on a UA flight, and I was riding in the back and asked the captain if Ch 9 would be on. He looked at me and said "hell no, too many damned lawyers!"
You can make a special request, but if the captain doesnt want it on, it wont be on.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2321 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7885 times:
Quoting The777Man (Reply 2): I have no idea but I really hope it stays, together with Airshow is the best IFE around.
Hear, hear.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3): Many do; I haven't been on a UA flight where it was actually turned ON in years. Which is a bummer- I miss it.
My experience is the opposite: I can't remember my last UA flight were channel 9 was off. Maybe we are sampling different flights. Most of my UA flights are FRA-SFO, FRA-ORD, MUC-ORD (and back...).
joeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 872 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7884 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3): Many do; I haven't been on a UA flight where it was actually turned ON in years. Which is a bummer- I miss it.
Out of my last dozen or so UA flights this past summer, Channel 9 was on almost all of them...maybe 2 were not. Channel 9 is the sole reason why I'm loyal to UA...I've been working on my private pilot's license this past summer and listening to 9 is a great learning tool.
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5090 posts, RR: 28 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7767 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1): The UA pilots hate it, and have been trying to get rid of it for ages, apparently.
Funny thing - the UAL pilots with whom I am acquainted have no such feelings.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 5):
My experience is the opposite: I can't remember my last UA flight were channel 9 was off.
Same here.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
PlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 530 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7580 times:
If anyone who has decision making authority or close to it is reading this thread: Please, please, please, please, please, pretty please, keep it. It really is a great feature to flying on United and hopefully the new United as well.
dispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1185 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7558 times:
Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 8): It really is a great feature to flying on United and hopefully the new United as well.
I can see the feature remaining on all current pre-merger UA aircraft, but since it requires rewiring the audio system in the flight deck, I cant see the COA fleet to be retrofitted with it, even if the decision is made to keep it.
I can see the circuit breaker in the flight deck being pulled and forever collared permanently killing it for fleet commonality between the CO and UA fleets, but I cant see UA retrofitting it to the COA birds...
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7398 times:
Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 9): I can see the feature remaining on all current pre-merger UA aircraft, but since it requires rewiring the audio system in the flight deck, I cant see the COA fleet to be retrofitted with it, even if the decision is made to keep it.
I can see the circuit breaker in the flight deck being pulled and forever collared permanently killing it for fleet commonality between the CO and UA fleets, but I cant see UA retrofitting it to the COA birds...
There is no simple way to connect it to the IFE system on COA birds?
N505FX From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 191 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7371 times:
The UA pilots I know don't hate it, and actually leave it on because they are smart enough to know that it is a passenger experience/service item that differentiates the brand they work for. Now, if the CO folks coming in to Chicago have an iota customer service and marketing savvy, they will leave it on the UA fleet and update the CO fleet - taking it out would be a downgrade in customer experience, and this merger is shaping up to look like CO brings the marketing and customer relations horsepower and UA is bringing the nuts and bolts running an airline horsepower....make the best out of both strengths.
dartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 636 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7260 times:
I've also had Channel 9 on most UA flights the last year.
However, on my most recent one (DEN-OAK on a 319) it was off. When I was exiting the aircraft, I asked the pilot why he had Channel 9 off.
He looked at me quizzically and said it was on. I told him it wasn't. He went into the cockpit to check, came out a few seconds later and apologized, saying he really thought it was on!
I agree with all posters above: I can't imagine Channel 9 surviving the merger (certainly not being brought to CO), but I really wish they would! It would be a great customer service statement, although from a biz perspective probably hard to market and justify since the pool of people (e.g. A.net members!) who appreciate it is quite small!
dispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1185 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7246 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Reply 10): There is no simple way to connect it to the IFE system on COA birds?
TOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7031 times:
IMHO, it's a goner. Last time I ever had the pleasure of listening to CH 9 was in November 2008 on DEN-EWR with a 757. It's terrific, but I've been on several UAL flights since where they didn't turn it on.
There are other things I'd be more concerned about EG: keeping of "Rhapsody in Blue" for UA's advertising campaign.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
netjets21 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6567 times:
Pardon me for asking, but why do they hate it so much? It seems if you can turn it on and off, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to operate with it on?
apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3635 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6489 times:
I hope it stays too but I am not holding my breath.
That being said...I remember a fellow A.Netter who is a UA pilot who gave a legitimate argument for turning it off. It stems from a flight that he was captaining into SFO. They were on final for 28L I believe, and since taxiway K is near the UA terminal, they asked ATC for a Kilo Roll, meaning they would lengthen the landing rollout all the way to taxiway K to save time on the taxi in. While on final, they hit some wake turbulence from the airplane in front of them. After the flight a lady passenger complained to that captain with something like "Don't you ever be doing any more of those Kilo Rolls", not knowing what it really was (She thought it was related to the wake turbulence). Apparently she wrote a letter to complain to UA about this and instead of defending the captain, the captain was brought in, and given time off without pay because of this. And he did nothing wrong. If management will not defend their pilots in matters like this, where is the trust? This pilot now fears losing his certificate if something like this happens in the future, and even though the ASAP program would protect him in situations like this, he refuses to take the chance anymore.
If company management and pilots worked better together and the pilots knew that management had their back in cases related to aircraft operation, you would probably see it a lot more. But as it turns out, that does not appear to be the case.
Ironically though, if you fly an airline with internet access, you could listen to LiveATC.net anyways.
mattdell From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6325 times:
I rarely fly UA, but happened to a few weeks ago on an HNL -> SFO flight and it was not on. It was a redeye, though, so perhaps that was why the pilot didn't turn it on. I wanted to try it out, but I also needed to force myself to get some sleep, so I never bothered asking for it to be turned on.
Hopefully they keep it so I can try it another time.
413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6144 times:
I have spoken to a few UA pilots and they indeed are weary of noisy passengers who can record or even hear what they are saying and have it used against them. One of them gladly turned it on at my request before the flight began but I would imagine most are against it merely because of the uninformed public always having to question everything.
Quoting mattdell (Reply 18): I rarely fly UA, but happened to a few weeks ago on an HNL -> SFO flight and it was not on. It was a redeye, though, so perhaps that was why the pilot didn't turn it on. I wanted to try it out, but I also needed to force myself to get some sleep, so I never bothered asking for it to be turned on.
Hopefully they keep it so I can try it another time.
Most pilots don't use it overwater since we don't talk to ATC via VHF radios, so basically there is nothing to listen to when going HNL-SFO except for the first 20 mins until the last 25mins of the flight. We talk to ARINC for position reports on HF freqs or some of the aircraft do automatic reports via SATCOM during the majority of the flight.We turn it off most of the time overwater since the VHF radio at that time is used for air to air info between other aircraft and some of those conversations can be not exactly suitable (on occasion )for the public.
SFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5714 times:
Quoting apodino (Reply 17): Apparently she wrote a letter to complain to UA about this and instead of defending the captain, the captain was brought in, and given time off without pay because of this.
This is the most common anti-channel9 reasoning. And I can imagine there are quite a few people willing to write such complains. But really, is any measurable part of those complaints based on listening CH9? I would imagine 99% are based on just looking out of the window and observing that "part of the wing got loose, came up and plane started shaking"?
People capable of tuning to ch9, figuring out callsign, etc should be better then that...
Quoting apodino (Reply 17): Ironically though, if you fly an airline with internet access, you could listen to LiveATC.net anyways.
I thought most carriers specifically prohibit any kind of audio streaming (mostly driven by VOIP, of course) ?
hestaman From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5042 times:
Quoting 413X3 (Reply 19): I have spoken to a few UA pilots and they indeed are weary of noisy passengers who can record or even hear what they are saying and have it used against them.
I am curious if there has ever been one single instance where channel 9 was used against a UA pilot. I have never heard of such a case. This is the argument I always here, but I never once have heard of an instance where something said and/or recorded on channel 9 was ever brought into a court of law. Channel 9 really enhanced my desire to learn about aviation and helped tremendously when I was taking private pilot lessons. It is indeed a product that differentiates United from others, and I too sincerely hope they keep this wonderful product going! Just curious - on any given flight, does anybody have any idea how many of us aviation geeks actually tune into channel 9?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, RR: 24 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4958 times:
Quoting The777Man (Reply 2): If they hate it so much, why don't they simply just turn it off ? It's up to the captain's discretion to have it on or off.
They can do that but it results in inconsistent customer service.
mattdell From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4781 times:
Quoting 30west (Reply 20): Most pilots don't use it overwater since we don't talk to ATC via VHF radios, so basically there is nothing to listen to when going HNL-SFO except for the first 20 mins until the last 25mins of the flight. We talk to ARINC for position reports on HF freqs or some of the aircraft do automatic reports via SATCOM during the majority of the flight.We turn it off most of the time overwater since the VHF radio at that time is used for air to air info between other aircraft and some of those conversations can be not exactly suitable (on occasion )for the public.
Thanks for the explanation, 30west!
25 N505FX: It isn't just aviation geeks, I know many nervous flyers and general flying public that like listening to ch.9 as it gives them a sense of having som
26 CWAFlyer: If the woman didn't know what it was, then what was it she was complaining about? And what exactly did UA think he had done wrong? I'd be surprised i
27 tugger: I do not think this element of service is good or bad or noticeable enough for "inconsistent" to be a valid reason to discontinue it. If they do use
28 nyc2theworld: Besides, any lawyer that UA had on their side would do everything/anything to discredit the recording the passenger made and compare it to any ATC tap
29 sldispatcher: Three things... 1. I have let United know that I really appreciated channel 9 on a recent flight. 2. I let the captain know that I appreciated the fac
30 ChiGB1973: I would think UA would have taken it out if there was such a problem. It's just not a legitimate complaint. No company is going to take undo legal li
31 washingtonian: Very interesting....Out of curiousity, what do you mean by convos not suitable for the public? Do they discuss random stuff or what? So Channel 9 doe
32 AusA380: I hope they keep it, no airline in Australia do it and I have always enjoyed listening when I have flown UA. I had an interesting expereince a couple
33 30west: Many things usually passing of ride and weather reports but on occasion some other topic comes up. (mine is bigger-better than yours i.e or something
34 VC10er: I flew about 60 UA mainline flights this year. All but 2 or 3 had it ON That was both domestic and international. These days there aren't many things
35 etoile: Let's get the lawyer blaming and bashing out of the way. Do you really think that Ch 9 wouldn't be gone by now if the UAL lawyers wanted it gone?
36 N505FX: How about someone start a Facebook group or e-petition to Save Ch. 9 ? The Save the Tulip people are getting a lot of mainstream media attention latel
37 apodino: During the NY subway strike a few years ago I was flying UA into LGA and they put a local AM news station on Channel 9 so that all the passengers wou
38 washingtonian: Interesting. So normally pilots only put the VHF on Channel 9?
39 Mir: Unless you're over the ocean, VHF is normally all you'll use. Though HF is sometimes useful for listening to game broadcasts and the like. -Mir
40 jetfuel: There will be no reason to fly UA any more without Ch 9
41 VonRichtofen: I flew UA mainline for the first time in June (LAX-DEN, 777). I had known about Ch.9 from these forums but totally forgot about it. It was not the rea
42 USXguy: Channel 9 has about a 3 or 4 second delay, its not a simple wire from the COM into the IFE, I think there's a switchboard and a few other items that w
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 358 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2321 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Mar 2010, 30 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
