Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3153 posts, RR: 14 Posted (1 year 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9487 times:
Was just looking at our summer schedule and noticed that all the A319's are listed as having a capacity of 8/106, compared to their current configuration of 8/112. Is this true, that all A319's are/will be reconfigured??
If yes - why?? They all already have Y+ seating so it's not like the sCO birds that are having rows removed to add the Y+ cabin.
HOMsAR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1008 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 8515 times:
I recall reading that for schedules many months out, UA puts a generic configuration available on the seating chart to protect against equipment swaps (such as to a 737-500) that reduce capacity. When it gets closer to departure date, the seating chart will be revised to the actual planned aircraft type for the flight.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1422 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5948 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 12): Quoting gigneil (Reply 7):
They're far more pleasant than their 73Gs due to the seating and the color scheme.
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 11):
And seats on the 700s are 1/2 inch narrower than the 319s.
I'm neither here no there on the interior, but I just flew on a 73H last week for the first time in a while (last was an old-school DL 738 ~6 years ago), and the cabin size was quite noticeable. The seats were noticeably narrower, and I felt like the shoulder/head room was a bit tighter as well. It was interesting to compare after flying all Airbii the last couple years, but definitely much more "snug".
cosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5906 times:
could this have anythibg to do with a capacity compromise for the pilot contract they are negotiating? I know it doesn't make much sense to lower capacity, but if they agreed to a certain number of aircraft under a certain capacity, then UA could use the 319's until a C series or ejet order could be delivered. Just wishful thinking on my part, but I can dream...
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1422 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5786 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 16): Haven't flown on a UA A319 but I have flown on one of the A320s. Why the hell cant they put the same cushiony seats from the A320 in their 737s!?
Well first I think many of the 737s from CO are relatively young so prob not in need of new seats anyway, but also given the narrower cabin they may not make the same seat in a smaller size for a 737. EIther way though, it will be interesting to see where all that goes moving forward. With the new refits to 2-class 763s and the like going "CO style", they may just standardize of that.
Quoting cosyr (Reply 17): could this have anythibg to do with a capacity compromise for the pilot contract they are negotiating? I know it doesn't make much sense to lower capacity, but if they agreed to a certain number of aircraft under a certain capacity, then UA could use the 319's until a C series or ejet order could be delivered. Just wishful thinking on my part, but I can dream...
I can't cite it exactly, but I know I have seen a couple rumors about the wanting to standardize the 73G and 319 part. So that doesn't mesh with dumping a row necessarily, but going to 12F I would think is certainly a possibility.
MountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5751 times:
Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 4): I recall reading that for schedules many months out, UA puts a generic configuration available on the seating chart to protect against equipment swaps (such as to a 737-500) that reduce capacity.
That's funny because that's exactly what happened on the last UA flight I was on. The flight was originally sold as a 738 from DEN-CLE, but it was later downgraded to a 735 a few weeks ahead of time.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 7): United's A319s are very, very comfortable and well maintained planes.
I think those seats never received FAA certification due to the fault and never made their way onto any frames. IIRC, there are a few pictures on the site with a bunch of CO 73H's sitting in Renton waiting on seats.
Thanks sir, I couldn't remember, I knew HP and UA were the only us airlines that bought the IGW versions. And I think they use the V2524-M5 engines like HP which are standard at 24k thrust with a bump for a bit more.... hope someone could verify that...
They just filled in the holes in row 8 which had no window seats on either side of the aircraft, so not really what I would call a big deal since they didn't add any new rows. They went from 12F/112Y to 12F/114Y.
But I would guess it would have something to do with increasing the front from 8 to 12 -- to be identical to the 737-700s which are already 12/106 .
That is not correct. With E+ the 73G is 12/100 not 12/106
73G is 12F, 40E+ and 60Y = 112
319 is 8F, 40E+ and 72Y=120
Using Seat Guru it looks like taking the 319 to 12F would reduce E+ pitch from 35 to 34 as 3 extra inches of pitch in F would need 1 inch from each from E+ rows. UA has some 34 inch pitch E+, but mostly 35 inches.
If a row of F added, 319 would become
12F, 36E+ and 72Y = 118, still 6 more seats than the 73G.
25 asqx: Actually, Delta went from 16F/108Y to 12F/114Y on the A319. The 737-700s on the other hand have always been 12F/112Y.
26 United1: UA is installing slimline seats on the 320/319s starting next year....think that might give you that lost inch.
27 Transpac787: This, is actually, the incorrect statement. Pre-Y+, the sCO 73G's were configured 12/112. Now post-Y+, they are configured 12/106. You may be mistaki