Warning

[ferdeline]

Hi, all-

Please be advised that I recently had the 'pleasure' of flying United from Sydney to SFO.

In economy.

The aircraft was a dated 747 with NO ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS (for a 13 hour flight...), NO FREE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, and an appalling meal. The flight attendants were also old. While courteous, they were not of much assistance, and looked too frail to still be working.

I am convinced that United was hoping this aircraft would crash so they can get the insurance payout.

The load aboard this plane (in economy, at least), couldn't have been more than 30%. Of course, the few passengers onboard were all squeezed together, with empty rows of seats at the rear of the aircraft.

The aircraft also featured its original cabin and was very noisy.

I had not flown in a classic 747 before, so I would recommend this flying museum if you would like to see what air travel was like before personal entertainment options were common place, and before airlines realised what unions did to employee performance.

While I am sure that this antique is not often used on this route (surely they have different aircraft and this was a last-minute replacement, must be from their emergency fleet - I am sure I've flown a 777 on United before), it was shocking to see what air travel on 747s used to be like. The onboard carpet complete with stains still haunts me! I don't know how anyone could fly this aircraft and then criticise Qantas/Delta/Virgin. I'm not QF's biggest fan, but there is no chance they'd have an antique like this aircraft still in the sky, even if in storage in their emergency fleet*.

* or whatever you call the supply of spare aircraft

 

[simongr]

\I'm not QF's biggest fan, but there is no chance they'd have an antique like this aircraft still in the sky, even if in storage in their emergency fleet*.

* or whatever you call the supply of spare aircraft

Guessing you havent flown on the 763 to HNL then?

 

[JohnK]

I thought United flew the 747s on the this route.

One thing is interesting though. People were a lot more patient in those days and did not need any IFE to pass their time. If I remember correctly when I first travelled in 1990 there was a central screen with from memory only 1 movie. Or was it 2? Most of the time the flight path would be on the screen.

And it wasn't a bad experience either. People used to get up more and talk to one another. Started talking with a total stranger and it turns out that we both had the same friend. Nice lengthy chat. But these days we cannot live without IFE or our gadgets for 5 minutes let alone an entire flight. Times must be better now....

 

[ashleyn]

Hi, all-

Please be advised that I recently had the 'pleasure' of flying United from Sydney to SFO.

In economy.

The aircraft was a dated 747 with NO ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS (for a 13 hour flight...), NO FREE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, and an appalling meal. The flight attendants were also old. While courteous, they were not of much assistance, and looked too frail to still be working.

I am convinced that United was hoping this aircraft would crash so they can get the insurance payout.

The load aboard this plane (in economy, at least), couldn't have been more than 30%. Of course, the few passengers onboard were all squeezed together, with empty rows of seats at the rear of the aircraft.

The aircraft also featured its original cabin and was very noisy.

I had not flown in a classic 747 before, so I would recommend this flying museum if you would like to see what air travel was like before personal entertainment options were common place, and before airlines realised what unions did to employee performance.

While I am sure that this antique is not often used on this route (surely they have different aircraft and this was a last-minute replacement, must be from their emergency fleet - I am sure I've flown a 777 on United before), it was shocking to see what air travel on 747s used to be like. The onboard carpet complete with stains still haunts me! I don't know how anyone could fly this aircraft and then criticise Qantas/Delta/Virgin. I'm not QF's biggest fan, but there is no chance they'd have an antique like this aircraft still in the sky, even if in storage in their emergency fleet*.

* or whatever you call the supply of spare aircraft

A very timely post ferdeline, There is a sense of Qantas bashing on AFF from time to time and whilst I'm not a mega flyer by any measure or a total fan of QF, I think they do a pretty good job most of the time. Experiencing other airlines is the best way to get back a sense of balance. Also experience other airline's lounges and maybe the QP's aren't that bad after all.

That's my experience anyway.

 

[ferdeline]

Guessing you havent flown on the 763 to HNL then?

No, I haven't -- because I'd been warned not to from reading reviews on this website.

I was not aware that United was still flying such antiquated aircraft on their long-haul flights. My mistake, I thought they'd have upgraded their entire fleet at least once in the past 20 years...

 

[ferdeline]

A very timely post ferdeline, There is a sense of Qantas bashing on AFF from time to time and whilst I'm not a mega flyer by any measure or a total fan of QF, I think they do a pretty good job most of the time. Experiencing other airlines is the best way to get back a sense of balance. Also experience other airline's lounges and maybe the QP's aren't that bad after all.

That's my experience anyway.

Very true; it does make you appreciate what QF offers. I only wish that QF flew to more destinations - I like their brand, their aircraft, food and lounges. I do not like transiting through Sydney or London, though.

 

[straitman]

How do you know it was a 747 classic :?: i.e. 747 - 200/300

UA operate 747-400s on these flights and do not have any classics in their fleet.

 

[ferdeline]

How do you know it was a 747 classic :?: i.e. 747 - 200/300

UA operate 747-400s on these flights and do not have any classics in their fleet.

Hi, to be honest, I'm not sure. The aircraft looked so old I just assumed it was.

 

[mannej]

As Bill has mentioned, that 747 classics refer to the non -400 type jumbos.

UA only have the -400 in passenger service. The classics were retired about 10 years ago.

The funny thing is, UA are not the only carrier to have a similar offering. I believe some of the jumbo's in LH's fleet are the same without personal IFE.

Also if you want to fly on a classic, I believe both Iran Air and PIA have some operating.

 

[777]

It seems that United's potential pool of passengers on this route drops by about 300 or so every time they fly it. From all reports it's the first and last time for many.

 

[obrienja]

As 777 said - I flew United on this route back in '06 and it was the last time I sat on one of their aircraft. I'd even paid extra for "economy plus" which was an extra 1/2cm of legroom and a surly flight attendant. It's probably the same aircraft ferdeline endured - old (even then), dirty, no amenities, terrible food etc. It made a US economy flight seem like first class on SQ.

 

[markis10]

Hi, to be honest, I'm not sure. The aircraft looked so old I just assumed it was.

Sounds like a few assumptions were made, UA has IFE on all aircraft, its just not PTV style, it's also never a given that drinks are free on all airlines, especially US based ones as well as the obvious Muslim country based ones. As for the load being 30% and everyone cramped in, most would see the opportunity for a flat bed selection .

 

[smit0847]

If you're interested enough in air travel to have made multiple posts on a FF website but do not know about the vastly different options across the Pacific I don't have a lot of sympathy for you I'm sorry.

UA and DL to the USA are for people who:
a) dont know how different VA/QF are;
b) don't care; or
c) don't want to pay any extra to find out.

If you had said you flew Tiger to Perth and they didn't provide you with a free hot dinner and a newspaper I would have the same reaction.

 

[trooper]

+1

People will continue to fly with them.. and more than once... while ever the deciding factor for so many people is price - with no other consideration..or research into what is offered on different airlines...

Maybe it's just me.. but I am not going to commit to sitting on a plane for 13 or 14 hours without checking the details!

 

[UP4014]

Have flown with UA many times, nothing wrong with the service if you line your expectation up with the price. UA don't have transpacific sales because their price is always the best and now they are the only direct Sydney SFO carrier.

This UA post would seem to be a storm in a tea cup.

I could post about the flight across the Pacific I had where the organge juice ran out after only 3 hours in the air......it wasn't UA either.

Matt

 

[clifford]

+1

People will continue to fly with them.. and more than once... while ever the deciding factor for so many people is price - with no other consideration..or research into what is offered on different airlines...

Maybe it's just me.. but I am not going to commit to sitting on a plane for 13 or 14 hours without checking the details!

I’m a UA 2MM, but wouldn't fly them transpac unless the load factor could be guaranteed to be 50% or less. I doubt it was 30% when the OP flew.

As for 13 hour flights, I would not do one in Y class any more. Have done many in the past, and that's it.

I am however doing a 13 hour flight next week. Done my homework (!) and am flying TG AKL-BKK in C class. No doubt will be bored spitless, but at least I know what I am in for.

 

[seanpodge]

All the UA 747-400s are the same. No Personal IFE, old, dated aircraft maybe with slightly modernised J and F cabins but the back of the bus is bog standard. The "Premium Economy" is standard economy plus three inches (no cough, please!). While it's unfortunate that some people who assumed that they'd be getting something else end up disappointed, even a quick look around UA's own website would let you know what to expect (although sometimes it's only by omission). UA basically get bums on seats due to price (and in the case of the SFO route, because QF vacated the field). Also, in case anyone is thinking that it's just the Australians getting the shabby treatment, they use the exact same 744s on other major routes such as SFO-PVG (which I flew a month ago).

There are reasons why people fly UA (my flights were at least 90% full in the economy cabin). One is price, another may be better connections or, for SFO, a direct service. It's also good for *A members who need to get their status up (one of my reasons) given that UA are pretty generous with dishing out the points. But at the same time, I did my research and knew what to expect. No personal IFE? No problem, I BYO'd (iPad). Don't like the food? Bought a pack of m&m's at duty free (although I thought the dinner was pretty reasonable. The breakfast was a bit so-so). No free booze? Sad, although they at least give you a choice unlike airlines like Saudia, where you won't be having a drop of the devil's water no matter how much money you whip out ("whip" being a rather appropriate verb here). Some of your criticism is particularly unfair in my opinion. I'm not sure what the age of the flight attendants has to do with their ability to do their jobs in a safe and professional manner, for instance. I found the flight attendants' performance on my recent UA flights perfectly acceptable. The main issue I found was that the uniforms seemed to be a mishmash of various generic pieces that, given the hue of blue and navy about them, appeared to be chosen purely on price. Also, I think I saw about 8 different variations of the "uniform" on FAs on the same flight! I hope that UA does update and standardise the uniforms in the near future.

Of course UA isn't the highest quality carrier for transpacific flights but that's been the case for quite some time. But as long as they meet the safety requirements, then it's a valid option for people who want to travel to the US. They have to do their research of course, but people who can't be bothered doing a little bit of research on a purchase that's in the thousands of dollars are either rather foolish or clearly have enough money to get a seat on a better carrier.