Apieinthesky

AA's current business class product is an angled lie flat seat (doesn't go completely horizontal, but does go completely flat).
2-2-2 on the 763 and 2-3-2 on the 772.
AA's new 773s are 1-2-1 with the same seat as CX, reverse herringbone, all aisle access, and horizontal lie flat.
The 772s will be refurbished with a supposedly even better business seat. So I don't know where you get "almost no lie flat."
Reading this thread, I'd much prefer taking any of AA's business products. I thought we had it bad with 2-3-2.

5khours

A wall is completely flat too. To use more precise terminology, UA has nearly completely switched to horizontal lie flat. AA is still almost all sliders. If you like a slider go for AA, most people don't like them.

Go for it. It's a good seat if you're not too big.

Yes that's true given that the average adult human is about 5'6".

doctor007

I was just on AA 100 JFK-LHR with the new 777-300ER with 1-2-1 business class. It was fantastic, and very similar to United Global First. Not quite as much personal storage space as GF, but substantially better than any of United's business class offerings.

Now what happens post the AA/US merger I have no idea, but if that's their new biz class and they roll it out reasonably quickly, United is clearly in a weaker position from a hard product perspective.

1kBill

It's very simple: so they could fit in a reasonable number of lie flat seats.

Or, for those who need precision: horizontally flat seats.

AA's new business class is very similar to that already in place on US and CX. I have flown the in CX new seat several times and it is excellent, although I would prefer more padding in the cushions as they are quite firm.

EWR764

The biggest reason is that they are able to fit more seats in the given space on the 767 using the sCO seat. 6 rows of 2-1-2 (for 30 seats) at 60" pitch is 360", while 5 rows of 2-2-2 at 78" calls for 390" of cabin space for the same 30 seats. That extra space either means a loss of 7 revenue seats in back or a tighter E+ pitch than the rather generous configuration at present.

I find the sUA C seat to be better for sleeping than lounging, so I like it on shorter overnight flights. It's also better for traveling as a couple than most every herringbone product. Of course, it's not as private when traveling alone, but that's why there's GF .

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

Fly another airline & be happier!

colpuck

This is all true. The Maths do not like, the more people crammed into a space the less individual space for each person.

DL's upper deck has 14 seats, UA has 20. UA crams 6 more people up there. Hell I was in F on LH and the cabin felt full with 8 people up there.

StingWest

Despite the anti-UA rhetoric on here, the UA business class seat for international flights is probably the best of the "fully-deployed" seats in the US carrier market. My only foreign experience is with Virgin Atlantic's upper class seat, both old and new versions, and I have to say that UA's is superior to both.

Yes, UA 747 business class upper-deck is the way to go if you can snag one, but even in a "center" 2-4-2 seat you will likely sleep well - its comfortable, truly-flat, and fairly long. The center wouldn't be my first choice, but as "usually an upgrader" I'm happy enough with it.

boat9781

Considering UA's various BusinessFirst seating on its internationally configured aircraft, which configurations are most efficient in terms of seat count? In looking at the seatmaps, it appears that the sCO offering is more efficient on the 767, but the sUA offering comes out ahead as compared to the sCO set-up.

Perhaps this is why the 'new' UA continued with the IPTE config rather than outfitting the 777s with sCO's configuration.

richk_30

I think one thing that's being also missed in this discussion is that pmUA also decreased the number of C seats when they went to the lie fat configuration.

Taking the 777 as an example, there were 48 C Seats on the aircraft. With the introduction of lie flat, they effectively had to remove a row of business class. If they maintained a 2-3-2 configuration for lie flat, this would have equated to a drop of 13 C seats (from 48 to 35). Going with a config of 2-4-2 adds 5 additional seats bumping the total C count to 40. So the tradeoff economics could justify the additional "length" they were giving to passengers.

From my personal perspective, the ability to lie flat trumps everything for an overnight flight. For a day flight, the configuration matters little to me.

EWR764

UA fits 40 IPTE business seats in about 390" of cabin space with a 2-4-2 configuration. Using the sCO seat, UA would need 420" of cabin space to achieve a similar seat count with a 2-2-2 configuration. The B/E Diamond space has not yet been adapted to a 7 or 8-abreast installation, so for the 777/747, the UA seat offers a denser configuration.

With a different arrangment of closets and galleys, UA could probably accomodate 56 seats in the J cabin of the sCO 772 with the IPTE seat and only lose (at most) a row of coach, or have 48 seats and gain a row of Y.

colpuck

That's part of it, but a very small part.

UA and CO purchased different models of 777-200's and there are even different engines. In order to put the CO seat on the UA aircraft the seat would have to be re-certified for that aircraft.

Also given the high cost of seats IIRC around 60K per business class seat, the long lead times needed for seat manufacturers to make them, and the unique nature of the seat, the order for the seats was probably already placed and paid for.

The cost of switching from the UA to CO seat probably outweighs any benefits gained from switching seats.

halls120

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

username

Superior ground and in-flight service and wonderful in-flight dining and entertainment?

Seriously, those of us going after MileagePlus lifetime status and on corporate contracts still need to pick UA

mckerrow

^ CX new business class seat beats sUA and sCO in every way. Direct access to asile and quite roomy for both lounging and sleeping. It also has great storage spaces. I do agree with you the comment about seat cushions though.

^ Totally agree!