seenitall

As CB points out, it is not just about the seat width, but the seat geometry that UA (and other carriers) use to implement the narrower width. In particular, these narrower seats typically have backs that are scooped to force the passenger's shoulders forward and inward. While this may help to avoid shoulders colliding between passengers, it forces the spine into a position that is not well-supported by your back muscles. If you suffer from back problems (as I do) you will notice the discomfort very quickly. But even if you don't suffer from such problems, you will begin to feel discomfort after several hours in the position.

minnyfly

It might be, but it also might not be. Here's the deal. There's so many aspects that go into "comfort", and width is only one of them. Say the decision is between a UA 787 and a DL A350. You want that extra half an inch of width, but to do so you're giving up an extra inch of pitch. There's also differences in seats, service, the length of the flights, and in other airplanes, the interior amenities like cabin pressure or gasper vents. And then you have variables out of your control, like where empty seats are and what size your potential seatmates are. And you have differences like aisles seats versus window seats, and the window group of 2/3 seats versus the middle group of 3/4 seats. Or even some planes that have the isolated groups of 2 window seats instead of 3 in the back, or the many seats with more legroom than normal. Even what row matters, as some window seats don't line up well with the window cutout, limiting shoulder room. And I could go on.

The bottom line is that by chasing a half inch and making that your sole decision on comfort, you're still rolling the same dice, with the odds maybe even more stacked against you. If you're not factoring in all of these elements as well, you're making a short-sighted decision based on spite, not logic.

It's not more. The math is half an inch in personal width. I'm pretty sure spin88 has also stated that more than few times when the width chart comes out. The A350 is the tightest Airbus product yet.

What about KL, KE, QR, EY, and ET (ways away yet), to name a few? Not major carriers? You make it sound like premium economy is this wide-spread, economical choice. Not so. It's a pricey niche product that's having trouble gaining mass traction. And for U.S. carriers, it's a replacement for J, not Y, and it's availability is extremely limited at this point, with no plans to open it up widely.

And that brings us to point two. There's no reason to go on a crusade against a carrier simply because they don't offer the precise product you want them to offer, unless you have an axe to grind. No airline in the world is everything to all people. Move on if they don't offer you exactly what they want, and leave it at that.

The market has spoken, spin. 10-across 777 is the way to go for most carriers. I think it's wise to trust their economists versus your version of economic fantasy.

Airlines make money by making more money per flight (RASM) than the cost of operating a flight (CASM). Load factors and yield mix are only two of many factors that go into RASM. You could have high loads and a higher amount of high-yield traffic and still have a low RASM. The simple way of determining the revenue economics of 9-across 777 versus 10-across 777 is that the airline will have to charge about 10% more per Y passenger by staying 9-across, assuming equal load factors. Or alternatively, it means an airline can offer discounts of up to about 10% and still earn the same or more revenue per flight, again assuming equal loads. Time and again the competitive environment has shown that you simply can't charge an extra 10+%.

You're talking about much more than half an inch in your comparison. You're talking about one of the largest width differences in the sky today (9-across vs 10-across 777). The 787 and A350 are two of the closest.

Karl-MDW

United has been doing this since the merger. Just ask any Million Miler and others who can't or won't pay premium fares. United made it clear years ago that while some benefits were extended to this loyal group, premium fare always trumps loyalty.

halls120

I have flown more than 1.5m miles in my lifetime, and I know what I value and what I don't. I don't care about window placements, because I prefer the aisle seat. When I choose a flight, I assume that I'm going to have a seat mate. I'm not tall, so seat pitch is largely irrelevant. I choose the sUA IPTE seat when I want to sleep because it is the most comfortable C seat out there. I'll go with the sCO C seat if I'm not sleeping because it has more storage space and room to work. How is that "illogical?"

My bottom line is that I will choose a wider seat over a narrow seat every time because that is what I value. That isn't an emotional or a spiteful decision, it's what I prefer.

I don't fly those carriers. I primarily fly AA, AF, BA, DL, LH, SK and UA. And yes, most long haul carriers don't offer PE. Which is why I don't fly those carriers unless they are the only option available for where I need to be. That said, there is hardly anywhere I need to go long haul that isn't served by one of the above. Six of them have a true PE. One doesn't. Those are facts, no matter how inconvenient they might be to you.

I have "moved on" to a degree. I used to be a UA 1K, and now I'm not. Why shouldn't I be allowed to voice my displeasure at services that a given airline doesn't offer?

DELee

If and when folks have flown in United's 10-across seating for over 4 hours, please let everyone on FT know how it feels (note: this does not apply to sbm12). As well as which cologne those in the adjacent seats wore (or didn't apply), their use of the arm rests, physical interactions with those walking past on the aisle, etc.

Give it a try - United Air Lines would love nothing more. It can't hurt - or so some seem to think.

David

physioprof

Your body proportions are *vastly* more slender than the average in the US.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm

spin88

I keep pointing this out to everyone who says this will all end swimmingly for United, because, well EK, AF, AC etc have used these seats.

Americans are FAT. We are the third fastest people -at 180.6 lbs average - in the world only Tonga and Microneasia are fatter. The world average is 136lbs.

Asia averages 127 lbs, africa 133 lbs, Europe 156 lbs.

France is 147 lbs on average, Canada 153 lbs (and note people complain mighty about AC's 3-4-3 birds)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...u-compare.html

United is trying this configuration with a population that is (1) much heavier, and (2) has far more disposable income to avoid these kind of torture seats, and (3) flies far more, so the loss of repeat business is far more likely.

EmailKid

You guys can keep posting statistics until the cows come home, but as long as people keep voting with their wallets, airlines will cram in as many pax as is safe.

Just remember how AA's MRTC crashed and burned.

Airlines are in business of making money, NOT transporting people @:-)

Transporting people is just their way of going about business. Hence the fancy new Polaris seats, which are offered in expectation of attracting customers who also vote with their (much fatter) wallets.

radiowell

This is true.

Since the discussion has become (yet another) Boeing vs. Airbus debate, I'll say this again: NK has all Airbus fleet. There is no guarantee that A350 will be a comfortable plane for a particular airline (esp. if NK gets its hands on them and everyone follows the way, alas BE).

spin88

If airlines were just addressing one set of buyers, then you would be right. But that was actually the failing of MRTC. Certain travelers were attracted by it (like they were by E+) but a large number of travelers are price sensitive. Any extra premium AA got was overwhelmed by the extra cost.

Had United gone 3-4-3 in E- and 3-3-3 in E+ (what AA did before Parkerification took over.... ) This topic would be one and done.

But what United is say to international flyers, regardless of status, regardless of total spending, regardless of how much they are actually paying (could be $300, could be 10x as much) is "fly on our airline, outside of buying J, well then have a very painful/uncomfortable flight."

At this point, when I am flying internationally, I have a lot of options that don't confront me with such a stark choice as United, and I am taking them. So is nearly everyone else who has actually flown this new UA configuration. That is not a good sign of where this is going. The contrast with the - also tight, but slightly less tight - B788/789 is rather stark. Some said it was boarderline acceptable, some said it was unexceptable, but the number swearing they would avoid the aircraft was a percentage of those who fly the configuration, that is not the case with the 77W/772 on UA in 3-4-3. Very different response.

I would love to be able to fly United again internationally at some point ex-SFO, the A359 offers that option, if UA ever actually buys it. The airline's current plans don't.

username

I was thinking next April Fool to write a fake news release about United's Plus Economy Class - along with sizing chart recommendation and upgrade rules

minnyfly

Well you should care about a particular window seat, because it can greatly affect your room in the aisle. Case in point was recently when I flew AA's 3-4-3 777. I had my usual window, and the group of three seats was full (I suspect the aisle seat guy picked the wrong row, but that's beside the point). Since I didn't know how the windows were aligned, my row's window seat aligned with the protruding middle of the wall panel and not the window itself. This restricted my shoulder room greatly and made the configuration much tighter than it could have been one row away. This meant I encroached into the middle seat passenger, and they didn't have all the room possible. And that in turn meant the aisle seat person didn't have as much room as possible.

You see, that's one reason why short-sighted decisions are easily made when an entire aircraft is written off because of a very small difference in measured room in one area that determines comfort. You can book that half inch more and easily end up with much less room.

Doesn't matter that you don't fly them. You were saying that UA virtually stood alone among major carriers in not offering PE. That's not true, unless your definition of a major airline is wildly different than generally accepted.

You just explained why the marketplace has over and over voted in favor of less room for less price. Voluntarily giving passengers more room in an attempt to maximize revenue through higher yield has failed time and time again.

You're in the minority. You can complain over and over and give out stat after stat, but every long-term sustaining airline out there knows that the goal for maximizing profit is generally to cram as many people as possible into a given amount of space.

Hold up one of your fingers and study it's width. It likely can even be your pinky. You just admitting that internationally you're going to give up on an entire airline for less than that amount of space. Let that sink in for a while.

Wx4caster

indeed ^^

halls120

You've done an excellent job describing what matters to you. Unfortunately for your argument, none of what you find important is remotely relevant to me.

First of all, I don't fly anyone's 3-4-3 configuration, so I will never be confronted with your problem. More importantly, when I'm flying any wide body long haul, if I'm not in C or PE, I take a aisle in the middle section. No worries about missing windows, and IME, the middle seats in the center section are the last to fill up. Even if I do get a seatmate there, that's only person that I have to get up for, not two. @:-)

You seem insistent on defining comfort in some magical manner that ignores the fact that comfort is highly subjective, not objective, as you seem to want to insist on. Why is that?

When DL and AA finish fleetwide installations of PE, which major carrier that UA competes with head to head on a majority of its routes won't be offering PE?

I find this phrase fascinating. First of all, I haven't noticed anyone saying they are no longer going to fly UA even up front just because they've decided to cram their Y customers in back like sardines. Setting that strawman argument aside, if one wants a 19-20" wide seat long haul because they believe it is more comfortable, why are they supposed to not "give up on an entire airline" because they only offer a 17.3" wide seat? Are you suggesting that customers owe United some kind of loyalty? Or is there something about United's Y product that overcomes the crappy 3-4-3 seating arrangement we are all missing?