Originally Posted by
MarkXS
Except for the new IFE, I actually prefer the old seats for daytime flights like Europe-USA. Wider seat, you're not bumping elbows with your seat opponent like in new-C, underseat storage (of course often "under-footrest" storage to keep the darn thing up.) In a sitting position, the old seats are more comfortable IMHO, even in the narrower 767 version.
Originally Posted by
UA_Flyer
My brother and I have both flown UA since the Connoisseur days, and he recently experienced the new C for the first time. We compared notes about our reviews of the new C. Interestingly, both of us feel the new C is a bit narrow to sleep (even with the armrests down).
Agreed and agreed. I've pretty much been saying the same thing since I first tried new C early this year (much to the apparent dismay of other FT'ers, some of whom reacted strongly to my posts at the time!). Every flight I have in new C, I am constantly battling with my seatmate over armrest space. I mean, neither my seatmate or myself mean to, but because the seats are so narrow, it just happens. As I have broad shoulders, it is impossible to utilize the lie-flat feature of the new C seat as my arms simply have nowhere to go, even when the armrests are down. I also find that it is difficult to fit my size 12 feet in the angled cutout. And as I prefer sitting in the window seat, lack of underseat storage is a real pain.
However, the new C seat is pretty comfortable in a reclined position with the footrest fully extended; other than the narrowness issue, it's a bit more comfortable than old C. And certainly, the IFE is awesome - even though I always bring my own entertainment, the map is a lot more fun on a 15.4" screen compared to the old miniscule PTVs. And with 10 SWUs likely next year, I'm not going to be doing much flying in C that isn't at Y cost, so I can't complain.
Originally Posted by
UA_Flyer
New C is definitely a nice improvement (due to the competition pressure mostly), but UA could have done a better job with layout and width of the seat and quality of materials used if it has more money and resounces.
With the focus (and necessity) being on lie-flat, capacity-wise they had to make up for the 77" pitch somehow. I don't think 2-2-2 on the 767 and 2-4-2 on the 747/777 was avoidable. So I guess I give UA a pass on this, even though lie-flat is useless for me.
Originally Posted by
CMK10
Ahh nostalga...
I remember back in February of 2004 when I got my first UA Op-up. It was a 777 from LHR-JFK (remember that route?) and I thought that seat was the cream of the crop. I knew it was better than the similar AA seat.
Flash forward to this June when I sat in it on a 777 from ORD-DEN and I said to myself "wow, do people actually PAY to sit in this?"
Still, I remember my first 767-200 United J trip, I figured the footrest was some kind of cruel joke as when the passenger in front of me reclined, it was the next thing to useless.
Funny how this works, right? I still remember when I rode upstairs on a 747SP for the first time with NO footrests, and thinking it was just about the coolest thing ever. Now people complain about not having lie-flat.
