Originally Posted by
Shareholder
UA's new C seats suck. They're spaced too closely together and lack any privacy that even the old seats had. The front/back facing is a folly of the nth degree and further eliminates any semblance of privacy if one is in an aisle seat. And if one is in a window or centre seat, getting in and out over the person in the aisle seat is next to impossible when they're asleep.
UA's new C is the biggest mistake the airline has made in the past few years. While other carriers are stressing more space for C customers, and more privacy and functionality, UA fails on all counts.
Oh please spare us the bias trash. I've flown both repeatedly and they are both excellent products. I doubt you've done so, since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on the actual spacing of the seats and are probably getting your "facts" from pictures you see online. The reality is, the spacing from seat to seat is actually remarkably similar, CO only has, at most, an inch or two more. Footroom on both sucks, nowhere near SQ, CX, even US Envoy...and certainly not UA F.
Saying complete nonsense like "UA's new C is the biggest mistake the airline has made in the past few years", "it sucks", etc., are just embarrassing remarks to make, for your sake. You come off looking like a disingenuous clown just looking to stir the pot and sling mud.
Originally Posted by
Shareholder
I flew CO's BF to HNL two weeks ago and even though it was the old seating on a 767, it blew UA's hard and soft product away! I can only imagine what the new CO seats are like.
Wow, so now the old 764 Lazyboy somehow outclasses IPTE C? Wow, amazing.
You know, it's funny - because the B/E Aereospace seats are...the same seats. They are simply just packaged differently..width, length, LCD size - all identical. Hell, the servo motors in the seats sound the same.
Classic case of a partisan zealot only seeing what he wants to see.
Originally Posted by
Shareholder
The new UA, like the old, cannot compete with the hard and soft F product offered by the best European, Asian and now Middle Eastern carriers. Only "buy/fly American" corporate travel policies keep the cabin partially filled.
...And let me guess..you think the CO BF product somehow competes with "the best European, Asian and now Middle Eastern carriers" [in C]? Not even close. Funny how it's ok in C, but it outrages you when it comes to F. Truly apples to oranges.
Originally Posted by
Shareholder
Because CO is about a decade ahead of UA in having been through a couple of Chapter 11s and its staff have regained more lost pay than UA's can hope for...though I suspect UA staffers are looking forward to an upward realignment of pay scales to match their CO counterparts, if this statement is indeed factual. (I also get the sense that CO's staff is younger on average than UA's.)
Once again you have no clue what you're talking about. Get your facts straightened out, you'll come off looking more serious.
CO FF gets paid more, but UA has far better negotiated work rules. It's why there is such a fuss over PMUA working on PMCO routes. This is common knowledge. Are you aware of this?