Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
Premium luxury should be what F is about and I don't think US based carriers can deliver in that market. But C should really be where they excel. The ingredients are there: world-class seats (except in the OP's anomalous case) a labor pool of service-oriented workers and a hospitality industry well schooled in dressing mutto up as lamb. However UA seems to employ too many people better suited to the DMV and succeeds in making lamb tougher than mutton (literally on my last flight in C).
Sadly the merger is resulting in the FAs feeling even more aggrieved, and the C food deteriorating from being quite acceptable to becoming totally inedible. How can a reheated greasy and chewy hamburger be considered acceptable in Business class?
I wouldn't call the UA C product "world class" - it's a midpack product, and worse than the products being installed at DL and AA, both of which don't require aerobatic maneuvers to access the aisle. I fly SQ C almost monthly, and the product being offered there is truly "world class".
The intl. F seat is the same - comparing it to a true suite product, which is in a pricing league above "regular" intl. F is not appropriate. Additionally, I completely disagree that the company couldn't offer up a truly upgraded and respectable soft product if they so desired. The seat itself is middle of the road for similar F products, which is fine given it's price/accessibility. I'm personally quite glad the company still offers a product where I don't have to worry about being woken up every few hours by a seat mate jumping over me. Nothing "world class" about that.