No-one is bashing you for a preference (or if they are, that's silly, that's like bashing someone for liking strawberry ice cream and Coca-Cola over caviar and Dom Perignon).

What may be in dispute is thinking that UA's GF product is particularly key in driving their current business model, or that the fact that UA decided on their IPTE model back in the last decade, and AA is deciding on a model that only has F on a small number of routes, means we can conclude that UA is more successful with their F product than AA is.

I think that if UA thought their GF product was a key driver for their business model, it would be treated much more like EK's (or even LH's), with the soft product touched up quite a bit. It is clearly not; a soup course on top of a C meal seems like minimal effort to differentiate F and C at best. With the arrival of new aisle-access, lifeflat longhaul C products at competitors (AA and DL), the differentiation seems to be getting smaller.

There's also no sign that UA is refreshing their IPTE product in F (something CX, SQ, AA, BA and LH have all announced recently in THEIR F cabins), their recent 763 refurb post-merger did not include F seats (contra their pmUA 763s), and no UA 788s have shown up with F seats. I'll happily reconsider this once I start seeing some new planes with globes on the tails sporting 3-cabin F cabins.

To try to make this on-topic... EK seems to make consistent profits:

http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...al-report.aspx