Originally Posted by UA_Flyer

Perhaps it is our of the topic but since many has raised the unpleasant/inconsistency on product offerings between UA international BF (or soon Polaris) to domestic F.

I just want to put things in perspective and also want to be fair to the US carriers. If one flies frequently on some of the finer Euopean carriers will notice the vast differences between their international J seats and intra-Europe business seats in their narrow body fleet. I think UA (and AA. DL) comes out on the more favorable side. Those intra-Europe seating is no different than the economy seating with the exception of empty middle seat in the 3-3 seating configuration. There is no IFE in most of the narrow-body planes, and what is a pillow?

I think TK is an exception. Their narrow-body fleet is equipped with decent F seats, wonderful catering and good IFE.

Qantas and New Zealand (same between their long haul product and domestic narrow body jets), although they do fly widebody on some routes...so does UA, AA and DL.

Has anyone flown intra-Asia/domestic J in the Korean, Asiana, JAL and ANA 737s? US carriers are competitive.

Even my favorite airlines, SQ, has different J seats between their long haul fleet and intra-Asia fleet. Intra-Asia 777/A330s do not have flat seats, although they do not have narrow bodies. I do have experience going from SQ A380 in J to Silk Air(SQ flight number) 737 in F, and that gap in experience is greater than from UA BF to UA domestic F.

We should just realize interntional long haul market is a different market segment than domestic market segment with the exception of certain US transcon routes, and be fair to UA (and other US carriers). Majority of the airlines around the world are doing the same thing.

A few exceptions: ME3

Yes, bring back the pillows, please!