Originally Posted by
GW McLintock
It's been a long time (maybe 10 years) since I've flown AF, but their PY seat is at least an actually better seat whereas EMS is simply a Y seat with more legroom. I would never say EMS is better than that.
-J.
I guess we see things differently. AF's Premium Economy has some awesome things: J check-in, great legroom and seat width, bigger tray table, food, outide shell that inhibits the person behind you from pushing, etc. All that said, I find it to be the least comfortable seats in the sky because it does not recline, and the seat padding is non-existent. For me, those two negatives are so prominent, they render all the other great things moot -- especially for an 8+ hour flight.
Originally Posted by
GW McLintock
I
I'd also definitely prefer an old honkin' 767 to an A321 if for the sole reason of not getting tossed around in turbulence. I've been told the turbulence has been an issue over the last several days specifically to the extent that it has interrupted onboard service on JetBlue, something that rarely happens on a widebody on TATL.
Good point. Forgot about that. And Mrs. Billygoat agrees with you. CO (now UA) and AA used to fly 757s across the pond frequently. CDG-EWR on UA and CDG-JFK on AA were consistently 40 minutes longer than AF widebodies. I unscientifically chalked it up ETOPS range -- but it also could have been fuel burn due to strong headwinds. I also remember TXL/OSL/CDG-EWR flights that had fuel stops in BGR and/or Gander.