As noted by flysurfer, it depends on the carrier.

The Asian carriers tend to fly young, attractive cabin crews (male and female) and require them to leave then they are no longer either young or attractive, which allows them to "cap" salaries for FAs. But I am sure they have senior pilots with many decades of service, and while customer-facing ground crews are probably also young and attractive, I bet "SQ Girls" aren't overhauling engines or loading bags.

The European carriers do have "matrons" (at least in the lounges) in terms of age, seniority and (alas) attitude working the cabins. And they also have senior pilots, ramp workers, and ground workers.

So I doubt, overall, Asia and European carriers are paying siginificantly lower total labor costs then US carrier are - especially 30-40% lower.

Where "The Nationals" really make their cash in international premium longhaul. And they do it by not allowing easy and serial upgrading into it. Asia offers an (often downscaled) premium cabin product for travel within the continent while Europe believes TED (without Economy Plus, but with a blocked middle and a meal) is a perfectly acceptable premium cabin.

Most FlyerTalkers would not accept UA offering SQ/LH/CX/BA levels of service, because you'd only get to experience it now and then just like now since you would have to ante up five figures. And when TED Economy Plus (with a blocked middle) becomes the new "First Class", I can only imagine the howls of protest and outrage.

We're spoiled. Simple as that. We "suffer" UA International First and Business because we aren't paying anything near the "rack rate" for it - be it dollars or miles. And we whine about TED because the seats are 2" narrower and there is 2" less legroom and we have to suffer the outrage of having to rub elbows with the person next to us on occasion.

What we have now may "suck" compared to the competition, but it's better then 31" Economy, isn't it? Because if our only options were SQ/LH/CX/BA, that's where we'd be.