I think it has very little, if anything, to do with overall numbers of seats per plane. Rather, the "good news" characterization has much more to do with comfort level, ease of movement, availability of BF seats (even at the last minute), and other related factors. I know beyond doubt that when flying either First OR Eco between IAH and EWR, most pax (including me) feel it is "good news" to have a widebody rather than a narrowbody -- even for a mid-range domestic operation. So certainly, most pax ex-CLE would probably prefer a 762 to a 752 for LGW operations.

Even though this board has talked to death the subject of the 752's Y-class seats being substantially the same as widebody-Y seats in trans-Atlantic operations, the fact remains that a double-aisle configuration DOES make it easier to access the lavs, move around the cabin, store luggage in the middle overhead (which are non-existent on the 752s), get a BF seat at the last minute (which I have to do all the time), stand up in a Y seat without bumping your head...and the list goes on.

So, even though the actual number of total seats is very similar on both the 752 and 762, that's not the real consideration from a comfort perspective. Judging from my outlook when we are "up-gauged" from a narrow-body to a wide-body on domestic runs, I'm sure CLE pax are bound to feel the same when up-gauged on such a long-distance run. I suppose that IAH pax are a little spoiled because we do get, almost without fail, 777 service to LGW, CDG, and sometimes even to AMS...So, yes, I thought that CLE pax would think it was "good news" if the ship happened to change from a 752 to a 762. Even the FA thought so. It had nothing to do with numbers of seats. Sorry to give that impression.