Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Larry and the gang are just delivering propaganda. All I'm saying is that all you will ever hear from them (or any senior corporate management anywhere) is the company line.

And I'm sure you will agree with me that one ought to exercise a little healthy skepticism when listening to anything being said by someone like a corporate manager or politician. I don't know about you, but when I hear a corporation say that they can only provide me, their customer, with a sub-standard product because they (the corporation) need to make money, it makes me a little uncomfortable and I will tend to gravitate to the vendor who provides me with the better value.

To get back to the original point of the thread, though, I do find it a bit odd that CO uses its 753's heavily on shorter routes such as EWR-MCO/FLL or EWR-LAS but much more lightly on its transcons.

The 753 would actually be the perfect ship for transcon because it has 24 seats in FC and that extra inch of legroom in coach. It would provide their OP elite's with more opportunities for upgrades and the rest of us peons with a little more legroom in the back of the bus.

If the issue is overall capacity (the 753's have a capacity of 216 pax while the 738's have 155 pax) I would suggest that CO doesn't really have adequate data to ascertain whether their transcons could sustain more capacity because they fly too full, meaning that it is very difficult to get an actual measure of the demand on these route.

One note about B6's ffp. Yes, it is nothing like the ffp's on the traditional airlines. On the other hand, it is actually possible to book reward travel. I flew 6 transcons r.t.'s, spent a little dough on my Amex jetBlue card, and was able to book 3 TrueBlue reward seat JFK-LGB for my family to go to Disneyland this summer.

The last time I attempted to book reward travel for my family on CO I recall it was essentially impossible to find any itinerary with 3 seats on the same flight EWR-SFO at the standard award level.

So while TrueBlue doesn't give you the alliance and all the side partners, it delivers what a ffp is supposed to do: Reward travel.

You stated that Continental is "getting their financials in order", before focusing on improving their product. My reply was only to state that airlines are doing both currently, and still turning a profit.

Agree wholeheartedly with these points.

Since we're discussing transcons, I think the IFE boxes under the seats are only an issue on the widebodies, so they really don't factor into the transcon evalutaion.

TWA Fan 1 - I agree that CO coach generally is uncomfortable, especially on transcons. But you repeatedly comment (and have done so in many other threads) that CO is more cramped or has less seat pitch than its competitors on most transcon routes. This is not accurate.

The following comparisons were made using seatguru.com. While CO has industry-minimum 31" seat pitch, AA's MD-80s and 738s have the same seat pitch and actually have slightly narrower seats in coach. AA's 752s have the same pitch and width as most CO mainline aircraft (31"; 17.2"). If you are "fortunate" enough to fly an AA 762 transcon, it will have 32" of pitch and 17.2" of width. But the vast majority of long-hauld domestic flights on AA will be operated by M80s, 738s, and 757s. In sum, AA basically offers the same level of "crampedness" and lack of comfort as CO.

Now consider DL. DL's domestic longhaul workhorses are the 757, 738, and M88. The 752 seats have 31" of pitch and 17" width, so the seat width actually is marginally worse than CO. DL's 738s have 32" of pitch and 17" width, so they are marginally better than CO. The MD-80s are a bit quirky - according to seatguru, they have 31"-33" of pitch and 17" of width. IME, I think most of the seats have about 31" of pitch. I will concede, however, that I find DL's M80s to be more comfortable than CO 737 regular coach seats because of the leather seating surface, extra padding, and ability to sit on the two-seat side. So DL is roughly equivalent to CO, and perhaps marginally better depending on one's view of the MD-80s.

UA has 31" of pitch in E- but has slightly better cushioned seats. Discussing E+ in this context really is an apples to oranges comparison. So UA E- is about the same as CO.

So it's fair to say that while CO coach is uncomfortable, it generally offers the same comfort level as the other legacies. When you factor in the newness and cleaness of CO aircraft, meals at mealtime, and IFE (I know, many people don't care about the latter two), CO offers a slightly better product. Everyone is free to have a personal preference for the seat of one carrier over another, but the numbers indicate that CO is on the same page with its legacy competitors.

None of the network carriers has its financials in order yet. Continental appears to have decided to hold off on spending until it gets its balance sheet in better shape. I think it's doing the right thing. It's not ignoring customers, but all the data indicate that Continental is doing the right thing. The airline will have to reinvest--and refocus on customer service--some time in the future, perhaps in Q2 of 07. For now, I think it's doing the right thing. I also hope that the carrier goes back to the equity markets and raises more funds.

I don't know what Seatguru is showing, but have you forgotten about the ex-Song equipment, which I believe is flying DL's transcons? I'm pretty sure they're all at least 34" of pitch.
In terms of width, irrespective of what Seatguru shows, do you really think CO's seats are wider?!? It's 3x3 on a 757, there's not much room for variation for chrissake! :)

Regarding seat pitch on transcons (which is the issue on this thread) while your numbers regarding seat pitch on these other carriers are accurate, you need to remember that neither AA, DL nor UA largely fly the aircraft with the 31" of seat pitch on transcons.

Let's take a quick comparison:

NYC-Los Angeles

AA JFK-LAX: 10 daily non-stops, all 762's (with 32" of seat pitch in Y)
AA EWR-LAX: 2 daily non-stops (757's with 31" of seat pitch)

B6 JFK-LGB: 6 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)
B6 JFK-BUR: 5 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO EWR-LAX: 7 daily non-stops (5 757's with 32" of seat pitch in Y & 2 737's with 31" of seat pitch in Y)

DL JFK-LAX: 6 daily non-stops (all ex-Song 757's with 34" seat pitch in Y)

UA JFK-LAX: 6 daily non-stops (all 757's UA PS with 34" of seat pitch in Y)
UA EWR-LAX: 1 daily non-stop (non-PS 757 with 31" of seat pitch in Y & 34" of seat pitch in E+)

NYC-SFO
AA JFK-SFO: 5 daily non-stops, all 767's (with 32" of seat pitch in Y)

B6 JFK-OAK 6 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO EWR-SFO: 7 daily non-stops, all 737's (31" of seat pitch)

DL JFK-SFO: 4 daily non-stops (3 ex-Song 757's with 34" of seat pitch in Y & 1 737-800 with 32" of seat pitch in Y, btw)

UA JFK-SFO: 6 daily non-stops (all UA PS with 34" of seat pitch in Y)
UA EWR-SFO: 2 daily non-stops (A-319's with 31" of seat pitch in Y & 34" of seat pitch in E+)

NYC-SJC

AA: n/a

B6: JFK-SJC 2 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO: EWR-SJC 1 daily non-stop (738 w. 31" of seat pitch in Y)

DL: n/a

UA: n/a

NYC-SEA

AA JFK-SEA: 1 daily non-stop (757 with 31" of seat pitch in Y)

B6: JFK-SEA 2 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO EWR-SEA: 5 daily non-stops (all 737's w. 31" of seat pitch in Y)

DL: JFK-SEA: 2 daily non-stops (ex-Song 757's with 34" of seat pitch in Y)

UA: n/a

NYC-PDX

AA: n/a

B6: JFK-PDX 1 daily non-stop (A-320 w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO: EWR-PDX: 3 daily non-stops (all 737's w. 31" of seat pitch in Y)

DL: n/a

UA: n/a

NYC-SAN

AA: JFK-SAN 2 daily non-stops (757's with 31" of seat pitch in Y)

B6: JFK-SAN 3 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO: EWR-SAN: 4 daily non-stops (737's w. 31" of seat pitch in Y)

DL: JFK-SAN: 1 daily non-stop (738 w. 32" of seat pitch)

UA: n/a

NYC-SNA

AA: n/a

B6: n/a

CO: EWR-SNA 3 daily non-stops (738's w. 31" of seat pitch in Y)

DL: n/a

UA: n/a

NYC-SMF

AA: n/a

B6: JFK-SMF 2 daily non-stops (A-320's w. 32-34" of seat pitch)

CO: n/a

DL: n/a

UA: n/a

What make syou think Continental will spend money once it gets it's balance sheet in "better" shape? The next downturn in the industry could be here by then.

I am the only one who thinks TWAfanatical works for Jetblue?

Me? Work for jetBlue? Why would you think that? Just because I like to have a little extra legroom in coach?

In fact, I'm a little curious why you would just concentrate on B6 when my list demonstrated that every other airline flying transcons out of NYC has more legroom than CO, not just jetBlue.

For the record, I have never worked for any airline, nor do I own any airline stock (I like my investments to actually make money, thank you). I'm just a guy who has to fly a lot for my job. And unlike many of you out there in FT who appear to be masters of the universe, I can't throw mad money around to fly FC.

So I buy a lot of cheap tickets. I used to love CO because I could reasonably expect upgrades to FC, even on a cheap ticket. That is no longer the case (especially on these transcons) and so I quickly realized there was something a little amiss about CO's coach cabin.

I do like B6 because they're the ones attempting to add value to the product. Why on earth would I fly a CO transcon in a cramped 737, often for hundreds of dollars more than on jetBlue, where I can get a far more spacious and comfortable seat with better IFE?

But it's not just jetBlue. Of all the flights listed in my previous post, 61 had more legroom than on CO while 2 of the flights were UA a/c's with a combination of UA coach and UA E+ (which means more legroom for UA elites) while the three remaining flights were AA 757's with the same legroom as on most of the CO transcons.

On the other hand, of the Continental flights, only 5 have 32" of legroom in Y (and only to LAX) while the 25 other CO transcons are on 737's with that knee-crushing 31" of seat pitch.

So the fact is that CO overwhelmingly provides the least spacious coach cabin of any airline on transcontinental routes.

And let's not forget those 777's that traverse the globe for 15-16 hrs. from EWR to the Far East and which also only provide their coach customers with 31" of seat pitch. That's just cruel and unusual punishment.

It's something I'd love to see CO change; but from the recent utterances of their senior management that seems very remote indeed.

Assuming the information on seatguru is accurate, a .2" difference in seat width is immaterial unless you're a POS; hence, my use of the term "marginally worse." But technically, CO's seats are wider (again assuming correct seatguru info).

And, yes, I forgot about ex-Song aircraft.

TWA Fan -

I just reviewed your chart and I must admit that I did not factor ex-Song aircraft into the equation. Also, my earlier comments were meant to compare CO's transcon coach product to that of other legacies. That removes B6 and UA E+ from the equation because B6 is an LCC and UA E+ technically is a different product than UA E-.

So, examining the major transcon routes again:

NYC - LAX

AA has 10 daily nonstops JFK-LAX on 762s with 32" of pitch and two nonstops EWR-LAX with 31" of pitch. CO has five EWR-LAX flights on 757s with 32" of pitch and two on 738s with 31" of pitch. So, CO offers the same level of comfort (or lack thereof) as AA.

CO clearly loses to DL, however, as DL operates six flights on ex-Song aircraft with 34" of pitch.

UA offers a EWR-LAX flight with the same legroom in E- as CO. I did not include UA ps because it is sold as a different coach product than that of CO (right? - sold only in higher fare buckets?), nor did I include B6 because it is not a legacy.

NYC - SFO

AA has JFK-LAX flights with 32" of legroom and DL has ex-Song birds with 34" of pitch. CO loses on this route, except to the non-ps UA EWR-SFO flight in E-.

NYC - SEA

CO is the same as AA and loses to DL ex-Song equipment on this route.

NYC - SAN

CO is the same as AA and loses to DL on this route by one inch of legroom.

To sum it up, against the standard legacy offerings and not considering UA E+ or ps, CO loses to any DL ex-Song route, is the same as any UA non-ps flight, and is the same as some AA flights/routes and has one inch less pitch than some AA flights/routes. CO clearly is at the bottom but not exponentially worse.

In terms of number of flights, AA has the most transcon frequencies (mostly out of JFK). But to say that CO overwhelmingly has the least spacious coach offering on transcons based mostly on comparisons of 32" to 31" of pitch is unfair, as it makes it sound as though CO coach is exponentially less comfortable than AA coach, which in three out of the four routes I listed above (i.e., those on which CO had legacy competition) has the same pitch as AA and UA E-. So CO still largely provides the same level of comfort (or lack thereof) as two out of three legacies on the transcon routes on which it competes with carriers other than B6. Therefore, CO does not overwhelmingly have the least spacious coach offering.

Now, if you want to start talking about B6, UA E+, and UA ps, that's another story. But my original comments were limited to legacy carriers (and I forgot about ex-Song aircraft). And one extra inch of pitch on an aging AA 762 is not overwhelmingly nor exponentially better than CO's coach offerings.

We can argue until we're blue in the face over this. I think CO coach is terribly uncomfortable but the fact is that it's about the same as the majority of transcon legacy offerings out there (i.e., AA and non-ps UA) but loses to DL. If you want to start talking about B6 and E+/ps, than CO clearly is inferior. And, if I had to fly from NYC - LAX this week and for some reason couldn't purchase a Y or A fare, then I'd head over to DL or to UA to grab 34" of pitch. But if the choice were AA vs CO, I'd just go with CO. YMMV.

Just returned from LAX last night on UA - went out on Thursday in Business (mileage upgrade) and came back in coach. UA had comped me premium elite status because of my CO elite status so I wanted to give them a try. The "P.S. 757's", I must say, are really really great and very comfortable even in coach. The FA's in all honesty were not as nice as CO's but business class was fab and coach yesterday, even on a full flight, was quite comfortable. We got a full hot meal coming back in coach though I know this is going away in a couple of days. The entertainment in coach was equivalent to CO but the seating was way way better. Regarding, the upgrading via miles, UA has CO beat by a thousand miles....totally upgradeable even at a cheaper fare and confirmed at time of booking...something you can honestly NEVER do on CO transcons (probably my biggest pet peeve). I'm definitely not saying UA is perfect but it made a heckuva difference with those extra 3" or so in coach for 5 hours.