Airbus A320s are generally considered superior to 737s. I know someone's going to say "nuh uh" and ask that I elaborate, but I have to run.

deleted as I had not had my coffee, which seems to make me vulnerable to trolling. :P

Well, the cockpit is definitely much more spacious :eek:

I don't really mind one way or the other, as long as my bag fits in the overhead and the plane can actually fly, and both the 737 and the Airbus seems to meet those simple needs.

As for the thread devolving, we've covered everything else and are all just speculating about nothing of significance anyways, so this isn't really all that OT.

At least on UA, the Airbus aircraft have wider seats than the 737's, so are the superior selection in terms of passenger comfort.

LOL! Well, we've had a nice exercise in "what if" but looking at the latest news it looks like the DL/NW merger is toast which means all this discussion of a CO/UA merger is so much warm air. Moving forward, remember there is a reason why NW has a "Golden Share" of CO which prohibits a CO merger with anyone but NW unless NW merges first. It's a remainder of the attempted merger of the two a few years ago. Since it seemed like a good idea at that time, who knows, it might surface again.There are benefits from both carriers that if integrated could mean a top shelf travel experience for all with no downgrade of FF perks.

[pedantry]
No, the last part of that comment is totally wrong. omnibus is already plural, and means 'for everyone', in the sense that a bus is a public conveyance (as opposed, say, to a private car). The '-ibus' ending marks it as plural (and dative case, for what it's worth). A similar-looking example is 'e pluribus unum' - 'pluribus', 'many', is plural already in Latin (though this is ablative case, not dative, but the ending looks the same). You cannot make omnibus more plural in Latin. Therefore, once it becomes an English word and loses its original meaning, the only possible correct way to form its plural is as an English word, 'omnibusses' or 'omnibuses', depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on.

'Airbus' is even more clearly not a Latin word, although it contains the dregs of one, so there's no way that 'Airbi' (or 'Airbii') is correct as anything except a joke. (I actually think it's kind of amusing.)
[/pedantry]

All this talk about the fare classes and planes.

Heres my 2 cents...
(1) if LK remains in charge, which I think he should given his ability to work with the unions and keep the airline profitable and reputable, then he's got a preference for the boeings. Single source fleet, makes a lot of sense even in the combined company, and only Boeing can provide that. Aside from the 737/A320 model, Boeing clearly has a superior product in the 764, 773, and 787 lines. I'm sure CO/UA could work out deals to trade ppl the airbuses for boeing planes too.

(2) CO's coach class has clearly needed to be improved. Yes, UA's product is probably better for the customer, but LK recognizes the volatility of the market and its fluctuating profit margins. My bet is that any CO/UA Y improvement will be new more comfy seats, somewhere around 33" pitch. I think they'll stick with the two class system, incrementally improving the J seat by offering a flatter or lie-flat seat and a new seat design. I personally think the dual classes makes for better business sense - more flexibility in plane usage, differentiation with the competition (first class "amenities" in business class - define this as you wish), and most of all...the looming economic meltdown IMO means less demand for a true F product. The business class fare means companies will still allow ppl to book in J, and those that want more comfort than in Y but can't afford F anymore can choose BF. Sure CO won't be able to benefit from the profit premium in an F product, but they've done very well without it and its a calculated risk rather than have F seats empty when stagflation hits.

hahah
I think you have no idea.

I agree with you that LK will stay with Beoing (damn stupid to totally ignore a manufacturer like Airbus)

I disagree with you that all the Boeing are superior than the Airbusses. The 76X is somewhat outdated (old cockpit and they swallow fuel like there is no tomorrow), an A330 is definitely better and there is a reason why US and NW bought them as well as many European and Asian carriers. They have a great range, are cheap to operate and have more seats (meaning more revenue). I agree that the 77X is a great product, as well as the 787. It seems that their competition from Airbus will show up later on the market as the 787.
The A34X is great as well and not that bad that it can be totally ignored. I do not see any US carrier operate an A380. They just can not find enough to sit in their crappy seats (and pay for it) on a long enough flight :o :D

its my best bet IF there is an improvement. I'm not holding my breath for an improvement though, other than the previously mentioned redesign of the seats showing up on the 787s

Bribery?

Dear Pedantry,

My point was simply that omnibus is a Latin root and therefore not subject to Greek rules that apply to octopodes, as a previous poster had suggested.

I am certainly not suggesting that the plural of Airbus ought to be Airbii...(wasn't it supposed to be a joke in the first place?)

And, depending on usage, omnibus can also be a singular noun, and omnibi is a usage which can be found in various writings. As you know, the rules concerning Latin grammar are somewhat is dispute depending on which branch of Latin studies one has followed.

The big question is how do you write "31" seat pitch" in Latin?

Airbus has certainly offered some very good deals (financing-wise and single unit pricing-wise) that Boeing has been unable to match, which is what brought many onboard to purchase Airbus planes in the first place. Of course, you need to offer some pretty good numbers to get airlines to consider having two sets of training, parts, etc.

CO has consistently stuck with the single supplier route to cut training and maintenance costs. Didn't help Airbus, of course, that Bethune was former Boeing also.

In any case, I agree with the simplicity offered by having fewer plane types and contracts. Does look like Phil is right about A330 being better than the 764, but Boeing's fleet still fits CO's needs better overall - at this time, anyway.

Let's cut to the real issue here, naming of the Co/Ua lounge. Apparently someone in marketing thinks that the "Presidents Blue Carpet Club" sounds like the forgotten child of K-mart and Safeway. I guess there is always next year when we are debating the US Northways and Unihansa mergers.

you bet? ok, I'll bet you $100 that they will not go for 33" pitch for Y.