IMO, nothing.

Although I do like the headrest on the UA seats since you can pull it forward, as well as raise and lower it. Although, it's terribly uncomfortable when it's completely lowered when you're tall, and UA has some flight attendants who are so anal about it being fully lowered for takeoff and landing that they walk up behind you and slam it down.

Two flat slabs of leather that intersect at right angles are not conducive to a happy back on a long flight, IME. The UA F Seats are, IMO, more ergonomically designed to fit the curvature of the spine, offering more and more comfortable support.

The CO seats could use a bit more lumbar support, but other than that, I find them to be comfortable.

Do you adjust the lumbar on the CO seats?

I've actually never had trouble with the CO F seats being uncomfortable on my back.

Yes. It's somewhat helpful, but still leaves me aching on any flight over 2.5 hours. I've never had a sore back after a long UA flight (longest domestic F with UA was IAD-SFO).

All that means it that you have a bad back, not that there is anything wrong with CO's seats. ;)

I wonder if it has any correlation with that monstrous carry-on of his. :D

If I flew European LCCs, I'd have to pay excess-weight baggage fees just to check the stupid thing. :D

I agree. I very much prefer them to the UA F seats, especially the headrests. I hate the way those work on UA.

The new meal service or regular type of meal service on these flights is fine with me..I think they are still better than what you get anywhere else..and like someone just mentioned AA/UA will charge you 3X more for FC transcon..alot of people forget that..@:-)

CO's seats are OK, but UA's are much more comfortable, IMHO. their default setting is a bit more reclined than CO, which are nearly 90* up. UAs are also a bit softer.

As for the meal service, these cutbacks suck, and, annoyingly, a big part of it is presentation which is more FA effort than material cost.

You'd get a better meal for $6 at Gordon's Galley or Manchu Wok.