Will E+ seats on COs planes be good news... For domestic flights... I think the answer will depend on "where" these are installed.

If the addition of E+ seats reduces the number of seats in F... it will mean fewer upgrades. That would be bad news IMO.

Is it realistic that E+ seats would be added without removing F seats?
I have my doubts when I look at the ratio of Y seats to F seats on CO planes and compare them to those of similar sized UA planes.

COs ratio of Y seats to F seats on the 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9 ranges between: 6.6 - 9.33.
UAs ratio of Y seats to F seats on (similar sized) A320 ranges between 10.5 - 11.

This makes me wonder what we should wish for. Perhaps the the relevant question might be... Which of the two alternatives do you prefer?

A) 2 segments in E+ and 1 in First
B) 1 segment in ELR and 2 in First

On planes configured for international routes... there is not doubt in my mind that E+ is great. (Because there are no complementary upgrades to BF)... So I hope to see E+ on all International flights... For domestic flights... My top priority will be to keep then number of F seats intact on COs planes.

Note: The ratio on UA bigger planes is much better... According to seatguru.com (which I used to compute all these ratios) the domestic 767 tops with an impressive 6.17 ratio.
The worst Y/F ratio are for COs 737-5 and UAs A319: 13.25 and 14 respectively. (Avoid this equipment if you are hoping for an upgrade).

I think you need to compare not the aircraft type but the aircraft doing the flight.

UA has a lot of 757s that are domestic config (24F), not to mention domestic 777 and 767 flights (~36F), and of course a handful of int'l 3-cabin flights flying domestically with huge numbers of C seats available for upgrades.

Add to that the RJs with 6F, and that's a lot of F seats flying around.

Of course the 319 sucks at 8F if they put it on a business-heavy transcon. And also with the merger the Elite mix will be different (e.g., Texas has historically been an easy upgrade on UA, I'm sure with the number of CO Elites in Texas, this will change).

But to answer your question, it really depends on what kind of F upgrade rate you're getting on CO. When I pulled in 27% upgrades one year as CO Plat, at that point it wouldn't really matter -- upgrades aren't reliable, just give me a good seat in E+ anytime, and then I'd know I'd have the freedom to switch flights, VDB, or get an IRROP and have a shot at a decent seat.

Now if I were a 90% upgrade rate Plat, I'd say leave the system alone.

I havent looked back since switching to UA last year (still CO Plat for '10)

Ive flown UA even to SYD in E+ and had no problems while having just gotten off a CO Intl flight in Coach on the 777, I was praying that CO goes E+.

there arent that many ELR seats and with the merge now history theres gonna be alot more UA people gunning for the ELRs , so if no UP occurs and youre flying CO tehres a very good chance of being stuck in E-

Now if CO doesnt go E+ and they remove it from UA as well, then time for me to move onto another Carrier

E+ is that good, and on the rare occasion when I was on a 319 with 8 F seats and didnt clear to F it was very nice knowing I was gonna be in E+ with the leg room that I need

Absolutely. With upgrades already harder to come by at least I know I have E+ available.

I think that the loss of F seats is prefereble when talking about adding E+, imho. Even as a plat, I am not expecting to be UG'd with the same frequency on UA as I was on CO, so I would like to have E+ as the bare minimum that I can expect. Legroom is #'s 1,2, and 3 in my book, so I am excited about possibly having this feature on the old CO planes soon...

I agree with you and you are raising many good points... but my question is... should we hope for E+ on CO domestic metal... I am not sure if the A320 indicates what to expect.

Your best point is about the situation where one has to change plane in the last minute... where a good ELR seat is likely unavailable... and one will have better luck with a large E+ cabin.


(Admittedly, I had not looked into the composition of UA flights... and UA have lots of 757 with a great Y/F ratio.... While their average age is 17+ years... according to WSJ in 2009... they will likely stay with the New UA for many years to come).

Its really just 1 of those we must wait and see items.

I cant see how the merged Carrier will beable to have say a 777 flying EWR-FRA with 2 cabins and IAD-FRA with 3

either CO will have to roll out E+ or they will need to remove it from UA as well as F/C/Y with UA and C/Y with CO.

too many people will stop flying UC if they paid for F only to be downgraded to C since there was an equipment swamp from an old UA to a CO plane. Or a A319 is being subed for a 739 and now only 8 FC seats

it might be possible say to keep 3 cabins TPAC and using only UA planes for All TPAC flights and using 2 cabins TATL for ALL flights but even that can mean problems

But there are numerous issues that will have to ironed out , could be they have been already but they just are withholding announcing them outright for now

I don't think it's too complex of an issue. Many global carriers do this sort of stuff. LH, BA, AF, etc. all have two and three cabin aircraft, and they vary them by destination.

It might not be EWR-FRA is 2-class and IAD-FRA is 3-class. It would probably be more like EWR-FRA is 3-class and EWR-TXL is 2-class. SYD 3-class, AKL 2-class; and so on.

The mentality shift is going to be massive for the legacy CO employees, though. CO was all about cookie-cutters and standardization (sort of like how WN was to an extent). The combined carrier will have a lot more complexity since the "one-size-fits-all" concept doesn't necessarily work everywhere. The challenge for the legacy CO staff will be to find ways to optimize while still allowing for and managing that complexity.

It really is as simple as this : E+! The best fall back position available. As a 1K I don't expect to be upgraded every time, heck, I fly on code shares booked on CO and certainly will not be upgraded. But I certainly will be in E+. I wouldn't know what to do if E+ would disappear. It's a lifesaver.

It certainly would open the door to use other similarly equipped carriers.

I don't think it will disappear, because I don't think that CO wants the kind of uproar that they will inevitably receive from UA elites if they took E+ away. With all of the other hiccups and inconveniences which this merger is bound to create, why add one other item to the list to tick off your best customers? On the other hand, I am skeptical about their commitment to install E+ on CO metal aircraft -- at least in the short-term.

I think that it will all come down to how can CO make E+ profitable across both fleets? I suspect that over the next few months we will see some experimentation of different price points for E+ on different routes. Any accounting department can get the numbers right if they mess with them enough.

Suppose you are 1K once the merger is done. Then you will likely be able to book yourself into an ELR seat every time.... Having extra seats in F could make a big difference in terms of upgrade percentages.

The biggest drawback of not having E+ for top-elites are in situation where reservations are made/changed close to departure time.

I am surprised that many seem to suggest that additional upgrades cannot make up for an occasional seat in E-.
Is E+ really that good... (my signature reveals by lack of experience in this regard)... or is it E- which is that horrible?

You're assuming that CO considers its Elites to be its "best customers." You're also assuming that CO is responsive to uproar.

CO has had for years a very watered down FF program with the 50% EQM nonsense and it didn't seem to phase them. There was uproar for years on that, and they did nothing, even sometimes arrogantly suggesting they had too many Elites. And now, CO is the only airline that charges for specialty drinks in First Class, and it doesn't bother them. They are not really interested in how it appears, they just want your $3.

UA Elites may be in for a shock with the anti-customer attitude of CO management.


Sometimes you're not on an upgradeable ticket (e.g., award), or can't get the whole family up there and would rather sit together. Or flying internationally and are ineligible for upgrade. Or are flying standby and just want to get on. Or get bumped and just want a reasonable seat. Or misconnect or reroute and would like to get something decent to sit in.

There are many angles to E+. I think it's clear that CO has banked too much on upgrades which they are no longer able to reliably deliver. E+ is a perfect solution for that.

All good reasons... but there is still a trade of to consider here.
- What is your value of and E+ to First? and
- What is your value of sitting in E+ instead of E-.

I would expect most to consider "E+ to F" to be many times more valuable than "E to E+"... thus making them willing to occasionally sit in E in return for a higher upgrade percentage.

If you took 4 First seats out of all 738s, I would expect my upgrade percentage to deteriorate by more than I would gain from sitting in E+ instead of E.

If I was getting 90% upgrades I might think that way... but as it is, even on United as 1K, on recent IAD-SFO-IAD, I was #10 and 20 respectively on the UG list (I might add on a 777 and 767). With a bigger network, the # of top tier members will increase.

On CO, from prime business destinations such as as SFO, BOS and LAX, upgrades have been few and far between for years unless you're willing to play games with undesirable times (such as the redeyes from hell from SFO/LAX).

CO is making it worse with their pay to play policies now. With an E+ product, where elites have the ability to book a seat with a real space advantage (everyone's got exit rows but that's only a few seats), then you have a situation where the elites not in F have a superior experience even though they aren't in F. If someone wants to pay $700 to upgrade into 1D, and I am then stuck in a 38" space seat, its not so bad.