Bonehead

Boy, you ain't kidding. Not only was I felling crammed into a too-small seat, I had no place to ferret away my stuff. The seats are great for CPUs because there are so bloody many of them, but again, no way I would pay.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I guess the cramming of the seats together to get 8 across is what causes the feeling of "cramped-ness", not necessarily the seat width. On a 2-2-2 configuration, you get more personal space, not more seat space.

5khours

Exactly right. For me, I'd rather have more space for sleeping rather than more space for my amenity kit.

mathgeek1978

Let me just say that these seats are good enough for me that I have been willing to spend $600 + 30,000 miles to upgrade to BF. And I slept very well too! BTW, at the lie-flat position, you do have good privacy as the partition below the armrest extends from your head all the way to almost your waist area.

skidooman

Of course, it is better than 3-3-3 in Economy, plus or minus. And hence, the attraction for UA.

UA wants volume. So, sell these seats for less than ANA or SQ. They probably know that as far as service is concerned, they are not in the same leagues, so they compete with what they have.

And if that business class seat doesn't get bought, reward one of the guys in the back whose company can't or won't afford J, so that guy keeps buying W or better for the chance - not the guarantee, just the chance - to be upgraded.

A guy like me. If my company let me have J and money was no object, I would be shopping around for the experience. Why fly UA if you can fly one of these Asian airlines with wonderful flight attendants? But I can't, and the main reason I keep coming back to UA is (1) economy plus and (2) the chance of being upgraded.

I envy you guys!

rajsbasi

I never understood the rationale for going from a reasonably spacious 2-3-2 cabin to a 2-4-2 cramped cabin.

northpole999

I actually like the PMUA 2-4-2 seats. The pitch seems longer and that's helpful as I am quite tall..

chinatraderjmr

Lets not forget that when UA developed these 2-4-2 seats they were quite a step up from what most other carriers were offering (even so called 5* airlines). They were the first US carrier to start offering lay flat, which for many people is the most important part of the seat. While UA certainly was never the kind of airline that OZ/LH/TG/AF, ETC ETC is, at the time none if these carriers had true lay flat seats. Even SQ was still using that ridiculous space bed on the 744 flights between JFK/SFO-FRA/HKG-SIN. But of course in the few years that have gone by most carriers that now offer lay flat have a far superior product. That said, many great airlines still don't offer lay flat on any/some of their flights in C. I would rather fly UA's flat 2-4-2 seating where I can sleep then ANY other airline that still does not offer true lay flat. Even great airlines like EK/OZ/TG/QR etc still have plenty of aircraft with either the slanted flat or cradle seats in C & THAT is a seat I will never pay for

TA

What's the difference? The person in the center still has a person on either side.

And I doubt they could make the business case work for 2-3-2 and have us paying the fares we are.

northpole999

Agreed. And further, I like the rear-facing seats as they leave the head a tad up (as opposed to down on the front-facers) with the flying-pitch of the plane taken into account.

5khours

1. UA's main competition are the other U.S. legacy carriers (DL, UA).

2. UA is virtually all lie flat (3 777s to go).

3. AA is almost no lie flat

4. DL is less than halfway through their conversion.

5. Don't know what the AA product will be but compared to DL.

Privacy - DL wins
Direct Aisle Access - DL wins
Storage Space - DL wins
Seat Comfort/Size - UA wins

I'm amazed that the UA product despite being very old is (IMHO) still better than their main competition in terms of comfort. The DL (and other products) look slick, but for me getting a good sleep is the most important criteria when I'm picking flights for a long trip.

halls120

^^ Since I don't travel with a lot of "stuff" the lack of storage on a pmUA BF seat doesn't bother me. when I'm on a TPAC or TATL flight, I want to be able to sleep comfortably, and by measurement, the pmUA product is the best of all the legacies.

I can understand why UA put the pmCO seat on the p.s. fleet, as more storage is probably best for that route, but they should have put the pmUA C seat on the Ghetto birds.

northpole999

Well, your description makes me want to try the DL product

SFOPeter

I agree w/ the OP. On the 744 I always go for the upperdeck even though the seats are a couple of inches shorter. More spacious cabin FTW. A few weeks ago SFO-PEK they downgraded the aircraft from a 744 to a 772 and I was put into the middle of a 2x4x2, and I was seriously bummed. Oh and of course I could use a GPU because it was <24 hours, and then after I harangued them turned out my biz fare didn't qualify. $%#@.

star_world

Here's a useful comparison of the seat maps between the two types of internationally-configured 777s that UA operates:

Former UA (2-4-2): http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...77/200/v2.aspx

Former CO (2-2-2): http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...77/200/v5.aspx

The difference in personal space can clearly be seen, and this is what makes the biggest difference between the two in my experience. The seat size is very similar - both unequivocally have plenty of space for the average sized person to sleep.