So you accuse people of being haters, but you have failed to read the other responses where people are saying that the seats are too narrow, they are not lengthy enough for someone that is 6 foot 2 that the armrests don't collapse making it difficult and that you have to wedge your feet into the tiny orifices.

And as you can see in the video the seat is also ergonomically not very well designed. Who puts their wine glass and nut bowl behind their head?

All of which makes these seats not great.

But please, go ahead and continue repeating how great everything is.

Correction, 6'1", I would hate to be taller and in the BF seat.

I do believe the armrest goes down. At least it does on the sCO 752.

I read these comments, I just think they are completely pointless and irrelevant. It seems uncontroverted that these are better seats than anyone else offers on this route. But you're complaining they aren't perfect. I mean, sure, the seats are less comfortable than my sofa. That means UA shouldn't advertise that they have a better product than their competitors? That logic only makes sense to haters.

New TV Commercial for p.s.
 

As luxurious as flying overseas?

What does that say about UA's overseas offering?

I think PMUA's differentiation was a good idea. Int'l C/F should be better than domestic in all categories.

Now there is nothing aspirational about int'l C.

And let's not forget they compromised Y with eliminating a full E+ configuration.

Great. Now we're criticizing UA because their domestic product is just Too Good. And I thought I'd seen everything. :p

I'm 5' 10" and I feel the seats are cramped. Can't imagine how people taller squeeze into them.

And the sCO 752s that I've flown in as well as the sUA 763 and 757s outfitted with the sCO BF seats had fixed armrests.

No it blows in the aggregate. A few lie flats on a few segments doesn't move the needle.

SQ is already moving onto a new C, their current one is already superior to what CO is putting in their 787.

My point is it should not be on par - they should up their game on Int'l.

And who puts a 8 year old (and looks 20 year old at birth) C product in a brand new aircraft family like the 787? SRSLY?

I wished BD Wong (????) had to reach for his broken nuts during the ad. Behind the head???

Yeah.. I don't think that's correct. The armrest opposite the consul does go down.

I just flew on a PS flight that was in the 757-200 international 16BF seat configuration, in 1F. It was one of the most comfortable seats I've ever flown in (I'm 6'0"). The armrest opposite the console does indeed go down. That one feature makes it so superior to the old BusinessFirst Continental seats from years ago, especially when you want to sleep. A definite advantage of row one was the wider footwell. My only complaint, the plug for headphones and power are behind your shoulder. Not terribly easy to connect to when you are belted in. Having AVOD was great. Just like having a DVR at home where you can pause and restart (and even rewind) whatever you are watching.

No one said anything about perfect. The point is that they are not the best product they could put in place. Just like with everything else they do, they took an un-imagintive and mediocre approach.

And give it a few months and someone else will have a better seat on these routes.

Next time I will ask a FA to help me get the arm rest down. I've (unfortunately) flown with the sCO seats a few times and have never been able to get the armrests down.

Delta to LAX is better or at least comparable
 

Certainly the 76W DL uses on some LAX flights is superior with direct aisle access and I believe a greater seat pitch. I don't object to United marketing the advantages of a lie flat seat, but I think that is a short term selling point with AA and others offering an improved lie flat product later in the year.

By using actors popular with the Hollywood crowd (Matt Damon, B.D. Wong) I believe the ad is targeting some of that group of travelers which are likely to purchase First/business from LAX. I would suggest that the UA advantage is limited with the current Delta product and the new AA product coming on line.

I don't think it is a bad ad, but I think it is a little mediocre, it needed more direct comparisons to be a truly effect feature comparison ad and it needs a lot more emotional connection to be an effective branding ad.

I am happy to see UA advertising again and I think this is a start but I hope future ads focus on a more emotional branding message, it needs to resonate better. If UA wants to target specific product offerings and narrow market ads like this, I suggest they be crisper in defining their advantage vs. the competition.

+1

I'll be expecting a glass of the real bubbly next time I fly! :D

That is actually a PMCO 752 International
 

The PS version will have 28 seats.
I like the PMCO 752's and have flown them upfront many times.

There's a button on the front of the armrest - push it to adjust the level.

p.s. does have bubbly on board. The quality of the bubbly is not guaranteed, however, but it does make a good mimosa.

The Chase card ads are especially hurtful for the UA brand because they sell against the basic UA product. The key message in those spots is: UA is a big hassle, you need this card / talisman to make it less painful. There are very few companies dumb enough to characterize their core products as bad in order to sell upgrades. Sears bath towels are labeled "Good," "Better," "Best." They're not labeled "Poor," "Marginal," and "Good."