redtailshark

Either sUA or sCO versions...

I agree, the sUA J seat is narrow and some seats don't have direct aisle access, but at least the seat is long and lies flat. The IFE is good in terms of choice, system design, and size, and I find UA's premium cabin food to be quite good. I even like the rear-facing incarnation, but I know that's another slugfest here on the UA board.

The sCO herringbone seat offers aisle access and is wider, but I'm not sure now that it's actually more comfortable in terms of sleeping.

Also, some UA crews offer service that competes with the best out there. Others maybe not.

And overall, UA's ug policy means that this cabin is more accessible than the :-: best in class :-: version.

DanTravels

I suspect what you're actually encountering is a bell curve where the vast majority of people don't feel strongly enough about it to make noise one way or the other, and the ones who hate on it are more verbal than those who really, really love it.

IainC

Here's a lot of love for BF: http://www.theage.com.au/travel/flig...821-2sael.html

C4T

Having flown PMUA and PMCO configurations, my opinion is that PMUA is the inferior design. Honestly, 4 across in BF is rubbish. Plus the PMUA 20" seat width is narrower than PMCO and again in my opinion less comfortable. PMUA is nothing more than an economy seat - narrow and uncomfortable.

zrs70

I agree with the fact that PMCO's seat is better.

But to call PMUA's seat nothing more than an economy seat - c'mon!

halls120

Having flown both the PMUA and PMCO configurations, my opinion is that both have strengths and weaknesses. In particular, I find the narrow PMCO footwell makes it hard to comfortably sleep, and while being inside on a 4 across configuration isn't optimal, the lumbar support on the PMUA seat is superior to the PMCO seat. To call the PMUA product an economy seat is ridiculous hyperbole.

FlytheTail

I think there's an outspoken minority who don't like the UA seats or who are pmCO loyalists that can't enjoy anything to do with UA (or vice versa). Frankly, I find UA BF seats (whether pmCO or pmUA) to be very comfortable, especially for sleeping, and the IFE is quite good too. Service is hit or miss, but that's the case on every US airline.

oblisk

I have no basis of comparison. I like the pmCO seat, except for 5A on one of the 767s, since it has no window . I'll finally get to compare pmCO with pmUA, in a week, but since most of my travel (80%+) is personal i'm incentivized to fly paid Y, upgrade with GPUs, then book my SO next to me in the premium cabin on miles.

My honest opinion (prior to flying pmUA BF on friday) i don't fly enough in the front cabin to make small differences in seat be worth the non-stop complaining i see on FT. But everyone is passionate about something, and most here are probably impacted more than me. I do question odd design choices (4 across; small footwells) but they affect me far less than the retarded design choices i've experienced in all of my NYC apartments.

glasnost7

I think both seats have their merits. Both have provided me a good night's rest on many occasions, though I prefer the sUA seat if I have to choose.

Where they missed the mark was by not configuring the cabin like BA did on the wide bodies. The alternating forward and rear seating means that everyone has aisle access and there are only 6 pairs of seats that face the same direction.

All of the other big carriers are accommodating aisle access in their biz cabins with their updates, while still avoiding a waste of real estate. One thing both sUA and sCO biz cabins have in common: stepping over your neighbor to get out.

UA-NYC

Agreed - they are both average products at this point. 5 years now, when other competitors are all updated, and UA will still not have launched a new product, they will be below average.

Also, FWIW, there are configurations that still have a "step-over" that are still superior to both sUA and sCO...TK, case in point. They go 2-3-2 on their 777s, but IMO it's still a much better config than the sCO 2-2-2. MUCH longer seat (so easier to climb over), open footwell, lots of storage.

Pi7473000

After flying both products multiple times the PMCO seat BF seat is a much worse product. The footwell is extremely small for anyone over 6 ft the space is minimal. The seat comfort is not there for sleeping. The cushioning reminds me of their park bench, coach style seats.

The other issue is that this is what PMCO, now the new United considers their top premium product. You are not guaranteed all aisle access like on many other business classes and there is no option for GlobalFirst which is much more comfortable. pMCO BF is outdated and needs to be updated if it wants to charge premium prices.

On PMUA 747 and 767 I have many options for 2-2 seating and the seat is much more spacious. The 777 feels less spacious but I have the option of global first and I always have gotten the 2-2 on the side anyway as I don't choose to fly it in the center section.

I really hope they update PMCO services to a more premium seat soon!!

Michael D

It's not a herring bone pattern:

The pmCO seating has two of the 'columns' of seats are at an angle to the left of the axis of the plane and the other four are at an angle to the right of the axis of the plane.

Window seat occupants in both configurations have to step over aisle seat occupants. In total 50% biz passengers have to step in the eight across but only 33% with the six across.

I like business first such that I am not nearly as enamored with global first now as I was when it had a different name and barcaloungers in biz. I don't notice the small footwell and I am 6'1" 200 lbs but now that it has been featured as a deficit of the pmCO seat in two threads in as many weeks in that many weeks I'll probably notice.

Available R is my number one concern. After that UD 747. Then time of flight/ time between connections.

8 or 6 across; pmUA or pmCO seats: doesn't matter to me. The seats are not going to change any time soon. When they do I hope it will be something better than either.

Xyzzy

FWIW, I rather like the BF seats. I also don't know what all of the fuss is about with aisle access. Yes -- I'd rather not have to step over someone, but that certainly beats some of the truly awful layuts and seats I've experienced (witness AC). Besides, when flying with someone it is nice to have the opportunity to sit next to my travelling companion. That could be done with no climb-over in a 1-2-1 layout, but on most aircraft that does not seem practical for the airlines from an operational perspective.

hockey7711

I just flew EWR-AMS in BF, a crappy old PMUA 767 (3 class).
The service was great, seats ok, although a bit tight with 2-2-2 seating.
I've flown TATL on PMCO many times, and can't help but notice how unexciting the menu is in BF now. It basically that same menu at domestic FC but with the addition of a fish item.
They add some French wines, but on my flight, they only had 1 bottle for the whole cabin.
I think the whole experience has been downgraded. It's no longer special.

Kurt

I will stick up for the seemingly-reviled sUA 777 with its 2-4-2 configuration. If you are lucky enough to be on a not-full flight the middle block becomes much more appealing.

Case in point: KWI-IAD recently. Row 6 had two out of four occupied. Each of these passengers had an aisle seat with two empties in-between. So each passenger had one seat for sitting, one for sleeping. Which is just what LH gives you in F on the upper deck of its 747-400s