cerealmarketer

There we go - and the next step would be the equivalent of Japanese capsule hotel beds

bmwe92fan

Lol - no that's too comfortable and too much space! Japanese efficienct isn't a UA strength in any way!!!!

Bonehead

And some of them apparently are getting billions upon billions in direct government subsidies to boot.

texas gold

I have only been on the pUA 777 with 2-4-2 in Business twice and although I had a window on both trips, I really felt squished and found the overall feel of the cabin to be quite claustrophobic and cheap.

The upgrade discussion is interesting, but ultimately it boils down to what customers are willing to pay. If I cannot afford Business and rely on upgrade instruments then the more seats the better, regardless of configuration because anything is better than Y on 10-14 hours routes.

In terms of paid comfort, I fly on Singapore Air to Sydney 3-4 times a year in Business and although their set is too wide and somewhat hard when flipped over for the flatbed, the cabin on their 773's is spacious, quiet and elegant. There are reduced overhead bins to make the cabin feel taller, mood lighting, and with 1-2-1, the flying experience is great.

I hope UA finds some middle ground and also explores the possibility of 2-2-2 with aisle access on all seats. This might be a good option as 1-2-1 in all their planes might drive revenue down.

3Cforme

Are you attending the Hamburg event?

Thanks for posting that pic. I couldn't even have imagined such a thing.

transportprof

Why not? Railways, ships, and even buses have offered triple bunk berths in their economy sleeper services. I'd gladly take such a 'couchette' in the sky over a coach seat for 14 hours!

mduell

In comments like this it's hard to know which carriers the poster is talking about -- the US3, the EU3, or the ME3.

bmwe92fan

Exactly - and i presume the poster belongs in the guilty until proven innocent crowd - lol...

kevanyalowitz

1. US carriers have received massive amounts of funds/support care of the US tax payers. Both UA and CO would have gone out of business had it not been for implicit and/or explicit support from tax payers.

2. Being accountable to shareholders does not absolve you from being accountable to your customers - after all, they are central to earnings.

Silver Fox

I don't think that is possible.

Singapore_Schwing

I was just having this discussion with a friend who's a pilot for one of the US3. The simple answer (maybe not the OP's) is all of the above. Don't forget the APAC10 (or so).

Ultimately I don't care much who's flag is on my plane (or who's government feels compelled to subsidize my travels), but I'll sleep fine on my next two trips home to the US on non-US carriers (one Middle East and one Asian), knowing that I don't have a middle seat.

I do sympathize a bit with UA on now being punished for being out of cycle. When they went flat bed, everyone else (US flagged at least) was flying barcoloungers. What they offered was pretty impressive for a U.S. carrier. The rollout costs are huge as pointed out. I'm sure they will update at some point, but they're now out of sync with their main US competitors.

fly18725

I'm not saying a public company shouldn't be accountable to its customers; however, what most advocate on FlyerTalk is offering a superior product at a subsidized price to customers who may only be interested in paying the lowest price. Some foreign airlines can do that because their shareholders are focused on growth and local economic development, not earnings.

The U.S. majors are improving their hard product and UAL is in the process of selecting a new C seat that will likely jump the current generation seats at AA and DAL.

channa

Isn't that the normal cycle of capital improvements? They have to be done, and redone, and redone again. The question is how frequently.

UA likely benefited for years when they had lie flats while others did not.

AA put their angle flat iteration of business in place just before flatbeds started to become common. They probably had the worst timing of the U.S. carriers.

When CO stared putting flatbeds in place, direct aisle via staggered had already started (LX, NH), so some of UA's lack of direct aisle access could have been avoided. UA was mostly done with flatbeds at that point, and the 4-pack 777/747 configuration was locked in. That said, the 2-pack on the windows is less of a crime than the 4-pack in the center, IMO.

lensman

Interesting. When was this?

Interesting. When was this?

Three interesting observations about bad timing. Fascinating, captain!

Singapore_Schwing

this is a very important point that many ignore. The ME3 have shareholders, but those shareholders are their governments. Those governments have much broader agendas (tourism, economic development, etc...). These are not malicious agendas, but drive business decisions that wouldn't be made by the companies if they were accountable to Wall Street on a quarterly basis.

Long term, I don't think EK has any interest in subsidizing people flying between the U.S. and Milan (which has the US3's panties in a bunch). Those fares will eventually float based on market demand.

To tie it back to the current dicsussion, longer term, I expect non-DXB routes on EK (as an example) to cost a lot more than the US carriers as the product is simply better and there is no incentive to subsidize.

A question- if so many are worked up over it, why not fly someone else? Status means a lot less if you're flying in C already.