I have yet to see a lie flat seat on UA TPAC service, at least not on the triple 7.
And I am not a UA basher. But those manual seats in Biz are a disgrace. I defected from DL after the "merger" with NW, but the NW seats were a million times more sophisticated and comfortable than the current UA seats operated by pulling levers and making things move by shifting weight and or assisting by hand. And NW had those seats for at least 5 years before I joined UA in 2008.
Sort of sad for a supposedly "World Class" Airline. Come to think of it, during my NW years I flew CO quite often. Their BF seats are miles ahead of UA's ( talking TPAC here ). I have never flown the reconfigured UA birds, which I understand are exclusively TATL.

As a 250K flyer, I don't like this change.
You may think it's easier for you to upgrade since there are fewer 1Ks.
I bet the new COUA will make you much harder to use your upgrade instruments even there are fewer 1Ks in the future.
Enjoy your upgrades now.
When it's too hard to upgrade, the Angled Lie-Flat seats are still better than
E+......wait.....will E+ still there??

TPAC 747

ORD-NRT
SFO-NRT
LAX-NRT (Seasonal)
ORD-HKG

UA 747 TPAC flights have lie-flat biz-class seats, and they are much better than current 777 equivalent seats. You won't see 777 lie-flat til end of 2011 most likely given the pace of UA conversion, but UA NRT-SFO routing have 747 lie-flat seats, which are better than AA angled lie-flat seats.

Which is why the current MP levels were just about right. There was no need to create a 1P+ level to accommodate the CO PEs. They had already been given a full year (2011) to "catch up" and to get used to the top elite being 1K (100k EQM/ 100 EQS). The creation of the 75K EQM/90 EQS pseudo-level is the root of the current gymnastics about "aligning" the two programs. It would have been sufficient to just treat the 75K EQM/90 EQS level as just a rung within 1P (which it has always been in MP) and give them a couple of perks (upgrade priority and a couple of CR1s -- call it elite choice++) and don't change anything else! I bet that if they implement something like that that preserves much of the current MP -- i.e., the better FF program -- there will be fewer disgruntled members...

You must not do too much TPAC, as pointed out below

I'd also add great DAILY TPAC flights that use 747-400 with flat, motorized seats:

UA 857 SFO->PVG
UA 858 PVG-SFO

UA 869 SFO-HKG

& MORE...

Agree with you 100%!

My SWU success rate for 2010 has been 100% for TATL and TPAC flights: 10 of 10 (have 1 more TPAC, so we'll see if I will stay at 100% or not, but it's still not bad). So to me, the SWUs are far from worthless.

For UDU, I have been in E+ exactly 2 times this year, out of ~30 flights.

I do love the concept of having less 1K members to compete for my upgrade

I've said it before, and I will say it again: all malcontents, UA bashers, and whiners of all sort, can LEAVE NOW. Thank you.

Don't forget SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD

I have done 36 TCON/TPAC/TATL segments this year on 10 SWUs and failed to upgrade only one short but tough segment. I have had 100% UDU success though my domestic trips are very limited. I am very happy with the current UA/MP version. We are 'agitating' not because we are too unhappy with anything that has been implemented so far, but because of the real possibility that the merged company might want to tinker with more than it needs to [120 EQS for 1K being an example]. If that happens, you might not be as happy as you are now, as one of the consequences might well be fewer upgrades even with fewer 1Ks.

So, please join us in trying to ensure that as much of the current version of MP as possible is retained....

But what if I like the changes. In particular it seems like UA could be setting up for a new tier over 1k (e.g. 125k EQM like DL). The 120 EQS could be the first step. The other possibility is that they're trying to maintain a certain percentage of 1k and they needed to boost up the EQS requirement because CO had a lot of short hop (high EQS) fliers.

Beware what you wish for because you might get it. None of your suppositions explain the 120 EQS 1K requirement, which MP has, in fact, already explained. The new 1K EQS requirement is their solution to achieving an even spacing that brings in the CO's PEs, which used to be OneP's top elite level and was reached at 75K EQM/90 EQS. In order to insert this 1P+ pseudo elite level and achieve even spacing in EQS, the next level in EQS after 90 EQS had to be 120 EQS. That is why the higher EQS value came about. There is no intention to create a level above 1K as you surmise (or even seem to hope for); however, one pseudo level is being created between 1P and 1K, which will be populated mostly by former CO PEs.

The unfairness of the higher EQS requirement for the 1K EQS qualifiers is that it makes it seem like for no apparent reason, EQSs have suddenly been devalued compared to EQMs. Although I am an EQM qualifier, I do understand how this might tick off EQS qualifiers... do you?

Only for those making 1K on EQS. I didn't see the 2P or 1P ratio being unfair. Why should 1K have a different EQS/EQM ratio than everyone else? Perhaps the whole ratio is flawed from beginning to end, but to have a single outlier put in line with all of the other plateau requirements doesn't seem unfair, but rather by definition, it is now fair, when previous, it wasn't. Anomalies to a standard system are where inequities lie. Inequities are unfair, while equal treatment seems to be fair.

Remember Helen Slater in "The Legend of Billie Jean"? Perhaps this could be the new rallying cry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClVGVsXyY-c

Are you an EQM or EQS qualifier? If the latter and you still maintain that the higher EQS requirement is "fair" then your capacity for "accommodation" is truly commendable. I have traveled all year and have reached just 47.5 EQS (but over 110K EQM). I cannot imagine doing the equivalent of 25 EQS more (58K more EQM at my rate) to just reach a status that another member in the same program does not have to do anything extra for... (that is the very definition of "unfairness", ain't it?).

Neither. I am a neutral party who gets no credits ever, so am therefore only looking at the numbers in an unbiased way. My question is it fair for a person to need 30 EQS to get 2P when they can do 25k miles, or 60EQS when they can do 50K miles? The relative fairness on them are all equal, as long as one is fair, they all are, but if none are fair, that is a completely different discussion. They are all equally fair or unfair, 1K's will no longer be an exception to the straight ratio graph of plateaus.

I do hope UA/CO and AA start a 125K EQM level. Im there already, just in case.

Why is it fair that someone potentially gets 1k for spending maybe 50 hours in flight, when the EQM fliers have to spend at least 200 hours. If we're talking fair, they ought to make the EQS requirement 400 not 120.... add in the jet lag and it probably ought to be 1000.... that would be fair