Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2536 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
The article is a bit misleading... It is essentially comparing the domestic F class of airlines yet they use AA's 767's in the comparison since the trans-cons are still domestic. If they are going to do a decent comparison they should at least use the same or similar type of aircraft.
Their two favorites seem to be UA's PS and AA's 767 transcon with 50-60 inches of pitch, yet all the others mentioned spoke of their 38" pitch. CO uses a 772 between IAH and EWR, yet those seats weren't mentioned??
Hmm I wonder what's better a widebody used internationally, or a 737/DC9?? It doesn't take an expert to figure out which product is better
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4138 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3374 times:
Was this comparing just transcon? Also, it mentioned UA had leather seats throughout it's fleet...but except for P.S., all domestic aircraft have cloth F class seats (which are still quite comfortable IMO).
Daron4000 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
It's funny how "analysts" usually know less than many people on these boards. For example, I think we all know the best seats to find, say on United, domestically, are on the 777 and 747's in F with First Suite flying ORD-DEN etc. However, ps is the best servicewise. The same with AA and DFW-MIA. It is annoying that they also can't get the photos right, showing AA's Flagship Suite when talking about the 767-200's. At least they mentioned international aircraft on domestic legs. A nice try in my opinion.
DL4EVR From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
For DL's pic it shows the BE seats...not the domestic F seats which they're talking about. In any case, comparing PS to any other domestic product is like comparing apples and oranges.
And telling people to avoid DC-9s and Mad Dogs??? NW's DC-9s might have craapy pitch in F, but on DL (I'm not sure about AA), the F seats on the MadDogs have the standard 38".
Nwafflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1050 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3333 times:
Personally, I prefer the widebody DC-9 - of course, I'm biased, because there are 16 seats, and on the widebody 737, there can be as few as 6 --
Interesting perspective here - but I suspect the general public knowledge is even less than the news media, so let's stick with widebody long haul dc-9's and 737's - after all, each one can cross either ocean (with assorted stops)
WhiteBirdFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3304 times:
An interesting article, but I'd agree that if the reporter(s) had looked through these forums, they'd be much better informed.
I wonder, though, about part of the article's premise. It's one thing to locate the "best" seats in terms of general legroom, proximity to lavs/galleys and other fairly objective criteria. But the subjective ones are what the article seems to be implying it has a handle on, which I don't think it does.
For instance, people seem to come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and preferences for harder or softer seating. One person's "Flagship paradise" may be another's hellish seat experience. Generous pitch does not always mean a comfortable seat to many folks. Seems hard to quantify things like that.
Lastly, I'd certainly agree about the strangeness of avoiding DC-9s and M-88s. I was recently on one (NW, of course) and found the solidity and comfort of the airplane to be as good as it was when I first flew on one many years ago.