> The only thing the sevice has got going for it is the widebody. It’s still trAAsh
I enjoy reading this blog, even with its United bias, but I really can't stand this sort of trash talk.
First of all, the "ancient" AA 767-200s were all delivered between 1985-88. Yes, the UA p.s. 757-200s are younger, but only by an average of 4 years with deliveries between 1989-92. By comparison, the now retired UA 767-200s were delivered in 1982-83.
There is just no comparison between the meals in premium classes on AA domestic flights and other U.S. airlines, especially UA and DL. I can't remember the last time I was on an AA mainline flight (other than a very short flight like MIA-MCO) where a proper meal wasn't served, and the service is great even on 2-3 hour flights. As you pointed out, even snack flights (like your MIA-JFK) have a decent meal served, although not as substantial as a "dinner" service on a same length flight. The salad cart and sundaes are really outstanding as well.
About the seats, I agree that UA's are a little better in general (and both UA/AA are miles above everyone else, especially on the transcons), but on AA there are just many more opportunities to upgrade (more premium seats as well as no upgrade restrictions like UA's new p.s. blackout). However, a lot of people do prefer widebodies over narrowbodies.