It’s common to see people complaining online about how bad legroom is on most airlines, when flying in economy. That’s fair enough, because in many cases, legroom is pretty bad. Sometimes you’ll see people respond to those complaints by pointing out something that American did at the start of the 2000s.
I’m not sure I’ve ever specifically written about this, so I figure it makes for an interesting topic, as it also provides some valuable context on why the industry is the way it is.
In this post:
American’s failed attempt to offer more legroom in economy
Going back over 50 years, airlines in the United States very much competed on product. That’s because fares in the US airline industry were regulated, so airlines couldn’t compete on price, but instead, they could only compete on schedule and product.
In 1978, we saw the Airline Deregulation Act introduced. I guess there are two ways to look at it. On the one hand, it started the slow and steady race to the bottom in terms of service. On the other hand, it started the slow and steady race to the bottom in terms of fares. Flying is cheaper than ever before, though admittedly not everyone is enjoying champagne and chateaubriand.
In 2000, American did something that was rather innovative — the airline launched its “More Room Throughout Coach” (MRTC) concept. As the name hints at, the airline decided to remove a couple of rows of seats from most planes, and introduce an average of around three extra inches of legroom in economy.
The airline spent $70 million on this project, and in total, the airline removed 7,200 seats from its 707-aircraft fleet, representing 6.4% of economy capacity. Also keep in mind that at the time, most seats already had at least 31″ of pitch, unlike nowadays, where some airlines only have 29″ of pitch. With this project, 58% of American’s economy seats had at least 34″ of pitch.
At the time, American claimed that its number one complaint from passengers involved legroom, with travelers feeling like they’re “packed in like sardines.” As you’d expect, American marketed the heck out of this, and tried to make it a competitive advantage. So from TV ads, to banners at airports, everyone knew about American’s More Room Throughout Coach product.
Within a few years, a problem became clear, though — while passengers appreciated more legroom, they weren’t willing to pay more for it. American found that it couldn’t even command a $10 revenue premium for offering more legroom in economy. Not only that, but American found it was even losing market share, because even a slight price increase was causing passengers to book with competitors.
By early 2003, American slowly began backtracking on this policy. Initially, the airline got rid of its More Room Throughout Coach concept on aircraft primarily operating leisure routes. As American’s CEO at the time, Gerard Arpey, described that decision:
“We are still retaining our popular More Room Throughout Coach product on more than 75 percent of our fleet, which translates into approximately 80 percent of our daily departures. I also want to be clear that we are not creating an airline-within-an-airline because we don’t believe a successful formula for that concept yet exists. We are simply returning to standard seating in those markets where customers tell us price – and seat availability at low prices – is predominantly how they choose a carrier.”
However, it didn’t take long for American to completely backtrack on this concept. By 2004, American eliminated the concept altogether, and added rows of seats back to planes, and in some cases, there were more seats than pre-2000.
What can we learn from More Room Throughout Coach?
So, what should our takeaway be from American’s failed Main Room Throughout Coach concept? If you ask virtually any airline executive, or most of the public, the answer is simple — the average air traveler is price sensitive, and while they say they want more legroom, they’re not actually willing to pay for it.
Now, there are some people who suggest that’s the wrong lesson to take away. They argue two points:
- The early 2000s was a really tough time for the industry, as we saw 9/11, a huge economic downturn, and several airline bankruptcies in the years that followed, so it’s not a great time to judge an initiative that improved the passenger experience
- More legroom is part of a suite of offerings, and while American invested in that, it failed to invest in other areas of the passenger experience
Personally, I think that most airline executives have the right takeaway from More Legroom Throughout Coach. No matter how much consumers claim they value a certain thing, when they go to book flights, their actual behavior might not reflect their claims.
I think one of the reasons the industry has generally become more sustainable (aside from loyalty programs) is realizing the importance of upsell and ancillary opportunities. Of course no one likes being nickel-and-dimed, but the reality is that the airline industry is a tough business, it’s highly cyclical, and even during the best of times, it’s only mildly profitable.
Airlines have to cast as wide of a net as they can. The right answer all along is what airlines eventually decided on — offer less legroom in economy as a standard, but then have an extra legroom economy section that travelers can upgrade to, if that’s something they value.
United was the first major US carrier to introduce this concept, with its Economy Plus. That launched in 1999, before American even introduced More Room Throughout Coach. It’s interesting how it took other US airlines so long to follow United’s lead on that, even though it’s now an industry standard.
At least in the United States, no airline has actually been particularly successful by differentiating itself on its standard economy product. For example, JetBlue has long offered passengers more, from more legroom, to free Wi-Fi, to seat back entertainment (long before Delta started doing those last two). But passengers haven’t actually been willing to pay more to fly with the airline.
Some might say “well Delta is a premium airline.” I mean, sort of. Delta is really good at marketing itself as premium, and is also good at investing selectively to convince travelers that it’s premium. But when you look at actual aircraft layouts, Delta certainly doesn’t have above industry seat pitch, for example.
Bottom line
In the early 2000s, American tried to differentiate itself with “More Room Throughout Coach.” The airline ripped two rows of seats out of most planes, and increased seat pitch by a few inches. The result? Well, the airline found people weren’t even willing to pay an extra $10 for a more civilized amount of space, and American even lost market share.
Make of that what you will, and it’s possible there were more factors that contributed to the lack of success of the concept. But it’s certainly something that’s cited often by airline executives, when it comes to consumers’ willingness to pay for a better economy experience.
What’s your takeaway from American’s More Room Throughout Coach experiment?
Most likely Elon is working on a huge flight machine that will be able to fly a thousand or two, Comfortably and affordably.
The good ol' boys airlines will probably diminish.
Excellent article!
The fee for extra legroom is so high now. I almost feel the airlines purposely put the regular seat very uncomfortable so people are more willing to buy extra legroom
Ben is that cover photo loading a coffin on the aircraft intentional or symbolic?
When my wife and I got married in 2004 and applied for our first joint credit card we specially chose AA Citi because of the extra legroom. Now, we're flying Oasified aircraft!
Your wife and you have been married for over two decades. Congratulations.
I think tim dunn and i might agree on something for once
Arps is a Chinese government bot
Giving him any kind of legitimacy shouldn’t be allowed, lucky.
Seriously
What kind of normal human being wants to force others to believe Taiwan is part of communist china on an article about AA’s leg room experiment?
And he sounds deranged.
No, “Arps” was name partner at what was once the highest grossing US law firm. The firm hires attorneys of the fiercest moral character. See Rachel Cohen, class of 2022, former Associate.
As to Taiwan, the official position of the United States since 1979 has been that it is an island province of China.
China is not “communist” as understood by the average American (who is an idiot).
You should probably tell Xi that china isn’t communist. He’d be surprised.
Thanks for reinforcing my point
The problem with having a low IQ, as you do, is that you can’t tell you have a low IQ. Worse, you believe falsely you have a high IQ. MaxPower sounds like a shitty power bank that Chinese airport security would confiscate.
Ooh
Good one lol
How dumb are you?
The easiest way to ID idiots on the comment section is when they assume IQ about someone else
Your posts speak for themselves
I think the Chinese communist party should fire you
You failed in your mission lol
Hey since you're the Arps of skadden lmao why can't Cohen access her email?
Cohen submitted a resignation and is being paid through her notice period. The firm was exceptionally fortunate to have employed Cohen for three years and she is going on to do great things in the world which do not involve Saturday night trolling on an internet travel blog "lmao."
wow unfortunate you couldn't have procured the fulfillment of the condition in her conditional notice as a named partner smdh :(
Oh, Ben. We were having such a pleasant weekend..and now you've gone ahead and spoken out loud the truth: Delta is not premium. I suppose I have a few minutes to finish my cup of tea before the raging Delta freak emerges from beneath the depths of his murky black hole..
Ben is clearly having a difficult weekend ... slept in and missed getting the LHR meltdown story while it was still hot....
is now commiserating the demise of the blue team and the success of the red team even in his hometown.
And he and others still don't grasp that concept that premium is defined by what people pay for a product or service relative to its competitors.
Don't forget that one of the main drivers for ancillary fees in the US though is the tax structure - the airlines pocket significantly more of the upsell fee vs. airfare and this has been a key driver in the pricing structure to move as much as possible "below the line" of the airfare. There is an additional benefit in that it is much more difficult to comparison shop using current tools when you have...
Don't forget that one of the main drivers for ancillary fees in the US though is the tax structure - the airlines pocket significantly more of the upsell fee vs. airfare and this has been a key driver in the pricing structure to move as much as possible "below the line" of the airfare. There is an additional benefit in that it is much more difficult to comparison shop using current tools when you have to price in all of the ancillary fees, and post-purchase, the traveler does not comparison shop at all.
I certainly believe that if all ancillary revenue was treated the same as airfare, we wouldn't see this unbundling play out in the same way, and programs like MRTC might have played out differently.
I actually flew American back then specifically for the legroom. I wonder if I was truly unusual or if their "polling" was bad.
Your open mindedness (instead of assuming straight away the polling must have been bad) speaks volumes toward your IQ and EQ. Are you an equity partner at a top grossing law firm?
This is a good read - and the kind of article unique to OMAAT.
View From The Wing, once upon a time, hosted such content. Now you’re lucky if there’s one post a day not related to spirit airlines brawls or fearmongering over semen in the shampoo bottles.
the demise of Southwest is a pretty big topic.... but CF feasts on that too.
Back in the MRTC days, my family flew AA exclusively because of the extra legroom. We didn't look at other airlines. Was nice while it lasted. At least we have Main Cabin Extra now.
It's not accurate to say people aren't willing to pay for extra legroom. Certainly some people will pay more, but not those that are extremely price sensitive. I'd like to see a carrier introduce a basic economy cabin, with less seat pitch then regular economy, back of the cabin, and no free full size carryon, and at the same time increase regular economy pitch.
That would be great, if they had kept economy as economy and created a basic economy at the back of the plane. But airlines transformed economy into basic economy and then created economy plus basically eliminating regular economy class.
The other reason American tried the concept, told to me by an American executive, is it allowed them to sometimes have one less flight attendant, which saved on salary and the loss of seats in some cases didn’t matter. As someone who’s 6’6”, the extra legroom seats matter and I’m glad that airlines make them available for a reasonable cost. I only wish Premium Economy wasn’t so outrageously priced.
I worked reservations for TWA when they had "Comfort Class" in the 90's. Same service AA had in the 00"s. Once had someone call to make a booking NYC to ICT rt. Went on and one about how much she loved our extra legroom. I quoted her a fare of $220. She said "USAir's $218 they got you beat" and hung up. USAir was less because the PFC charge in PIT was $2 but in...
I worked reservations for TWA when they had "Comfort Class" in the 90's. Same service AA had in the 00"s. Once had someone call to make a booking NYC to ICT rt. Went on and one about how much she loved our extra legroom. I quoted her a fare of $220. She said "USAir's $218 they got you beat" and hung up. USAir was less because the PFC charge in PIT was $2 but in STL it was $3. Every time I hear someone complain about legroom I remember that call. TWA also walked back comfort class. We were told it was because the competition with less legroom had better RSM than we did. Although if TWA was being honest that wasn't the only thing the competition had that was better.
The problem is that ultimately when you book a flight through any OTA/search portal legroom isn't really something that is marketed. You'd have to change the entire way that flights are currently marketed/sold throughout the value chain for something like this to work.
Google flights reports that pretty prominently
That assumes people know that Google Flights reports that prominently, or that Google Flights even exists. Those of us following travel bloggers can be oblivious to how oblivious most people are to their options. Take my cousin with the degree in financial marketing who lives and dies by Expedia, even when there’s irregular operations. (No different than my friend, an MD/PhD in immunology who got a new sports car, and I asked her how many...
That assumes people know that Google Flights reports that prominently, or that Google Flights even exists. Those of us following travel bloggers can be oblivious to how oblivious most people are to their options. Take my cousin with the degree in financial marketing who lives and dies by Expedia, even when there’s irregular operations. (No different than my friend, an MD/PhD in immunology who got a new sports car, and I asked her how many gears the transmission has, and she replied, “I guess two, Reverse and Drive.”)
People who need to say their friends are highly credentialed are, themselves, usually low credentialed and living vicariously through the accomplishments of their friends.
MPS, get out of Charlotte and make something meaningful out of your life.
I flew AA domestically during the MRTC era and loved the extra space. I paid that extra $10 with gusto. But can't compare now to back then. Completely different market. The US had twice as many majors and competition was brutal and flyers had the upper hand.
This is a principle called behaviour-based consumer insight. Polls and consumer complaints are a good indicator of a problem to solve but the evaluation of the relevance or value of the proposed solution should only be based on observing actual behavior of consumers.
People love to tell you what they would like but a lot of that is an image of themselves they want to project. The truth is in the spending.
I...
This is a principle called behaviour-based consumer insight. Polls and consumer complaints are a good indicator of a problem to solve but the evaluation of the relevance or value of the proposed solution should only be based on observing actual behavior of consumers.
People love to tell you what they would like but a lot of that is an image of themselves they want to project. The truth is in the spending.
I think the segmentation with extra legroom makes sense and clearly the US airlines have found a market for this (for whatever reason people book those seats, as they are also closer to the front of the plane and the premium may sometimes make the section less crowded).
Easyjet in Europe also has an upfront upsell section that is not based on leg room (which makes it super flexible) but rather the promise of getting out faster if you have a jet bridge, bundled with hand and checked luggage allowance.
Notably legacy carrier business class in Europe does not even have extra legroom which is a disgrace especially on British Airways and Iberia considering how tight the standard leg room is.
Ben is correct that it was the post 9/11 period that began the unraveling of MRTC.
What is lost is that AA failed to get its costs down in its out of court restructuring and operated for a decade post 9/11 with costs that were higher than UA and US - first post-9/11 airlines to go through chapter 11, the former in the longest and most costly bankruptcy post 9/11 - and then later...
Ben is correct that it was the post 9/11 period that began the unraveling of MRTC.
What is lost is that AA failed to get its costs down in its out of court restructuring and operated for a decade post 9/11 with costs that were higher than UA and US - first post-9/11 airlines to go through chapter 11, the former in the longest and most costly bankruptcy post 9/11 - and then later DL and NW which emerged and merged a couple years before AA even filed for C11. AA simply couldn't get its costs down, was focused on cost cutting even before the US merger which completely lost the revenue growth strategy that the America West team brought to AA and which has still not been shaken.
A premium product is based on what people pay for it. Despite larger economy plus AND business class cabins, UA does not command revenue premiums to all carriers, including DL. and UA gives away a much higher percentage of its premium products than DL.
And DL gets its revenue premiums because of its long-standing reliability which matters the most to business passengers (and why B6 has failed so badly) and its network. UA simply was way too focused for far too long on exotic international destinations to recognize that having a robust domestic network delivers revenue premiums because most corporate travel - where DL handedly leads the industry - is domestic.
And AA simply lost the plot in terms of service and network including being relevant in the top markets of the country.
The most successful airlines have become all things to all people. It is only finding the right balance of all the ingredients that generates the most revenue and profits. AA, DL and UA and even AS to an extent are all old airlines w/ diverse products and networks. only one of those 4 has pushed higher and higher for 100 years while most of its peers have struggled w/ one identity crisis after another from which no single product attribute can return them to a position of leadership.
Look buddy you post the same damn drivel over and over AND OVER AND OVER on every post regardless of relevance. Why? Can you please see a urologist and regain the ability to get hard so you can go out and try to pick up some chicks instead of clogging up this blog?
Troll
Lol! Arps has the measure of this one. I don't mind Tim in general, but the eye does tend to glaze over...
While Tim will be criticized, these are valid observations. On-time operations matter and some are willing to pay up for that. When Isom became CEO, he said every aircraft ready to fly every morning. That hasn't worked out. Service level matters and some are willing to pay up for that. While Isom talks about premium, he cut crew staffing.
AA actually DID have a very good on-time = for about 6 months. And then they realized how much money they were leaving on the table and so reduced block times AND reduced connecting times so much that many passengers - esp. in the back of planes - cannot even make connections if the flights are on-time at DFW and CLT.
Service does matter and the way to deliver it is to generate a...
AA actually DID have a very good on-time = for about 6 months. And then they realized how much money they were leaving on the table and so reduced block times AND reduced connecting times so much that many passengers - esp. in the back of planes - cannot even make connections if the flights are on-time at DFW and CLT.
Service does matter and the way to deliver it is to generate a revenue premium.
As much as some people don't want to hear it, DL has succeeded because it got the revenue premium and also increased service levels.
As much as some want to argue that the airlines are all alike, all one has to do is look at the DOT's Air Travel Consumer Report to see that AA and UA consistently end up in the bottom couple of places in the industry in baggage handling and UA was there in cancellation rates.
Despite the well-discussed CrowdStrike issue, DL still managed to stay in the top 1/3 of the industry in every DOT metric.
Delivering high quality service does open routes for airlines based on the ability to capture corporate revenue.
Delta has simply done that better than its peers for almost as long as AA discontinued MRTC.
Why do you hate UA? The article has nothing to do with UA……
I don't hate UA or anything else.
I am countering the notion when even Ben repeated that premium has anything to do with his or anyone's anecdotal perceptions.
If it comes down to service, it is measured. All of the big 4 serve over 100 million customers per year. No one's anecdotes or perceptions matter.
DL consistently is at the top of the industry in customer service and operational metrics.
AA, like UA, is...
I don't hate UA or anything else.
I am countering the notion when even Ben repeated that premium has anything to do with his or anyone's anecdotal perceptions.
If it comes down to service, it is measured. All of the big 4 serve over 100 million customers per year. No one's anecdotes or perceptions matter.
DL consistently is at the top of the industry in customer service and operational metrics.
AA, like UA, is in the top third for some but near the bottom for others.
WN more consistently ranks higher in metrics than AA or UA do.
and the fact is that UA finally realized that premium doesn't matter if you don't have the network to sell it. UA is all of a sudden focused on developing a strong domestic network now that it is 4 out of the big 4 in domestic coverage. UA might compete w/ DL for the premium domestic market but UA has to grow into a whole lot more key markets than they are in now.
those are just simple realities.
what I think or don't think about any airline doesn't matter.
You hate UA because it's based in Chicago. You hate Chicago because you had a bad experience while living here. Chicago is my birthplace, the location of my alma mater, and my home. And that's why I hate you and hate Delta, Timbits.
I'm an Alaska elite, and detest partner flights on AA because the recent AA aircraft I've flown on don't have extra legroom seats.
Get with the program, AA.
All AA aircraft have extra legroom seats. They may have been all booked up by the time you could choose a seat.
Jetblue decreased legroom and nobody flies them anymore they're a dead airline
They attract low class flyers. Saw a 60 year old woman in seat 1A. A baby started crying some rows back. The woman complained she needed another drink. Imagine making it 60 years through life and you can't handle a crying baby. This is the kind of stuff that makes me sympathetic to cutting Medicare.
Troll
Total dumpster flier of an airline.
The reason it failed is clear when you look at it from the basic economics point of view. While *some* people are willing to pay more for more legroom, *most* will book the cheapest option and move on with their lives. The current “winning” strategy used by most airlines is a variety of seat types, and the most cramped economy seats always represent the bulk of the seat count.
As Ben says, people may complain...
The reason it failed is clear when you look at it from the basic economics point of view. While *some* people are willing to pay more for more legroom, *most* will book the cheapest option and move on with their lives. The current “winning” strategy used by most airlines is a variety of seat types, and the most cramped economy seats always represent the bulk of the seat count.
As Ben says, people may complain and say they want more legroom, but voting with their wallets shows otherwise. Those willing to pay for legroom are in the minority, and because of that they have to pay a heck of a lot more than an extra $10.
It’s funny that Southwest has been the lone one with a single cabin where all seats are the same, but even they are caving to the pressure.
Bingo
MRTC is basically the same legroom as all the economy plus-type products these days. So clearly some, but not an entire plane full, of people are willing to pay for it.
Nobody pays for it directly. E+ is free with status
At 2m+ tall I guarantee you I pay for it directly!
Not sure though why it should be reasonable for airlines to charge for something I actually NEED not merely WANT. I mean, it’s not like I got extensions to be like this. It wasn’t a choice .
The old approach was one size fits all. The current strategy gives appropriate seat size to cost-conscious travellers. Others can self-select more legroom for a higher price. Still others can self-select even more legroom for an even higher price. This approach accommodates a range of price sensitivities.
Do you know what I find to be quite difficult to understand? Inconsistency!
Some contributors can post the most insulting comments about another website user, however, if an unrelated party calls out the initial commenter, that post will be deleted by the unethical police.
Why is that I wonder?
Are you referring to the troll whose comments seem like statements made by an agent of an authoritarian regime who is tasked to sow strife? (I don't mean you.)
Well, tim dunn
Stop using your fake profiles to troll, as always
You fool no one. At least do your normal ChatGPT to a British voice like you normally do for this account
Isn't this the exact same concept, just offered on fewer seats as Main Cabin Extra, Premium Select and Economy Plus that airlines are doing today? People (but not all) will definitely pay a premium for more legroom. Maybe it was too before its time or maybe nowadays it's offered as a premium option to buy instead of the baseline seat. Better marketing today, that's all.
I remember Northwest tried to go to another extreme. Don't add any extra legroom seats, but try to charge for the exits / bulkheads / close to the front....even elites...in the early 2000s. That rolled back quickly.
Then in bankruptcy it emerged again, and morphed into what is now Comfort Plus when after the merger they went down the United route, albeit with fewer rows.
UNITED is the leader by far on seat choice in...
I remember Northwest tried to go to another extreme. Don't add any extra legroom seats, but try to charge for the exits / bulkheads / close to the front....even elites...in the early 2000s. That rolled back quickly.
Then in bankruptcy it emerged again, and morphed into what is now Comfort Plus when after the merger they went down the United route, albeit with fewer rows.
UNITED is the leader by far on seat choice in Economy thanks to its early mover advantage building the revenue base to justify bigger extra legroom sections.
AFAIK while AA did remove 2 rows of economy seating for MRTC, they only added 1 row back when the program ended.
So there was a net increase in legroom afterall.
IMO, the correct approach would have been to offer the improved product at the same price as competitors initially- even if it incurs a loss. That would have been the best advertisment for the product. Once people are 'hooked' on the improved product, they can slowly increase prices to keep pace with demand. Doesn't make much sense from a sales/marketing angle to offer the product at a higher price from day one since it's still an economy product.
Trans World Airlines (TWA) tried the same thing in the early nineties, removing a couple of rows to offer extra leg room. That just seemed to accelerate their journey into bankruptcy.
There currently is a MRTC product. It's Delta Comfort Plus, which is regular economy except a little more legroom. It's not premium economy with a slightly wider seat, for that is Premium Select.
Delta Comfort Plus commands a very small premium. I'm not sure what it is but it's not $100 on a flight to Asia. The section is small and not given away free.
Are you mentally retarded?
The article goes into such depth on economy plus and you can’t see that delta just called it a different name
He flies Delta. Of course he's mentally retarded.
All of the big three have an economy plus category…is this a joke?
Be kind, he may not be a regular reader, and may have only flown with delta
AA is a joke of an airline and has been for the last 10 years. An entire generation of young professionals has come to equate the brand with prisoner transport levels of customer service.
Delta has very little legroom in domestic first. I was surprised by this.
United has incredible legroom in economy plus on the transcontinental 757s. Too bad the overhead bins are tiny and the underseat space is mostly taken up by the...
AA is a joke of an airline and has been for the last 10 years. An entire generation of young professionals has come to equate the brand with prisoner transport levels of customer service.
Delta has very little legroom in domestic first. I was surprised by this.
United has incredible legroom in economy plus on the transcontinental 757s. Too bad the overhead bins are tiny and the underseat space is mostly taken up by the life vest (seriously in the history of aviation have these ever been remotely useful?)
Delta's stingy legroom in domestic first is a legacy of penny pinching Northwest Airlines. Though at least at Northwest first class was designed as an upgrade product, and in fact they greatly expanded first cabins in the late 90s/early 2000s to accommodate that.
Now it's the worst of both worlds. Sub par legroom, few upgrades.
I think there was one flight which landed in the sea off Nigeria where lifejackets were useful.
There was the hijacking which landed in the sea off Comoros Islands (lifejackets saved some passengers, but some died because they inflated their life-jackets while inside)
And there was the Miracle on the Hudson, where passengers were in fact collected from the wing, but it must have been pretty comforting to have the lifejacket in case one fell in.
While I'm not like most consumers, I absolutely booked EVA over United to Taiwan precisely because Eva economy is 9 across and United is 10 on the 777.
You mesh China. Taiwan is in China.
*mean
Correct, Taiwan is the Republic of China.
North Korea is the Communist controlled section of the Republic of Korea. However, the DPRK claims South Korea.
I'm flying United from ORD-FRA in economy and then FRA-ORD in Economy PLUS. We shall see if it makes a difference....
I urge u to book Lufthansa on the way back. Why? Flying a US airline from Europe means invasive and stupid security checks that you can avoid by flying a European airline.
You have invasive and stupid checks when flying to the US on any airline. Only way to avoid is by not flying to that s-hole country.
Arps, thank you for that information, but I've already booked and done this a many times before and I think I want to see the difference not fly DLH.
I have met people that don’t even know what airline they are booked on until a day before their trip. Majority of people book on price , then on schedule .
WHAT!?!? how on earth can you not know what airline you fly on? it is easy. American: sucks and everyone knows it
Delta: way overrated and everyone thinks they are the best
United: the best US carrier and underrated
SJ, it is easy to agree with your AA sentiments, however, those who know would choose to disagree about your assessment of UA as it is known internationally to be only a few points better than AA.
DA would always be the discerning international traveler’s carrier of choice before the other two.
lol. I have flown both Delta and United in Business class internationally and I can assure you Delta business class seat doesn’t even come close to United. With that said, I prefer to fly most Asian airlines or Air France any day of the week before I pick US3.