<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Shanghaiist: Shanghai-to-Atlanta a 2008 hopeful</title>
<link>http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php</link>
<description>All comments for Shanghai-to-Atlanta a 2008 hopeful</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 shang_kenneth</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:00:13 +0800</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>kenneth@shanghaiist.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>kenneth@shanghaiist.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>George</title>
<link>http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-995681</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-995681</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:49:08 +0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;eh yea, three days a week from an airline that is worse than Air China is hardly sufficient for a NY-Pudong route. My friend was on that flight despite my advice against it and swore he would never do that again. And he even flew business class. Greyhound is better than China Eastern for crying out loud. I can understand why they awarded the DC-BJ flight as diplomats need to have a direct flight to each other&apos;s capital. But Atlanta to Shanghai? Come on. That is a joke right? Sheesh. If they have an all business class flight from JFK to Pudong they&apos;d probably fill it. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>TQY</title>
<link>http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-993709</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-993709</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:24:24 +0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Pete - I guess they consider the Shanghai-New York China Eastern flight sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Pete</title>
<link>http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-993017</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-993017</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:05:28 +0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Such b.s. Shanghai-NYC link would make much more sense.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>SJ</title>
<link>http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-992728</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-992728</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:50:49 +0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;Horizontal lie-flat seats&quot; is indeed proper English for the airline industry. Many airlines offer &quot;angled lie-flat seats,&quot; which provide a flat seat surface but not a true horizontal sleep surface. In general, when you have these lie-flat seats in full recline, you are tilted downwards in a flat surface mode towards your feet.

As for lie-flat seats in economy class -- one can always dream on...&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>SJ</title>
<link>http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-992684</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://shanghaiist.com/2007/01/22/shanghaitoatlan.php#comment-992684</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:40:42 +0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;Fully horizontal lie-flat seats&quot; is indeed proper English in the airline industry, as many airlines offer only &quot;angled lie-flat seats&quot; in their business class. &quot;Angled&quot; seats are obviously not as desirable as &quot;fully horizontal&quot; ones as passengers are tilted downwards in a flat surface mode towards their feet. 

As for any lie-flat seats in economy class -- one can always dream on...&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>