dylanks

For some reason it bothers me when people post that the CW seating is terrible because BA has 8 seats per "row" while the cirrus seat arrangement is 4.

This argument leads people to believe that BA has twice as many seats in CW, or half as much space per passenger.

Comparing identical aircraft (777-300ER), between doors 2 and 3, BA has 56 seats and CX has 45 in that space. Almost all of this extra space is used to give all passengers direct aisle access to slanting the seats diagonally.

It does mean that BA fits 20% more seats in roughly the same space, but far from double.

We can argue all day about which seat is more or less comfortable and we've done that many times before (I find the cirrus seat to be too hard, and the taxi/takeoff/landing position to be less comfortable, but otherwise the cirrus wins except against 62/64AK, or when snagging two middle seats).

So the next time someone makes the 1-2-1 vs 2-4-2 argument , point them at this thread. There are plenty of other things to argue about that BA do poorly, but we might as well stick to the facts in this part of the debate.

AC*SE

Direct aisle access is a not inconsiderable bonus of the AA/CX cabins versus BA in J. The window passengers (except for 62/64AK and their maindeck analogs) and the couples in the middle all have to climb over a pair of legs to get out.

dylanks

I don't disagree, the main point of this post though is that BA doesn't shove twice as many seats into the same amount of space.

justforfun

Who's stupid enough to believe that?!

dylanks

Given some of the arguments I've seen recently comparing the seat layout, more than I had thought.

TGflyergirl

This silly type of argument is far too common. The only metric that compares space (all aisle access notwithstanding) to me is square footage.

The other one that gets my goat as well is the rather silly "sleeping slanted argument" (ala SQ) - slanted with reference to what? Dead center forward from the movement of the airplane?

Heaven forbid they'll have a completely sleepless night in Etihad Apartments then - those are "slanted" a full 90 degrees from forward.

simons1

In my view it's about which makes more creative use of the space. Direct aisle access really is a 'must' these days.

We know that it isn't really 2-4-2 against 1-2-1 when you look at the overall number of seats but if done well it can create that impression.

scillyisles

This^
Who in their right mind would chose either CW seat where you have to step over someone's legs to get out or vice versa.
I do however agree with one point that dylanks made in that the Cirrus seat is very firm as a seat. Conversely , I do find it one of the best lie flat beds to sleep in much better than say BA First for sleeping.

IanFromHKG

The problem with that approach is that some of that square footage may be shared - footwell under, working-space/shelf/whatever above

Take the current AY A340 J seats with the 1-2-1 / 2-2-1 seating arrangement (alternate rows have one or two seats on the port side). Sitting in my favourite 8A seat (a 1-2-1 row immediately behind a bulkhead), I have huge amounts of space. An enormous shelf each side of my throne-like seat, loads of floor space on either side of my legs, and a footwell that extends into god-knows-what beyond the bulkhead in front of me. However, the space under the shelves is occupied by the feet of those behind me (a 2-2-1 row), and each of them share one centre shelf occupied by the feet of the occupant of the throne behind them. Each of those seats has roughly the same amount of exclusive space, but the amount of usable space - including that "shared" with others - is very different.

The Cirrus seat is the same, albeit to a lesser degree - there is an element of shared space around the footwell/shelf area.

The fairly unique element of BACW is that there is very little shared space. And that means the usable space per seat is very, very small.

So while I agree with your general concept, it overlooks the benefit of using shared space. And that means that the theory, translated into practice, doesn't work very well, and highlights the disadvantage - to the passenger - of the BACW layout, and one of the strengths of the Cirrus seat. Not only does the latter give all-aisle access, usable shelf space at all times, a much larger IFE screen, a shoe-locker, a small private locker that can be used at all times (not only when the seat is in the take-off position), and a large additional storage area by the side of the seat, it gives an impression of far greater space - and the luxury of being able to be served (or to have one's neighbour served) without that infuriating ****ing divider whirring up and down all the time.

chris1979

Good thread and point.

1010101

I don't think anyone thinks there are literally twice as many CW seats in the same space? Likewise, seat footprint is fairly useless as various designs have varying degrees of 'wasted' space around the seat itself, and varying degrees of shared space.

I do think the Cirrus/CX product (and the similar B/E Super Diamond) is about twice as good as CW though.

TGflyergirl

The point I made isn't a nod to BA CW

When i say square footage - my understanding of it is precisely like yours. I count all lands and territories that are exclusively mine - even though the area below my head could be shared for your feet - the areas don't converge, and that square footage for your feet is yours alone, as is the square footage for my head.

I think we are saying the same thing: Several airlines have BA's offering bested.

orbitmic

Indeed, to believe that one would need to (1) have never tried the two cabins and (2) have no sense of geometry.

In fact, "refuting the OP's refutation", I would say that very often on those (indeed innumerable) threads, I have answered people who say that BA can't afford to switch to 1-2-1 because it sacrifices far too much density precisely by pointing out that the loss for the airline is much less than they think. This is achieved by a mixture of angling and superimposition (with the feet of row 2 effectively underneath the side table of row 1 in the Cirrus version). The space comparison has also been repeated many times in the "XX J is as good as BA F" threads.

Conversely, other models (like the AZ/EY/IB?DL767) use stacking, and greater superimposition but no angling.

Bottom line is, in my view, those various 1-2-1 configurations are far superior to CW and precisely do not involve losing as much density as some fear, which is why I very much wish BA would make the move.

Sixth Freedom

Those 20% extra seats are no doubt the ones that BA use for UUA and sales...

ankomonkey

One thing I would say in BA CW's defence is that it works well for families with small children where the parents need to be able to access and assist their children quickly and easily. I have children aged 3 and 5 and we recently did our first CW as a family (I've travelled it alone previously). We had 4 middle seats with the children in the middle two. It worked far better than other configurations that allow more privacy. My 5 year old absolutely loved reclining her seat with full control of her IFE!