CO introduces new BusinessFirst seat
#121
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EWR
Posts: 373
I just got back from a trip today, and the ISM had been aware of the new seats for quite some time. As an interesting note she said that the isle width will drop down to 17" in BF, and they have to redesign the 3 tiered cart for this reason. Please take it with a grain of salt, as the rumors among F/A's are not always reliable!
Also wanted to mention the leak of the picture has been flying around with the F/A's as well. We are just as excited to have a new BF seat as the passengers!
Also wanted to mention the leak of the picture has been flying around with the F/A's as well. We are just as excited to have a new BF seat as the passengers!
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
I just got back from a trip today, and the ISM had been aware of the new seats for quite some time. As an interesting note she said that the isle width will drop down to 17" in BF, and they have to redesign the 3 tiered cart for this reason. Please take it with a grain of salt, as the rumors among F/A's are not always reliable!
#123
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ACT/GRK/DAL/ABI/MIA/FLL
Programs: OMNIArchist, OMNIArchy!, OMNIIDGAS
Posts: 23,478
They are redesigning the carts for lighter weight anyway.
#124
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: IAH, LGA or EWR
Programs: CO MM/Pt, SPG Pt, Marriott Au, others not worth mentioning
Posts: 187
Personally I'm entertained by the sleeping-bag like contouring in the J seat. We'll see whether the "crimp" on each end actually leads to a "form fitting" feel or a "just wedge it in there" feel. I nominate EWR<->BOM for the field trial (might as well get it over with)!
#125
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
I've begun to wonder about this as well. Is it that your leg below about the knee is actually between the seats in front, doesn't that mean the window passenger has to climb over the thighs or even hips of the aisle passenger? In which case, isn't that going to be awkward or even embarrasing if the aisle passenger is a largish woman sleeping on her side? In which case is this really better than the BA 50% backwards solution where you only ever have to climb across someones feet? As anyone actually tried the CO seat style in anger?
#126
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
I've begun to wonder about this as well. Is it that your leg below about the knee is actually between the seats in front, doesn't that mean the window passenger has to climb over the thighs or even hips of the aisle passenger? In which case, isn't that going to be awkward or even embarrasing if the aisle passenger is a largish woman sleeping on her side? In which case is this really better than the BA 50% backwards solution where you only ever have to climb across someones feet? As anyone actually tried the CO seat style in anger?
#128
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Maybe, but I think CO are pretty brave to commit to this without being able to try it. There may only be 20% of seats with that ugly downside, but I sure as heck don't want to pay $5k+ for my TATL ticket and get almost literally stuck in one of those window seats.
#129
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CVG
Programs: UA-Silver; Hyatt Platinum; SPG Gold
Posts: 793
These new seats are not looking all that great. I would have hoped for something better or more innovative from Continental.
#130
Moderator: United MileagePlus
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
I want to see the seat maps for the planes. Larry has said repeatedly a seat reduction in J was not an option and if CO has achieved a lie flat solution without a loss of J seats (assuming the same amount of space on the aircraft is still devoted to the J cabin) than it'll be interesting.
#131
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
I want to see the seat maps for the planes. Larry has said repeatedly a seat reduction in J was not an option and if CO has achieved a lie flat solution without a loss of J seats (assuming the same amount of space on the aircraft is still devoted to the J cabin) than it'll be interesting.
http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/sketch16.html
As I said before, they can put MORE seats than current configs.
#132
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EWR
Posts: 373
I know there are many variables, but what is your honest opinion based on the seat pictured in the 1st reply. From what I have gaged with F/A's, they seem to like it. I know it is hard to decide from one picture though. Hopefully they will have a LOT more detail with the release tomorrow.
#133
Moderator: United MileagePlus
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
See post #99. Or this link:
http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/sketch16.html
As I said before, they can put MORE seats than current configs.
http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/sketch16.html
As I said before, they can put MORE seats than current configs.
#134
Moderator: United MileagePlus
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
So I did some research and here's what I came up with:
The "forward" zone (the area between the first door and the second) of the 773 and 772 are the same length - 10.32 meters - according to Boeing. And as we're ultimately talking about seating density w/r/t CO's 772s based on Thompson 773 schematics we'll need a common reference to compare these two different aircraft types, something that I think can be done with the "forward" zone as they're the same.
In CO's current 772 configuration they fit 32 J seats into "forward" zone. In the Thompson link we see them fitting in 35 J "Benz" seats into the same area (a net gain of 3 seats) so at first glance it would seem there's an efficiency to be realized.
However one thing to note: on 50J CO 777's there's a lav behind 5A/B and a closet behind 5K/L that are not present in the Thompson design (in their design there seem to be two lavs behind the second pair of doors, but nothing in front of them) and thus the question becomes - assuming this post so far is accurate - how would the Thompson capacity change for the forward zone of a 777 if their LOPAs included a lav and galley in front of the second pair of doors?
The "forward" zone (the area between the first door and the second) of the 773 and 772 are the same length - 10.32 meters - according to Boeing. And as we're ultimately talking about seating density w/r/t CO's 772s based on Thompson 773 schematics we'll need a common reference to compare these two different aircraft types, something that I think can be done with the "forward" zone as they're the same.
In CO's current 772 configuration they fit 32 J seats into "forward" zone. In the Thompson link we see them fitting in 35 J "Benz" seats into the same area (a net gain of 3 seats) so at first glance it would seem there's an efficiency to be realized.
However one thing to note: on 50J CO 777's there's a lav behind 5A/B and a closet behind 5K/L that are not present in the Thompson design (in their design there seem to be two lavs behind the second pair of doors, but nothing in front of them) and thus the question becomes - assuming this post so far is accurate - how would the Thompson capacity change for the forward zone of a 777 if their LOPAs included a lav and galley in front of the second pair of doors?
#135
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,190
My (speculative) guess is that they lose the last row of seats on the sides to make room for the lav/closet. That would bring the capacity down 3 seats to 32, which is exactly what it is now on the reconfigured aircraft.