CO introduces new BusinessFirst seat

 
Old Jul 27, 2008, 2:45 pm
  #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!
Non-TypiCAL F/A is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 2:46 pm
  #122  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by Non-TypiCAL F/A
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!
I think that makes total sense.
rkkwan is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 4:26 pm
  #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.
Steph3n is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 4:27 pm
  #124  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: IAH, LGA or EWR
Programs: CO MM/Pt, SPG Pt, Marriott Au, others not worth mentioning
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by Steph3n
I don't see the advantage of packing more in on long haul when they are weight restricted anyway.....at least with most current seating you can have the benefit of a lay flat bed in Y if you don't have seatmates
If you are 4' 6".

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)!
CO_1mm is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 4:37 pm
  #125  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by CO_1mm
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)!

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?
bernardd is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 4:44 pm
  #126  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by bernardd
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?
Yes, but only 1 in 5 seats each row on the 772 will have that problem. And chances are those two people are traveling together.
rkkwan is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 5:26 pm
  #127  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EWR
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by Steph3n
They are redesigning the carts for lighter weight anyway.
I believe you may be referring to the beverage carts. This has already been implemented across the system.
Non-TypiCAL F/A is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 8:19 pm
  #128  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by rkkwan
Yes, but only 1 in 5 seats each row on the 772 will have that problem. And chances are those two people are traveling together.
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.
bernardd is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 9:26 pm
  #129  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CVG
Programs: UA-Silver; Hyatt Platinum; SPG Gold
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by bernardd
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.
Or travelling alone sitting in an aisle seat and having a complete stranger climb over me when I am sleeping.

These new seats are not looking all that great. I would have hoped for something better or more innovative from Continental.
TMOTEE is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 9:47 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by TMOTEE
These new seats are not looking all that great. I would have hoped for something better or more innovative from Continental.
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.
J.Edward is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 9:56 pm
  #131  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by J.Edward
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.
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.
rkkwan is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 10:06 pm
  #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.
Non-TypiCAL F/A is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 10:56 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by rkkwan
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.
Can it for a 772 (I don't know either way) as the link to Thompson is for a 773.
J.Edward is offline  
Old Jul 27, 2008, 11:39 pm
  #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?

Originally Posted by J.Edward
Can it for a 772 (I don't know either way) as the link to Thompson is for a 773.
J.Edward is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2008, 1:23 pm
  #135  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,190
Originally Posted by J.Edward
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?
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.
ijgordon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.