televisor

Or they could just, you know, design a seat that fits?

The XWB designation is relative to the "widebody" A330/340. Extra width, as the customers requested.

Other airlines don't seem to be having these issues after all. (Ok, they chose seats that are badly constructed, but at least have enough space. Seat choice is still the airlines job regardless.)

Maxxis

I concur wholeheartedly . Although SQ is superior in the on-board service and catering aspect, for the hard product I would pick the CX A330 long haul J seats over any SQ J configuration. I enjoyed the food and beverages on my latest flight to Dubai via SIN but had a hard time finding a comfortable sleeping position as I am 183cm tall and over 90 kg. Although I jumped ship to SQ after the massive CX Marco Polo "enhancements" earlier this year, this bad J product is making me to rethink whether going back to CX for my business travels, or just stick with PEY on SQ since the business seat is clearly subpar.

crazycrab955

Put another way: if the aircraft is so small that the J seats -- which fit just fine in the 77W -- do not work properly, maybe it was the wrong choice of aircraft. Why SQ would choose to go to a smaller, more cramped aircraft vs 77W for their long-haul flights is just baffling.

And as for the XWB designation being just to distinguish it relative to the A330, I must have missed that asterisk. Airbus' marketing has been squarely aimed at Boeing, and they have managed to convince an unsuspecting public that the A350 is bigger and more comfortable than the 777. But since we are now in a post-truth era in the world, perhaps they were just ahead of the times.

televisor

It's clear you have an axe to grind, but I'll do my best to humour you.

I'm guessing you think SQ should never have gotten rid of the 747 (and blocked off the top deck for being too narrow) by that reasoning? And should not have ordered the 787, and should get rid of their A330s immediately?

Ultimately, it's entirely the airlines fault for not designing seats well, because it's possible to have good seats in this plane (just ask the other airlines that operate the A350), and good seats on any plane, as long as the airline puts some effort in. Shoehorning seats in doesn't work, as is obvious here.

The Airbus marketing, for Y at least, is that the seats are wider than the comparable Boeings. And that's true, A350 (and A330) Y seats are wider than the equivalent 787 and 777 seats that the vast majority of airlines are buying (bar the few existing 777s with 3-3-3 seating, which are going away rapidly). It was specifically designed to not allow the torture qualities of those aforementioned 787/777s. There's nothing about the cabin being wider at shoulder level, it's about the cabin being more pleasant.

And the plane will have better pressure and air quality than the 777, so with a good seat there is no doubt it would be a better experience. You've just go to choose the right airline for that though.

demue

The seat comfort deficiencies are not unique to the A350 ad others shared. Better Pitch of the seat can be accommodated on the A350, but at the cost of a row or of J or impact on PEY or Y seating.

crazycrab955

Not at all. It is just that the aircraft has been massively hyped by SQ and Airbus, and I found it a disappointment. The seats are just part of the problem.

Haha, nope. I love the 747 but it is well past its prime. And the upper deck was fine -- it was usually 2-2 arrangement. I'd be fine to see the A330s depart, but given that they were essentially gifted to SQ for free due to the A380 EIS debacle, they will be around for some time to come. I am happy with the 787 for regional flying, but I would not look forward to it on a long-haul any more than the A350.

I want to be clear that I think you've made very good points. I assume the A350 would be acceptable as an aircraft if it were fitted with more "conventional" J-class seating; however, SQ does not use conventional J seating such as herringbone or others, and that is in fact their selling point and differentiation vs competition. I am not sure how they are going to be able to find a seat which provides at least the same level of space as their current 2013 J seat, but which fits within the A350 cabin.

That's where they are now: stuck between shoehorning their signature J seat into a cabin that is not big enough for it, or choosing a new, more conventional J seat to fit which, even if generally better than their 2013 J, will present a marketing challenge for them as it will look like a step backward.

Of course, if they eventually purchase the 777X to be the backbone of their long-haul fleet, these problems will disappear.

Troopers

Anyone flown in row 11 or 19?

shgroamer

I was about to say as well, does the legroom story change in bulkhead? I'm in row 11 SFO-SIN coming up

Thunderroad

Useful discussion. As someone who stands 6'2" and was considering purchasing a J seat on the A350 SIN-SFO flight, this is good to know. Thanks, OP.

Troopers

Yes, it's much better in row 11 and 19 per TPG:

http://thepointsguy.com/2016/10/wher...usiness-class/

I'm looking for more opinions of rows 11 and 19.

shgroamer

saw that, wondering why 19 over 11...maybe 19 has a bigger bench because of bassinet space?

SgtSweetchuck

I think it's because the fuselage tapers in closer to the nose and the seat/bench is slightly narrower.
I'm 193cm 6'4 and flying SIN-SFO return at Xmas so will let you all know. I manage to secure row 11 both ways. Lucky me.

shgroamer

Thanks in advance. I am 6'3 so interested to hear your thoughts.

demue

You are making the assumption that a bigger aircraft (fuselage) would be used by SQ to increase the pitch of the seat (simplistically speaking without considering what pitch this seat model actually could be stretched to without significant changes to its construction). I would not count on that too boldly as the question from a revenue optimization perspective would likely be increased pitch over additional row(s) of seat(s) in either J, PEY or Y.

YMMV.

crazycrab955

Actually, no, I am not. Fuselage width and cross-section have nothing to do with pitch.

My objection to the seat is not the pitch, it is the narrowness and modifications that have been made to fit it into the A350 fuselage.

The 2013 J seats, in my opinion, are great in the current 77W. I am relatively tall but have never had an issue with the 2013 (or 2006) J seat pitch, whether it be 77W, A380, or the A350. Since the 777X is going to be even more ample in terms of interior space, it stands to reason that the existing seats would fit without issue. Of course, by the time of 777X EIS, I am sure SQ will have opted for a new J seat.

This thread is a bit confusing because multiple, independent, and unrelated objections have been raised about the A350 J experience: some are complaining about pitch, some are complaining about width, some are complaining about modifications to the J seat, and some about the aircraft's narrow interior space.