Originally Posted by
scnzzz
1. IFE
2. The footrest really doesn't make for an integral flat bed, and is pretty flimsy
3. Lumpy hard bits right under the seat cushion right about where my butt goes...not terribly pleasant for long periods - maybe that's just age showing but I've had it more than once
4. Flimsy tray tables - even a light laptop makes the darn thing list appreciably
5. Questionable aisle access for non aisle seats (you're climbing over someone regardless)
6. 2-4-2. Really? Let's see, who else does that? Oh yeah. United.
1. Updated on most 777's, and will be on A380 and 787's.
2. The width of the footrest is good though, and in flat bed mode better than having a cubby-hole to squeeze your feet into.
4. Agree
5. Agree
6. Just looking at how many seats fit across the plane is half the picture. Other carriers may have only 4 across but more front-back (smaller seat pitch).
CW seats are not angled across the cabin like a lot of J seats on other carriers, combined with the ying-yang seating it makes them quite efficient at using the full width of the cabin.
It is a fair compromise I think.
Originally Posted by
simonrp84
Sorry if I'm a bit slow, but would I be right in saying that: On the new A320s there is absolutely no difference between the CE seats and the front rows of ET aside from the guaranteed free middle seat? No extra legroom?
If so, can someone remind me why it'd ever be worth paying for CE?
Yes if you can guarantee yourself as being in the forward part of ET then the seats are physically the same as CE. But there is no way to guarantee this. The physical seat is not the whole CE offering. That said, the whole offering may not be 'worth' it to you, but to some people it is.