That was the idea yes. Do you think this is just a seasonal config?! If so, they need to have J seats "standing by" somewhere if they want to alter it.



True, number of seats isn't the only metric. Admittedly it is very difficult to judge density from seat numbers, because a lot of other factors vary. Like number of toilets, bulkheads and what pitch the PE section has.

But QR has no PE at all, so they ought to be able to cram even more Y seats in, right? They fly J/36 Y/247. That is a whopping 59 seats less than the suggested new AY cabin.

My interest is mainly in the J section. If we compare number of seats between doors 1 and 2, we ought to get a somewhat reliable metric.
QR: 24 seats
SQ: 26 seats
VN: 30 seats
CX: 30 seats

compared to AY 32 seats.

While it is true that both TG and CI fly with 32 seats in this area, they are still less dense than AY, because AY has 2 toilets between doors 1 and 2, which neither TG nor CI has.


So if this new AY "MkII" cabin is only about moving comfort into minicabin and maximizing number if Y seats in the rest of the plane, they are not addressing the issues in J cabin.



Ooops, just compared Airbus' standard layout of 315 seats and realised AY flies with one toilet more than Airbus suggests. That might change if the ideas of optimization from the narrowbody fleet is applied to A350.