They said they did when i went to Hanger9.

Me too, but in relation to my above post on objectivity, there is a big difference between:

• Being paid to test it - as against paying for it
• Being in a Hangar 9 with maybe 12(?) of these seats - as against being cooped up with another 47 PAX and traffic.

In any case, I am sure AirNZ are reviewing their Product Assurance Testing processes.

This indicates the Pitch for PE as 36" - they are packed with 7 rows along the windows/between bulkheads.

So that mean 6 x 36" for row 23 to row 29; equals 216".

Removing one row means that 216" needs to be divided by 5; giving 43". (In reality it will be a little less than that).

So up to an additional 7" (17cm) may be available by doing this. I wonder if this is enough.

Bear in mind that pitch doesn't take into account the fact that your legs are on a diagonal, so the effective seat pitch is several inches more. Though I guess when you recline, the sliding forward effect would mean that extra would be negated again.

If they remove a row, won't the seats and their footwells no longer line up properly? (I've not actually been in them myself, so apologies if that makes no sense.)

Going by the image linked to in post #123, I don't believe the footwells lined up in most cases. In fact reports are that 'talls' needed to contort their body to use the foot wells when trying to sleep.

I'm not sure I buy that the effective legroom is more. I can honestly state I felt I had more legroom in Y on a LH A320 recently than I did in U on the NZ 773.

You have such great comparisons that come from your frequent painful self-experiments.

Yep, that's me!

[Disclaimer: I tend not to participate on FlyerTalk forums for airlines we cover at Australian Business Traveller in order to avoid any appearance of commercial activity or marketing our posts. I figure that enough people read our stuff that if there's FT interest, it'll end up here anyway. I'm always willing to enter into conversations via PM here, or my Twitter and email are listed on every story I write for AusBT.]

As it happens, I've been poking Air NZ's media contacts about these rumours for a while. We'll see what comes of it.

At any rate, I'm not sure that the idea of pulling out a row really works on the 77W, since there are 7 rows in seats AB, 10 in DE and 8 in JK, so you'd end up with different pitch in each "column".

(Also: since I'm a choral singer, my German is mostly limited to being able to sing Lieder and Oratorio. Having just sung a Bach St Matthew Passion here in Wellington, the phrase "der Economy-Hölle" [the Economy Hell] tickles me something silly.)

Just being curious - Does that mean that, all things considered, you would rather fly a long-haul sector in Y on an LH A320 than in U on the NZ773?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9650; en-GB) AppleWebKit/534.1+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.431 Mobile Safari/534.1+)

No. What I wrote is that the LH Y product felt more spacious than NZ U product. I don't see the LH 320 doing long haul sectors any time soon.

I certainly would not pay for the new NZ U product again. If I'm going to be uncomfortable I may as well save several thousand dollars and sit in Y - on LH or QF or NZ or UA or whoever else.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9650; en-GB) AppleWebKit/534.1+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.431 Mobile Safari/534.1+)

No. What I wrote is that the LH Y product felt more spacious than NZ U product. I don't see the LH 320 doing long haul sectors any time soon.

I certainly would not pay for the new NZ U product again. If I'm going to be uncomfortable I may as well save several thousand dollars and sit in Y - on LH or QF or NZ or UA or whoever else.

Assuming the footwells line up properly, then the effective pitch must be more, as it's simple mathematics.

As for real world legroom, though, it's reduced by the 'every seat a bulkhead' effect. I absolutely detest bulkheads for that reason. Row 1 of business class on the A320 used to annoy me no end.

777 Tour
 

Had the opportunity to get onboard the 777 this week for a look and am sure I will just be repeating all that's said here, especially around the Premium Economy. Most seats felt very "enclosed" and the legroom was hopeless. One of the NZ people onboard said they have had lots of similar feedback and were considering how to improve the legroom issue. I am over 6ft tall and I was definitely more comfortable in Economy than PE. Business seemed ok though the overall impression of the aircraft was style over substance.

I can't see how. My knees were jammed against the footwell.

The engineers that designed the tray tables have since both departed from Altitude, and from what i've read that seems to be one of the issues with increasing the pitch by removing a row (along with alignment too)

So has anyone obtained definitive confirmation that NZ is removing a row of PE from the 773? At this stage I'm not sure if it's fact or just speculation...

Did they line up in the first place? It may not be easy:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/...07f70f06_z.jpg

Another mini-review/trip report posted here :

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-...s-premier.html

AirNZ will neither confirm or deny: "We've heard those rumours too" the spokesperson admitted, but refused to be drawn on the airline's plans: "There are always rumours doing the rounds regarding what airlines are and aren’t planning to do and I’m afraid we don’t comment on rumours."

From Air New Zealand coy on plans to increase Premium Economy legroom on new Boeing 777-300ER

[Disclosure: while the link provided is directly relevant to the question asked, and the answer is included in this message, in consideration of FT's community and terms of membership it's perhaps appropriate to disclose that I am the editor of the commercial site linked above]

Seem to still having work flow issues with meal service. Took 90 minutes after departure to get a drink. 60 minutes between starter plate removed and delivery of mains. The length of meal service made me wonder if NZ been taking tips from LH F. Not good for a late night departure. Ideally dinner/supper completed within 2 hours of takeoff so can get a decent sleep.

Thanks for the response... and NZ's non response. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

Interestingly enough last week when we flew Akld to Melb in the new 773, both economy and prem economy were packed to the rafters. Not one spare seat according to the FA.

While in Business there were only 5 other passengers, apart from my family of 4 travelling. Very empty. Made for great service, but still very empty up front.

I guess looking at it from AirNZ's point of view, why change something when people are still using that product?

I asked the FA if he had heard they were changing the PE seats soon to allow for more leg room? Unfortunately he hadn't but said the more people that supply feedback the better.

Well, we certainly learnt our lesson back in Jan when we did LA to Akld. Never again. Those PE seats look great, but the reality is they are awful.

Which BP cabin?
 

I have a run of long haul flights coming up and trying to decide which cabin to select the big or small one.

My limited impression seems to be smaller cabin nicer but later meal service and risk crying baby from BP and PE

Any experiences?

Bce

PE isn't sold on the Tasman, so people aren't using the product by choice - they're using it because it becomes "Space+" when the 773 operates those routes.

The metric is really customers on the long haul sectors, and whether they'd pay for it [again] - I wouldn't.

I think I could only stomach flying on the 773 if I was in BP. As soon as I had heard about the 3-4-3 config in Y I knew I wouldnt touch this place with a 10 foot bargepole. This, regardless of whatever cool new things they want to add.

Am just about to book a trip to the US and Sweden. While NZ could have gotten me the bulk of the way there other carriers will end up with my money. (They wont take as much either) I dont think NZ would mind, apparently they are always full anyway! ;)

Sad really, my first long haul in a while non NZ- and the 773 was the deciding factor.

I know that this is something of a cliché, but actually... we do mind: No airline that wishes to survive can afford to discard an excessive number of potential (or existing) customers. It's also worth remembering that airline profitability is as much about Yield as about Volume.

I just wonder a little about this decision. Clearly, it would be unwise to suggest that it is "wrong" in some way - Your perceptions are your own, and are therefore by definition, correct. But you should also beware. Internet Bulletin Boards are to a degree, like H24 TV News - they thrive on bad news and dissenting views rather than on the opposite. I am not, for a moment, suggesting that ANZ is perfect or that the product provided could not be "better" is a variety of ways. However, I believe that, as a package that includes the cabin, crew, aircraft, customer support, fare and overall culture, the product is generally superior (which is why I am proud to work for them). I can quite accept that others may disagree, but those who have flown on the aircraft are possibly in a better position to explain?

Hey dogs_ears_up. Thanks for engaging me here.

Mate, I gotta be honest. I used to love NZ with a passion. Would always support it- only not using when you guys couldn't get me to my final destination.
In fact for me the peak of my love affair with the company was 2005-2007-introduction of PE, IFE in Y, the AKL-HKG-LHR route. Lots of great new ideas while still maintaining a professional classy air.

My travel each year was a few TT's (CHC-SYD only), and a long haul in PE. In fact after my last PE trip two friends decided to try it because I wouldnt shut up about it.

Things went south for me very very quickly. Its S2S that changed my perception of the airline initially. You must agree the introduction of that was a dogs breakfast. It was confusing, continually tinkered with, the meals I bought werent a patch on the free one I got on the previous flights BUT worst of all was the reconfigured planes. Horrifyingly cramped new A320s. Immediately I decided all my future TT travel would go back to QF. Even though im in CHC and have limited schedule (one flight daily on a dinky 737-800) I am more than happy to forego IFE for more leg room, a decent meal- and the possibility to book business. After the flight from hell on a fully loaded A320 to Sydney- sorry wasnt fully loaded, but they had to bump about 10 pax off (why exactly I dont understand-where told too heavy????) I decided then and there that was it for all international travel on Air NZ for me. Decided I would never make a similar mistake flying Y long haul in a 10 seat row.
A 7.5 hour round trip was tough enough. No way in hell would I test the new plane with a 48 hour round trip to LHR when there's still a Stockholm and CHC leg on the end of each legs.

Bring back the 744 and you've got me back. I still do NZ domestic but really getting sick of Richard Simmons screaming at me first thing every Monday morning. Oh yeah scrap your marketing department too. Seems like the company is only interested in the twitface crowd. But thats another matter. Cheers man for putting up with my rant.

Keep doing what you are doing. Imo Air NZ has excellent staff, I do miss the crew, but you have idiots for managers. (Sorry I know you are all oblidged to worship you rock star ceo).

I really appreciate your responses and your engagement here. My perspective is, I don't need to fly 10 across in a 777 to know that it will suck, badly. I can look at the seat width and know that it is not going to work for me. Since I fly only economy because of my company's policy (unless I can get an upgrade), I won't fly the 773 because I can't be assured of getting one of the few decent Y seats. (If I could see the seat map before booking, I would be willing to take the 773 if I could get one of the seats with decent width.)

So I will fly Air NZ if I can manage an itinerary that doesn't involve a 773. Otherwise, I won't.

Thanks both for your courtesy (one of the benefits of this board!).

Random thoughts...

Would be nice, although in some areas the 74's were showing their age. In the end it's about money, nothing else - the cost savings of the 773 vs 744 are significant: Fuel is currently at a peak price and airlines are being badly damaged. To survive, we have to be efficient. Don't for a moment underestimate the combined effect of the CHC Earthquake, Japanese Market Meltdown and Middle-East driven Fuel Crisis - Times are hard and may get worse!

Personally, I am deeply embarrassed and uncomfortable with it and what's worse, I have to stand up in front of a lot of people and try not to let that show. I believe that I'm in a minority, so I see no point in complaining - what matters is not what I think, but how the customer thinks.

The thinking is that we can't compete with the massive Ad budgets of the International Major Carriers, so we have to be nimble and make the best use of what we have. Twitter/Facebook/YouTube are highly cost-effective media tools and if your video goes viral web-wide it's Christmas every day. Viral is great when it is because the content is witty or clever or even distinctive, but less impressive when controversy is the only apparent virtue.

One thing that I would raise in his defence is that I have worked for other airlines and under half a dozen CEO's, most of whom were uncharismatic, almost to invisibility and all of whom were unable to provide any coherent strategy and vision for their staff (and some couldn't even sustain profitability). I have seen bad and whatever reservations there may be about the 'Cult' stuff, I absolutely know which CEO I would rather work for.

In general, I assume that some of this will shake out over time. An airline that operated in a way that met the requirements of all customers all of the time would not last long - Neither would an airline that ignored the need of the customer completely and operated for its' own benefit. Life gets interesting somewhere around the middle of these two extremes where all parties involved seek to find the balancing point on the tightrope. My guesses for the future?

• 10 Abreast - will stay, and in fact become more common as other airlines also move that way barring some unforeseen tumble in fuel prices or a significant rise in the ability to extract meaningful yield from economy seats.
• Premium Economy Legroom - will be resolved somehow (but I don't know how or when)
• SkyCouch - will become more popular and more will be fitted over time (timescale unknown) making us effectively a four class airline.
• Rico/Simmonds - It will become appreciated that this kind of marketing is most popular with those that have the least money to spend (and least brand loyalty) and least popular with those that spend the most money with the airline. New Zealanders themselves will become concerned about how the perception of their country by foreigners is affected. Note: On this last one, I am the least confident and expect to be proven wrong!

NB: The views expressed above are personal and are not endorsed by or reflective of, those of Air New Zealand

These ridiculous safety videos are an excellent stunt, until such a time that they are actually played on the plane. If they have to use them on the plane:

• a week or two is long enough play time.
• these things need to be short - 2 minutes or so. These videos were under 3 minutes, whereas Fit to Fly and Crazy about Rugby are both 3 and a half minutes long. The Bare Essentials of Safety is about ten seconds shorter than that, but still longer than necessary.
• the background music needs to be quiet and monotonous so that it is easy enough to ignore if you are an expert in aircraft evacuation. The test is that it does not interfere with intensive reading of the Australian Financial Review.

• [*]

Add Snoop Dogg to that list. Why Air NZ would put its name alongside him is beyond me. Either they are completely stupid and ignorant about his background, or think 'our elites wont know who he is, they wont bother looking further, so we still look cool amongst the twitfacers.'

Apologies for the slight deviation. And also apologies for calling all Air NZ head managers idiots. I would not call Ed Simms an idiot. If anything I think he deserves the top job. (Unless of course he's responsible for rico ;) ).

As far as I know Ed Simms has left NZ. And I have wondered if that is significant bearing in mind all the (awful) changes recently.

Exactly. I'm not flying 10 abreast. Air NZ, if you want your elites who fly economy (which means A LOT of economy) to fly on the 773, you need to simply get your IT department to allow us to see the seat maps before booking. Period.

And remember that while EK does 10 abread, it has 34" pitch.

In the window where you select which flight you would like to book online, you can click on the flight number to show more details on the flight and in the window that opens, you will see the aircraft type. click on that and it shows a seat map of the flight.

Is that what you were after, or do you want to see which seats are available?

He wants to see the seatmap with open/allocated/blocked seats I would think

Exactly. There are only a few decent seats in Y on the 773. I'm not going to book a ticket with them unless I can see if those seats are open. I have a flight coming up with Air NZ - I routed it through strange routings because I could get the 772 and 747. If I hadn't been able to do that, I would have taken a different airline.

Where would IT find the time for that when they are busy making flight simulator games for facebook :p Does expert flyer allow you to see the seat maps before booking and are those seat maps accurate if there are any?

I know a bit about his replacement, Chris Luxon, very highly regarded in his previous roles.

This is a good question. Can any users of expert flyer answer the last two questions?

Yes it does, and it seems accurate based on my highly scientific sample of one test using NZ2 30JUN11 (only booking I have access to compare against the NZ website).