Premium Economy mini-Reviews
Apr 11, 2007, 5:23 pm
#91
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,984
2-4-2 in Y+ on the 777 would suffice - every passenger would be one seat from the aisle and there would be enough space to have increase the seat width by less than an inch to match the 747, while also adding an four or so inch's onto each armrest that is shared between two passengers (and of course the seat cushion here can go in under the armrest a bit [depending on the design]).
The likelihood of them doing that seems very low though - as they would have to replace all the seats, shift a bulkhead, and would end up with two less seats onboard as a result.
The likelihood of them doing that seems very low though - as they would have to replace all the seats, shift a bulkhead, and would end up with two less seats onboard as a result.
Apr 12, 2007, 1:39 am
#92
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Programs: QF WP, NZ G
Posts: 291
If Air NZ were to increase the number of rows and change the seating to 2-3-2 or some other configuration, then I would consider trying again.
(not sure about a 2-4-2 configuration ntddevsys, as a block of 4 seats sounds like, hmm, economy!)
Apr 12, 2007, 4:03 am
#93
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: Hertz PC, QF Plat, Velocity Gold, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,803
2-4-2 not that appealing, sounds worse than economy!
2-3-2 would be the limit in my books
I would be interested to see the bookings and then actual loads on the MEL-YVR flight in Y+. Again for the price difference and the currenty 777 set-up it just doesn't add up in my books
2-3-2 would be the limit in my books
I would be interested to see the bookings and then actual loads on the MEL-YVR flight in Y+. Again for the price difference and the currenty 777 set-up it just doesn't add up in my books
Apr 12, 2007, 5:18 am
#94
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,984
hmm... well it is still economy. However one less seat across would add to the percieved value, would add to comfort as large wide armrests could be installed, seat cushions could be wider. Furthermore it would be better than the current 747 offering, but not quite a United Business Class seat. I don't follow the logic that it sounds worse than economy.
You can't expect them to knock out four seats and cut the price at the same time
You can't expect them to knock out four seats and cut the price at the same time
2-4-2 would be more workable, but moving the bulkhead would be a fair large tast and unlikely to be done!
Apr 13, 2007, 12:47 am
#96
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Programs: QF WP, NZ G
Posts: 291
It is supposed to be more than economy, especially for the extra cost. Economy on the 777 is 3-3-3, so it has to be better than that, IMO, which is why 2-3-2 would be better.
Of course the extra leg room is great in PE.
Happy to pay the current price for PE.
I also believe that the 2-row cabin for PE is a joke. It looks very restrictive, sardines in a can
To be honest, I have only used BP on the 777 and not used PE. On the 744, PE upstairs is fine and have used it lots (right side of plane only though).
Of course the extra leg room is great in PE.
You can't expect them to knock out four seats and cut the price at the same time
I also believe that the 2-row cabin for PE is a joke. It looks very restrictive, sardines in a can
To be honest, I have only used BP on the 777 and not used PE. On the 744, PE upstairs is fine and have used it lots (right side of plane only though).
Apr 13, 2007, 1:14 am
#97
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: Hertz PC, QF Plat, Velocity Gold, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,803
It is supposed to be more than economy, especially for the extra cost. Economy on the 777 is 3-3-3, so it has to be better than that, IMO, which is why 2-3-2 would be better.
Of course the extra leg room is great in PE.
Happy to pay the current price for PE.
I also believe that the 2-row cabin for PE is a joke. It looks very restrictive, sardines in a can
To be honest, I have only used BP on the 777 and not used PE. On the 744, PE upstairs is fine and have used it lots (right side of plane only though).
Of course the extra leg room is great in PE.
Happy to pay the current price for PE.
I also believe that the 2-row cabin for PE is a joke. It looks very restrictive, sardines in a can
To be honest, I have only used BP on the 777 and not used PE. On the 744, PE upstairs is fine and have used it lots (right side of plane only though).
As for the 777, Air NZ designed it with lower yeild routes in mind, but seems to have made it onto other routes in the meantime, but Air NZ are going back to the 744 on the AKL-LHR route, due to lack of PE and Business seating from what I have heard/read.
For the non-experienced traveller, assuming they are a pair/couple, it would be a very different experience being on the 777 versus the 744.
All we can do it give more and more feedback to Air NZ about the dislike of the current 777 and hope that it improves. However, the only real way it would change is if Air NZ can see that more money would be made by either:
Changing the seat pitch/width/layout on the 777
Reducing the fares on the 777 in PE
In order to remove 4 seats and leave the current PE setup, it would result in an increase in the current PE pricing, which is not desirable
Apr 13, 2007, 1:03 pm
#98
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,315
I wonder how much of this is self-fulfilling? Where both aircraft exist on a popular route, and where pax considering PE or BP are probably more aware of seat configurations, those pax are deliberately choosing the 747 over the 777. This makes PE appear more popular on the 747, so they add more seats, which makes it more popular again.
Apr 13, 2007, 10:02 pm
#99
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,984
I wonder how much of this is self-fulfilling? Where both aircraft exist on a popular route, and where pax considering PE or BP are probably more aware of seat configurations, those pax are deliberately choosing the 747 over the 777. This makes PE appear more popular on the 747, so they add more seats, which makes it more popular again.
Regardless of the average yield of the route the aircraft operates passengers still have a choice. And there will be some that spend a 13 hour flight clashing elbows with the person next to them, and will decide - no, not worth the 83 % premium next time (even if the next route they want to fly is operated by a 747).
You imply that 2-4-2 is no better than 3-3-3?
Apr 14, 2007, 12:45 am
#100
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Programs: QF WP, NZ G
Posts: 291
Not at all.
When one looks at a seat map for the 777, one sees 3-3-3 for both E and PE. So what extra is one gaining in PE, no obvious seat width advantage? To have 2-3-2 would look more appealing, and would be so if the PE seat was wider. The 2-4-2 would have the advantage of better aisle access, as you pointed out.
I also think there would be significant marketing advantages in a 3-2-3 configuration. Market perception of increased space is important. Even if the PE seat wasn't wider in a 2-3-2 configuration, giving the impression of space can easily persuade people to pay the extra for PE. This is also why I suggested increasing the number of rows to make a bigger PE cabin.
A challenge for Air NZ (marketing maybe): PE is supposed to be a premium product, so create the reality that it is "premium economy", worth the extra $ on the 777.
I suspect that if PE was re-configured in the 777 then uptake would likely increase, as is the case on the 744.
When one looks at a seat map for the 777, one sees 3-3-3 for both E and PE. So what extra is one gaining in PE, no obvious seat width advantage? To have 2-3-2 would look more appealing, and would be so if the PE seat was wider. The 2-4-2 would have the advantage of better aisle access, as you pointed out.
I also think there would be significant marketing advantages in a 3-2-3 configuration. Market perception of increased space is important. Even if the PE seat wasn't wider in a 2-3-2 configuration, giving the impression of space can easily persuade people to pay the extra for PE. This is also why I suggested increasing the number of rows to make a bigger PE cabin.
A challenge for Air NZ (marketing maybe): PE is supposed to be a premium product, so create the reality that it is "premium economy", worth the extra $ on the 777.
I suspect that if PE was re-configured in the 777 then uptake would likely increase, as is the case on the 744.
Apr 14, 2007, 6:11 am
#101
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,984
When one looks at a seat map for the 777, one sees 3-3-3 for both E and PE. So what extra is one gaining in PE, no obvious seat width advantage? To have 2-3-2 would look more appealing, and would be so if the PE seat was wider. The 2-4-2 would have the advantage of better aisle access, as you pointed out.
I also think there would be significant marketing advantages in a 3-2-3 configuration. Market perception of increased space is important. Even if the PE seat wasn't wider in a 2-3-2 configuration, giving the impression of space can easily persuade people to pay the extra for PE. This is also why I suggested increasing the number of rows to make a bigger PE cabin.
I also think there would be significant marketing advantages in a 3-2-3 configuration. Market perception of increased space is important. Even if the PE seat wasn't wider in a 2-3-2 configuration, giving the impression of space can easily persuade people to pay the extra for PE. This is also why I suggested increasing the number of rows to make a bigger PE cabin.
One thing I really like aboard the single-aisle aircraft with conventional seats is the great big fat 20cm or so wide centre armrest - it would add to the percieved greatness of the product if every shared arm-rest in premium economy was like that. Plus the seat cushion could be widened slightly too (to bring it up to the 747 level - the 747 seat cushion is only 3 or 4 cm narrower than the J one, on the A320), while only dropping one seat.
Of course the likihood of this happening is very very low... instead of making changes to the seat when the extended the cabin on the 747 they just changed the menu, but I digress...
Apr 14, 2007, 4:18 pm
#102
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Programs: QF WP, NZ G
Posts: 291
Apr 15, 2007, 3:05 pm
#103
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7
First Pe Trip
Also 1st NZ flight so this is just our general opinion.
We departed LAX 31 March on NZ5 747. Check in @ BP check in was quick with the only problem not being able to get our boarding pass from AKL to MEL. Going through security at LAX is a nightmare at best. Complete confusion, TSA was really chaotic. Once boarded, we sat in seats 22 JK LAX/AKL. The extra leg room is nice, but not having room to store carry on bags is not great. Service on this flight was super, all FA were efficient and pleasant, food and wine was plentiful and good. The AVOD was nice to have and worked with no problems. BP and PE upstairs at least were both full. On landing in AKL we were held on the runway due to some security problem in the terminal, but managed to catch our 777 flight NZ7 to MEL. I have to agree that the PE on this aircraft is somewhat lacking. We had seats 23AB but no one in C so we had plenty of room except for the bulkhead which limited leg room. Food on this flight was pretty basic. I also agree that I would not pay extra again for PE in a 777 until improvements are made. Going through customs, etc. at MEL was a breeze. Only issue: one of my bags did not make it. Seems it was left behind in LAX. I did receive it 2 days later.
Side Note: we had a wonderful time in Melbourne and surrounding area visiting my daughter and son-in-law. What a nice place. Getting through security at MEL was actually pleasant, a much better experience then LAX.
Going home we were lucky to have access to the NZ lounge in MEL. A very nice place to spend our waiting time. The flight to AKL NZ8 on 777 was similar to other 777 flight over, competent but not outstanding. After a short wait in AKL airport, we boarded NZ6 747 and this time sat downstairs in row 29AC. This area does feel a bit more cramped then upstairs, but not overly so. Service again was efficient but food was not quite as good as the flight over, and AVOD worked with no problems. This flight also seemed to be full. I saw no empty seats. My personal choice would be PE upstairs in JK seats. For a short flight I do not think the extra cost of PE is worth it in a 777. NZ does need to look at improving this area. But in general, I would not complain much, as we had to fly on CRJ-200 UAL from Oregon to Calif. and back. Talk about cramped seating. But, flights were short and crew very nice. As we live in the valley of Oregon, we usually have to fly smaller aircraft to get anywhere. Not having flown the pacific area before, I have no way to compare, but I was pleased with NZ and would fly again anytime.
We departed LAX 31 March on NZ5 747. Check in @ BP check in was quick with the only problem not being able to get our boarding pass from AKL to MEL. Going through security at LAX is a nightmare at best. Complete confusion, TSA was really chaotic. Once boarded, we sat in seats 22 JK LAX/AKL. The extra leg room is nice, but not having room to store carry on bags is not great. Service on this flight was super, all FA were efficient and pleasant, food and wine was plentiful and good. The AVOD was nice to have and worked with no problems. BP and PE upstairs at least were both full. On landing in AKL we were held on the runway due to some security problem in the terminal, but managed to catch our 777 flight NZ7 to MEL. I have to agree that the PE on this aircraft is somewhat lacking. We had seats 23AB but no one in C so we had plenty of room except for the bulkhead which limited leg room. Food on this flight was pretty basic. I also agree that I would not pay extra again for PE in a 777 until improvements are made. Going through customs, etc. at MEL was a breeze. Only issue: one of my bags did not make it. Seems it was left behind in LAX. I did receive it 2 days later.
Side Note: we had a wonderful time in Melbourne and surrounding area visiting my daughter and son-in-law. What a nice place. Getting through security at MEL was actually pleasant, a much better experience then LAX.
Going home we were lucky to have access to the NZ lounge in MEL. A very nice place to spend our waiting time. The flight to AKL NZ8 on 777 was similar to other 777 flight over, competent but not outstanding. After a short wait in AKL airport, we boarded NZ6 747 and this time sat downstairs in row 29AC. This area does feel a bit more cramped then upstairs, but not overly so. Service again was efficient but food was not quite as good as the flight over, and AVOD worked with no problems. This flight also seemed to be full. I saw no empty seats. My personal choice would be PE upstairs in JK seats. For a short flight I do not think the extra cost of PE is worth it in a 777. NZ does need to look at improving this area. But in general, I would not complain much, as we had to fly on CRJ-200 UAL from Oregon to Calif. and back. Talk about cramped seating. But, flights were short and crew very nice. As we live in the valley of Oregon, we usually have to fly smaller aircraft to get anywhere. Not having flown the pacific area before, I have no way to compare, but I was pleased with NZ and would fly again anytime.
Apr 16, 2007, 1:32 am
#104
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellington, Melbourne
Programs: AirNZ Gold Elite, Qantas Bronze, United Mileage Plus, Virgin Blue Velocity, Accor Advantage Plus,
Posts: 503
I was booked Y on NZ 8 MEL - AKL yesterday on a 777, and as I normally leave using my complementary upgrades to the last moment, I have missed using them, so I decided to upgrade and roadtest PY in view of the comments on this thread, and hopefully make a useful contribution. Unfortunately (?) PY was full, and I was bumped up to Business Premium.
I did have a quick look at PY, and indeed it does appear to be rather cramped.
OT, however I had the opportunity to revisit Business Premium, which I did on a SIN - MEL flight last year. I have to say that for a day flight, the leg room left something to be desired ( I am 6ft 1 in the old measure) For overnight flights however, it would still be unbeatable. The service was excellent, although the wine selection was very limited.
I did business both ways, and I will post the menus and some comments on the thread in this forum relating to food.
I did have a quick look at PY, and indeed it does appear to be rather cramped.
OT, however I had the opportunity to revisit Business Premium, which I did on a SIN - MEL flight last year. I have to say that for a day flight, the leg room left something to be desired ( I am 6ft 1 in the old measure) For overnight flights however, it would still be unbeatable. The service was excellent, although the wine selection was very limited.
I did business both ways, and I will post the menus and some comments on the thread in this forum relating to food.
Apr 18, 2007, 6:14 am
#105
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,338
Mr Sydney.... thanks for the info about 747's doing BOTH AKL-LAX flights from October... that explains (presumably) why their website lists that aircraft for NZ 2.. rather than the expected 777..
Hope that IS the case on 2 Oct!!!
I booked PE on NZ 2 and NZ 1 in a fit of madness it seems.. (WHY didn't I think!!! )..
If that means we only have the 777 coming home then that is an improvement.. thought we had it both ways! (Why didn't I book the 747!!!.. think I might change the booking........ as I am escorting my dear old Mum on this trip the $$$ penalties are less important than the comfort...
I travelled upstairs in PE before the upgrade of food service.. and was very comfortable...
Travelled over last month in 30A... and loved the seat and "cabin" (felt very private indeed.. 8 seats)! Food service was much improved too.. the "champagne or orange juice" on boarding came as a surprise (I didn't know about the new menu's etc...)
Staff were mainly older men.. as someone else here experienced.. but very competent and helpful... friendly if engaged in conversation.. quiet and "butler-like" otherwise. I was impressed.. but then I generally have been with ANZ onboard staff....
For me it'll be the 747... in the main deck PE "cabin" from now on...
Although I DID get a standby upgrade coming home in the 777 last month (see.. it CAN happen
) and that was ... "rather nice".... so I'll be putting in for that each time... never know your luck!
And a question!!! Seriously... which PE seats should I request on the 777 flight???? (Just in case I can't change flights) All opinions welcome!
Thanks!
Hope that IS the case on 2 Oct!!!
I booked PE on NZ 2 and NZ 1 in a fit of madness it seems.. (WHY didn't I think!!!
)..If that means we only have the 777 coming home then that is an improvement.. thought we had it both ways! (Why didn't I book the 747!!!.. think I might change the booking........ as I am escorting my dear old Mum on this trip the $$$ penalties are less important than the comfort...
I travelled upstairs in PE before the upgrade of food service.. and was very comfortable...
Travelled over last month in 30A... and loved the seat and "cabin" (felt very private indeed.. 8 seats)! Food service was much improved too.. the "champagne or orange juice" on boarding came as a surprise (I didn't know about the new menu's etc...)
Staff were mainly older men.. as someone else here experienced.. but very competent and helpful... friendly if engaged in conversation.. quiet and "butler-like" otherwise. I was impressed.. but then I generally have been with ANZ onboard staff....
For me it'll be the 747... in the main deck PE "cabin" from now on...
Although I DID get a standby upgrade coming home in the 777 last month (see.. it CAN happen
) and that was ... "rather nice".... so I'll be putting in for that each time... never know your luck!And a question!!! Seriously... which PE seats should I request on the 777 flight???? (Just in case I can't change flights) All opinions welcome!
Thanks!