lost_in_translation

Sorry, I wasn't aware EK, EY and AF had re-domiciled to Asia.

JL J in Apex Suite format is more spacious than all of those in any case, with J being the topic of conversation here. JL Y is also more spacious from what I've heard (although not first hand experience). Only in F do any of those offer more space than JL, but that doesn't necessarily make them more premium airlines (I would take JL F over EK, NH and EY on any non-F Apartment route).

dylanks

cupsandsaucers

Fair point.

Although I would argue that EK and EY are certainly in Asia. Asia - Modern Asia | Map | StampWorldHistory
But splitting hairs here. I suppose I can see how JL could be considered "ultra premium" at a stretch. Still. Love their Apex seats in J. And they would be my number one pick for BA if I could choose.

rockflyertalk

Globaliser

If everyone were facing in the same direction, directly along the axis of the aircraft (ie either directly forwards or directly backwards) and everyone were sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, your point would be absolutely valid.

Once you change any of that, then you cannot adopt such a simplistic attitude. In addition, you have to think in three dimensions, not two - think of the way that other configurations store the feet of some passengers alongside the heads of the passengers in the row ahead.Let me give you one reason: If 2-4-2 means that I can continue to afford to fly in business class on a horizontal flat bed, I would be happy for BA to keep it.

If BA were to install a super-duper new CW seat that has the density of today's F, I am sure that lots of Internet reviewers and airline enthusiasts would be rushing to trumpet how fabulous the new seat is, and what a great leap forward this is for flying mankind. And all of that is completely useless to me personally if it means that I am once more sitting in WT+ because I can no longer afford to fly in CW. When one of my typical trips (which I typically do several times a year) is to fly to HKG on a Thursday or Friday night, spend two nights there, fly back to LHR and then go straight into the office, I would very much prefer to sit in a 2-4-2 configuration that I can afford. You'll forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about a whizz-bang CW seat that's at the top of other people's lists of "best business class seat" if I can't sit in it and I'm upright again all night for two nights out of four on every such trip.

So as far as I am concerned, if CW were to remain at 2-4-2 but have direct aisle access, I'd be content. I'm primarily in a CW seat so that I can get from A to B, asleep.

cupsandsaucers

And why does your ticket price have to go up? BA are well in profit and have publicly said that their tired J product has to modernise to compete.
You can have better J at the same price without sinking the company.

tedcruz

Cruz said that F will have to change with the new CW.

Globaliser

Would you like to buy a bridge?

dodgeflyer

If BA are making x profits with y product, and product z reduces x, why would you do that? It makes nil financial sense, even if you justify it invests in customer loyalty. Say what you will, but the market has clearly shown that customer loyalty in the airline industry is not a contributing factor to profits.

You may think what you want about the BA seat, but never forget that BA controls the hub of one of the wealthiest markets in the world, with what I would argue to have the highest number of flights on the highest yielding routes. As such, BA doesn't need world-leading in order to make profits.

cupsandsaucers

Yes please. I want this one. Specifically this one. definitely the one in the picture OK.

orbitmic

Isn't there a bit tension between the two arguments though? I mean, either the argument is "BA J is not really any denser than competitors" or it is "BA J is denser but that allows it to keep prices lower", but it seems hard to merge the two into "BA J is not any denser than competitors but that [non-existent] additional density allows for lower fares"!

As for the three dimensions, while it is very important to note that all three exist, it is also important to note that many of us feel that they are not equal.

notakeenflyer

That 3rd dimension could be put to great use. If you really just want to sleep, why do you need so much space between seat/bed surface and aircraft ceiling? Club Bunk Beds - It's the natural evolution of the 'foot coffin'.

andrelux

been done before

Globaliser

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that there are no other J cabins that are less dense than current CW. The point is simply that looking at the numbers "2-4-2" in isolation is a misleading and inaccurate approach, because that in itself doesn't say anything either about density or about the amount of personal space. We all hope for some of the less desirable bits of CW to be removed in the next iteration, which will probably mean a less dense cabin - but its specious to suggest that BA must ditch 2-4-2 simply because it's 2-4-2.

I think that one interesting exercise might be this. Take a BA 380 upper deck CW cabin. Imagine that everyone is an average sized adult lying fully flat and horizontal. Take any head in the middle of the cabin and draw a transverse line through it across the full width of the cabin. Count the total number of heads and pairs of feet that the line crosses. Then take an EK 380 upper deck business class cabin and do the same exercise.So you don't like wedgie seats either, then?

cupsandsaucers

Unfortunately rows is across is the only industry standard measure we have to go on.
I agree it would be much more realistic to go with square cm per pax or something like that.