Rubecula

Airlines have to juggle price v density. Fewer seats should lead to higher prices. However, I suspect most passengers prefer a somewhat more crowded cabin in return for a lower price. I doubt BA will introduce a CW seat that significantly reduces the seat density.

itsmeitisss

Cups and saucers- I admire your optimism regarding service improvement due to fewer people. You don’t think that BA might review their staffing levels to keep it similar ratio as today?

also making it 2-2-2 doesn’t make it better in of itself. MH J is inferior to CW. I flew on A380. It wasn’t bad but it wasn’t better than BA. Service generally worse too.

WorldLux

Expect an evolution and keep expectations low. That way, you won't be disappointed if the changes are marginal.

Given that QR just recently launched a new J product in 2-4-2 (aka the "QSuites"), BA can get away with 2-4-2. 2-4-2 isn't necessarily bad.

FlyerTalker39574

simons1

You could throw another thousand people at it....it wouldn't sink the company after all.

And renumber as 1-2-1 so you have the same seats in the same space and the same numbering regime.

itsmeitisss

Mutu

again, sorry to be a pedant, least favourite does not mean BAD. It is patently not a bad product, it does everything it claims to do. it doent describe itself (Anymore) as the worlds only truly flat bed. ts never really publicised now as yes, it has competitive shortcomings. But given it sells very well ( or at least as well as it needs too) it aint yet broke!
In any event BA accept the shortcomings and are addressing them with the next generation seat, so it is rather redundant to be discussing an old product with a year to go to launch of its successor.

orbitmic

I actually completely agree with you that the number of seats across is a poor indicator of space. Indeed, it is interesting that with staggered designs like the JL Suites referenced upthreads, you could call them your choice of 2-4-2 or 1-2-1. I also fully agree that the fact that herringbones/reverse herringbones achieve a 1-2-1 means very little as the footprint thus realised largely depends on the angle. I have no disagreement at all with your point in your regards, quite the contrary.

That said, I do think that the BA layout feels more cramped than much of the competition. That's notwithstanding the fact that my main issue with CW is actually not space but what I ersonally feel is a bad lack of privacy in aisle seats (though window seats, on the other hand, are very private, at least when the divider is not out of order as was a case in one of my flights this month).

Moreover, I would make exactly the same point about vertical division. My personal sense is that exactly like the fact that width numbers tell very little about sense or nature of space, so does the fact that part of your space goes below the seat in front or not. With some designs, such as the old QR A330, it is an issue and unpleasant, with others, including the Cirrus seat on CX/AF/AA 77W etc, I really do not feel that it is to me at all. Conversely, I find it totally fine on forward facing staggered seats such as IB, OS, LX. With those, the foot area is actually ample and you'd need to move your foot upwards quite significantly to hit the bottom of the seat in front.

In that sense, I find FT's frequent reference to "seat coffins" quite a little melodramatic to be honest (but then, in fairness, I do have similar reservations about expressions like "lounge dragons", "best business class" to talk about BA F, or "prison food" to talk about, well, any airline food to be honest).

So in short, I am completely in agreement with you that 2-4-2 is absolutely not the right thing to look at, but I do think that CW is now below competition in my view, and that keeping the current CW seat albeit with access to all seats would not resolve that situation in my view, if only because it would actually improve the situation for those seats which already have the significant advantage of privacy, but not of the up to 75% of the cabin left which I find generally below much of the competition.

simons1

If you had read the previous handful of exchanges (see 531 and 553) you would have understood the irony in my post. But clearly I should have added a

Prospero

Q: 1-2-1 or 2-4-2?
A: Depends on how you number the seats!

itsmeitisss

My apologies for missing it...

13901

I know for sure that there are plans for a rather rapid roll-out on 777s and 380s, plus of course 350s. LHR only as far as I know. Not sure about 78Ks but I think they're still far off in the future so plans haven't been really made yet, or I haven't seen them. Definitely it all depends on how things go: if you have another Monarch going bust, another 787 debacle, then plans can fly out of the window.

With regards to First, I remember attending a forum where Cruz was in attendance, could've been Q1 results, could've been Q4 results. He was talking off-the-cuff, and he had that slide that talked about competitors. It showed Norwegian, EasyJet, someone else and Delta. In speaking about DL, he mentioned that our new Club seat "needs" to be offering what Delta's new suites do; he didn't say "will", but "needs", but I digress; he mentioned that First will remain, and that on the 350s and New CW planes it will be reviewed, to be in line with the one on the 789, plus little mods; however, he said that once they're done with CW, they'll need to have a long and hard look at First.

All this is my own recollection and not BA's opinion.

orbitmic

Actually, most airline research* concludes that premium class travel is relatively price inelastic and that fare is fairly low down the list of passengers priorities (and conversely that travel in Y is very price elastic and many passengers' primary concern).

* however flowed, in my view, in its methodology but that's another matter

FlyerTalker39574

rockflyertalk