Community
Wiki Posts
Search

New Club World (Genuinely something new)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 6, 2016, 3:45 am
  #121  
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,213
Originally Posted by phol
This new CW is definitely an improvement, but its really not a big one. And chief of all, is this it for the next 10 years?
We know with a reasonable amount of certainty it will be fitted to the A350s when they begin to arrive in 2018 but it is unclear if it will be rolled out across the existing fleet or the 787-10s whenever they arrive. Alex Cruz has publicly expressed he would like to see a more revolutionary update applied to the existing fleet but that could be years away unless BA opts for an off-the-shelf product from B/E Aerospace or Zodiac.
Prospero is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 4:05 am
  #122  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,771
Originally Posted by john205
I can imagine increasing WT+ with a 8 seat reduction in CW might not be seen as too much of a detriment as WT+ is often oversold and it may mean less involuntary upgrades required..
On the other hand, if the super-J 747 is anything to go, BA is looking to increase the number/proportion of CW seats on its aircraft. This is in contrast to most airlines which are reducing overall J/F seats in new configurations.

It will be interesting to see the numbers on BA's A350 as compared to CX, QR etc.
Ldnn1 is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 4:36 am
  #123  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Prospero
It is pretty clear to me that the Mark III designation relates to the history of the yin-yang flat bed concept. Mark I = 2000 CW (the original NCW), Mark II = 2006 CW, and Mark III = 2018 CW seat


Speculation Alert!

I’m having some fun, exploring the possibilities of how this seat might be arranged whilst using my imagination to fill the information gap on how the window seat bed might be achieved.


This diagram is a product of the Prospero Skunk Works and should not be regarded as the final arrangement

Looking at the two options: [A] the standard yin-yang arrangement we are all familiar with, and [B] a modified arrangement with seat pairs mirrored at alternate rows, it would seem in very broad terms option B might produce a marginal efficiency compared to option A.
I like option B more, as it looks like it could be possible for cabin crew to serve the window seats directly from the isle more easily than they could in A. Although that would depend to some extent on the size and nature of that divider at the foot end.

FWIW, I really like the look of this seat. It's easy to "solve" the problem of cabin density already by booking F is that is what you want. As a viable business class product, a private window seat with direct isle access, no foot coffin and some sensible storage is great. Of course, the catering also needs a bit of sprucing up but as far as the seat goes, it looks pretty good (but then we do have the QR suites in J to look forward to - they will up the game considerably!).

What it will mean is that window seats will be much preferable to isle seats. With the main problem of the window seat gone, why would anybody book the shorter, less private isle seats over a window seat?
Bluebirdnick is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 4:46 am
  #124  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA Blue
Posts: 335
It's sort of a more dense version of Oman Air's 787s: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oma...Boeing_787.php
lots@LHR is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 4:53 am
  #125  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: Some
Posts: 5,257
Originally Posted by lots@LHR
It's sort of a more dense version of Oman Air's 787s: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oma...Boeing_787.php
A.k.a. the Apex suite, as also used in JL's current flagship J - http://beaerospace.com/products/seat...st-class/apex/

If BA were willing to drop just a little bit further in terms of density this is absolutely what they should have gone for. Then again, the seat is pretty much equivalent in space terms to 747 F, so it probably doesn't make sense for BA at all in terms of product differentiation at the moment.
lost_in_translation is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 5:32 am
  #126  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Gold, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,546
Originally Posted by Bluebirdnick

What it will mean is that window seats will be much preferable to isle seats. With the main problem of the window seat gone, why would anybody book the shorter, less private isle seats over a window seat?
Maybe they will block some window seats for SCH and GCHs?
Gomac is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 5:59 am
  #127  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,771
Originally Posted by Gomac
Maybe they will block some window seats for SCH and GCHs?
And maybe some isle seats for those connecting from IOM?
Ldnn1 is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 6:04 am
  #128  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 935
Originally Posted by Gomac
Maybe they will block some window seats for SCH and GCHs?
Hopefully. The lack of privacy in the middle seats in CW is sufficient to stop me booking BA.

I am not really sure about all this talk about the privacy in the window seats. Just what are people getting up to. The cirrus 1-2-1 is far preferrable in terms of overall privacy (if maybe not density).
strichener is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 6:12 am
  #129  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Gold, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,546
Originally Posted by strichener
Hopefully. The lack of privacy in the middle seats in CW is sufficient to stop me booking BA.

I am not really sure about all this talk about the privacy in the window seats. Just what are people getting up to. The cirrus 1-2-1 is far preferrable in terms of overall privacy (if maybe not density).
Haha! for me the privacy of the window seats means I feel secluded and can sleep better rather than feeling exposed on the aisle.
Gomac is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 6:51 am
  #130  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,134
Originally Posted by lots@LHR
It's sort of a more dense version of Oman Air's 787s: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oma...Boeing_787.php
That appears to suffer from something fixed (the IFE screen etc.) overhanging of the foot area which this BA design doesn't. It's admittedly nothing like as bad as the Cirrus but it's still there and a turn off for me.
Jimmie76 is online now  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 7:00 am
  #131  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: Some
Posts: 5,257
Originally Posted by Jimmie76
That appears to suffer from something fixed (the IFE screen etc.) overhanging of the foot area which this BA design doesn't. It's admittedly nothing like as bad as the Cirrus but it's still there and a turn off for me.
I've only flown the JL rather than the WY version, but that has a small shelf over your feet that's too high to notice. The overall sleeping space is significantly bigger than CW, and it doesn't taper your feet at all, so still possible to move and turnover easily, etc.

Photo I took to demonstrate:
lost_in_translation is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 7:04 am
  #132  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
Originally Posted by Jimmie76
That appears to suffer from something fixed (the IFE screen etc.) overhanging of the foot area which this BA design doesn't. It's admittedly nothing like as bad as the Cirrus but it's still there and a turn off for me.
Cirrus isn't really a single design in that respect. Depending on the aircraft its fitted to the foot coffin can be exactly that, or in some applications you can move your legs pretty freely in any direction.
1010101 is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 7:55 am
  #133  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by mtkeller
It's really a shame that the deplorable storage situation doesn't appear to have improved much. I've only had the misfortune of flying CW once (UuA to First on the return), but was very glad to have stumped up for a window seat to get some privacy in the flying dorm. However, I couldn't for the life of me find somewhere secure to keep my glasses, so when they came around with breakfast and I was just waking up, it was an ordeal to move my seat, get into the tiny storage drawer, and find my glasses. Maybe that little drinks table will work OK for this sort of thing, but I much prefer a little cubby or two to stash things like mobiles and wallets and glasses in.
While 'misfortune' is more than a little strong (imagine if you'd been in Y), I have had a similar CW glasses dilemma! After a night flight I awoke to find that my glasses were missing. Eventually after a thorough search by myself and the cabin crew it turned out that they had fallen into the aisle during the night and been kicked up into the F cabin! I was glad to get them back but it certainly reinforced to me that there really is ZERO storage space with the current CW seat.
simonspear is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 7:57 am
  #134  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by Jimmie76
Now all they have to do is allow the crew to serve the window seats via the aisle access and without dropping the divider. That'll be the icing on the cake.
hear hear!!
simonspear is offline  
Old Jun 6, 2016, 8:43 am
  #135  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Programs: BA
Posts: 102
Originally Posted by simonspear
hear hear!!
Does anyone read my posts? This is the plan.

Originally Posted by mtkeller
but I much prefer a little cubby or two to stash things like mobiles and wallets and glasses in.
There is one, next to the head of the seat. Big enough for a wallet and a larger 'phablet' type phone. Glasses can also be hooked on the upper literature pocket.
hemschmall is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.