I think they are called Rear Facing Seats. Something that does not synchronize with the mental configuration, facing rear but flying forward ! Mostly psychological I presume.

News to me, sort of, is there any documentation if they advertise it as such ?

I'm not sure why there would be hard feelings - it doesn't interest me in the slightest as I generally only use BA as a last resort. And personally I agree the CW proposition is dated and requires investment (a penny that has clearly dropped with the board of BA too). I was a GCH for about 10 years but shifted several years ago now and persuaded about 5 others to do likewise when it was clear there were much better premium propositions.

Having said that, despite a lot of bluster there is nothing to objectively support what you say. In fact I can see quite a few people on this thread that completely disagree with your opinion. If you think 1-2-1 seating comes with no trade offs then you are kidding yourself. The trade off here is the use of foot coffins and similar which enables other airlines to fit more or less the same number of seats in the same space. Personally I prefer that model but a number of posters on here clearly don't.

As for saying what a poll may show, you may be right, but until the poll is done that is also your subjective opinion as you have no objective or empirical evidence to back it up.

BA don't advertise it as safer but it's certainly well known that rear facing seats are safer. Here is a news report stating just that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ne...t-seats-safer/

This pejorative term 'foot coffin' is being thrown about a fair bit. Having flown AA J, this, with all due politeness, is being spun into more of an issue than it actually is; it's not objectively a design problem. If I wanted to place one foot vertically on top of the other, heel-on-toe, then sure it's an issue. Ditto if I want to lift my feet up towards the cabin ceiling when lying down. I guess if one of my starting points on requirements when sleeping is to have the same amount of space above my feet as that of my head, then I really have reached the thin edge of the wedge.

Do people really think BA haven't invested in a new CW product over the past few years because they still believe the current iteration of CW is market-leading?

I tried the Continental seat a while ago at a trade fair and having my legs crossed my size nine and a half feet were 43cm-45cm high depending on how my legs were placed. So long as I didn't get a window seat (difficult to get out) it was quite a comfortable seat but lying down I couldn't cross or uncross my legs without becoming a contortionist and it wasn't easy to lie with my legs crossed. As I tend to lie down/sleep with them crossed (at least to begin with) this wasn't going to work for me. They also didn't fly to BOS which was a deal-breaker for me. YMMV.

The 'foot coffin' debate is as perpetual as the 'privacy' comments :)

Aren't we all different?

As I kindly allow iWife to always have the window seat, for her privacy, I'm perfectly accustomed to being 'exposed' in the aisle ... which makes service easy, convenient and audible! Likewise, and contrarily, I have no difficulty with the AA 'foot coffin' despite being a 6-footer with size 10 feet ... perhaps it's the position I sleep in?

We ARE all different! Get used to it! :)

Thank you.

Well it is a way to differentiate the "openness" of a CW vs. AA ! Nevermind almost all airlines that count have better overall hard product than CW.