BA A350 - No first class cabin [initial deliveries 3 class, with 4 class to follow]
Jan 15, 2019, 5:58 am
#61
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 143
If this is right, the J cabin must extend beyond D2. If you look at the CX seat map, and work from the back (putting in 219 Y and 56W), there is space left in the second cabin for 1-2 rows of J.
Jan 15, 2019, 2:49 pm
#65
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: AMS
Programs: BAEC Silver, Flying Blue Gold, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 2,456
Are the permissible duty periods different such that this is a useful config, or is this down to different standards for rest periods (bed v seated) between the two on the maximum sector for the 78X?
Jan 16, 2019, 5:39 am
#66
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Programs: Tufty Club (Gold), BAGA Gymnastics level 4, 440yds swimming certificate
Posts: 2,533
They have different requirements for rest periods, but also different industrial agreements with the two groups which probably came into play too.
Jan 16, 2019, 5:43 am
#67
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: BA - Blue > Bronze > Silver > Bronze > Blue
Posts: 6,812
Jan 16, 2019, 5:47 am
#68
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Jan 16, 2019, 5:52 am
#69
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: AMS
Programs: BAEC Silver, Flying Blue Gold, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 2,456
I think this was actually answered in the fleet tracker thread: apparently the flight crew rest area is standard on the 78X, but the cabin crew rest area is optional. So I would guess that consideration of those differing standards means that going with the "off-the-shelf" config in this case just provides a little extra useable sector length for "free" versus going with a non-standard removal of the FC rest area [if that's even offered].
Jan 16, 2019, 7:21 am
#70
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: BA - Blue > Bronze > Silver > Bronze > Blue
Posts: 6,812
Jan 16, 2019, 7:26 am
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home: East Mids UK - Work (Base): Accra, Ghana.
Programs: BAEC: Silver - Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 12,086
I can imagine, as normal, the decision to not have the cabin crew rest on the 787-10 will, in the future lead to massive cost implications when they decide they now need it and have to retrofit it, just like the 777 fleet and the flight crew rest...
As usual, bean counters of the moment getting things wrong based on short term bottom lines... Because they will move on and it won't be their problem in the future.
As usual, bean counters of the moment getting things wrong based on short term bottom lines... Because they will move on and it won't be their problem in the future.
Jan 16, 2019, 8:56 am
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Jan 16, 2019, 10:26 am
#74
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 305
I can imagine, as normal, the decision to not have the cabin crew rest on the 787-10 will, in the future lead to massive cost implications when they decide they now need it and have to retrofit it, just like the 777 fleet and the flight crew rest...
As usual, bean counters of the moment getting things wrong based on short term bottom lines... Because they will move on and it won't be their problem in the future.
As usual, bean counters of the moment getting things wrong based on short term bottom lines... Because they will move on and it won't be their problem in the future.
Jan 16, 2019, 11:49 am
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home: East Mids UK - Work (Base): Accra, Ghana.
Programs: BAEC: Silver - Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 12,086
Yes, I agree, the aircraft will be a great fleet addition/replacement and offer the capacity needed for more frequent rotations such as east coast US, but who is to say that in 5/6/7 years following delivery, they then start sending them somewhere else, only to be restricted by the decision of previous management.... Happened before and by the looks of it will happen again...
Hey ho... Short term gain, long term pain...
