Club Suite - Impact on yield
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 485
Club Suite - Impact on yield
What will be the reduction of Club seats once the two 777 have been retrofitted with the new Club Suite product?
There are currently between 32 and 56 Club seats on a 777, depending on the model. Presumably going from a 2-4-2 to a 1-2-1 configuration will have some sort of impact on the number of seats. I don't recall this information being published anywhere. Does anyone have intel?
Also, how many Club seats would the 350-1000 have accommodated? With the new Club Suites there is only 56 (comparable to seat number of BA's 777-300ER under the 2-4-2 configuration).
I'm curious to know what the impact of these new seats are on yield assuming ceteris paribus. Or are we looking at price increases for Club, once the Club Suite is rolled out across the wide-body fleet?
There are currently between 32 and 56 Club seats on a 777, depending on the model. Presumably going from a 2-4-2 to a 1-2-1 configuration will have some sort of impact on the number of seats. I don't recall this information being published anywhere. Does anyone have intel?
Also, how many Club seats would the 350-1000 have accommodated? With the new Club Suites there is only 56 (comparable to seat number of BA's 777-300ER under the 2-4-2 configuration).
I'm curious to know what the impact of these new seats are on yield assuming ceteris paribus. Or are we looking at price increases for Club, once the Club Suite is rolled out across the wide-body fleet?
Last edited by TheRealBabushka; Apr 1, 2019 at 2:59 am Reason: Typo
#2
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, IHG Diamond
Posts: 354
I really am interested in what the actual difference in density between longitudinal 2-4-2 and diagonal 1-2-1 is in real terms.
I'd be surprised if in an equal size cabin the 1-2-1 diagonal would lose more than 2 or 4 seats max (remember the Q-suite moving from 2-2-2 to 1-2-1 with zero seat losses); and pricing is market driven and I would think decoupled from cabin density to a pretty large degree.
I'd be surprised if in an equal size cabin the 1-2-1 diagonal would lose more than 2 or 4 seats max (remember the Q-suite moving from 2-2-2 to 1-2-1 with zero seat losses); and pricing is market driven and I would think decoupled from cabin density to a pretty large degree.
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,124
I would suggest that, for all its perceived disadvantages, the BA yin-yang remains a unique system. Much like Marmite, it has its adherents!
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Its all about how many CW seats you can get in front of the engines with 8F seats. CW pax dont want to look out of the window and see they arent up front.
If there are enough seats, the yield should be good. BA havent bought A330 neo aircraft because you cant get enough seats in. Buying B787-10 is a winner for CW.
If there are enough seats, the yield should be good. BA havent bought A330 neo aircraft because you cant get enough seats in. Buying B787-10 is a winner for CW.
#6
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: BA - Blue > Bronze > Silver > Bronze > Blue
Posts: 6,812
Using 788 seat maps as a comparison it looks like BA fit 21 CW seats into a space where QR could fit 18 SD seats.
The actual square footage numbers the footprint of each must be publically available somewhere. At most theyre going to lose a row considering the same configuration as now so 8 seats down, that could probably be made up by taking a row out of WT though Id they want to maintain business numbers
The actual square footage numbers the footprint of each must be publically available somewhere. At most theyre going to lose a row considering the same configuration as now so 8 seats down, that could probably be made up by taking a row out of WT though Id they want to maintain business numbers
#7
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London. Or a plane.
Programs: "Only" 50,000 TPs until BA GGLfL
Posts: 2,770
#9
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London. Or a plane.
Programs: "Only" 50,000 TPs until BA GGLfL
Posts: 2,770
You've clearly never booked a ultra-high yield J fare 48 hours before departure - when the vast majority of seats are already taken.
Last edited by alexwuk; Apr 1, 2019 at 5:22 am
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
#13
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Brisbane
Programs: BAEC Blue/Bronze, Krisflyer, Qantas
Posts: 415
1-2-1 and 2-4-2 don't take into account that people overlap.
If you count every person as 2 parts (legs and torso) then the two configurations are the same - 2-4-2 (except the first and last row). Although that still doesn't take into account how much length of the aircraft one row takes up.
If you count every person as 2 parts (legs and torso) then the two configurations are the same - 2-4-2 (except the first and last row). Although that still doesn't take into account how much length of the aircraft one row takes up.
#14
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
It doubt it will make much difference but there will be a slight drop in density - BA get 56 CW seats into the same space CX could get ~48 Cirrus. Yield dropped a little in recent years so i'd expect less sale fares and aggressive corporate discounts once the seat is fully rolled out. I doubt the average passenger would notice much difference.
After all, if BA didn't think a new seat would have a positive impact on yield they wouldn't be doing it.
After all, if BA didn't think a new seat would have a positive impact on yield they wouldn't be doing it.
#15
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,200
I suspect what well see (in relation to 772 and 773 refits) is
- A contraction of F area and a reduction in the number of F seats
- An expansion of CW area and possible increase in the number of CW seats
- An expansion of WT+ area and increase in the number of WT+ seats
- A contraction of WT area but seat numbers remain largely unchanged due to 3-4-3 densification