seat38a

Yikes! That is terrible! Economy plus and main cabin extra are 34 - 36 pitch, 36 at emergency exit rows. Now I understand why Tobias-UK chooses to fly economy in emergency exit row. I'm going to guess BA also has 36 pitch in their emergency exit rows.

gliderpilot

I miss the old CE seats. Great concept, particularly with the movable armrests to convert 3 seats to 2. Agree that some form of MCE style payment for these seats could work great for extra revenue building.

Seat weight probably is a factor in why we are not seeing nicer seats but I think this could be a bold and radical change if BA wanted to do something. Let’s face it. It can’t in LH but maybe shake up the SH business market with something innovative (albeit already done years ago!)

AlNuzhaMan

I sometimes have to fly it AMM-LHR is there a good seat on it? I have seen 1C mentioned above but I thought they were all identical apart from the exit row which has an extra pitch long off to uncurl your toes in.

CT-UK

Yep any J seat on RJ......

AlNuzhaMan

The BA A321Neo, goes without saying J on RJ is better....

estrela

I would not be willing to pay them 800 squid for such a bad product. Just book Y and reserve a seat in the front.

Same goes for other bad C classes in Europe. I never pay for that crap at LH, OS, AF, BA.

Offer something good. It seems that still enough people pay 500 for a better meal and a front seat.

TedToToe

For me, I'd rather be in CE with an empty seat next to me, rather than shoulder to shoulder in an exit row in ET. I guess, that's one advantage of being 1.75m tall. So, +1 for the direct routing though, obviously, opinion is fairly evenly divided.

Bohinjska Bistrica

I find 1C uncomfortable as you get bumped by traffic up and down the aisle. Maybe it will be OK on sectors with small CE cabins or on short flights, but I'd probably look to avoid it otherwise. But then, everyone is different.

I'd be fine with the CE seat on the longer CE routes. The legroom is far from amazing but it'll do (I'm 6"2). Equally I'd be happy with the exit row, subject to the usual caveat that you can't pick the person next you and so you can in some cases find yourself a bit cramped at the shoulders.

What I would not be happy with however are the slimline Recaros, which rules out the second exit row on the A321 NEO. Those seats are garbage and unsuitable (IMO) for anything beyond a 2hr flight. The armrest is too short and I find they provide a poor level of support for my back. Bear in mind also that the first exit row could end up in CE.

PUCCI GALORE

Indeed so. I read constantly about the wonders of QR - and at that price difference I should think so too. I had a look at the competition which would pass through Europe and they are all using one aisle Airbuses. There is another matter and that is flight times - Swiss were the cheapest but their flight leave CAI at something like 03.00. The Flight from Egypt for me has to leave at civilised hours. It is not that much different a flight time than from RAK, or ALG - or the Canaries for that matter. Where I notice that there is an argument is to and from AMM where RJ has a 787 flying and I hear quite good things about them.

All that said these complaints about the neo and how dreadful it is leave me quite cold - I am quite comfortable in my seat as I slouch or have big feet. Above all I do not stick my legs in the air with my Jimmy Choos, or God Forbid, unshod, against the bulkhead. I use a pad rather than a PC (which is a valid point). Furthermore I fly to get somewhere rather than the other way around - I would add that I find the A321neo a much quieter and smoother ride than other short haul aircraft and my Champagne does not spill accordingly.

husseinbadr

AF fly B777s and A350s to CAI. Also, TK might be worth a look.

GBOAC

I really don't understand BA's rationale for getting rid of mid-haul. CAI, AMM and TLV (third rotation) all used successfully in the past and if also deployed on LCA also would be a reasonable sub-fleet to operate (i.e. LCA in place of BEY).
I will NEVER fly A short-haul product on what is basically a long-haul routing (Amman and Cairo are both further than TLV, yet it is the shorter of these routes that is 'long haul'). 5hrs in a domestic product is a disgrace. Will either fly with RJ (where their 787 is used), or TLV and connect, or Doha and connect (when time is not critical). The seating is MUCH MORE cramped than AA domestic, especially in Main Cabin Extra.
What adds insult to injury is that TPs have been cut in all classes. Previously 8 return trips to Cairo or Amman on semi-discounted economy would be enough to get Silver (70rtn), or just over 2 in Business. . Now its 15 (40rtn) or just over 3 in business.
Its not as if one can suddenly increase one's travel to retain status. So its basically BA telling regular travellers on this route 'we don't value your custom any more' (in addition to giving you an uncomfortable trip). Why not lower TP thresholds for known regular travellers on the long haul to short-haul transitioned routes? And please don't say that 'you are giving BA less money as Euro routes are cheaper- I've just looked at Amman for July and its basically the same price as it was pre-pandemic... initially it was cheaper but its now gone up.

Alternatively just deploy a 788, its not that much of an increase in seating on the mid-haul fleet. If necessary reduce rotations to 6 weekly and you are keeping the weekly seat count the same.

WillTravel4Food

You guys are cracking me up. A321neo/ceo is a common aircraft on US transcons. LAX/SFO-Hawaii? Pretty much the A3210/B738/B739 for that 5 hour flight. I don't understand routing via Doha just to avoid the A321 for a sub-5 hr flight. This makes no sense to me. I prefer a nice Int'l CW (J) seat as much as the next guy, but there are limits. Would I rather spend 10 hours plus layover time over 5 hours nonstop just to avoid a subpar A321 seat? No. No I would not.

NickB

for exactly the same reason that they have reduced the size of galleys, removed closets or toilets , etc..., i.e. to densify the cabin and fit a couple of extra rows. The competition from LCCs has pushed European legacy carriers to seek to maximise capacity to remain competitive on price in Y and substantially increasing the seat pitch at the front means reducing the number of rows. Add to this that demand for business class varies widely from route to route. There certainly are some routes on which such a model could work but the aircraft must be flexible enough in their configuration to allow for high density on those routes where J demand is minimal and Y demand high. As most routes are relatively short, the compromise of a less comfortable J product is acceptable to most business travelers,

Of course, you do have a problem with longer routes and it is a problem that pretty much all Western European carriers have with near-middle East routes, where they oscillate between long-haul equipment for some routes and short-haul equipment for others, in full knowledge that the latter is sub-optimal (and you typically see that reflected in fares, viz. routes with long-haul equipment are usually more expensive than routes with short-haul equipment).

You could in principle make the case for a dedicated mid-haul fleet (and BA had one in the past) but the cost is a reduction in flexibility and the fact that BA got rid of the mid-haul fleet suggests that it just did not work for them.

NickB

I agree. BA is missing a trick here in terms of incentivising use of a sub-optimal product with TPs.

They could give long-haul TPs for all flights over 2K miles, as they do for other carriers. This would take away some oddities in TP earning.

hydro001

Cargo capacity and premium- that 787 is better utilised elsewhere where there is a high cargo demand.