So does a 77W.

is that true? I thought CX mgmt is on the record saying they can take a fully loaded 77G of 340 pax, plus a full load of cargo.

CX's 77Ws are relatively lightly loaded in the pax cabin as far as dense config 77Ws go. Maybe it doesn't affect CX? Even 77G, CX's most-dense pax config 77W has 340 seats, vs 360+ for EK?

Airline manufacturers and the airlines themselves are so deceptive with these stats I don't precisely know what's correct, but I thought CX's 77Ws at least could go to JFK and EWR with a full complement of pax and cargo.

Either way, my guess is CX has a lightly-enough loaded 35G that it won't be a big deal. And as a passenger this is definitely an upgrade. Not to mention, if you're a WiFi-using pax CX has a distinct advantage over UA. Because you can use CX Wifi over China, while most other carriers can't. And EWR at least one direction almost always flies 2-3 hours over China airspace. I doubt anyone will know that or care too much but still useful I suppose.

Ok the CX mgmt person that I spoke with didn't say that it 'doesnt have enough legs', but just that it is not efficient. I assume its not possible to fly a 35G with a full load and a full belly of cargo all the way to EWR. Perhaps this ocurrence is as rare as it gets, (knowing that EWR is [still] one of the most poorly performing routes across the network).

I'll now have to pray that ORD does not get 35G...

Also, am I the only one that sees the 35G potentially getting to JNB? I would have thought it would come a long way before EWR. But both loads and cargo are good over there (don't know about yields)...

According to Boeing documentation a 'typical 3 class' 777-300ER can do 5,600nm with a full payload. After that the payload has to be reduced to load the extra fuel required. I have no idea what the CX specs are, but given NYC is 7,000nm and LAX 6,300nm i struggle to see how different they can be from Boeing's standard.

I have also heard AA's HKG bound 77Ws can have problems with the takeoff run at LAX if the conditions are poor.

I noticed that a lot of the mirrors on the A350 are broken...my flight on B-LRM, the mirror on the forward lavatory in R1 had a big crack and yesterday on B-LRJ the same lavatory had a big crack on the mirrors. I heard some in the EY also have cracks also.

Several overhead bins in J were also sealed shut on yesterday's flight. Both aircrafts are under a year old.

Are the overhead bins, mirrors, and other accessories also installed by the seat manufacturers?

The toilet cubicles are also done by Zodiac. I don't know about the overhead bins.

Another data point...

I flew MEL-HKG on CX104 on 13 August. I wish I had written down the rego number, can't find it now. The fittings were looking worse for wear, they clearly haven't gotten around to fixing this one yet. Bathroom mirrors were badly cracked.

Also, wifi, satellite TV and power did not work. I was working on the flight, so that was not ideal - my laptop lasted for a few hours, but I ran out of juice with an hour or so of work still to do.

The good news is I complained about the power/wifi and got 10,000 Asia miles compensation, which seemed pretty fair to me.

CX104 on 13/08/2017 was A359 B-LRO.

Thanks! Is there a website where you can check that stuff?

flightradar24.com

That bird is just 4 months old, and already showing signs of wear? I thought they have already fixed the problems for the new deliveries?

are all seats in Premium Economy on the A350-900 equipped with leg rests or is it only the first row (bulkhead) and the other seats have foot rests.

All seats have the footrest.

I think OP means leg rest vs. footrest only (like on 777)

So to clarify: On 350, all seats have leg and foot rests