Originally Posted by nomadabroad (Post 36834158)

The new Vantage Nova seats from Thompson seems to offer a middle ground solution in between having doors vs. maintaining knee space etc. Perhaps CX should have gone with that one instead.

https://www.thompsonaero.com/seating.../vantage-nova/

Originally Posted by jonson10 (Post 36838217)

Seems after B-KQH, there are none 77Ws under conversion to 77J in XMN…
which means that the forth 77J wouldn’t be joining in next few months..

Did CX mention the schedule of one 77J conversion per month?

Originally Posted by Cambo (Post 36838229)

Given the amount of tech issues reported here, CX probably wants to get these solved first, before rolling out at a large scale = Save a lot of money (and customer frustration).

Originally Posted by rhysflies (Post 36838119)

Again, it sounds like you don't actually understand how these seats are designed. Elements, which is what Aria is based on, is about the third or fourth design iteration of Collins' super popular Diamond / Super Diamond seat. It's probably one of the most popular seats out there and has been used from everyone from Qatar Airways, BA, Etihad, Starlux and more. Cirrus (which is CX's current business class) is probably the only other seat that has sold in similar volumes.

For business class, footwells are fundamentally an area of compromise because of the way seats are being tessellated. If you want a full width, uninterrupted seat then pay for first class. In business class, airlines are trying to layer passengers so that one person's feet are under your side console table. This allows them to sell the seats at a lower cost than first class and offer the sort of mass affluent business class seats we have to day. Yes, it's a compromise but it's not as if seat manufacturers and airlines aren't aware of this or trying to innovate in this space.

Oh and by the way - even Qsuite, which many people consider the world's best business class, has a surprisingly tight footwell.

Originally Posted by rhysflies (Post 36838119)

Again, it sounds like you don't actually understand how these seats are designed. Elements, which is what Aria is based on, is about the third or fourth design iteration of Collins' super popular Diamond / Super Diamond seat. It's probably one of the most popular seats out there and has been used from everyone from Qatar Airways, BA, Etihad, Starlux and more. Cirrus (which is CX's current business class) is probably the only other seat that has sold in similar volumes.

Originally Posted by rhysflies (Post 36838119)

For business class, footwells are fundamentally an area of compromise because of the way seats are being tessellated. If you want a full width, uninterrupted seat then pay for first class. In business class, airlines are trying to layer passengers so that one person's feet are under your side console table. This allows them to sell the seats at a lower cost than first class and offer the sort of mass affluent business class seats we have to day. Yes, it's a compromise but it's not as if seat manufacturers and airlines aren't aware of this or trying to innovate in this space.

Originally Posted by US HK UK flyer (Post 36838740)

It's not like the process itself requires the production of an inferior seat. All you've told us is the inferior seat is a product of industry-wide trends and profit maximization, which isn't exactly endearing to customers.

We have a current seat customers like, and a new one they like less. Sure, the new one may be comparable to other airlines - but that's a problem when you're trying to outcompete them. It's an especially bad problem when it means the narrative about your airline is the seat got worse (whereas that's not the case for others) and especially bad when your airline is trying to rebuild its stature in the industry and is trying to overcome other problems like unloved food and green crew.

What we're going to see is customers who can pay for J choose to go to airlines with the same seat but better food/crew/schedules etc. or at least be indifferent about preferring CX. Saying "this is how things are now, get used to it or pay more" is not going to help with that. Maybe the strategic priority right now should not have been stuffing as many people as possible in J, especially since the airline is profitable with the current configuration.

Originally Posted by US HK UK flyer (Post 36838740)

It's not like the process itself requires the production of an inferior seat. All you've told us is the inferior seat is a product of industry-wide trends and profit maximization, which isn't exactly endearing to customers.

Originally Posted by majorpuppy (Post 36840891)

It looks like the new product would operate daily in CX 255/250 starting from next week. The 3rd aircraft came out surprisingly very fast.

Originally Posted by drivingflyingwalking (Post 36844110)

I understand that it is not daily as they only have two aircraft and is 4 services a week on the 250/255 rotation.

Originally Posted by drivingflyingwalking (Post 36844110)

I understand that it is not daily as they only have two aircraft and is 4 services a week on the 250/255 rotation.

Originally Posted by djsflynn (Post 36844825)

Yep.

Originally Posted by CarefreeBA (Post 36844874)

As for thereafter... well any guesses on what the next long haul route is? Timeframe conditional on planes arriving as planned of course.