[Master Thread] CX Flight Scheduling
Sep 17, 2024 | 8:06 am
#31
Join Date: Mar 2014
Programs: LH SEN,A3*G,BA OWS
Posts: 191
IMHO both the aircraft and the seat (at least in J) are better on the A350. The A350 has significantly lower cabin pressure and higher air humidity compared to the 777. As a result, I tend to arrive feeling much more rested.
I find the current iteration of the Cirrus J seats on the A350 far better too, especially with the increased legroom, both in the cubicle in front and on the side. On the 77K/77A, only the bulkhead seats have a wider footrest, and even there, theres no additional space on the sides.
In Y, the 3-3-3 configuration on the A350 is far superior to the 3-4-3 layout on the 77K.
I find the current iteration of the Cirrus J seats on the A350 far better too, especially with the increased legroom, both in the cubicle in front and on the side. On the 77K/77A, only the bulkhead seats have a wider footrest, and even there, theres no additional space on the sides.
In Y, the 3-3-3 configuration on the A350 is far superior to the 3-4-3 layout on the 77K.
Sep 17, 2024 | 8:33 am
#33
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PVG
Programs: CX DM, BA Gold refugee, TK E+, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 598
Hard to believe they will still put 359 to CDG and ZRH, CDG still had a 77A this summer, that would be big drop in capacity, used to be double daily 77A and 359 before covid
Mad had 35K last winter and it was often hard to get a seat in J last minute
Mad had 35K last winter and it was often hard to get a seat in J last minute
Sep 17, 2024 | 10:30 am
#35
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 722
IMHO both the aircraft and the seat (at least in J) are better on the A350. The A350 has significantly lower cabin pressure and higher air humidity compared to the 777. As a result, I tend to arrive feeling much more rested.
I find the current iteration of the Cirrus J seats on the A350 far better too, especially with the increased legroom, both in the cubicle in front and on the side. On the 77K/77A, only the bulkhead seats have a wider footrest, and even there, theres no additional space on the sides.
In Y, the 3-3-3 configuration on the A350 is far superior to the 3-4-3 layout on the 77K.
I find the current iteration of the Cirrus J seats on the A350 far better too, especially with the increased legroom, both in the cubicle in front and on the side. On the 77K/77A, only the bulkhead seats have a wider footrest, and even there, theres no additional space on the sides.
In Y, the 3-3-3 configuration on the A350 is far superior to the 3-4-3 layout on the 77K.
Sep 17, 2024 | 10:32 am
#36
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 722
Last edited by VE105; Sep 17, 2024 at 10:55 am
Sep 17, 2024 | 10:34 am
#37
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 722
Sep 17, 2024 | 10:59 am
#38
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 324
im guessing one reason of CDG being A359 is because CX already updated it to a A359 in earlier months, when this route should have first class, and maybe CDG has less passengers in winter, not to mention fierce competition
another reason is 777 refits.
another reason is 777 refits.
Sep 17, 2024 | 11:11 am
#39
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 722
but as other posters pointed out, there are Australia flights being scheduled with 77A....if there is really 77A iinsufficiency, why still deploy them to AU while cut back CDG & LHR?
Sep 17, 2024 | 8:42 pm
#41
Moderator: Cathay Pacific
Join Date: Jan 2024
Programs: CX DM-
Posts: 1,302
Sep 18, 2024 | 1:34 am
#44
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: MNL
Programs: CX DM, SQ KFG, Marriott TT, AccorG
Posts: 191
Sep 18, 2024 | 1:44 am
#45
Moderator: Cathay Pacific
Join Date: Jan 2024
Programs: CX DM-
Posts: 1,302