And this is the gist of the matter.

For decades CX was 2nd fiddle to SQ. CX worked very hard to improve, and early in the 21st century it was neck and neck with SQ. Until it actually overtook SQ and became the best F in the world (this was when the old F rollout completed, circa 2003). Then SARS hit, and CX never really recovered from that; it has been a downward spiral. The poor design choices in the premium cabin refits led to a tremendous waste of money and perhaps the soft product downgrades to economize. Hence this discussion. CX could have been so much better (for the same cost). But CX looks to be turning the corner, with both J and F improving in 2009.

I was very impressed with the systemic way that CX was improving 7 years ago. Every month there would be a small change that I noticed and considered a good improvement. Somehow this systemic improvement stopped over the years. I guess it wasn't quite systemic after all.

Right, but Business Class tends to be significantly more profitable than First. Thus, take a look a Singapore, they have won the Airline of the Year title for two consecutive years and though it is clear that they no longer have the best F hard product (I'd say Emirates does with its new A380 and B777 F suites), SQ's new J is in a class of its own and overall, more passengers would choose SQ over EK, not to mention that SQ's cabin crews remain consistently friendly and hard-working. For Cathay Pacific, both the new F and J leave much to be desired since in the case of the latter class, CX basically mimicked VS' herringbone design. To make matters worse, often, CX charges higher fares than its competition while providing an inferior product. Who would pay CX 25K for F with reduced service efficiency due to only 2 cabin crew members working this class while SQ charges half of that for an enclosed F compartment and service by 4 cabin crew members (Inflight Supervisor, Chief Steward, Leading Steward, and Leading Stewardess).

I have been critical of the 77A layout; this is not specific to CX but to the 777 compared to the 747. I agree with the points you make regarding the downgrading of the soft product.
But the new CX F suite is great. Furthermore it is now available on most planes, while this is not true of Emirates or Quatar. And it is vastly superior to the seats on other airlines you mention in your second list. I think that QF has a mediocre F seat (comparable to BA) and they stuff 14 seats in the nose of the 747 compared to 9 for CX, plus small screens, narrow beds, no privacy, etc... Again, I agree that ANA or Asiana have better soft products, but not the seat; and I do not think that it is a matter of personal opinion.

What do you mean? Qatar has the same F seats across its fleet, though the A340-600 seats have a few enhancements since they are newer.

Quatar is leasing some airplanes of lower seat standards. But the main point is that all QR Airbuses have previous-generation F seats, comparable to the old CX seats (4 accross on A340/330), nothing like the new CX suites.

I received a reply from CX on my second complaint about the noisy crew on the 77A and how this impacts First Class passengers. The reply from CX is posted below, minus any identifying information. From their response, they don't seem to acknowledge that the problem is not with the aircraft, but the noisy crews.

(I hate to seem petty, but it would seem CX should assign someone who can write a letter than makes some sense. I can't figure out what this representative is trying to say. Perhaps he is the same person who writes the SMS flight notification messages which always end with "hank you for flying Cathay Pacific").

Response from Cathay Pacific
Thank you for your recent correspondence in regards to your flight from Hong Kong to XXX onboard one of our Boeing 777s.

I am extremely concerned that you again felt disappointed about cabin ambience during the course of the flight and we apologize profusely.

We place great importance towards the inflight experience to our First Class passengers, as passengers spend most of the time onboard. We have an inflight services team where they monitor the feedback, both from passengers and cabin crew to improve the experience onboard. I can certainly understand your feelings in this matter if the onboard atmosphere was not conducive for a peaceful experience. Your comments in relations to the cabin layout are also noted for review by the relevant manager.

During the meantime, I would like to apologize again for the unnecessary upset this may have caused you. Please be assured that this was never the intent to cause you any disappointment. We hope we will be able to welcome you onto one of our flights again soon.


Yours sincerely,

Possibly of some relevance here but as revealed in this months' Aircraft Interiors International magazine, the new Product Manager for Cathay Pacific Group is Alex McGowan. He was appointed this post in January 2008. You can even add him as a friend on Facebook if you wish

I think you are forgetting about QF's new A380 F Suites and their enhanced F product with caviar now.

CX new F does offer a bigger space than either ANA or OZ F, given that CX puts only 6 F instead of 8 on a 777 like ANA. Also, ANA F is older since it's now 5 years old. The better soft products, like you agreed, is being considered overall which count against the CX F seat advantage. That's why I said, depending on personal preference, some may reasonably rate NH F higher than CX F overall because NH F has a better soft product overall and arguably, better and more attentive service. Their snack list for example blows CX completely away, it's not even close. Even the quality of the First meal, there is no comparison that NH wins hands down. CX FA in F simply doesn't comapre to the attentiveness of NH FA. So while the CX F seat is a little bit bigger and newer, how much more space does one really need? The screen size is almost the same and they are both 180 degree flat beds and the NH F's armrest drops to form a wider bed when flat so from a comfort standpoint, CX new F offers little advantages over NH F. So when soft products and services are factored in, in my opinion, NH F is much superior, not to mention they serve real Oscietra caviar imported from Russia, not the farmed caviar like CX does.

I hate to sound like a broken record but SQ's post-flight customer service is so much better than CX. I had a thread in the SQ forum detailing this, if interested, you should dig it up. SQ treats paying F pax much nicer than CX.

I love the new CX F seats in the 777, but agree nothing beats the 747!

The 747 cabin and seats are great yes, but the service is poor. With only two Cabin Crew, if the cabin is even only half full, you are getting a mediocre service.

OK, just so that you know, "Quatar" is not a word, let alone an airline.
It's QATAR.

QF new suite is the future, not really the seat that you are likely to experience in flying with them today.
Agreed that NH is overall superior to CX. My comments were just about the seat itself.

If I had a gripe about too much noise eminating from the forward galley I would say to the crew "Excuse me, but there's too much noise and I can't sleep - could you please keep it down?". I've done it once before when travelling FCL on a CX A340 and the crew were mortified that I had to make the request. While there's no excuse for the disregard of FCL passenger comfort, if the crew don't know there's a problem then how can they rectify it?

Where are passengers spending the rest of the time during their flight if not onboard? Would that be the smoking section out on the wing?