Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Cathay Pacific | Marco Polo Club
Reload this Page >

CX Premium Economy Experiences and Thoughts [consolidated]

CX Premium Economy Experiences and Thoughts [consolidated]

Old Mar 3, 14, 10:23 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,128
Originally Posted by af fp View Post
Can we rather say that premium economy brings back the standards of economy in the 50s?
The width and seat pitch of CX PEY are more like the economy seat of the wide body ("Jumbo") jet of the early 1970's through to the mid 1980's when it was 9-abreast 3x4x2 very spacious configuration on the 747, and also the L1011. Pan Am even had a dinning lounge on its upper deck for its first class passengers. It's so "civilised" to be called by the "stewardess" that dinner was ready to be served upstairs at the dinning lounge rather than at your seat.

No, the PEY is nowhere near the old style international J seat of the 1990's but perhaps closer to the current North American F/J seats with the new AA pod excepted.

Sorry don't know what economy standards were like in the 50's. My first CX flight was on a Lockheed Electra from Hong Kong to Singapore.

Last edited by Clipper801; Mar 4, 14 at 7:49 pm
Clipper801 is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 10:54 am
  #92  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Asia Miles. Not bothering to join Marco Polo.
Posts: 17,258
"Early jet planes like Boeing's 707 had 17-inch seats, a dimension based on the width of a U.S. Air Force pilot's hips, says Airbus marketing chief Chris Emerson." http://m.asia.wsj.com/articles/SB100...66648?mobile=y

I'm struggling to find an airline that flew its 747s in less than 3-4-3 in Y http://boardingarea.com/frequentlyfl...am-boeing-747/ . Certain rows excepted.
percysmith is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 4:08 pm
  #93  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: UA1K, AS MVPG
Posts: 86
Does anyone have any experience with 32K on a 77H? It's the bulkhead window seat -- just curious if that footrest is better than the ones in the regular rows. I would book 31A, but there's no window at that seat.
genemk2 is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 6:01 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jersey
Programs: BA GOLD, HILTON DIAMOND, BONVOY L/T GOLD,
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by genemk2 View Post
Does anyone have any experience with 32K on a 77H? It's the bulkhead window seat -- just curious if that footrest is better than the ones in the regular rows. I would book 31A, but there's no window at that seat.
there are 2 issues with 32 K i think. one is its next to a bassinet, and secondly there actually isnt that much leg room - the bulkhead is quite close

if i am thinking the right plane then 31 A is better (even with no window)
brithk is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 6:55 pm
  #95  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: Marriot Am, MU Pt
Posts: 3,094
I flew PEY from HKG to SFO.

Seats feel way better than any other PE product I've been on. Seats actually are more comfortable and I felt it was a good deal. I was opped, so I did not pay for it, but next time I fly I will definitely book it.
alphaod is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 8:08 pm
  #96  
sxc
Moderator, Cathay Pacific
Accor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,503
Originally Posted by alphaod View Post
I flew PEY from HKG to SFO.

Seats feel way better than any other PE product I've been on. Seats actually are more comfortable and I felt it was a good deal. I was opped, so I did not pay for it, but next time I fly I will definitely book it.
Out of interest which airlines are you comparing to?
sxc is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 10:15 pm
  #97  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: UA1K, AS MVPG
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by brithk View Post
there are 2 issues with 32 K i think. one is its next to a bassinet, and secondly there actually isnt that much leg room - the bulkhead is quite close

if i am thinking the right plane then 31 A is better (even with no window)
Assuming there is no baby, would you rather sit at 32K than a standard PE seat?
genemk2 is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 10:33 pm
  #98  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: TPE (reluctantly!)
Programs: CX, le club accorhotels platinum
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by percysmith View Post
"Early jet planes like Boeing's 707 had 17-inch seats, a dimension based on the width of a U.S. Air Force pilot's hips, says Airbus marketing chief Chris Emerson." http://m.asia.wsj.com/articles/SB100...66648?mobile=y

I'm struggling to find an airline that flew its 747s in less than 3-4-3 in Y http://boardingarea.com/frequentlyfl...am-boeing-747/ . Certain rows excepted.
The earliest of 707s had 5 abreast seating, not even 6.

A lot of airlines flew classic 747s with 3-4-2 seating. I've seen a lot of brochures online... CI's last 742 which crashed as CI611 also had this.

As an example, UA's 741 launched with 3-4-2 in 36-38" pitch in coach, so I would agree with clipper801 that a lot airlines are being silly when they say PEY is like J from an earlier era. The reason they can make that claim is because a lot of airlines downgraded their Y (from the aforementioned UA-like spec) to a smaller pitch, and then introduced a small full fare Y cabin that began as the same seats as Y, then picked up more differentiating features over time and developed into the J airlines are citing.

All of the above are IIRC and subject to selective memory.
sl0uch is offline  
Old Mar 3, 14, 10:40 pm
  #99  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,377
Originally Posted by genemk2 View Post
Does anyone have any experience with 32K on a 77H? It's the bulkhead window seat -- just curious if that footrest is better than the ones in the regular rows. I would book 31A, but there's no window at that seat.
Originally Posted by brithk View Post
there are 2 issues with 32 K i think. one is its next to a bassinet, and secondly there actually isnt that much leg room - the bulkhead is quite close

if i am thinking the right plane then 31 A is better (even with no window)
Originally Posted by genemk2 View Post
Assuming there is no baby, would you rather sit at 32K than a standard PE seat?
While not as generous as the A-side, 32K is fine - it's legroom is similar to any other PEY seats in the cabin. In-fact, you're still slightly better off.

However - what I find annoying is the toilet flushing sound (and increased food traffic) at that side. It's not super loud, and to some, it's not even noticeable after putting on the noise cancelling headsets.

Have you consider something like 34A?

At the end of the day, the differences between any seat you choose would be so marginally small you won't notice much of a difference.
CanucksHKG is offline  
Old Mar 4, 14, 5:00 am
  #100  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Asia Miles. Not bothering to join Marco Polo.
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by sl0uch View Post
The earliest of 707s had 5 abreast seating, not even 6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...367-80_origins

Never made production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...367-80_origins

The 132-inch (3,350 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating (in the manner of the Stratocruiser). Answering customers demands and under Douglas competition, Boeing soon realized that this would not provide a viable payload, so decided to widen the fuselage to 144 in (3,660 mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's tooling.[12] However, Douglas Aircraft had launched its DC-8 with a fuselage width of 147 in (3,730 mm). The airlines liked the extra space and six-abreast seating, and so Boeing was obliged to increase the 707's width again to compete, this time to 148 in (3,760 mm).
Originally Posted by sl0uch View Post
A lot of airlines flew classic 747s with 3-4-2 seating. I've seen a lot of brochures online... CI's last 742 which crashed as CI611 also had this.
Yes, CI611 indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cl611rec.png. This is very generous for a cross-strait shuttle...

Last edited by percysmith; Mar 4, 14 at 5:07 am
percysmith is offline  
Old Mar 4, 14, 2:28 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: UA1K, AS MVPG
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by CanucksHKG View Post
While not as generous as the A-side, 32K is fine - it's legroom is similar to any other PEY seats in the cabin. In-fact, you're still slightly better off.

However - what I find annoying is the toilet flushing sound (and increased food traffic) at that side. It's not super loud, and to some, it's not even noticeable after putting on the noise cancelling headsets.

Have you consider something like 34A?

At the end of the day, the differences between any seat you choose would be so marginally small you won't notice much of a difference.
Thanks, all. IME on other carriers, the bulkhead seats allow me to get out without bothering my neighbour in the aisle-seat -- if it's all the same, then I'll probably stay in 32K, and try for 31A if it becomes available at check-in.
genemk2 is offline  
Old Mar 5, 14, 3:51 am
  #102  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Jakarta
Programs: SQ Gold, BA Bronze,GA Silver
Posts: 49
Longhaul vs. Regional PE

Just did my return flight from LHR-HKG-CGK on PE all the way.

Just had a small annoyance at check-in, while I had pre-selected seats for me my girlfriend when I booked the ticket, when we checked in they split us up without telling us and insisted that we just go to the gate to sort it out. So for the LHR-HKG sector we ended up in the last row of PE and the 2 middle seats.

LHR-HKG was on a 77G which means that PE had its own toilet in the cabin. It wasn't as hard as I had hoped to have to hop over people's feet on the first row to get to the toilet.

Service was pretty fast out of LHR and they closed the curtains once they finished the meal service and through the night (while I was sleeping) apparently the crew regularly came through the cabin offering food and drink which my girlfriend helped herself to. Breakfast was offered about an 1.5 hrs before landing in Hong Kong.

For the HKG-CGK leg on a 33G the main difference I noticed between Longhaul and the regional PE was the following:
- No blankets or pillows put out on seats, but they were available on request
- No Amenity kit
- No drinks before departure but they did a drink service (just water and juices) served from trays about 30 mins from landing
- Plastic cutlery for the meal and only two selections
- More choice on the films available on the system

This time around they didn't keep the curtain closed on the left side of the plane (we were on 32 A and B) and toilets were back in the economy cabin again, but less of an issue this time.

This is a bit of a tangent, but had a rather charming and very personal inflight manager who on her introduction blurb mentioned about welcoming us on board 'our cozy A330' and that she and her flight crew were there to help provide service and food to make your flight comfortable 'or a chat to get to know you better.' True to her word, she did stop by and spoke with us about why we were flying and stuff on her walk through the plane and was holding conversations with quite a few other passengers as well at their seats. When we disembarked, beside all the usual thank you and reminders she also mentioned that 'it was good to be able to get to know some of you better during the flight' I have no idea how normal this is, but I have to say it was appreciated to have a more human touch on the plane!
Rvernius is offline  
Old Mar 5, 14, 5:53 pm
  #103  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Thai
Posts: 397
CX PE and EVA PE have the exact same seat pitch and width. The CX seats seem a little more padded and comfortable to me. Even though I prefer the CX Product, I may be flying EVA in July from L.A. to Bangkok because the price is about $500 cheaper for some reason. Usually the price is about the same.
Cameron38 is offline  
Old Mar 5, 14, 8:02 pm
  #104  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,508
Everyone thanks for your comparisons of today's PE and old times Y! Very informative.
af fp is offline  
Old Mar 7, 14, 7:56 am
  #105  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,120
Originally Posted by percysmith View Post
I'm struggling to find an airline that flew its 747s in less than 3-4-3 in Y...
Originally Posted by sl0uch View Post
A lot of airlines flew classic 747s with 3-4-2 seating. I've seen a lot of brochures online... CI's last 742 which crashed as CI611 also had this.
The first BOAC 747-100s were 3-4-2 down the back. The two were on starboard/right side. I flew them several times but cannot recall when they went to 3-4-3... after the BEA merger presumably. The F seats on those planes, however (nothing between Y and F in those days) were pretty weak work compared to today's premium cabins. Big but poor padding and not even very dramatic recline. I know this because as a UM I was asked forward once or twice to sit in F in order to expedite my escorted deplane on arrival at LHR T3. (This was pre-T4 too. )

No PE layout I have experienced (BA, AF, CX) approaches the dimensions or pitch of old-school J. I like them all pretty well though, especially considering the next step down.
BearX220 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: