Oct 2, 2016, 3:40 pm
Last edit by: SinoBritAsia
Confirmed:
SCMP, Oct 2, 2016: Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific to introduce 10-abreast seating in its Boeing planes
SCMP, March 31, 2017: Hong Kong Cathay Pacific passengers to feel the squeeze in push for profits
SCMP, March 31, 2017: Inside Cathay Pacific's new condensed economy class
48 long-haul 777s to be retrofitted. 17 regionals (including the 5 ex-Emirates aircraft). Five of the earliest 77W long-haul fleet (all first-class) to be phased out.
New seat details
Seat legroom: 32" (no change)
Seat width: 17.2" (down 1.3")
IFE screen: 12" (up 3")
Extra personal storage
New six-way headrest (similar to A350 but not like-for-like)
Wi-Fi
Thinner seats but extra padding
Economy class retrofit from mid-2018 to 2020
10% more economy seats
19 extra Y seats to 201 in 4-class 777: for 294 passengers.
28 extra Y seats to 296 in 3-class 777: for 368 passengers.
40 extra Y seats to 396 in regional 777: for 438 passengers.
SCMP, Oct 2, 2016: Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific to introduce 10-abreast seating in its Boeing planes
SCMP, March 31, 2017: Hong Kong Cathay Pacific passengers to feel the squeeze in push for profits
SCMP, March 31, 2017: Inside Cathay Pacific's new condensed economy class
48 long-haul 777s to be retrofitted. 17 regionals (including the 5 ex-Emirates aircraft). Five of the earliest 77W long-haul fleet (all first-class) to be phased out.
New seat details
Seat legroom: 32" (no change)
Seat width: 17.2" (down 1.3")
IFE screen: 12" (up 3")
Extra personal storage
New six-way headrest (similar to A350 but not like-for-like)
Wi-Fi
Thinner seats but extra padding
Economy class retrofit from mid-2018 to 2020
10% more economy seats
19 extra Y seats to 201 in 4-class 777: for 294 passengers.
28 extra Y seats to 296 in 3-class 777: for 368 passengers.
40 extra Y seats to 396 in regional 777: for 438 passengers.
CX considering [confirmed] having 10 seats per row?
Oct 23, 2015, 1:11 am
#16
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,394
Oct 23, 2015, 1:46 am
#17
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,708
My bad. So CX pax can switch to JAL then I guess. But the trend of 10 across is not going away I'm afraid. In the grand scheme of things, JAL is probably not going to move the needle much. With EK at 10 across, it forces a lot of airlines to consider it as long as passengers buy those seats.
Oct 23, 2015, 2:02 am
#18
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ...
Programs: CX DM / SQ PPS / VN Platinum
Posts: 1,078
To be fair to CX, I'm surprised it has taken them this long to even ask.
The bottom line is 67pct of the global 777 fleet is configured in 10 across in coach, when counting seats (admittedly skewed by EK). If competitors are doing it to lower average seat costs, at some point CX will feel the pressure. It's not CX forcing the hand here....it's consumers' relentless demand for cheaper seats regardless of the discomfort.
I really hope they don't, but can't fault them for at least asking. At a minimum I think CX is really missing out on a marketing opportunity by failing to stress they are now in the minority offering a somewhat "civilized" (shudder) economy experience 9 abreast on their 777s.
The bottom line is 67pct of the global 777 fleet is configured in 10 across in coach, when counting seats (admittedly skewed by EK). If competitors are doing it to lower average seat costs, at some point CX will feel the pressure. It's not CX forcing the hand here....it's consumers' relentless demand for cheaper seats regardless of the discomfort.
I really hope they don't, but can't fault them for at least asking. At a minimum I think CX is really missing out on a marketing opportunity by failing to stress they are now in the minority offering a somewhat "civilized" (shudder) economy experience 9 abreast on their 777s.
Oct 23, 2015, 2:42 am
#19
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,708
To me, 9 or 10 across doesnt seem to make that big of a difference in the grand scheme....hellish and hellish-er.
I have read on some of those travel blogs a lot of 787s are configured 3-3-3....that also sounds like a real joy to fly
.The fact remains, however, is that as long as pax buy the damn uncomfortable seats airlines will keep trying to pack people in as much as regulations will allow. And the airlines offering " roomier" economy like CX (9 across on 77w, or 8 across on some airlines 787) vs competitors are always going to face the potential of either giving up yield or losing customers, particularly in a period of cyclical softness (because those airlines must regain higher price points in Y due to less dense layouts). If you're an airline, this is a scary situation to be in. What happens if your competitors can offer 20pct cheaper economy tickets to the same destination as you? Maybe EK or CI require stops en route to your final destination, but if their network and seat densities help them achieve a superior cost base, if CX hasnt already taken preemptive steps it can be very painful. This competitive, capital intensive, cyclical nature - layered on top of a volatile commodity product that makes up 40pct of your costs - make for a hell of a challenge indeed. CX has plenty of faults, but trying to be premeptive about competitive seat costs isn't necessarily one in my book, given how most of the industry is trending towards 10 across 777s and CX is one of the largest 777 operators, and using the less-dense layout. It will be a lot worse if they don't stay alert in a competitive environment and have a few atrocious years. Then we would see some REAL cost cutting.
Oct 23, 2015, 2:45 am
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,477
First,[Sarcasm] if you are in Flyertalk and you still fly Y, that sucks. [/Sarcasm]
No, that is not my point. My point is, if you are a frequent Y flyer, maybe CX would not care too much if you are swearing never fly CX again just because the seating changes from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3. What CX cares is a mass market that people wants the cheapest fare.
Second, 3-4-3 and 3-3-3 in Y on B777 is not too bad as many have suggested here. The seat pitch remains the same and width change is unnoticeable. Some of the spaces will take from the gap between seat and window and narrow the aisle. The space between the seats will be squeezed but new design in seats actually make you feel better (see previous post for reference).
Third, As someone else mentioned on A.net, that Air Canada is achieving over 94% average on the HKG run with its 3-4-3 B777. So I am afraid for those swearing that they abandoned AC for CX, that CX will see there is no real impact on booking even if they are to switch to 3-4-3. few individual abandoned the ship but more bums chasing low fares found the heaven. I am not sure who really lost in this battle. At this moment is CX. Because the revenue missed for not going for 3-4-3 is big. Customer who chase 3-3-3 on B777 and even change their preferred carrier will loose. This is explained the fourth points.
Fourth, airline with 3-3-3 will soon realise their premium in perception. They will be able to impose a dearer fare. With fewer seats, which will be taken quicker than airlines with 3-4-3 config, those abandoned ship may find the average fares more expensive if booking within 30 days cut-off sales period.
The reality is airline business is booming at present and profit is high. If you can not squeeze more bums in cabin, you are loosing out the maximum revenue. PEY is the future for frequent Y flyers. Y will be more for the budget flyers. Brace for the change or you will be disappointed as more airlines will follow suit.
No, that is not my point. My point is, if you are a frequent Y flyer, maybe CX would not care too much if you are swearing never fly CX again just because the seating changes from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3. What CX cares is a mass market that people wants the cheapest fare.Second, 3-4-3 and 3-3-3 in Y on B777 is not too bad as many have suggested here. The seat pitch remains the same and width change is unnoticeable. Some of the spaces will take from the gap between seat and window and narrow the aisle. The space between the seats will be squeezed but new design in seats actually make you feel better (see previous post for reference).
Third, As someone else mentioned on A.net, that Air Canada is achieving over 94% average on the HKG run with its 3-4-3 B777. So I am afraid for those swearing that they abandoned AC for CX, that CX will see there is no real impact on booking even if they are to switch to 3-4-3. few individual abandoned the ship but more bums chasing low fares found the heaven. I am not sure who really lost in this battle. At this moment is CX. Because the revenue missed for not going for 3-4-3 is big. Customer who chase 3-3-3 on B777 and even change their preferred carrier will loose. This is explained the fourth points.
Fourth, airline with 3-3-3 will soon realise their premium in perception. They will be able to impose a dearer fare. With fewer seats, which will be taken quicker than airlines with 3-4-3 config, those abandoned ship may find the average fares more expensive if booking within 30 days cut-off sales period.
The reality is airline business is booming at present and profit is high. If you can not squeeze more bums in cabin, you are loosing out the maximum revenue. PEY is the future for frequent Y flyers. Y will be more for the budget flyers. Brace for the change or you will be disappointed as more airlines will follow suit.
Oct 23, 2015, 4:15 am
#21
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,708
chongcao, a well-reasoned argument. +1.
Still doesn't make it any better for the folks who fly Y though...just going to be rough going.
The upside is if some formerly Y fliers are willing to pay a bit more, they might be in the price point of premium economy now (I bet PEY prices continue their downward trend, and as Y gets cheaper and cheaper and perhaps denser, PEY LH fares shake out similar to CX's mid-tier Y fares of perhaps 1500-1700 USD roundtrip to North America). There is no doubting PEY is without question a superior Y class experience. In this scenario, "premium" Y class buyers who may have been willing to shell out for H, K, M, V whatever fares, if CX can provide them with reasonable PEY fares those folks will no longer will be subsidizing the true cheapo ticket buyers scouring for N and O class fares and whatnot. Everything is all kind of making sense to me now with the MPO realignment (aka, ditching predominantly Y class passengers), PEY launch, fare pricing strategies (tons of cheapo deals in Y class, alongside declining PEY rates), as well as possibly a consideration to increase 777 Y class to 10 across. I can see the logic here.
The guys who lose out are the frequent business travelers who must buy the cheapest EY fare classes due to their (horrific) corporate policies. That would just be brutal. But methinks if you were buying H, K, or maybe even V priced Y tickets before, you are going to find PEY price points coming into your budget more and more frequently, to where PEY might even become your norm. This is certainly a positive if true.
The goal of the exercise is to get people more in-line for what they're paying for and subsidize less of the passengers in the same class. So truly premium economy guys (perhaps expensive Y class buyers before) find premium economy affordable, while true coach ends up being heavily, heavily discounted, even more so than before and attracting those types of buyers.
Still doesn't make it any better for the folks who fly Y though...just going to be rough going.
The upside is if some formerly Y fliers are willing to pay a bit more, they might be in the price point of premium economy now (I bet PEY prices continue their downward trend, and as Y gets cheaper and cheaper and perhaps denser, PEY LH fares shake out similar to CX's mid-tier Y fares of perhaps 1500-1700 USD roundtrip to North America). There is no doubting PEY is without question a superior Y class experience. In this scenario, "premium" Y class buyers who may have been willing to shell out for H, K, M, V whatever fares, if CX can provide them with reasonable PEY fares those folks will no longer will be subsidizing the true cheapo ticket buyers scouring for N and O class fares and whatnot. Everything is all kind of making sense to me now with the MPO realignment (aka, ditching predominantly Y class passengers), PEY launch, fare pricing strategies (tons of cheapo deals in Y class, alongside declining PEY rates), as well as possibly a consideration to increase 777 Y class to 10 across. I can see the logic here.
The guys who lose out are the frequent business travelers who must buy the cheapest EY fare classes due to their (horrific) corporate policies. That would just be brutal. But methinks if you were buying H, K, or maybe even V priced Y tickets before, you are going to find PEY price points coming into your budget more and more frequently, to where PEY might even become your norm. This is certainly a positive if true.
The goal of the exercise is to get people more in-line for what they're paying for and subsidize less of the passengers in the same class. So truly premium economy guys (perhaps expensive Y class buyers before) find premium economy affordable, while true coach ends up being heavily, heavily discounted, even more so than before and attracting those types of buyers.
Oct 23, 2015, 10:15 am
#22
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SPG Pt, Le Club Accor GO, Shangri-La GC Jade
Posts: 1,327
First,[Sarcasm] if you are in Flyertalk and you still fly Y, that sucks. [/Sarcasm] No, that is not my point. My point is, if you are a frequent Y flyer, maybe CX would not care too much if you are swearing never fly CX again just because the seating changes from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3. What CX cares is a mass market that people wants the cheapest fare.
No, that is not my point. My point is, if you are a frequent Y flyer, maybe CX would not care too much if you are swearing never fly CX again just because the seating changes from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3. What CX cares is a mass market that people wants the cheapest fare.Second, 3-4-3 and 3-3-3 in Y on B777 is not too bad as many have suggested here. The seat pitch remains the same and width change is unnoticeable. Some of the spaces will take from the gap between seat and window and narrow the aisle. The space between the seats will be squeezed but new design in seats actually make you feel better (see previous post for reference).
Third, As someone else mentioned on A.net, that Air Canada is achieving over 94% average on the HKG run with its 3-4-3 B777. So I am afraid for those swearing that they abandoned AC for CX, that CX will see there is no real impact on booking even if they are to switch to 3-4-3. few individual abandoned the ship but more bums chasing low fares found the heaven. I am not sure who really lost in this battle. At this moment is CX. Because the revenue missed for not going for 3-4-3 is big. Customer who chase 3-3-3 on B777 and even change their preferred carrier will loose. This is explained the fourth points.
Also assuming nothing else change, every flight will now have 30/21 more seats + IFE system weight flying... I don't know how much more fuel will burn for these additional weight... Maybe negligible... But revenue missed for these 30/21 additional seat? If revenue is US$1K for each seat then revenue missed would be US$30K/21K per flight IF they managed to fill EVERY F seat... ...before loss of higher revenue passenger which may simply switched away to other carriers for better seat (maybe a discount J by taking a stopover flights)...
Given how "brilliant" they assess how many seats can be "oversell" I don't think they can get the projection right...
Fourth, airline with 3-3-3 will soon realise their premium in perception. They will be able to impose a dearer fare. With fewer seats, which will be taken quicker than airlines with 3-4-3 config, those abandoned ship may find the average fares more expensive if booking within 30 days cut-off sales period.
The reality is airline business is booming at present and profit is high. If you can not squeeze more bums in cabin, you are loosing out the maximum revenue. PEY is the future for frequent Y flyers. Y will be more for the budget flyers. Brace for the change or you will be disappointed as more airlines will follow suit.
The reality is airline business is booming at present and profit is high. If you can not squeeze more bums in cabin, you are loosing out the maximum revenue. PEY is the future for frequent Y flyers. Y will be more for the budget flyers. Brace for the change or you will be disappointed as more airlines will follow suit.
Business frequent flyers usually don't have much say in what class (s)he can choose... That's per company's travel policy... But usually there will be more than 1 airline to choose from... So I can't fly Y doesn't mean I can fly PEY even PEY might be cheaper (think Y v.s. R)... But at least I can choose other carriers with other flights
e.g. To LHR if I avoided CX 77W I can fly whatever airline's A380...
Oct 23, 2015, 10:42 am
#23
Join Date: Aug 2010
Programs: AA 1.6MM EXP; UA GS; SPG LTG,Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,477
It's not off the table, although one would hope that CX would not go there. KA on the other hand?
Oct 23, 2015, 12:12 pm
#24
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: GVA
Programs: CX-DM, BA-GGL, Marriott-TI, HHonors-DM
Posts: 269
Oct 23, 2015, 1:44 pm
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
Oct 23, 2015, 6:44 pm
#26
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Jakarta
Programs: Flying Blue, Marco Polo, Skywards, Etihad Guest, IHG, Aeroplan
Posts: 269
having done some of CX's longest flights (HKG-YVR, HKG-YYZ and HKG-JFK), i truly hope that CX will not change its economy class cabin layout to 3-4-3. It strikes me how comfortable 3-3-3 layout is for both passengers and flight attendants. I don't get bump by meal cart, two passengers can easily pass each other on the aisle during flight, i don't get bump by other passengers luggage and bags during boarding, and it's just the general feeling of how much less cramped the cabin feels.
I've done KLM's, AC's, and EK"s 3-4-3 layout too so I can feel the difference. But just like any other posters have pointed out in this thread, sadly if the numbers work out in favour to reduce cost per mile, CX will jump to 3-4-3 in a heart beat. And for many people who are based in HK, they will still fly CX regardless of the seat layout just out of practicality.
I've done KLM's, AC's, and EK"s 3-4-3 layout too so I can feel the difference. But just like any other posters have pointed out in this thread, sadly if the numbers work out in favour to reduce cost per mile, CX will jump to 3-4-3 in a heart beat. And for many people who are based in HK, they will still fly CX regardless of the seat layout just out of practicality.
Oct 23, 2015, 8:37 pm
#27
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
The true scenario is out and not in Flyertalks members favorite. The airline industry has figured out the two categorical travelers that they should target: premium F/J cabin flyers and discount-seeking back of the cabin flyers. The former is a quick way to make high margin profits, the latter off-sets costs and increases revenue. The third category - savvy fliers here that are willing to pay extra for better Y experiences? Guess airlines figured out we are not high enough in number to keep.
Urgh, time to seriously consider JAL as alternate (AA 10 abreast with no PEY option turns me off)
Urgh, time to seriously consider JAL as alternate (AA 10 abreast with no PEY option turns me off)
Oct 23, 2015, 8:49 pm
#28
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: Marco Polo
Posts: 546
Is it possible that this survey is directed towards the 777-9 fleet ? With it's wider cabin it can easily handle 10 abreast. However let's say that CX is testing the waters for it's 77W fleet, although it's not a move I would support I would completely understand. Frequent flyers such as us would be annoyed & bothered however the average traveller wouldn't notice the difference or even know that they switched. So to CX corporate it wouldn't be too much of a controversial move.
Oct 23, 2015, 8:56 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
The true scenario is out and not in Flyertalks members favorite. The airline industry has figured out the two categorical travelers that they should target: premium F/J cabin flyers and discount-seeking back of the cabin flyers. The former is a quick way to make high margin profits, the latter off-sets costs and increases revenue. The third category - savvy fliers here that are willing to pay extra for better Y experiences? Guess airlines figured out we are not high enough in number to keep.
Oct 24, 2015, 12:02 am
#30
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,978
I remember a few years ago we are discussing will CX go the route of discount airlines, and some here screamed CX will be too proud and luxurious of an airline to do that. Guess not. CX has figured out it can and still give an illusion of a 5-star airlines image (for Y cabin).