I AGREE wholeheartedly. It was the same with the regional J and far back when they introduced the shell back economy too - a very superior product but convention reacted in such a negative way. Why couldn't it be appreciated for the tremendous product that it was? NO WORRY of the seatback coming towards you!! That is incredible!!! I still believe it to be the best economy seat out there.

Yes it was a very full flight, as it always seems to be Tokyo - HK. It really was a good product and superior to A359 even (which is also very good) - it just gave me hope amidst so much (what I feel is) negative bashing that CX gets.

Your shoulder width? Less than 19 inches?

You just reminded me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist. Masochist "Whip me, whip me" with the Sadist ripping his hair out going "No, No".

Guess which one I think is the passenger on a 10 abreast 777? You have just brought new meaning to the Latin phrase 'Dun spiro spero'! (While I breathe I hope)

All in good fun

How well each passenger assesses the 3-4-3 seat dpeends on shoulder width. If you're my niece - so narrow around the shoulders that I can probably make her and a twin share a Y seat if push came to shove - then the new build might be attractive.

Average is an interesting word
"Average" male shoulder width https://www.firstinarchitecture.co.u...le-dimensions/ = 465mm = 18,3 inches
(Female 395mm = 15.6 inches)

CX 3-4-3 seat = 17.2 + 1.5 (two halves of armest) = 18.7
So the new seat leaves no wiggle room for two adjacent males (or an oversized (overbearing) C9, as in my first 3-4-3 experience).

---

Obviously airlines are not required to consider averages.

It's relative
While I despair every time I board a shoddy HK taxi I flag (my commute transformed from a comfortable "85%" order taxi to a intra-island commute from a cab rank)
How new a seat is is temporary. Maintenance also comes into it (OK, CX hasn't done well there either or maybe there's not much you can really do while the seats are in such constant use)
How big a seat is is permanent

I agree, pardon my wording. Though in that regard, a supposedly average build would vary from places to places. So there will be people who find the new seats more desirable due to all the new features, but definitely not everyone, and perhaps not the majority.

I personally dislike (the new) narrower seats for I have rather broad shoulders, but I know many who would disagree and like the new features and find it as an improvement.

I measured myself earlier and I am 18inches across. I'm 175cm tall and about 90kg, so very much on the chubby side, but still found it very comfortable. Just to give you an idea!

:)
I understand. I do want to tell the world that CX going 3-4-3 really isn't the end of the world like so many people seem to think, that's all! ;)

I'm not very fit either. But I don't think my BMI matters as my oversized stomach is merely a lap problem, not overflowing over into the armrests. We have similar BMIs.

It's my shoulder width. I was put through a lot of swimming as it was the only sport I did consistently with interest as a child. So I ended up with very broad shoulders for my height.

---

Further discrimination on personal charecteristics (fat, tall, wide) also factors in my view of your praise of the hard shell Economy seat.

Another characteristic I am starting to have a bad back - I prefer reclining seats over sliding seat designs (this also applies to my dislike to regional business seats which I fly on redeye routes on public holidays).

I believe this is up to debate but I believe I am not alone - I believe it is fair to say half the people (including you) really like the hard shell seat and half (inclduing me) hate it equally as much.

But when market conditions dictate we have to share the same product, is is fairest on passengers to chose a product that elicits the least controversy. Hard shell certainly elicits more controversy than reclining, and is less desirable from a mass market passenger POV.

---

The latter only affects CX P&L if passengers buy in their differented product (they didn't, as evidenced by they didn't continue it).

The former directly improves CX P&L if the 11% seat count gain is not offset by >11% fare decrease to fill seats (I think this will generally be true, unfortunately. Especially since we've few alternatives on peak days, and it does not make such a big impact on other days)

In full disclosure, I have not tried any 777 with a 3-4-3 in the back (nor would I want to). The hard facts and maths leave me feeling skeptical about how 17 inches could even be remotely comfortable. As a mental exercise, I've thought about the reasons why I could be wrong:

1) A window seat could be tolerable given the extra shoulder width due to the curvature of the plane and the impossibility of someone's behind rubbing up against your shoulder as they walk up the aisle
2) Perhaps there is some extra engineering performed on the seat such that one would sink into the seat effectively reducing the effective shoulder width (similar to how crossing arms reduces shoulder width).
3) Perhaps CX added a slight amount of pitch between rows (even an 1/4th inch would be noticable difference)

Obviously, if the seat next to you is empty or sits a loved one or a child, then it obviously won't be nearly as bad as having a bulky stranger sitting next to you.

3) definitely didn't happen

Loved one doesn't always work
- on a JAL 777 3-4-3 HND-CTS domestic flight my wife and I proceeded to seats D and E and found a Japanese couple with the man in F and the wife in G. I naturally took E and my wife in D. The other bloke and I suffered as a result, but I don't have the requisite Japanese skills (nor undestood it is culturally acceptable) to ask both wives to move.
- on another Scoot flight (when they still had 772s) my mate and I really stuffed our wives in the middle to make the flight more sufferable.