Arbeysix

Apologies, I don't have photos but FYI the 900 has curtains also. The issue is that the seats are fundamentally too close to the lav/galley and the curtains don't do much at all too assist (as I recall the curtains are practically in your face).

djsflynn

djsflynn

Yes, I get that issue, am just conveying what CX said during the briefing when this was raised, will have real pics from inside the -1000 soon.

QRC3288

The fact they said that either shows ignorance or arrogance. The curtains are a symptom of the problem, but the underlying issue is seat positioning. And galley size/design, which the crew all complain about. CX management might wish the crew would just shut up about it and the crew are at fault. But they need to hold a mirror up and ask why they keep screwing up with the hard product rollouts, and what is structurally wrong with the company where they keep having deep rooted issues. It starts at the top.

The A350 is lovely plane and CX has really mucked it up in J class. That takes "skill". One time you don't realize it but over flight after flight you realize the CX product is genuinely worse than the competition and it's mostly all self-inflicted. I can say without fail of the 3 A350s I've flown (Qatar, Singapore, CX), CX has the worst premium layout. And those two seats are "worst of the worst". CX should really be embarrassed by them! Qatar has two bad seats up front but they're not nearly in the same league as CX 11D/G. And Qatar did a far better job with the rest of the layout with a nearly identical reverse herringbone design.

The correct response from CX management is "We really screwed up, and in order to protect the integrity of our brand, we aren't seating any revenue passengers there." I'm surprised they're trying to BS you.

You should also talk to Airbus while you're there. I was told CX actually insisted on a fairly customized J class design, which is hilarious because it's the worst of the competition. Zodiac was a mess but two people independently have told me it didn't have to be this bad with CX, and part of their woes are indeed self-inflicted.

djsflynn

djsflynn

And here we go: seats 11D and 11G are still a no-go zone (unless you like to watch other passengers 'going').







More at https://www.ausbt.com.au/the-best-bu...rbus-a350-1000

djsflynn

Arbeysix

[QUOTE=djsflynn;29881819]And here we go: seats 11D and 11G are still a no-go zone (unless you like to watch other passengers 'going').

Thanks. Yes, the photo with the lav door open clearly demonstrates the issue. Seems odd to me to sacrifice J revenue seats/customer experience in this way presumably to help bolster lower revenue seat count at the back of the bus (on the 900, the PE section does not seem to take up much real estate at all).

cx4ever

Sounds like you're implying that the layout is worse even if 11D/G didn't exist. Could you elaborate?

sxc

I would have thought it was possible to have the same number of seats but somehow position the door differently? Although Qatar has 24 seats in the same space CX has 30.

Cambo

The only "real" way to solve this, would a curtain right along the seat/aisle border of 11D/G, creating a kind of Emirates new First-class style seat (ughhh, ughhh).
And it should be a "heavy" curtain type. If so, it would definitely enhance the passenger experience.

The curtain position currently designed is definitely not the way to go.

CXYYZ

I agree with your overall point and it is disappointing to see that CX didn't fix this problem with the A350-1000. But it's worth pointing out that Finnair has managed to one-up CX on their A350 cabin layouts despite what, on paper, should be a comparable product on account of two decisions:

The most important of the two was choosing Cirrus III seats, which are a higher density (narrower) version of the same base Cirrus seats. AY added an extra closet at the front of the middle section of the cabin where the footrest for 11D/G would start on CX. The effect is that all the seats start roughly where CX's 11A/K are positioned so AY don't have an equivalent to the terrible twos (11D/G); however AY managed to squeeze an extra row of 4 seats into the same floor space, which means their Cirrus seats are a LOT less comfortable than CX.

The second AY decision was not to no overhead bins above the middle seats of the J cabin. This gives a ("luxurious"?) sense of airiness, which I can't imagine anyone was really asking for, but means that your already high density configuration results in a need to semi-fight for convenient overhead bin space... in long-haul J!

QRC3288

Sure. Let me compare against QR. On the CX A359, for example, a galley is wasted. CX built two but in practice only uses one to work and stores extra crap (and the FAs make plenty of unncessary noise moving stuff around, bothering rear minicabin J pax in the process) in the rear galley in off hours. By contrary, QR has a nearly double-sized single galley up front. It is more efficient and also avoids the noise issue in back by avoiding the second wasted galley altogether. While I cannot directly comment as I'm not an FA, I also know the CX FAs seem to hate the A350 galley the most to work in due to small size. This is entirely due to CX's design. It isn't an Airbus design fault.

Meanwhile CX has the two lavs up front across from the infamous 11D/G seats. In addition to the seat problem, you have the added annoyance of cabin crew and cockpit crew essentially having to come into the main cabin and enter a seat space to go to the potty. I watched the captain of a recent flight tiptoe around the legs of an 11D passenger before the captain relieved himself. Not super professional looking. Nor is this something present on 777 or A330 configs: all have a forward lav by the cockpit, and obviously none have seats practically in the toilet (the only other one is 77G, but the bad toilet is in the rear and crew overwhelmingly use the front two lavs in the cockpit corridor). And in QRs case for the A350, their extra two lavs are near doors 2, with the third in the cockpit corridor. None are in passenger seats like CX. And even though the two extra QR lavs are exposed, they're not blatantly in a passenger area like CX. Theyre where QR removed the galley they left it this open airy "break" area.

Another point. The "break" area does two things. 1) it opens up the cabin and makes it look much nicer and classier, and 2) it also helps the FAs do their jobs better. This is important. A Qatar FA at the front of the plane on either aisle of QR can see down the ENTIRE J class section with a clean line of sight. The "break" area avoids the feel of it being one big dorm room, but provides much easier vision for FAs throughout the cabin. No chance of this on CX. And yes all these design elements were thought about....by the competition. Clearly not by CX. Anyone who flies CX in the A330/A350/77G rear minicabin is guaranteed to encounter PEY or Y pax using the J toilet, usually with great frequency.. And if you fly enough, you're also guaranteed to encounter self upgrading passengers who often can go quite a while without getting caught. I tell FAs, and in multiple cases I'm quite certain the passengers get away with it if I don't say anything.

CX seems intent on having a quasi standard J class design across the A350, 77G/K , 33E and 33K. As it stands it's really not anything to write home about. It's fine but clearly they're just not at the top of their game. "Average" without much depth of thought to any of the constituent users is how I'd describe it. Feels very corporate and I don't say that as a compliment. It feels like CX (and perhaps Swire) is a company with a bunch of corporate feifdoms and bland suits and the work shows that.

None of these are horrendous things on their own. But it obviously all together speaks to a volume of problems at CX. True most of those problems have built up over the years so what we see today isn't nessarily an indication of the future. But as a paying passenger it definitely chafes and ultimately backfires on CX through lost revenue and yield.

Kachjc

I have no idea why QRC3288 still flies CX
but considering CX carries more net J passengers net than QR or SQ

And I would not even bother talking about Yields at QR/SQ- especially QR.... ( yes CX had a loss- ergo fuel hedging - please do basic math)

I think CX is doing fine...
They have 2 bad seats on the A350's
The rest of the seats are amazing and the CX decor might be bland to some but I like the CX interior colours- I hate red/maroon or whatever crazy colors QR and SQ out on their seats- tacky and outdated.

In case you have not noticed CX has been on this design simplification part for a while...

The CX MH/LH hard product is still the best and arguably the most consistent.... something SQ/QR struggle to provide.

sscywong

I guess it's impossible to position a lav door to open towards door L1... But I think for R1 it's possible....

Just CX wants to do it or not...