A350-1000 - General Discussion
Jun 19, 2018, 10:04 am
#61
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: Lowly CX & IHG
Posts: 382
11D/G: comparing with the photos by AusBT (link), it looks exactly the same. Probably better if the space is used for extra galley/stroage space, but you know when 77H goes 10-abreast they are not gonna lose the flexibility of 2 extra seats.
I think Cirrus III is to stack footwell to make it more dense, meanwhile also used in JL as Sky Suite III in flights between 1.8k-4.1k nm
I think Cirrus III is to stack footwell to make it more dense, meanwhile also used in JL as Sky Suite III in flights between 1.8k-4.1k nm
Jun 19, 2018, 10:06 am
#62
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
I can't see how that would be designed in the space available. If you moved the door the bowl would get in the way of the inward opening mechanism, and you couldn't have an outward opening door next to an emergency exit.
Jun 19, 2018, 10:31 am
#63
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 562
Why he flies it is not your business, nor particularly relevant to this discussion. He is a frequent passenger setting out constructive criticism for free, which ideally would influence a grateful CX to design their cabins better.
Jun 19, 2018, 12:38 pm
#64
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-DM, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 1,310
With all his experience, QRC3288 certainly knows the bad seats on the 359 (and can predict those on the 35K), let alone, he is not an FA (and has as such little to do with the factual quality of the galleys), though he still criticizes CX as a grumpy old man.
The "bad" food applies to QRC3288, though it's not that bad and let us honest, CX is improving on this (at least plans to do so).
The cabin density at CX (vs. QR) might be relevant, though QRC3288 does not complain about the living space at CX (only about the 2 odd seats, largely used for (nearly) freeloaders).
QRC3288 also complains about the position of the toilets, though, when avoiding the 2 odd J seats, this seems to be hardly relevant.
QRC3288 also complains about the lack of cabin through-view, whether that is a bad aspect or not. The smaller cabins (and the mid-overheads) might take care of additional dampening of cabin noise, something certainly appreciated on the more silent 359/35K.
The CX cabin interior is arguable of a somewhat outdated business scheme, though I would not describe it as that bad. It may need a refresh/update, which the recent pictures of the 35K do seem to show.
Pricing ex-HKG might be a more serious item, though.
Jun 19, 2018, 4:37 pm
#65
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
It does make me wonder why he keeps flying CX...
it is not constructive or logical to keep attacking a company yet keep purchasing their product....
Jun 19, 2018, 5:09 pm
#66
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Marco Polo Club, KF
Posts: 208
Of course, why QRC3288 flies is his own business. Why he flies CX to a DM+ level and still seems to hate CX is intriguing.
With all his experience, QRC3288 certainly knows the bad seats on the 359 (and can predict those on the 35K), let alone, he is not an FA (and has as such little to do with the factual quality of the galleys), though he still criticizes CX as a grumpy old man.
The "bad" food applies to QRC3288, though it's not that bad and let us honest, CX is improving on this (at least plans to do so).
The cabin density at CX (vs. QR) might be relevant, though QRC3288 does not complain about the living space at CX (only about the 2 odd seats, largely used for (nearly) freeloaders).
QRC3288 also complains about the position of the toilets, though, when avoiding the 2 odd J seats, this seems to be hardly relevant.
QRC3288 also complains about the lack of cabin through-view, whether that is a bad aspect or not. The smaller cabins (and the mid-overheads) might take care of additional dampening of cabin noise, something certainly appreciated on the more silent 359/35K.
The CX cabin interior is arguable of a somewhat outdated business scheme, though I would not describe it as that bad. It may need a refresh/update, which the recent pictures of the 35K do seem to show.
Pricing ex-HKG might be a more serious item, though.
With all his experience, QRC3288 certainly knows the bad seats on the 359 (and can predict those on the 35K), let alone, he is not an FA (and has as such little to do with the factual quality of the galleys), though he still criticizes CX as a grumpy old man.
The "bad" food applies to QRC3288, though it's not that bad and let us honest, CX is improving on this (at least plans to do so).
The cabin density at CX (vs. QR) might be relevant, though QRC3288 does not complain about the living space at CX (only about the 2 odd seats, largely used for (nearly) freeloaders).
QRC3288 also complains about the position of the toilets, though, when avoiding the 2 odd J seats, this seems to be hardly relevant.
QRC3288 also complains about the lack of cabin through-view, whether that is a bad aspect or not. The smaller cabins (and the mid-overheads) might take care of additional dampening of cabin noise, something certainly appreciated on the more silent 359/35K.
The CX cabin interior is arguable of a somewhat outdated business scheme, though I would not describe it as that bad. It may need a refresh/update, which the recent pictures of the 35K do seem to show.
Pricing ex-HKG might be a more serious item, though.
Jun 19, 2018, 5:14 pm
#67
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,708
You're referring to me here personally, right? I feel obliged to point out the obvious: this is an obviously wrong and incredibly misleading statement.
You are inplying I'm either stupid, or bizarre, or there is some other problem with my purchasing habits. I probably don't need to point out the arrogance and ignorance behind such a statement, but it's obviously offensive.
There are many reasons I fly CX (they have a monopoly on more than a few routes I fly, being one). However, the bulk of your personal insults don't deserve much response. I have both every right to be their customer and to criticize them where I see faults. To imply my purchasing decision is somehow faulty, and that my only choice is to just not fly them anymore is not dissimilar to the arguments by nativists in the US ("If you don't like America, then leave!"). Completely illogical.
I do, however fly CX fairly frequently. And I encourage you to point out in my posts where I am wrong. That's completely possible and I look forward to a constructive debate instead of personal insults.
You are inplying I'm either stupid, or bizarre, or there is some other problem with my purchasing habits. I probably don't need to point out the arrogance and ignorance behind such a statement, but it's obviously offensive.
There are many reasons I fly CX (they have a monopoly on more than a few routes I fly, being one). However, the bulk of your personal insults don't deserve much response. I have both every right to be their customer and to criticize them where I see faults. To imply my purchasing decision is somehow faulty, and that my only choice is to just not fly them anymore is not dissimilar to the arguments by nativists in the US ("If you don't like America, then leave!"). Completely illogical.
I do, however fly CX fairly frequently. And I encourage you to point out in my posts where I am wrong. That's completely possible and I look forward to a constructive debate instead of personal insults.
Jun 19, 2018, 9:21 pm
#69
Join Date: Aug 2016
Programs: CX Life Time,TG,
Posts: 265
I now see that the TLV bird switches to MAN and then back to TLV again, so together with IAD, MAD, AMS and ZUR only 2 frames being delivered thru the end of 2019 remain to be placed. The destinations chosen to date should leave reasonable availability for TPE, MNL and BKK flights, maybe even some SIN.
Jun 19, 2018, 9:24 pm
#70
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
They're not, the 351 has brand new seats made my HAECO 3-3-3. The new 777 ones are made by Recaro. Why they're not the same as the 359 - I assume Swire wanted to get HAECO established as a seat manufacturer and directing another subsidiary to make it happen was easy.
Jun 19, 2018, 9:24 pm
#71
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: HKG
Programs: CX, BA
Posts: 69
. Or it's a sign of our "tough love"." if CX is not better than EVERY single competitor in every single aspect then they are a terrible airline with pathetic offerings" / " what a pathetic trash budget airline, no respect for the customer"
You and I both know that's an exaggeration. Nobody has ever said they are a "terrible" airline. If they were truly a "terrible" then why the hack do we still fly them.
The answer to your question is simple, because we like CX so much we don't want it to fall behind. Remember when BA were industry leading? Look at where they are now. CX have done an amazing job with the lounges and people here love that. But how can they improve without honest opinions about their onboard product? They brand themselves as a premium airline, doesn't that mean offering one of the best products in the industry? On the other hand, I have yet see a good reason for them not to introduce the mattress they trialed (and received positive feedback).
*and yes it would be nice for them to offer slippers as well ;-) , and no it doesn't make them a horrible airline if they don't.
It's not the product that disappoint us mattress-advocates, it's their effort. They could have easily taken this opportunity to go one step further, or otherwise they could have made the mattresses on-demand to save money.
Sidenote,
SQ's new regional seat is actually the long-haul standard of many airlines (arguably better than their own new sleep-in-an-angle long haul seat) .
QR - They know their 2-2-2 configuration is falling behind so you can see they are innovating with QSuite (in fact QSuite is coming to HK in late Oct).
CX is the flag carrier of Hong Kong and to HKers they represent us and our city. We are passionate about CX and that's why we care, taking criticisms is the way to move forward. It's simply tough love.
You and I both know that's an exaggeration. Nobody has ever said they are a "terrible" airline. If they were truly a "terrible" then why the hack do we still fly them.
The answer to your question is simple, because we like CX so much we don't want it to fall behind. Remember when BA were industry leading? Look at where they are now. CX have done an amazing job with the lounges and people here love that. But how can they improve without honest opinions about their onboard product? They brand themselves as a premium airline, doesn't that mean offering one of the best products in the industry? On the other hand, I have yet see a good reason for them not to introduce the mattress they trialed (and received positive feedback).
*and yes it would be nice for them to offer slippers as well ;-) , and no it doesn't make them a horrible airline if they don't.
It's not the product that disappoint us mattress-advocates, it's their effort. They could have easily taken this opportunity to go one step further, or otherwise they could have made the mattresses on-demand to save money.
Sidenote,
SQ's new regional seat is actually the long-haul standard of many airlines (arguably better than their own new sleep-in-an-angle long haul seat) .
QR - They know their 2-2-2 configuration is falling behind so you can see they are innovating with QSuite (in fact QSuite is coming to HK in late Oct).
CX is the flag carrier of Hong Kong and to HKers they represent us and our city. We are passionate about CX and that's why we care, taking criticisms is the way to move forward. It's simply tough love.
I have exactly the same question. The Y seat looks the same as those 10 abreast 777. I quite like the 359 Y seat. Haven't tried out the 10 abreast Y seats installed in 777 though.
Jun 19, 2018, 10:12 pm
#73
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: Lowly CX & IHG
Posts: 382
Between the photos of the 35K Y seat in #45 and the public photos of the 10 abreast 777 Y seat, it seems the materials are similar but (1) the headrest pattern is different and seems neither can fold the sides outwards like 35G headrest; (2) there's a extra layer of padding on 35K Y much like current blue cradle, which is not seen on new 777 Y. Seems to be quite different models that are made to look unified.
Jun 21, 2018, 4:49 pm
#74
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: HKG/HND/OOL
Programs: QF Emerald. SQ Gold.
Posts: 3,169
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38...rom-july-2018/
Initial inaugural service on regional routes:
Hong Kong – Taipei Taoyuan 01JUL18 CX484/485
Updated A350-1000XWB long-haul service includes:
(Previously reported)
Initial inaugural service on regional routes:
Hong Kong – Taipei Taoyuan 01JUL18 CX484/485
Updated A350-1000XWB long-haul service includes:
(Previously reported)
Jun 21, 2018, 7:57 pm
#75
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
considering most of the crew were complaining about the size of the galley in Dr1 and the lack of storage space I'm surprised they kept 11D/G instead of moving the bulkhead out and leave some more space for the crew to actually work in the galley and some cabinets to store items.