From NYC

I agree. I also agree that the 777 BF seat is more comfortable than on the other planes that don’t have it.

Look, I’m not pushing for CO to announce tomorrow what their new BF seat will be. I mean the original date for the disclosure, to announce as the 787 came online later in 2008, isn’t close yet. I’m just wondering online whether CO is continuing to tie the announcement to the 787 delivery schedule even though it has been pushed back at least one year as of now. And with no one at Boeing stating when they actually do expect the first 787, which does not go to CO first, to roll off the line for the 1st customer, I’m wondering how long CO is prepared to wait.

One thing I’m sure of is that LK ain’t gonna answer that now nor in this forum.

pbarnette

Sort of. They also at least claim to compete for markets other than NYC. For example, I fly CPH-US. If I am flying to EWR, then CO offers a non-stop and that works to their advantage. If I am flying to SFO, or LAX, or BOS, or even IAH, then I have to make a connection. I can connect in EWR, with CO and not get a flat bed, or I can fly BA and get a flat bed. Three guesses as to who I fly in J, and the first two don't count.

CO is at a disadvantage in the 18 major markets (I exclude EWR) that BA serves to most TATL destinations, as well as the Middle East, Africa, and (for some itineraries) India. Same logic for any market that VS serves, and for TPAC any market served by a flat-bed Asian carrier.

pbarnette

I hope that CO does benefit from watching and waiting. But, my point - again - is that in the interim, why fly CO in J? It does not impact my decision-making today that the next-generation BF may be better than what BA or VS or CX or whomever offers. For now, those airlines are better than BF, ergo, I will choose them over BF. When (and if) BF starts beating those products, then go back, but there is no reason to stay with it in the interim.

Hartmann

This thread makes me think of the Thompson Solutions method: http://thompsonsolutions.co.uk/ts_business_gallery.html

Anglo Large Clawed Otter

I particularly like their quote: "NO CAPACITY LOSS COMPARED TO the 60" 'lie flat at angle' SEATS." Assuming for a moment that CO were to choose lie flat at an angle seats over true-flat, why on earth would one choose an inferior product, when the superior product takes up the same exact amount of space.

Granted, I think there would be a limited loss of capacity in switching from CO's present 55" pitch recliner configuration, but does anyone seriously expect that the new BF will, without a doubt, retain 55" of pitch (thus ruling out even sleepable angled-flat), in the interest of keeping an extra one or two BF seats in the front cabin. If CO chose to not even go the angled-flat route, that (to me) would be shocking. They would consciously be choosing to make their "premium" product inferior to every N. American competitor (with the possible exception of US), and as irrelevant as that of CSA Czech Airways.

Thompson Solutions may not be the seat chosen for the job, but they have demonstrated that true-flat is possible without a loss of capacity over angled-flat options. I doubt other seat manufacturers have completely ignored the Thompson design approach when considering future seating models. If the right supplier offers the right true-flat seat at the right weight and cost, with no loss of capacity over angled-flat, CO would be insane to pass up the option.

rkkwan

If you believe in the seating chart on their website, then not only will there be no loss in capacity, but an increase. In the first section of the 777 chart (it's a 773, but should be no difference from 772), they put 7 rows of 5 seats for 35 seats there. CO currently only puts 30-32 seats in that area.

AC's herringbone can only put 6 rows of 4 seats for 24. NZ with two more seats for 26.

The actual seat will be much narrower than the current BF, with lots of room going to the armrest area, which is also where the feet of the person in the row behind you end up. But I think it's not a bad compromise, as one is still very far away from the guy in the next seat.

I think that's really the best solution I've seen when saving space is important. Better than BA or UA's front/back, better than the herringbone.

---

Edit: The only seat that's hard to get out of is one window seat per row that has a companion. But those sets of two seats can be taken up by 2 people traveling together. Single travelers can pick any of the other 3 seats - either in the middle, or the single window on the other side. I think that's also a very good ratio.

pbarnette

Have any of there seats actually been installed in a commercial aircraft? There website doesn't give off a vibe that suggests big-time player.

ralfp

Their website may not give off a "big time player" vibe, but it's pretty good. The flash demo of the lie-flat seats is great.

Their "Cozy Suite" looks pretty nice. No more problems with POSs in Y.

pbarnette

Unfortunately, all of this ignores the majority of CO's TATL fleet, but hey most of the discussions about BF choose to ignore this. The Thompson site is mute on the question of how to fit this into a narrow-body 757. I would suspect that this issue may be the one that would conceivably doom this design for CO. Unless LK and company decide to offer two radically different products, depending upon the route - just doesn't seem CO's style.

I suspect that this design is not significantly better than alternatives, as we have seen new premium seats announced or installed from (at least) SQ, QF, CX, BA, DL, UA, and EK, in the 3 years since the copyright date on the Thompson website. There must be something that we are missing.

rkkwan

Who knows what's their problem - maybe getting them certified, maybe weight, IFE integration, price, etc...

Just saying the design is excellent - best compromise of space and comfort.

pbarnette

Fair enough. I guess I was just trying to play down the thought that CO would ever go for them, but since that isn't what you were saying, I guess that point is moot.

Pahdz

Thank God...my issue rate with the 200s when I'm on them is high...can't stand them.

Anglo Large Clawed Otter

Why does it matter if CO gets such seats from Thompson Solutions? Regarding the design they came up with, the cat is now out of the bag. With a few minor modifications, any other established seat-maker could patent and produce a similar design, using its existing manufacturing capabilities and industry contacts to bring similar seats to the marketplace at a comparable (or even reduced) price. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, as ThompsonSolutions already did the hard work. All that's required now is a crafty team of patent lawyers and an order from a major airline...

TWA Fan 1

Agreed. A couple of points:

1. Increased density of the J cabin does you no good if you're not selling seats or selling them at a deep discount.

2. What CO need on its long-haul and especially UHL a/c is PE. PE is actually the key to the whole equation, because it frees the carrier to create a true lie-flat premium cabin with less inventory and far less density. PE captures a significant demand that, priced correctly, can result in greater RASM's than J. There aren't many people able or willing to pay $6k (let alone $20k for certain transpac) but there are many willing to pay $2k for 40" seat pitch, free booze and a J meal. Where you have 5 J sleepers with 80" pitch, you have 16 PE seats with 40" seat pitch. If we assume the PE fare is $2k, the carrier would have to charge $6.4k for the same RASM (this is assuming PE receives the J service and thus equivalent soft costs).

With PE capturing the mid-range demand, the new super J (a la BA or VS) can be sold at a premium because there would be far less total inventory per plane compared to the current configuration.

Let's all forget the ceaseless hooey about no "sub fleets" (CO has plenty of sub fleets today, its BF a/c, domestic mainline and domestic RJ/turbo prop).

The product needs to be tailored to the demand. CO could likely sell at least 80-100 PE seats on its HKG, NRT, BOM, and DEL routes, a volume it could never hope to replicate with its current configuration of BF and E-

pbarnette

My point is that this Thompson Solutions thing has taken on a life of its own. Every time the topic of changes to BF comes up, someone mentions this seat like it is some huge new breakthrough. I simply asked the question of why, if this seat is so great, nobody has installed it. My guess is that there is a very good reason why.

As for whether someone can just copy it... I think VS's current lawsuit may determine whether that is the case. And my impression from the Thompson website is that they are just a design house and don't really manufacture the seats. Which, again, may be part of the reason nobody has installed it - a lot of things look good on paper...