JohnRain

EK isn't one of my "key examples" it's just one carrier among others I mentioned. If you're looking for a more convincing data point, take AF. They're in the process of refurbishing their whole longhaul fleet and will have a 1-2-1 configuration on 100% of their planes by the end of 2017.
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.c...s-los-angeles/

Why do you single out the 787? QR is using the exact same 1-2-1 layout on the A380 and on the A350 as well.

CPH-Flyer

Because I have actually flown on the 787 (not the others), and thought quite a bit about how economy heavy it actually is,the same goes for the A350 and A380, despite the very low seat count for the space in the premium cabins, the total seat count is not low. The A380 demonstrates fairly well the space cost of the QR seating, and I don't think any other airline would make that work. And I would wonder if QR struggles to make the A380 routes profitable, and if they keep them out of their constant business class fare sales to keep yield up.

AF is going for it, their significant other(KL) is not. Which shows that it does not necessarily make sense in all business models. If 1-2-1 was the only way to go, you would wonder why two airlines in the same company goes different routes. But AF and KL analysed their needs, their customer base, and their expected ROI and earnings and went two different ways.

As a passenger, of course the direct aisle access is preferable. But as a business it may not always be.

JohnRain

QR's business class fare sales include the A380.

Interesting analysis. I was wondering the same thing about KL. At first I thought that market size could be the answer (AF: big, KL: small) but that's not it as i) it would be counter-intuitive and ii) other carriers in small markets are also going for 1-2-1 (SK).

That's exactly the point. I as a passenger will always choose an airline with 1-2-1 because it is by far the best and most comfortable cabin design. From an airline perspective 2-2-2 may be preferable because it's more profitable but today passengers have more options than ever before and if a growing part of them decide they want to fly in a more comfortable 1-2-1 cabin, LH's 2-2-2 cabins won't be as profitable as initially anticipated. Plus, and that's equally damaging to the brand, LH won't be perceived as best in class anymore. LH F is still world-class, but the rest of it is becoming more and more average.

Chinatrvl

KLM will go for the AF seat, i.e. 1-2-1 seating, in all new airplane models and likely the 330, too.

JohnRain

That's a very interesting piece of information. Do you have a source for it?

MichielR

The B789 seatmap has already been loaded...

http://www.klm.com/travel/ch_en/prep...lans/787-9.htm

A lot of speculation over at the KL part of this site that KLM could not choose 1-2-1 for its B744 fleet as it wouldn't work on the UD and in the nose section.

CPH-Flyer

Delta makes a similar seat work in the nose and upper deck on their 747, so that is probably not really the reason.

I think you underestimate the importance the routing and timing importance for frequent business travellers. But in the end we will not know for the next couple of years if LH is right or wrong. The current share price development is a bad measurement for this, that is probably more driven by strikes and the 4U incident.
But my bet is that their network strength will mean that they are in the right direction. For them.

dj_jay_smith

The BA 2-4-2 layout offers direct aisle access for 50% of the seats in a row, with the other 50% requiring you to step over another passenger.

The LH 2-2-2 layout offers direct aisle access to 66% of the seats (57% on the 2-3-2 layout), so in this respect LH is better.

Speculation that BA might upgrade their seat is just rumour until something is stated, and even then it would take a long time to roll it out across their entire fleet. Plenty of people are already complaining how long the 747 refresh is taking BA to get new WT+ and new IFE and a new cabin layout is a lot of effort.

And the seat is not everything. When I flew with the AA 773 in their new 1-2-1 config then yes the seat was great, but the service was poor and the food quality was also poor and when it comes to food I prefer it simple. In fact the bread was so bad I could not eat it!

But, as much as we might criticise LH for their cabins and their prices, you have to admit that the cabins are normally always full!

Of course some of this is attitude of in-frequent travellers judging on past reputation, while at the airport recently I overhead one women on the phone telling somebody how the TA offered them an alternative but they said "No, it must be Lufthansa, I will not fly with anybody else".

In the end, as long as LH can fill their cabins then they must be doing something right.

JohnRain

I'm well aware of the importance of timing and routing for business travelers, but even on this front LH is coming increasingly under attack. The fact that CX is launching 4 times weekly service to HK from DUS in September with a 1-2-1 cabin-equipped 773 is certainly not welcome news for LH. For a business traveler who can't afford to use a ME3 carrier for time and routing reasons, CX and SQ both offer vastly superior 1-2-1 cabins (and food and service) to Asia. Things will get really interesting once the ME3 increase the pressure in order to open more direct US-bound routes ex-EU like EK's MXP-JFK service. If LH doesn't adapt to this relatively new and rapidly evolving situation, it won't be perceived as a premium airline anymore but rather as an also-ran.

MichielR

26 seats for DL where KL can put 35 seats in their config. Back to economics.