Kremmen

Likewise. I'm looking forward to trying this out when flying alone, but otherwise it's going to be a pest.

For that matter, I've heard a lot of loud business people talking to their colleagues even when seats are right next to each other. With this layout, you'll probably be able to hear some business class conversations back in row 20!

Of course, anyone with a physical disability who needs help from their companion is just going to be out of luck for the whole flight, or at least whenever the seatbelt sign is on, which is really poor.

Having row numbers in the centre not match the outer seats is inane and sure to cause confusion.

Given the loss of so many seats (and therefore probably some award redemption opportunities), I'd prefer if they had just kept the current international config.

og

QF had to get rid of the old SkyBed Mk I seats. Even the Mk II seats are prematurely running out of steam ( and costing QF - in more ways than one ). I'd suggest that award redemptions are not part of the QF business model. QF sees bright dollar signs all over these new seats.

Kremmen

While I'm quite sure the aims of Qantas and myself are divergent regarding awards, they are a massive part of the QF operation. However, I wonder how bright those dollar signs will really be? Flights to Perth aren't long enough to get much sleep anyway and the angled flat is arguably better, as you can communicate with your neighbour. The only circumstance in which this new layout is significantly better is when travelling alone internationally.

moa999

I'd say about 20%.
First Intl A333 refurb due out mid-Jan, and I suspect the next one won't be out till March, so you are dealing with a single aircraft that will seemingly be doing both MEL-SIN and SYD-SIN and vv alternately.

RichardMEL

Yes, the row numbering already caused confusion on one of the flights on this new product I took last Saturday but to be fair the suites do have the numbers in big friendly lit fashion (as in David's pictures and great report) I think people just need to get used to it. Yes it's confusing but doesn't take long even for a blind guy like me to figure out

the seats themselves I found really comfortable and nice. I personally think the 2A/K, 4A/K pairs are best for solo pax as more privacy with the ledge/table aisle side, but that's just me.

As noted couples (or companions, business folks, whatever) travelling together it's not so idea, but then I'd say seats like 3A/4D, 3K/4E as they are closer with both aisle facing

I really liked the product and think it's a big step forward to QF.

the CX seats yes are very nice true and until QF's fleet is configured fully CX would be a consistent option, but I would say this product is up there with the CX seat.

Platy

Undoubtedly useful info here and on the parent (commercial) site being promoted by this post. However, this post really should clarify that the trip report and parent article was funded by Qantas by way of free business class travel worth approximately $2000 one way (as declared on the parent site post). Assuming Qantas flew you back home a $4,000 kick back at least?

Oh an try booking a frequent flyer flight onto the (ONE?) refitted aircraft...why not challenge Qantas on that issue rather than the blatant promo???


As others (not me) have questioned on the national press version of this rehashed review, why not pay for yourself if you really aspire to independence?

m0hamed

Because that's not how travel media works....

Traveloguy

This really is the most interesting comment thus far in this thread, and I would be keen to hear from more people about what they think about these new seats vs the highly rated Cirrus seats that US, AA and CX feature.

The old Thompson Vantage (featured on BD, LX, AY, etc) I am not really a fan of (narrow, especially around feet, and the air cushion system never works, not to mention tray tables that are either too high or too low), but if the Thompson Vantage XL seats have ended up sorting out all the problems with their first generation seat, I have to admit that I would be very keen to travel on it.

Any other reports out there?

Platy

mOhamed, you don't get it...that does not excuse the lack of transparency. The flight was paid for by Qantas, so why not simply tell the good readers of Flyertalk that this is the case so they can make their own mind up about any independence or bias as they read the content. Not all readers will instantly "know" that the poster has a commercial interest in another web site that bases its content on freebies and uncritically reviewed content from the airlines and credit card companies., etc.

Furthermore, this post was intended to direct readers of Flyertalk to the parent commercial website, hence the link. Not in itself a problem if the commercial interest is openly declared.

m0hamed

Calm down. FTers would be naturally interested in the first real review of these seats.

AusBT is not like American based blogs that primarily benefit from credit card referrals. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they are uncritical when they report issues and problems. I trust AusBT much more than the standard flight reports on SMH which are often riddled with inaccuracies.

Traveloguy

I actually think Platy has a point here. Whilst AusBT has improved markedly over the years (especially since some previous journalists whom constantly told mis-truths or just plainly made stuff up have fortunately left), I think it is important that people be made aware of the commercial nature of such a review. It can be hard to be unbiased when someone else is paying for your trip, and the crew all know you are likely about to write up something about both the cabin as well as their behaviour. FT is important because most people writing reviews here are not paid to do so, so the level of potential bias is obviously less.

That said, I am still glad to have read djsflynn's comments regardless of the commercial dimension to his posts. I just feel it is worth highlighting that commercial dimension, especially when not everyone reading FT will be aware of it.

djsflynn

Thanks, I flew that first A330BS (unfortunate abbreviation!) SYD-PER on New Year's Eve, glad to see my sacrifice appreciated.

It does. See the bottom of my review, where it clearly says "David Flynn travelled on the inaugural Qantas Airbus A330 Business Suite flight as a guest of Qantas". This is a standard declaration which runs under all AusBT content derived from a trip where airfare was covered by a third party (e.g. an airline, Airbus or Boeing).

Not a 'kickback', which is defined as payment (specifically "a payment made to someone who has facilitated a transaction or appointment, especially illicitly", is one example). But yes, Qantas paid for me to fly directly back on the next PER-SYD redeye (old A330 seats, ouch!) after I flew SYD-PER on the A330BS.

What on earth has that got to do with my review of the seat? I don't see the 'issue' here which you are asking somebody to champion.

PLATY, you clearly don't have a grasp on the realities of media - nobody gets rich doing this gig. There's no way I or any journalist could afford to buy our own airfares for reviews, especially when it comes to J and F travel. Ditto for attending lounge openings, Airbus & Boeing media briefings etc.

As it happens, I can accept paid tickets because I don't have to 'aspire' to independence – I'm a professional journalist, so I'm trained to be independent, just like you've been trained to fulfil some necessary aspects of your profession. It's what my long and successful career has depended upon.

Platy

David, why not simply add a clarifying statement at the bottom of your FT post rather than rely on the good folk of FT needing to link to the primary site to glean that info?

The material IS very useful and evidently appreciated by many.

I am quite aware of the realities of the media having worked in various aspects of it myself and had a father who headed up news and current affairs for one of the world's leading broadcasters employing 600 journalists.

djsflynn

Because I don't believe that's required for a post with some pics and a link. The good folk of FT are grown-ups, they would know that media do review flights which airlines cover (and I'd like to think they're know that in this case the source/writer is respected and credible).

That said, of course, if FT rules that a link to any review in which the writer has travelled 'courtesy of airline X' carry such a disclaimer immediately following the link, of course I'll oblige.

Dave Noble

Not all reviews listed in SMH are sponsored by airlines ; there are definitely ones where the person psid their own way

Regardless of intentional bias, I am always sceptical of reviews where the person was given the product/service free from the company that is being reviewed and more inclined to trust reviews where the company had no idea it was being reviewed