GUWonder

WJ3-3-3 on the SK A350 seems even more miserable than SK’s 2-4-2 arrangement on the non-A350, A3X0 dual-aisle series that SK flies currently.

Airlines like to pretend as if new planes and seats make for a better customer experience, but that is not necessarily so ... especially in economy class. Thus, the question about how much more uncomfortably miserable will SK’s long-haul economy class seating arrangements be in the SK A350 than is already the case when flying SK in long-haul economy class.

SKT-DK

Well, it is all about how many seats then can economically put it, and since the 359 is wide enough for an extra seat across compared to the 343/333 they would be silly not to take advantage. As others have said, most, if not all 350 operators, operate a 3-3-3 config in Y so hardly fair to blame SK for this.

GUWonder

I understand the financial incentive to “pack’em in”. But what I am talking about is whether or not SK’s long-haul economy class passengers are in for a more uncomfortable ride with SK seats on the A350 than on the other double-aisle, SK planes — the planes that SK has used for most long-haul flying this year — and how much worse it will be for such SK passengers flying long-haul SK economy class than it already is.

Dover2Golf

The A350 XWB was designed for nine across in economy. The original A350 stuck with the traditional Airbus width of eight but initial customers wanted something different - I remember SQ were particularly influential in this so it is nine but won't accommodate ten and therefore much better than the 787 which was designed for eight and into which all but one operator has forced nine.

SKT-DK

So by that logic, had SAS bought 777s instead, you would still want them to do 2-4-2 and leave insanely wide aisles open just because their existing fleet has it?
Most airlines with different size of wide-bodies have different configs...

GUWonder

No. I am comparing what SAS has been providing its long-haul economy class customers this year to what SAS will be providing them next year with the A350. The question comes down to whether or not SAS long-haul economy class customers are going to get a more miserable in-flight seating experience with the A350 than they already do when flying SAS. And it’s not just about how many seats are in a given row and how they are arranged in a given row, even as that too makes a difference to customers’ seating comfort.

Is it an FT social faux-pas to be concerned with or highlighting that SAS be making things worse in ways for most of its customers in the main with its fleet management program?

SKT-DK

Then I suggest you write to SAS and ask them to only but narrower planes so they can continue to offer 2-4-2 seating without wasting space
What they are doing is no different than any other operator of the A350.

GUWonder

I am not going to write to SAS about this or much of anything as a customer, unless and until it involves SAS’s failings under the law.

Whether or not SAS is any different than any other operator of the A350, it doesn’t change a thing about whether or not SAS customers sticking to SAS economy class on routes shifting to SAS A350s will get a more miserable seating experience than they already do with SAS.

Is it that hard to acknowledge that the SAS fleet management program may not really mind if the new plane type means making most of it customers in the main physically less comfortable than is already the case on SAS long-haul flights in economy class?

SKT-DK

So what would you suggest they do differently? - It is so easy criticise without bringing anything constructive to the table
Short of keeping the ageing 340s and 330s flying, I do not see what they should do? The former, they decided against for economic reasons and presumably the same goes for the latter (incl the Enhanced) with the added aspect of a more comfortable plane altogether.

Economy is not bought for added comfort, and if the industry standard for full-service carriers is what they follow, then where is the harm in that?

Anyway, agree to disagree....

GUWonder

SAS keeps marketing the A350 as more comfortable, but is it really that for customers in the main? Or is it really all about making as much money as possible from its customers even if it comes with a more miserable experience for customers in the main?

It is good for consumers to know whether the marketing speak of and on behalf of a company is true to all the claims made for a company or if the claims are just hot air meant to float the boat at customers’ expense in the main.

Calling out deception in marketing is a necessary factor to make for a better marketplace for consumers and it’s more constructive than silence about corporate developments. And I’m on the SAS consumers’ side, not on SAS’s side, so consider my critique of “the 787 is the most comfortable plane for our passengers” or “the A350 is the most comfortable plane for our passengers” to be better than silence. I hold no illusions about some others disagreeing with that.

pseudoswede

Quieter cabin, higher pressurization in the cabin, larger overhead bins, higher ceiling, cabin air recycled every 2-3 minutes, and (I think) larger windows. I'm 176cm, and I'm not skinny (okay, I'm fat ) with wide shoulders, and I have yet to fly in a truly uncomfortable economy seat--caveat: as long as it offered some recline. I have no problems with a 28" pitch--except it's typically on airlines that don't offer any reclining seats.

highupinthesky

2 questions.
1. Do you know any airlines which doesn't do this?
2. Do you trust marketing from any vendor, airline or not?

GUWonder

Much the same kind of thing about cabin noise, pressurization, light and so on was said about the 787, and yet the 787 has some of the worst economy class seating experiences in long-haul flying. But comparing the 787 isn’t the issue as SK doesn’t have those as part of its fleet management program.

What’s the worst seat width and seat pitch that SAS is going to have on the A350? And will the seat backs recline more than the current best SK seats in long-haul economy class? How much less padding volume will the seats have on the A350 than on the other SK double-aisle planes?

The seat bottom sliding forward isn’t really the same thing as the seat back reclining. It’s already bad enough on SAS in long-haul economy class that they prioritize people eating over people sleeping when it comes to the use of the seat “recline” button. How much worse will that “recline” when flying SK long-haul get with the A350, or will that get better than it is currently on SK flights on its other types of double-aisle planes?

GUWonder

The issue here is SAS and its ways that may negatively impact its travelers in the main. That applies to SAS, but not every airline and company around, since this is a forum about SAS.

RedChili

From an economy passenger's viewpoint, SAS should have kept the 767. The 2-3-2 seating in economy is unbeatable. So, the A330/340 with 2-4-2 is already a worse product for the economy passenger.

Unfortunately, with a fleet of 767s, SAS could never have survived until this day. And going forward, if you want to survive as an airline, there's really only three choices: The A350 with 3-3-3, the 787 with 3-3-3, and the 777X with 3-4-3. Of these three, the A350 is by far the best option.