I honestly don't understand how the seat could be too narrow - each seat has 1/4 of the cabin (minus aisles), that's over 1m width per seat (assuming aisles are at most 1m, and they're definitely smaller than that). Most business seats in the world are around 55cm wide. How can the A350 not be wide enough (unless the seat was just constrained in other dimensions)?

I've read a review of the Thai A350 J Class seat, and the complaints are the same as for SQ

I can't believe after all these years, SQ management still thinks that their J seats are not due to be replaced.

'All these years' being 3...

I'm far from a blind follower or apologist of SQ (and they have indeed screwed up the 359 seat as I've said) but they do more than most other airlines with respect to hard product and fleet age.

The J seats introduced more than 10 years ago (super wide seat with bad leg room) is far from ideal. Isn't it time to rethink and come up with something more comfortable? Personally, I also dislike seats that require "work" to convert into a bed other than a push of a button.

I've repeatedly been telling SQ that their new J class seats have faults but they are not willing to listen. So, as a longstanding PPS Club Solitaire member, I have moved my business to CX and QR where I find their J class product to be superior. Case in point, CX A350 J class is a great product from all aspects.

Issues with SQ new J class seats:

1. The seat pitch is too close when in seating position.
2. The storage area on the side is too open where items can fall out easily in turbulence.
3. The foothole is too narrow.
4. TV screen too close that it hurts my eyes.
5. Screen protector layer so there are no touchscreen thereby having to rely on the remote control which can become an issue if it doesn't work.
6. I hate getting up to flip the mattress for bed mode. I prefer the bottom mode.

The SQ management needs rethink on their J class as making it pretty doesn't ct it anymore. It needs to be functional and above all listen to passengers feedback!

I have always wondered if SQ actually talks to elite customers such as PPS solitaires. I have experience with LH and LX where management would regularly interact with elite clients to get their feedback on products, etc.

They do not. Not in any meaningful sense of the term. The odd questionnaire and natter at events is simply a formality.

Still makes me chuckle that high status holders think they might influence something as substantial as seat design - other comparatively nominal aspects of the in-flight experience, yes, possibly. But seats is a stretch.

In my opinion they will refresh the 2013 product when they deem it's time to and / or it makes financial sense, not because an infinitesimal number of passengers are complaining. I'm in the minority who likes the seat, 359 excepted, but I've always understood why people hate that silly foothole compartment.

I do the same thing as the previous poster when I'm unhappy with certain aspects of a carrier, I use my purchasing power. That's pretty much all you can do with airlines (generally speaking), assuming you have the flexibility and there are alternative routings available.

I flew SQ J last week and found it most curious. I do not want to start a new thread because it is such a tedious point. But my seat was also wide, a bit like half a bench seat in a 1960's US truck. The back pulled down to make a "bed"

The odd thing was that not in bed mode, it seemed to lack articulation, the seat slided forwards about 6 inches max. The footrest lifted up but did not align with the ottoman.

Most odd thing was that there was a cut out in the seat along the side as if it had been designed to lift up and marry with the side of the unit to form a larger flat area. It did not do that.

Then when the back folded down. Nothing was level, there was a drop off at the ottoman and the whole thing seemed to be square rather than bed shaped.

Have I got this right or was my seat somehow lacking some of the expected functionality?

Service was flawless but the seat left me puzzled

Did it help? Not really. LH has still no aisle access on all seats in biz and the angled seating is also not everyone's darling. Despite the fact that both companies belong to one group their interpretation of customer feedback puzzles me looking at the huge difference in both airlines biz-product.

Good for sitting, bad for sleeping. The staggered layout makes you feel like you sleeping in a coffin. I prefer SQs seat definitely...

What's wrong with the seat exactly? SQ had similar seats on the A340-500. I loved those seats EWR-SIN-EWR.

Completely different seat on the 345s. As for what's wrong with the seat, this thread has 4 pages. Have a browse.

This was the oddest thing for me too on the 77w seat. Why isn't the leg area the same level as the rest of the bed, and why doesn't it have a mattress pad or sheets?

speaking of which, is there any way of determining before booking, if bulkhead seats are available?

seeing how it would make a huge difference in comfort regarding small chubby hole, if one manages to secure the bulkhead seats.