AJ Foreshadows Harmonisation Of J Seats Across Fleet

[anat0l]

Well, if it took someone to raise the issue, of course it had to be Ben Sandilands. That's not an issue - just saying.

I'm surprised that AJ is hiding behind the excuse that the latest delivery was unavoidable due to contracts. I call BS on that one; of course, my call is that why did they have such a contract in the first place, because we all knew it was a cr*pshoot product. Whoever was the seat supplier for this product did a good job ensuring Qantas had a minimum delivery and purchase and held them to it.

And why do you need to "recommend it to the board"? I'm surprised that the board (all how many members are there?) hasn't once raised a concern that:

• This product was not a good idea
• Inconsistency of product across the fleet was a concern

...and now Joyce says that he has to "recommend to the board" that these two aspects be fixed? Sounds like it's pacifying a fire for the sake of it, not action!

I harbour little confidence in the board to actually give some due consideration to this issue. I can only think in their minds it's the straight out dollars, dollars and more dollars and very little about customer experience.

 

[lovestotravel]

Yep it's great news!

I posted it in the A330 thread but it does deserve it's own thread

Well the 737's are fine the BSI 737's are perfect actually
Then we have the mess of A330's

A330's for international will likely get SkyBedII or something similar totally flat
A330's for domestic - Well you need 2 variations for this
The PER fleet - Flat beds but not the SkyBeds as they take up too much room and of course 1-2 spares....
The rest - 737 seats would be fine, but more width in J to keep it 2-2-2

SkyBed's could go in much faster due to certification requirements, but then the oldest A330's can't have these as they have the "weak floors" from memory, so they would be the short-haul birds

 

[lovestotravel]

...and now Joyce says that he has to "recommend to the board" that these two aspects be fixed? Sounds like it's pacifying a fire for the sake of it, not action!

I harbour little confidence in the board to actually give some due consideration to this issue. I can only think in their minds it's the straight out dollars, dollars and more dollars and very little about customer experience.

I also fear that is the case as well, so I eagerly await the official announcement of what will happen to the A330's and by when...

 

[anat0l]

i think that they could get away with something close to the VA/DJ seat but not that big. I dont think it needs to be that big for DOM flights (and I am 6'2").

I'd somewhat agree with this. Certainly density plays a huge role in QF deciding on configuration; unfortunate, but that's how things are playing out.

I'd say that flat bed seating is probably more important on the red-eye flights, and I think QF could benefit by thinking hard about how to make these services a lot more comfortable.

And if you really want to talk about 'leading' world product, then there are some new J configurations (e.g. CX new J, LX/SN/OS new J, or even EK staggered J which has been around for a while) which appear high density but serve quite well, and even have a flat configuration, and all configurations allow every passenger to access the aisle unencumbered.

 

[yohy?!]

Are they so out of touch with their customers that the (negative) reaction couldn't be anticipated?

Looks like an expensive mistake, and I contrast with CX who responded to negative comments on J class coffins, and came up with true enhancement! (as opposed to QF "enhancement")

Be careful with your contrast though to CX - their new Regional J seat is shaping up to be a schemozzle!

 

[ermen]

Some thoughts:
1/ Can't they just run the international A330 to / from PER (or at least on the overnight segments)?
2/ At the very least, an angled flat bed (like SQ regional J) should be put onto the PER routes.
3/ Or a herringbone (old CX J) - seems to be quite dense and is lie flat at least!

 

[oz_mark]

Well, if it took someone to raise the issue, of course it had to be Ben Sandilands. That's not an issue - just saying.

I'm surprised that AJ is hiding behind the excuse that the latest delivery was unavoidable due to contracts. I call BS on that one; of course, my call is that why did they have such a contract in the first place, because we all knew it was a cr*pshoot product. Whoever was the seat supplier for this product did a good job ensuring Qantas had a minimum delivery and purchase and held them to it.

And why do you need to "recommend it to the board"? I'm surprised that the board (all how many members are there?) hasn't once raised a concern that:

• This product was not a good idea
• Inconsistency of product across the fleet was a concern

...and now Joyce says that he has to "recommend to the board" that these two aspects be fixed? Sounds like it's pacifying a fire for the sake of it, not action!

It is hard to argue the inconsistency card when the latest aircraft has the same seating configuration as two other aircraft in the fleet. While it would have been good to see something better, that would be inconsistent.

As for recommending to the board, I would guess that the Capex for such an upgrade needs to be signed off by the board.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Isn't it funny how you can go to any McDonalds in the world and order a 'Big Mac' and 99.99% of the time, get a Big Mac that is consistent to what other McDonalds are serving, globally. Now, try to fly J with QF Domestically.....

 

[moa999]

Is any airline with multiple fleet types of multiple ages any different - Cathay,Emirates,Singapore all have some lacklustre J seats running around,

 

[mannej]

Some thoughts:
1/ Can't they just run the international A330 to / from PER (or at least on the overnight segments)?
2/ At the very least, an angled flat bed (like SQ regional J) should be put onto the PER routes.
3/ Or a herringbone (old CX J) - seems to be quite dense and is lie flat at least!

I agree with the bed on the red eyes, but that means you would need 3 out of 14 of the international 330's so it is a question of scheduling. As for the other flights, why do you need a bed? An improved product is needed for sure, and I would guess it would have to be able adapted to the earlier 330's coming back into the fleet.

 

[Fruitcake]

Isn't it funny how you can go to any McDonalds in the world and order a 'Big Mac' and 99.99% of the time, get a Big Mac that is consistent to what other McDonalds are serving, globally. Now, try to fly J with QF Domestically.....

The burger might be consistent, but the seating in the McDonalds restaurant could be anything from a booth to a stool or a chair or almost anything else in between. And even then the stools and booths would be different from location to location.

In short I don't think the burgers are a fair analogy. They're the equivalent of the 'soft product' in the J offering. Marginal capital investment for a change to the burgers is almost zero - just send out a memo stating that from 27 December Big Macs will have a slice of beetroot under the lettuce and it can be done (assuming tomato slicing equipment is already available - but if not, it's cheap and easily distributed. Unlike airline seats which are expensive and require you take the aircraft out of business to install them.)

 

[Fruitcake]

I harbour little confidence in the board to actually give some due consideration to this issue. I can only think in their minds it's the straight out dollars, dollars and more dollars and very little about customer experience.

For what it's worth, it seems like Mr Joyce might be on the case already - I just spotted him heading into an elevator toward the QF Boardroom. Should I print out this thread, run up there and slip it under the door?