Narrow seats on QF B789

[nlagalle]

"Prefer a seat from the 90's"??. Im sure I did not say that. (ive double checked). Its interesting that you have an opinions about your experience from your 90's seat. I have an opinion about the proposed seat. I hope that is OK? Even if I like the seat from the 90's, is that negated by your experience?

You and melb1 are referring to seats no really advancing in the last 20 years - that takes us back to the 90's. Hence the comparison.

Thank you for confirming that you doubt that no one at the event would have sat in the Y seat in a way a typical Y passenger would. The "New Era" attendees would have sat in it for some minutes. Can you confirm if you or any sat in it 3 in a row with one against the aircraft frame. Or was there 2 aisles?. So Im surprised then that you can have an opinion which is as competent as those who will sit in it for a 15 hour flight. Have you ever test driven a car and then had regrets when you bought the car?. Sure you are not an armchair expert but are you sure you have reviewed the seat enough?. I have travelled in 10 abreast 777 EK and ANZ so I think that elevates me from an armchair expert somewhat.

You have formed an opinion without even seeing the seat... bit of a difference there.

Thinner does mean harder - there is no material in the world that does otherwise. Yes there is more to a seat. Its just that most Y passengers will see it as accessories akin to the number of cup holders in a car. Interesting, possibly useful but in the main an interesting aside. For a Y passenger price is number one and comfort a close number 2?. But the main complaint is comfort. So it is highly important to gauge the level of comfort one would expect to get from this seat.

The seat is made up of more than just cushioning as I've mentioned already once. so yes you can make a seat thinner because the frame etc can be thinner thanks to better materials.

I thought the "New Era" event was a big deal - to the company anyway. Im glad you dont see it as a big deal. Afterall Tim Cook of the other airline got it right when he noted that passengers can be "mesmerised with food an entertainment". The context was that these passengers will overlook the negatives of their inflight experience. Did you see any negatives?. Many QF customers who did not go did - this thread just highlights one. Hopefully QF service will mesmerise the Y passengers enough so they overlook the negatives of their seat.

Again you seem to know the negatives without even seeing them.

Luggage charges?. Im glad you dont travel with luggage excess. Travelling light is the best way to travel. Im not sure how many passengers are affected but my point was that the "Same Spirit" accolade QF gives itself can be intepreted in another way and the next day negative news regarding excess luggage charges just confirmed that.

In the end this thread highlights one negative in the proposed Y seat. You like me and other have fairly diverse opinion about this which is the point of the AFF excercise.

had the luggage charges affected everyone - say the limit was reduced, then yes you’d have a better argument. But we are talking “excess baggage”. Of course had they wanted to be really sneaky, they could have quietly announced it on the Thursday.

 

[nlagalle]

Yes a replacement of a B747 with B787 would be a reduction in seat capacity, unless the airline manages to secure an additional slot into the airports currently operated by a B747. Would it be better if the airline runs 2 flights per day rather than one? With the 2nd on the higher demand days?.

I suspect the drip feed of information from the airline serves to maintain the anticipation and hype surrounding the aircraft's integration into the fleet and provides some intel not provided by the "focus groups"

The "delay" surrounding the PE seats on the 789 I suspect is partly to gauge the sentiment surrounding the Y seats, with adjustments to be made based on this.

I am cynical but I really do hate spin and marketing hype.

The PE seat design hasn’t been finished yet and is going to be unveiled next year..

 

[Quickstatus]

You and melb1 are referring to seats no really advancing in the last 20 years - that takes us back to the 90's. Hence the comparison.

When did I refer to seats not advancing in last 20 years...

You have formed an opinion without even seeing the seat... bit of a difference there.
The seat is made up of more than just cushioning as I've mentioned already once. so yes you can make a seat thinner because the frame etc can be thinner thanks to better materials.
Again you seem to know the negatives without even seeing them.

Again I ask did you test the seat the way a Y passenger will use it?. Yes I was not there. But having flown similar sized Y seats for long haul I can have an opinion.

had the luggage charges affected everyone - say the limit was reduced, then yes you’d have a better argument. But we are talking “excess baggage”. Of course had they wanted to be really sneaky, they could have quietly announced it on the Thursday.

Or Friday. Just the spirit of saying nice things and in the next breath impose new charges.

 

[nlagalle]

When did I refer to seats not advancing in last 20 years...

thats what the discussion was about when you joined in.

Again I ask did you test the seat the way a Y passenger will use it?. Yes I was not there. But having flown similar sized Y seats for long haul I can have an opinion.

I've already said I haven't, the event didn't go for 15 hours anyway. But again you are basing an opinion on something you haven't even seen yet, just a few pics.

Or Friday. Just the spirit of saying nice things and in the next breath impose new charges.

Well thy did announce it on a friday, so they weren't hiding it, and again, what percentage of customers does it affect? i mean they could have announced it a week later you'd still have a whinge about it. There is no such thing as good timing for so called bad news". But given it only affects those who travel with too much luggage, it's not a large percentage.

 

[Quickstatus]

Post must have been deleted about any comment relating to seats not advancing in 20 years. Cant see it.

anyway back on to the topic....

 

[love_the_life]

As someone who occasionally has to fly internationally in Y, I can assure you that I will not be booking a B787 with 9 across and a narrower thinner seat is a deal breaker for me. I will take my money elsewhere. I check out the plane (and yes I know there can be subs) on a route from a number of carriers; price is not the only thing I consider, in fact if it is within a couple of hundred dollars it doesn't come into the equation. Seat layout and size, service and included amenities are much more important to me when booking. I don't care how many bells and whistles and smoke tricks QF try if the seat is poor, forget it. Bolted on QF supporters might be happy to fly the new seats in the 789 but not me. My priorities and my decision.

 

[Quickstatus]

The hype does not support the reality.
Hype: Incredible range. Reality: quoted range is less than PER-LHR on the great circle.
Hype: Bigger windows: Reality: more light comes through the "closed" shades, Hopefully less on the V2/V3 electronic shades.
Hype: Lower cabin altitude - less jetlag. Reality: So many factors affect the severity of jetlag which is still not well understood. Will it work - if you believe it. Will be a bit more oxygen.
Hype more humidity combats jetlag etc. Reality: the aircraft wont be adding more water to the air. The humidity will still be at best 16%. The aircraft will still actually take water out. Still very dry to prevent condensation.
Hype: More leg room in Y. Reality: Its the same as VA, NZ, EK, UA etc
Hype: Exotic routes: Reality: Initially it will operate some of B747/A330 routes
Hype: Y seat designed by an "uber" designer. Reality. Its still an uncomfortable thinner and narrower seat.
Hype: Mood lighting improves sleep. Reality: A bit of mood lighting wont change the narrow seat
Hype: turbulence mitigation technology. Reality: Seat belt sign will still come on.
Hype: New Era. Reality: Same Spirit.

 

[JohnK]

What route are we hoping for? Me personally - Definitely Perth London.
Others??

PER-LHR is not going to happen. Who wants to sit in economy for 17-20 hours? No thanks. Maybe PER-DXB-LHR is a possibility but doesn't EK already fly this route?

It would be nice if QF reintroduced one option to LHR via SIN/HKG/BKK.

 

[katiebell]

There's been a fair bit of discussion around 'price' being the determining factor for many pax, and they want the lowest price possible and seat size will be a secondary or tertiary consideration.

But will that be the case? QF only has 165 of these seats to sell... well down on the 200-370 economy seats they have to sell on their other aircraft. So will fares still be as cheap, or will demand for the relatively few seats mean the prices are higher anyway? And if they are higher, would $100 extra really be a sticking point to choose 8 abreast instead of 9?

The issue of fares may even be compounded given at least some of the routes may have little or no competition - PER-LON, MEL-DFW, SYD-ORD.

If the seats are not comfortable then pax will book a flight with a transit stop and not a direct service. A friend and colleague always flies to the USA via AKL in order to avoid long trips in Y

 

[Quickstatus]

But then friend gets the 10 per row ANZ B777. :shock:

 

[Melburnian1]

The hype does not support the reality.
...
Hype: More leg room in Y. Reality: Its the same as VA, NZ, EK, UA etc
Hype: Exotic routes: Reality: Initially it will operate some of B747/A330 routes
Hype: Y seat designed by an "uber" designer. Reality. Its still an uncomfortable thinner and narrower seat.
Hype: Mood lighting improves sleep. Reality: A bit of mood lighting wont change the narrow seat
...
Hype: New Era. Reality: Same Spirit.

to which I'd add:

Hype: The seats are high quality. Reality: Hope passengers like bumping elbows with the seat occupant next to them.

The 'mood lighting' claim must surely win an award for sheer, unmitigated cr--.

I've never heard so much nonsense: if the seat next to a traveller is occupied, economy class on the vast majority of aircraft, especially with nine across on a B789, are extremely difficult to sleep on. If one seat is vacant next to a traveller, there's little improvement while three vacant seats is insufficient for most of us to stretch out.

Y class four across in the middle - with a 2-4-2 configuration - is ideal for a snooze should one hit the jackpot and have all these seats unoccupied. B789 with QF: unavailable.

 

[katiebell]

But then friend gets the 10 per row ANZ B777. :shock:

Once upon a time QF flew direct or via LAX... Since then retired, no more work travel

 

[Quickstatus]

Y class four across in the middle - with a 2-4-2 configuration - is ideal for a snooze should one hit the jackpot and have all these seats unoccupied. B789 with QF: unavailable.

Though I think you can get the 4 in a row on the payload restricted QF8:
But of course there is no row of 4 on the B789. So even if PER-LHR is payload restricted resulting in a similar facility being available, at the most the poor Y passenger can get a row of 3 = 1.3 metres approx. You would have to be a midget to get into a lie flat position.

Enjoy a Whole Row to Yourself on a Qantas Flight

But as MEL_Traveller opined, we have not heard the last of the marketing spin for the "Plastic Fantastic"

 

[Melburnian1]

But as MEL_Traveller opined, we have not heard the last of the marketing spin for the "Plastic Fantastic"

At least we now have 5,000 travellers who through AFF have become aware (although some would already have known this) that QF will offer poor economy seating on these much hyped new aircraft.

Those 5,000 (and growing) might each tell four others so that's 25,000 who are informed rather than solely influenced by spin doctors from QF.

 

[TomVexille]

At least we now have 5,000 travellers who through AFF have become aware (although some would already have known this) that QF will offer poor economy seating on these much hyped new aircraft.

Those 5,000 (and growing) might each tell four others so that's 25,000 who are informed rather than solely influenced by spin doctors from QF.

However a fair number of them have been handcuffed by QFF and will suck it up for their precious SCs and points, or have to take the flight booked by the corporate TA with no input on what flights to book. Oh and those rusted on QF fans who refuse to fly anyone else...

 

[katiebell]

My crystal ball shows an increase in air rage. Encroachment on personal space is a significant factor in pax behaviour: look at the knee defender problems. Discomfort and pain also increase stress, irritability and loss of temper/air rage. If the wonderful offerings include lots of alcohol with its disinhibition effects... I am sure the food in cardboard boxes will win over the cramped and uncomfortable Y pax!

I do agree that smaller seats are less comfortable: the slimline are certainly less comfortable than the older Y seats and narrower seats would be really bad (& I am not of 'traditional' build). It is easy to try something for a minute or so and think it comfortable, quite another for hours on end. I thought lying still for 1/2 hr for my MRI scan would be a doddle: not true. Keeping still on a firm surface for 30+ min is very different to a few minutes. Likewise being comfortable when wedged into a seat for hours. Seatguru and similar sites exist so that we can use the collective wisdom to find a more comfortable flight.

Pax who look only at price will be flying LCCs or Chinese airlines. Others will set a minimum set of standards, i.e. of the things that matter to the individual such as safety, route, time of flight etc etc, and then look for the best value amongst the options meeting these requirements.

Interestingly, when there was a furore over DVT in the late 90s AA made a big deal about removing 2 Y rows and not increasing fares: 20 fewer pax & seats @ (conservative) 100kg each = 2000kg extra freight &, potentially, 1 less FA. Feight, I am told, is more lucrative than Y pax.

re lower seat numbers: this might give extra range as the weight could be kept lower (assuming extra cargo is not added).

It would be nice to think that seats/per sector will not drop when the B787 replaces the B747 and that a more frequent service is introduced

 

[Quickstatus]

I think JohnK is right.

There is nothing wrong about connecting somewhere.

Freight can be more lucrative than the Self loading variety. Thats why QF has an A330 passenger airframe operating freight only return flights between PER and MEL, I think nearly every night.

Qf dyed in the wool business market demands a high frequency network. While the A380 works for certain routes, increasingly it is recognised that smaller airframes with higher frequency operation can be quite attractive. In QF's defence I think it is trying to get there with the B789.

If the B789 was configured 8 in a row it would cut out 16 passengers or as I said before 10% of the head count/revenue.

Not only will it replace the B747 on some routes but maybe also some A330 routes. The A330-300 is very range limited as it only has fuel tanks in the wings. So the longer routes are payload limited - PEK.

 

[nlagalle]

At least we now have 5,000 travellers who through AFF have become aware (although some would already have known this) that QF will offer poor economy seating on these much hyped new aircraft.

Those 5,000 (and growing) might each tell four others so that's 25,000 who are informed rather than solely influenced by spin doctors from QF.

You mean a pin drop in the total number of pax assume its a poor economy offering based on doing some googling.


I think you overestimate your so called “reach”

 

[nlagalle]

PER-LHR is not going to happen. Who wants to sit in economy for 17-20 hours? No thanks. Maybe PER-DXB-LHR is a possibility but doesn't EK already fly this route?

It would be nice if QF reintroduced one option to LHR via SIN/HKG/BKK.

The only thing that will stop PER-LHR is PER airport. Not QF, Crew have already been training for it.


And QF won’t be rushing to bring back an asian route to Europe anytime soon. They are doing much better since they moved to DXB.

 

[Quickstatus]

The only thing that will stop PER-LHR is PER airport. Not QF, Crew have already been training for it.


And QF won’t be rushing to bring back an asian route to Europe anytime soon. They are doing much better since they moved to DXB.

We have agreement!. Though it will likely operate the existing routes first.
Asia is a point to point with an Australian hub. That is the only way QF can compete with the Asian Carriers. Even CX is now saying premium passengers are harder to come by and their one jewel in the crown, the HKG hub, is turning into a bit of an Achilles Heel. A SIN stop is still preferred but unfortunately will never happen now. But one can dream

Will be interesting to see if it does come to pass, whether flying west on this 9000 mile route will cause the B789 to be payload restricted. If so then some spare Y seats may arise.
Flying east is a lot more range friendly due to prevailing winds but the issue then is diversion airports on the west coast. Im sure they will work that one out. KTA and BME are 500 miles less than PER but 780 miles from PER. Maybe GET (Geraldton).