Classical widebody first class

So… wherever the airlines are back at, it is not where they were in 1970-s before they invented business class, because then they had 42” and less in their highest class.

That is why the paragraph you have quoted from does not state anything about the 1970s!

Paul,

I think a more interesting point is that a significant number of airlines have dropped first class on some/all of their long haul services, and many of these have also introduced premium economy services. The irony is…their new business class cabin has the same seat pitches as First would have had in the 80’s and 90’s and their premium economy products deliver seat pitch comparable to their old business class. So perhaps the truth is, in many markets fare levels required to sustain the ‘super-first’ product are not achievable. The airlines cannot however rename their business back to first class, because they would still be compared to those airlines operating the ‘super-first’ type seats!

Looking at
http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_europe.htm
again, we can see:
Only 4 airlines have first class: Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa and Swiss. But even Swiss has 48 inches in business class, and BA has 73.
Airlines which have business class and no premium economy include
Aer Lingus – 52”
Aeroflot – 62”
Air Madrid – 47”
Alitalia – 55”
Austrian – 61”
Bmed – 50”
CSA – 47”
Delsey – 62”
Finnair – 63”
Iberia – 60”
KLM – 60”
Lauda – 50”
LOT – 57”
Olympic – 58”
Sabena – 62”
Spanair – 45”
THY – 54”

Airlines with business and premium economy include
bmi – 60”/38”
Excel – 45”/34”
SAS – 60”/37”
Virgin – 79”/38”

So… wherever the airlines are back at, it is not where they were in 1970-s before they invented business class, because then they had 42” and less in their highest class.

And surely saying it’s “ludicrous” but then proceeding to reply is something of a contradiction? 😀 :diablo:

Paul

LOL, yes I know, I know!

You’ve been posting on here long enough to understand there is NO point to Chornedsnorkack’s posts

And you’ve been posting here long enough to understand I have to amuse myself somehow, and such threads are perfect for amusement. I’ve just learned not to get annoyed by them!

And surely saying it’s “ludicrous” but then proceeding to reply is something of a contradiction? 😀 :diablo:

Paul

I have no idea who you’re used to flying with but I’ve flown in business plenty of times and had less than 42″ seat pitch. I’m not quite understanding your actual point here!

Paul

Paul,

You’ve been posting on here long enough to understand there is NO point to Chornedsnorkack’s posts, other than to show that he/she can use google! It’s ANOTHER one of their ridiculous questions/points. I hate myself for opening these threads as they wind me up so much, but they’re like a rash that you have to itch, so I find myself looking at them to see how ludicrous they are this time, and this one sure is ludicrous!

However, I will add a couple of points which may help answer the ‘question(s)’

The economics of flying mean that in the past there was no financially viable way to offer the service standards currently seen on long haul services. Aircraft like the 747SP didn’t deliver operating economics anywhere close to the A340-500, which would have been fine IF people had the finances to pay the fares necessary to cover the costs. The majority of premium seats are sold to businesses, and the reasons and need to travel in the 1970s/1980s were different to today. The tertiary sectors of industry, and the global nature of these were not so established, and those companies in these sectors weren’t so financially wealthy comparitive to today, nor was the business they did.

I think a more interesting point is that a significant number of airlines have dropped first class on some/all of their long haul services, and many of these have also introduced premium economy services. The irony is…their new business class cabin has the same seat pitches as First would have had in the 80’s and 90’s and their premium economy products deliver seat pitch comparable to their old business class. So perhaps the truth is, in many markets fare levels required to sustain the ‘super-first’ product are not achievable. The airlines cannot however rename their business back to first class, because they would still be compared to those airlines operating the ‘super-first’ type seats!

I have no idea who you’re used to flying with but I’ve flown in business plenty of times and had less than 42″ seat pitch. I’m not quite understanding your actual point here!

See, for example
http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_europe.htm

Aer Lingus – 52”
Aeroflot – 62”
Alitalia – 55”
Austrian – 61”
BA – 73”
bmi – 60”
CSA – 47”
Finnair – 63”
Iberia – 60”
KLM – 60”
LOT – 57”
Lufthansa – 60”
Olympic – 58”
Sabena – 62”
SAS – 60”
Swiss – 48”
TAP – 58”
THY – 54”
Virgin – 79”

42 inches pitch is not first class, nor business class. It is premium economy

I have no idea who you’re used to flying with but I’ve flown in business plenty of times and had less than 42″ seat pitch. I’m not quite understanding your actual point here!

Paul

When the L-1011 was new (or the DC-10 and 747) air travel was completly different (and many will say better) than it is today. So seat pitch in first class was 42″ in coach it was 34″. So there was six abrest seating in first class, in coach there was only eight. The price difference between first and coach was not eight to ten times as much as coach, as it is now, but at the most twice as much. In both first and coach you got a hot meal, but the meal in first was always larger with a greater selection. With a first class ticket you got access to a lounge prior to departure, where free food and drinks were served. Frist class boarded last and was the first off. I could go on and on.

Shouldn’t someone move this to Commercial Aviation?

Hesitated about it. When did historic aviation end and commercial aviation begin?

“I cannot see a technical reason why a 747SP should not have been fitted out with 100 flat beds, like Singapore A340-500. But what was the reason that it was not done? There must have been some sort of reason…”

It was for one of two reasons. Either the idea wasn’t thought of or the manufacturer decided not to use it.

Regards,

kev35

Chorned, what do you mean when you say ‘people are praising classical flying’?

And how does it relate to the rest of your post?

I just want to keep up.

SFF

Numbers… so… many.. numbers….

Shouldn’t someone move this to Commercial Aviation?

:confused:huh?????????????