Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
737max8
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:43 pm

CXGabriel wrote:
horizon360 wrote:
It's possible that CX might consider more NA routes once they have more A359's available but we'll have to wait and see. Given the recent comments coming out of CX regarding them reviewing their business practices and operating in a 'challenging and competitive environment' I guess they will be even more careful than usual when considering opening up new routes.

P.S. I'm also surprised by some of the comments above mentioning no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configurations. This goes against the vast majority of reviews, trip reports and articles written about both configurations. Obviously, if there was price parity between AA's MCE and CX's economy, MCE would be the way to go. Otherwise CX would be the obvious choice in basic Y for both comfort and service levels.


I agree. Don't know what they're talking about claiming no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configuration.

There're a lot of mentions of CX's 77W going to 3-4-3. We may find out more when they release their 2016 performance later, but I think the A350-1000 will replace many of the 77W starting in 2018 with a 3-3-3 configuration. The 3-4-3 conversion for 777's will probably be limited to regional flying instead of long-haul. I've flew CX's A359 recently, on both PY and Biz class, and I found the seats to be very comfortable and noticeable improvement over 77W's. I am interested in trying the new AA's PY seats to compare, but there's no questions that CX's food and services are better than AA's.


Thank you both. I know I'm not the only one who prefers 3-3-3 (and other benefits of CX) over 3-4-3 any day. Not sure why those other posters were so defensive about it and made it seem like it was only due to my size and there are a lot of people flying to who can only afford or have the ability to sit in Y.

The A359 is super comfortable and would beat a 77W any day. Very impressive airplane.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
winginit
Posts: 3049
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:09 pm

b777900 wrote:
What about a MIA -HKG NS on a350 on either CX or AA once they get there 350's/.


Their A350's won't be able to make it without a load penalty, there's not enough business travel to make up for that penalty with superior yields, and you'd be taking away a top flow point for DFW. AA will not serve Asia nonstop from MIA.
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1759
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:46 pm

737max8 wrote:
CXGabriel wrote:
horizon360 wrote:
It's possible that CX might consider more NA routes once they have more A359's available but we'll have to wait and see. Given the recent comments coming out of CX regarding them reviewing their business practices and operating in a 'challenging and competitive environment' I guess they will be even more careful than usual when considering opening up new routes.

P.S. I'm also surprised by some of the comments above mentioning no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configurations. This goes against the vast majority of reviews, trip reports and articles written about both configurations. Obviously, if there was price parity between AA's MCE and CX's economy, MCE would be the way to go. Otherwise CX would be the obvious choice in basic Y for both comfort and service levels.


I agree. Don't know what they're talking about claiming no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configuration.

There're a lot of mentions of CX's 77W going to 3-4-3. We may find out more when they release their 2016 performance later, but I think the A350-1000 will replace many of the 77W starting in 2018 with a 3-3-3 configuration. The 3-4-3 conversion for 777's will probably be limited to regional flying instead of long-haul. I've flew CX's A359 recently, on both PY and Biz class, and I found the seats to be very comfortable and noticeable improvement over 77W's. I am interested in trying the new AA's PY seats to compare, but there's no questions that CX's food and services are better than AA's.


Thank you both. I know I'm not the only one who prefers 3-3-3 (and other benefits of CX) over 3-4-3 any day. Not sure why those other posters were so defensive about it and made it seem like it was only due to my size and there are a lot of people flying to who can only afford or have the ability to sit in Y.

The A359 is super comfortable and would beat a 77W any day. Very impressive airplane.


Again - AA also offers 3-3-3. Apparently you're incapable of processing that.

And what's so special about CX Y? I've flown CX to HKG multiple times in Y. They serve two bland meals just like everyone else. In 16 hours LAX-HKG the FAs came through 3 times. Anyone want to remind me what makes CX so special? I can buy AA Y and get the same level of service. And even purchase wi-fi if I want. Has CX introduced wi-fi yet?

And AA has stepped up their J product on the HKG routes. Anyone tried CX J catering recently? It's pretty mediocre for J standards. And I wouldn't be shocked if CX pursued further cost cuts.

To each their own - but certainly it's not quite the open and shut case that everyone makes it out to be. Whether price, product, frequent flyer benefits, or something else, there are many who will choose AA over CX.
 
737max8
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:06 pm

9w748capt wrote:
737max8 wrote:
CXGabriel wrote:

I agree. Don't know what they're talking about claiming no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configuration.

There're a lot of mentions of CX's 77W going to 3-4-3. We may find out more when they release their 2016 performance later, but I think the A350-1000 will replace many of the 77W starting in 2018 with a 3-3-3 configuration. The 3-4-3 conversion for 777's will probably be limited to regional flying instead of long-haul. I've flew CX's A359 recently, on both PY and Biz class, and I found the seats to be very comfortable and noticeable improvement over 77W's. I am interested in trying the new AA's PY seats to compare, but there's no questions that CX's food and services are better than AA's.


Thank you both. I know I'm not the only one who prefers 3-3-3 (and other benefits of CX) over 3-4-3 any day. Not sure why those other posters were so defensive about it and made it seem like it was only due to my size and there are a lot of people flying to who can only afford or have the ability to sit in Y.

The A359 is super comfortable and would beat a 77W any day. Very impressive airplane.


Again - AA also offers 3-3-3. Apparently you're incapable of processing that.

And what's so special about CX Y? I've flown CX to HKG multiple times in Y. They serve two bland meals just like everyone else. In 16 hours LAX-HKG the FAs came through 3 times. Anyone want to remind me what makes CX so special? I can buy AA Y and get the same level of service. And even purchase wi-fi if I want. Has CX introduced wi-fi yet?

And AA has stepped up their J product on the HKG routes. Anyone tried CX J catering recently? It's pretty mediocre for J standards. And I wouldn't be shocked if CX pursued further cost cuts.

To each their own - but certainly it's not quite the open and shut case that everyone makes it out to be. Whether price, product, frequent flyer benefits, or something else, there are many who will choose AA over CX.


AA offers 3-3-3 in the 77W in economy? This must be breaking news. Or are you incapable of reading that I am not talking about MCE?

I do agree that AA offers a great premium product. I have flown J on the 777 and seat, service, meals, etc were fantasitc. But for this comparison I am not discussing J, or Y+, or MCE, or anything other than Y. Just the 3-3-3 vs 3-4-3 Y seat/comfort and service I prefer on CX. I do agree that AA has excellent IFE and wifi also, but that is not what I am comparing nor is it as important to me while traveling then comfort. I use these long flights to catch up on much needed sleep :)
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1759
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:33 pm

737max8 wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
737max8 wrote:

Thank you both. I know I'm not the only one who prefers 3-3-3 (and other benefits of CX) over 3-4-3 any day. Not sure why those other posters were so defensive about it and made it seem like it was only due to my size and there are a lot of people flying to who can only afford or have the ability to sit in Y.

The A359 is super comfortable and would beat a 77W any day. Very impressive airplane.


Again - AA also offers 3-3-3. Apparently you're incapable of processing that.

And what's so special about CX Y? I've flown CX to HKG multiple times in Y. They serve two bland meals just like everyone else. In 16 hours LAX-HKG the FAs came through 3 times. Anyone want to remind me what makes CX so special? I can buy AA Y and get the same level of service. And even purchase wi-fi if I want. Has CX introduced wi-fi yet?

And AA has stepped up their J product on the HKG routes. Anyone tried CX J catering recently? It's pretty mediocre for J standards. And I wouldn't be shocked if CX pursued further cost cuts.

To each their own - but certainly it's not quite the open and shut case that everyone makes it out to be. Whether price, product, frequent flyer benefits, or something else, there are many who will choose AA over CX.


AA offers 3-3-3 in the 77W in economy? This must be breaking news. Or are you incapable of reading that I am not talking about MCE?



So is MCE not part of the Y cabin? If it's not part of Y, then which cabin is it? If you can't accept that the MCE is part of the economy cabin (which is available for purchase to everyone including you), then there's really no point continuing this conversation.
 
CXGabriel
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:26 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:58 pm

9w748capt wrote:
737max8 wrote:
9w748capt wrote:

Again - AA also offers 3-3-3. Apparently you're incapable of processing that.

And what's so special about CX Y? I've flown CX to HKG multiple times in Y. They serve two bland meals just like everyone else. In 16 hours LAX-HKG the FAs came through 3 times. Anyone want to remind me what makes CX so special? I can buy AA Y and get the same level of service. And even purchase wi-fi if I want. Has CX introduced wi-fi yet?

And AA has stepped up their J product on the HKG routes. Anyone tried CX J catering recently? It's pretty mediocre for J standards. And I wouldn't be shocked if CX pursued further cost cuts.

To each their own - but certainly it's not quite the open and shut case that everyone makes it out to be. Whether price, product, frequent flyer benefits, or something else, there are many who will choose AA over CX.


AA offers 3-3-3 in the 77W in economy? This must be breaking news. Or are you incapable of reading that I am not talking about MCE?



So is MCE not part of the Y cabin? If it's not part of Y, then which cabin is it? If you can't accept that the MCE is part of the economy cabin (which is available for purchase to everyone including you), then there's really no point continuing this conversation.


MCE is technically not Y or PY. It's like a Y+. There is nothing on CX like MCE. AA Y(MC) is in 3-4-3 (202 seats in MC vs 48 for MCE). If you pay more on top of the economy fare or you have status with AA, then you can get to MCE. I've flown DFW-HKG in MCE, and I found CX's Y better than MCE (seat comfort, food, service). MCE may have more leg room, but I found other things better on CX. I prefer CX food over AA's any day! Service, well, let me put it this way, if you ask for something, CX crew will try their best to satisfy your needs, and if they can't do it, they'll politely apologize. On AA, a straight out "No" has happened a number of times without even trying. In general, Asian network carriers (Cathay, Singapore, ANA, Eva, etc) are just better than the US Big 3 overall.
 
winginit
Posts: 3049
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:10 pm

9w748capt wrote:
Again - AA also offers 3-3-3. Apparently you're incapable of processing that.


AA no longer offers a 777 configured with 3-3-3 to Asia with the exception of LAX-PVG (all other services to Asia are either on 3-4-3 or 787s); so while yes they do have 3-3-3 configured 777s in their fleet, it's a moot point to bring them up for the purposes of comparison with say CX.

EDIT: I see now that you were likely discussing MCE, in which case fair point.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:14 pm

9w748capt wrote:
So is MCE not part of the Y cabin? If it's not part of Y, then which cabin is it? If you can't accept that the MCE is part of the economy cabin (which is available for purchase to everyone including you), then there's really no point continuing this conversation.


I'm not familiar with the details of AA's ticket policies. I know you can buy MCE either directly, or as an upgrade to an already purchased ticket. But I suspect a non-rev passenger cannot upgrade from basic economy to MCE without first paying for a basic economy seat...? If you've read 737max8's trip reports in that forum you would quickly realize that when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free.

While your point is valid that MCE is available to anyone who is willing to pay for it (including 737max8), the overriding point is that he cannot or will not pay for it.
 
737max8
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:21 pm

IPFreely wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
So is MCE not part of the Y cabin? If it's not part of Y, then which cabin is it? If you can't accept that the MCE is part of the economy cabin (which is available for purchase to everyone including you), then there's really no point continuing this conversation.


I'm not familiar with the details of AA's ticket policies. I know you can buy MCE either directly, or as an upgrade to an already purchased ticket. But I suspect a non-rev passenger cannot upgrade from basic economy to MCE without first paying for a basic economy seat...? If you've read 737max8's trip reports in that forum you would quickly realize that when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free.

While your point is valid that MCE is available to anyone who is willing to pay for it (including 737max8), the overriding point is that he cannot or will not pay for it.


As a ZED traveler, you cannot purchase an upgrade to anything like MCE or J. The airline may place you there, but it is luck and nothing you can opt in for even if you are willing to pay. And once again, all of this is a moot point and irrelevant to comparing the basic Y offering of CX and AA on the 77W. I'll say once again, when I am talking about Y, I am not including MCE. I don't care if you say it's part of the Y cabin or not, I'm not talking about it in my comparison. In my comparison, economy and MCE are different. Just like they are very physically different on the airplane. I'm only talking about the 3-4-3 Y seats. I don't know what is the issue with saying I prefer the 3-3-3 CX seats to the 3-4-3 AA seats any time and why others reply to my posts mentioning J and MCE when I am not discussing those options and have stated such every single time.

And since I'm apparently the bad guy for taking advantage of ZED travel that I have worked hard for, I will also mention I do pay for tickets quite often (a few time to Australia in 2013, Europe last year, Japan last week, Europe coming up in May, and a good chunk of my domestic travel) when it makes most sense for me. I these include flights in other classes. I am perfectly aware of all of the different options and products out there. But this has nothing to do with comparing Y in AA and CX?!? Yet everyone keeps bringing it up. Sigh...

One other thing..."when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free"

Not sure what you mean by this comment, but from what I gather you are trying to say, could not be further from the truth. My trip reports were only to share photos of my experience on these airliners and are less than 10 of 150 flights I fly per year, a mix of business, ZED, and confirmed travel to places I want to go when I can go.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:25 am

CXGabriel wrote:
horizon360 wrote:
It's possible that CX might consider more NA routes once they have more A359's available but we'll have to wait and see. Given the recent comments coming out of CX regarding them reviewing their business practices and operating in a 'challenging and competitive environment' I guess they will be even more careful than usual when considering opening up new routes.

P.S. I'm also surprised by some of the comments above mentioning no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configurations. This goes against the vast majority of reviews, trip reports and articles written about both configurations. Obviously, if there was price parity between AA's MCE and CX's economy, MCE would be the way to go. Otherwise CX would be the obvious choice in basic Y for both comfort and service levels.


I agree. Don't know what they're talking about claiming no significant difference between CX's 3-3-3 and AA's 3-4-3 economy configuration.

There're a lot of mentions of CX's 77W going to 3-4-3. We may find out more when they release their 2016 performance later, but I think the A350-1000 will replace many of the 77W starting in 2018 with a 3-3-3 configuration. The 3-4-3 conversion for 777's will probably be limited to regional flying instead of long-haul. I've flew CX's A359 recently, on both PY and Biz class, and I found the seats to be very comfortable and noticeable improvement over 77W's. I am interested in trying the new AA's PY seats to compare, but there's no questions that CX's food and services are better than AA's.


That's their opinion. I flew both back to back. AA's food in Y was vastly better than CX's food. The 3-4-3/3-3-3 is up to whoever to type up whatever they want but "personally" it felt no different
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:31 am

737max8 wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
So is MCE not part of the Y cabin? If it's not part of Y, then which cabin is it? If you can't accept that the MCE is part of the economy cabin (which is available for purchase to everyone including you), then there's really no point continuing this conversation.


I'm not familiar with the details of AA's ticket policies. I know you can buy MCE either directly, or as an upgrade to an already purchased ticket. But I suspect a non-rev passenger cannot upgrade from basic economy to MCE without first paying for a basic economy seat...? If you've read 737max8's trip reports in that forum you would quickly realize that when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free.

While your point is valid that MCE is available to anyone who is willing to pay for it (including 737max8), the overriding point is that he cannot or will not pay for it.


As a ZED traveler, you cannot purchase an upgrade to anything like MCE or J. The airline may place you there, but it is luck and nothing you can opt in for even if you are willing to pay. And once again, all of this is a moot point and irrelevant to comparing the basic Y offering of CX and AA on the 77W. I'll say once again, when I am talking about Y, I am not including MCE. I don't care if you say it's part of the Y cabin or not, I'm not talking about it in my comparison. In my comparison, economy and MCE are different. Just like they are very physically different on the airplane. I'm only talking about the 3-4-3 Y seats. I don't know what is the issue with saying I prefer the 3-3-3 CX seats to the 3-4-3 AA seats any time and why others reply to my posts mentioning J and MCE when I am not discussing those options and have stated such every single time.

And since I'm apparently the bad guy for taking advantage of ZED travel that I have worked hard for, I will also mention I do pay for tickets quite often (a few time to Australia in 2013, Europe last year, Japan last week, Europe coming up in May, and a good chunk of my domestic travel) when it makes most sense for me. I these include flights in other classes. I am perfectly aware of all of the different options and products out there. But this has nothing to do with comparing Y in AA and CX?!? Yet everyone keeps bringing it up. Sigh...

One other thing..."when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free"

Not sure what you mean by this comment, but from what I gather you are trying to say, could not be further from the truth. My trip reports were only to share photos of my experience on these airliners and are less than 10 of 150 flights I fly per year, a mix of business, ZED, and confirmed travel to places I want to go when I can go.


No one cares about your personal life. You stated a seat in Y was awful and from everything you wrote it's because you're too big for the seat. Y is Y. An inche here or there doesn't make a difference for some...SOME of us specific to those of us who've flown both and have replied to you. You don't like the seat because x y and z is totally fine. But it's not AAwful lol economy is economy no matter which way you slice it. I happen to like AAs seat, CX is better padded like you've mentioned but I put the blanked under my bum for both so it makes no difference to me. People addressed your whining about the seat because AA and CX offer options. If you'd just mention from the get go that you ZED and can't upgrade then maybe, maybe we wouldn't have said anything but give us a break
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4895
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:09 am

raylee67 wrote:
What AA needs is to add CX into the AA/JL/QF trans Pacific JV. The problem is I don't think CX is interested.


There is no Open-Skies between the US and Hong Kong, so there is no chance CX participating in the ATI JV.
mercure f-wtcc
 
737max8
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:52 am

Rookie87 wrote:
737max8 wrote:
IPFreely wrote:

I'm not familiar with the details of AA's ticket policies. I know you can buy MCE either directly, or as an upgrade to an already purchased ticket. But I suspect a non-rev passenger cannot upgrade from basic economy to MCE without first paying for a basic economy seat...? If you've read 737max8's trip reports in that forum you would quickly realize that when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free.

While your point is valid that MCE is available to anyone who is willing to pay for it (including 737max8), the overriding point is that he cannot or will not pay for it.


As a ZED traveler, you cannot purchase an upgrade to anything like MCE or J. The airline may place you there, but it is luck and nothing you can opt in for even if you are willing to pay. And once again, all of this is a moot point and irrelevant to comparing the basic Y offering of CX and AA on the 77W. I'll say once again, when I am talking about Y, I am not including MCE. I don't care if you say it's part of the Y cabin or not, I'm not talking about it in my comparison. In my comparison, economy and MCE are different. Just like they are very physically different on the airplane. I'm only talking about the 3-4-3 Y seats. I don't know what is the issue with saying I prefer the 3-3-3 CX seats to the 3-4-3 AA seats any time and why others reply to my posts mentioning J and MCE when I am not discussing those options and have stated such every single time.

And since I'm apparently the bad guy for taking advantage of ZED travel that I have worked hard for, I will also mention I do pay for tickets quite often (a few time to Australia in 2013, Europe last year, Japan last week, Europe coming up in May, and a good chunk of my domestic travel) when it makes most sense for me. I these include flights in other classes. I am perfectly aware of all of the different options and products out there. But this has nothing to do with comparing Y in AA and CX?!? Yet everyone keeps bringing it up. Sigh...

One other thing..."when and where he flies is secondary to flying for free"

Not sure what you mean by this comment, but from what I gather you are trying to say, could not be further from the truth. My trip reports were only to share photos of my experience on these airliners and are less than 10 of 150 flights I fly per year, a mix of business, ZED, and confirmed travel to places I want to go when I can go.


No one cares about your personal life. You stated a seat in Y was awful and from everything you wrote it's because you're too big for the seat. Y is Y. An inche here or there doesn't make a difference for some...SOME of us specific to those of us who've flown both and have replied to you. You don't like the seat because x y and z is totally fine. But it's not AAwful lol economy is economy no matter which way you slice it. I happen to like AAs seat, CX is better padded like you've mentioned but I put the blanked under my bum for both so it makes no difference to me. People addressed your whining about the seat because AA and CX offer options. If you'd just mention from the get go that you ZED and can't upgrade then maybe, maybe we wouldn't have said anything but give us a break


1. I didn't want to bring my or anyone's personal life into this because it's irrelevant comparing the products in Y. However another user brought it into the equation because I guess telling you I am talking about Y and Y only is too hard to grasp.
2. Other options are irrelevant to comparing Y. I don't care if the rest of the airplane has giant bean bag chairs and hot tubs. I am only talking about Y. (not MCE or J or anything).
3. My size is only 1 factor. There are numerous other factors. And the wide variety of people who write about how much better 3-3-3 is than 3-4-3 are not all above average in size.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
horizon360
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:48 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:40 am

737max8 wrote:
And the wide variety of people who write about how much better 3-3-3 is than 3-4-3 are not all above average in size.


Indeed, a 10 second google search revealed these comments.

"I too always try to avoid a 10 abreast 777. It is horribly painful. And I’m an average sized person…in asia. I switched from EK 777 to Qatar’s 777 because Qatar was 9 abreast. But I think any airline should lose their 5 stars for switching to 10 abreast, even for Qatar and CX. If they are only looking for efficiency, why not just make everyone stand close to each other and they can put an extra 100-200 people."

"As someone who’s flown on Air Canada’s 777-300 with 10 abreast several times, I will not fly them if I have a choice. Not only is it uncomfortably tight ([u]and I’m a slim guy) but one must take into account the lack of overhead bins and not to mention no additional washrooms for the 90-100 extra passengers[/u]. It’s brutal how long the bathroom waits are. I’d fly CX to Asia in comfort compared to sardine class in Air Canada. AC can kiss my patronage goodbye…"

"I have flown both in the 777. Nine across with Thai and ten across with Austrian and Air NZ. – Im a NZer working international flying many many times to Europe – business and economy – up to 5 times a year.. After 36 years of long haul I can say that the ten across 777 is the most disgusting seat available in international long haul. My advice is to avoid it like the plague. It is a shocker for anyone over 40 kg and 12 years of age!!!"

"I’m a ‘budget’ traveller, and I won’t travel on a 10-abreast 777. My twice-yearly SYD-LAX flight sees me usually stick with Delta and Virgin Australia, who are 3-3-3. I recently switched from a 10-abreast American Airlines 777 to a United 777, which is 9-abreast. Even as a cattle-class traveller, I’m willing to spend an extra few hundred bucks to get the comfier configuration. Having to squish my elbows in for an entire flight is intolerable."

"Although I haven’t personally flown on an Air Canada 777-300ER recently, a friend of mine flew in one of their new ”High Density” 77W’s from Montreal to Paris and found it incredibly uncomfortable, especially compared to the 9 abreast on AC’s 77L he flew to Australia on."

"I have flown the Emirates 777 a number of times which are 10 abreast in economy and it’s a horrible experience. Cramped seats, very narrow aisles, longer waits for meals and large queues at the toilets. Now I do everything I can to avoid this type of aircraft because 777’s are not designed to fit so many seats."

"I flew in Air Canada B777 high density in 10 abreast. I can attest that is the MOST UNCOMFORTABLE seat ever. Torture for the long YVR-HKG trip. I am switching to CX (3-3-3) for this route in Y."

"4 flights on 777-300 in the last 6 months (on to India from DXB/HKG):
Feb 2016 – EK – ORD-DXB – 3-4-3
Jun 2016 – CY – ORD-HKG – 3-3-3
What a HUGE difference. With 3-4-3 and seats next to your occupied, you WILL have to tuck your arms in while eating or you will be elbowing the person sitting next to you. VERY uncomfortable situation during ~ 15 hour flights."
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:17 am

horizon360 wrote:
737max8 wrote:
And the wide variety of people who write about how much better 3-3-3 is than 3-4-3 are not all above average in size.


Indeed, a 10 second google search revealed these comments.

"I too always try to avoid a 10 abreast 777. It is horribly painful. And I’m an average sized person…in asia. I switched from EK 777 to Qatar’s 777 because Qatar was 9 abreast. But I think any airline should lose their 5 stars for switching to 10 abreast, even for Qatar and CX. If they are only looking for efficiency, why not just make everyone stand close to each other and they can put an extra 100-200 people."

"As someone who’s flown on Air Canada’s 777-300 with 10 abreast several times, I will not fly them if I have a choice. Not only is it uncomfortably tight ([u]and I’m a slim guy) but one must take into account the lack of overhead bins and not to mention no additional washrooms for the 90-100 extra passengers[/u]. It’s brutal how long the bathroom waits are. I’d fly CX to Asia in comfort compared to sardine class in Air Canada. AC can kiss my patronage goodbye…"

"I have flown both in the 777. Nine across with Thai and ten across with Austrian and Air NZ. – Im a NZer working international flying many many times to Europe – business and economy – up to 5 times a year.. After 36 years of long haul I can say that the ten across 777 is the most disgusting seat available in international long haul. My advice is to avoid it like the plague. It is a shocker for anyone over 40 kg and 12 years of age!!!"

"I’m a ‘budget’ traveller, and I won’t travel on a 10-abreast 777. My twice-yearly SYD-LAX flight sees me usually stick with Delta and Virgin Australia, who are 3-3-3. I recently switched from a 10-abreast American Airlines 777 to a United 777, which is 9-abreast. Even as a cattle-class traveller, I’m willing to spend an extra few hundred bucks to get the comfier configuration. Having to squish my elbows in for an entire flight is intolerable."

"Although I haven’t personally flown on an Air Canada 777-300ER recently, a friend of mine flew in one of their new ”High Density” 77W’s from Montreal to Paris and found it incredibly uncomfortable, especially compared to the 9 abreast on AC’s 77L he flew to Australia on."

"I have flown the Emirates 777 a number of times which are 10 abreast in economy and it’s a horrible experience. Cramped seats, very narrow aisles, longer waits for meals and large queues at the toilets. Now I do everything I can to avoid this type of aircraft because 777’s are not designed to fit so many seats."

"I flew in Air Canada B777 high density in 10 abreast. I can attest that is the MOST UNCOMFORTABLE seat ever. Torture for the long YVR-HKG trip. I am switching to CX (3-3-3) for this route in Y."

"4 flights on 777-300 in the last 6 months (on to India from DXB/HKG):
Feb 2016 – EK – ORD-DXB – 3-4-3
Jun 2016 – CY – ORD-HKG – 3-3-3
What a HUGE difference. With 3-4-3 and seats next to your occupied, you WILL have to tuck your arms in while eating or you will be elbowing the person sitting next to you. VERY uncomfortable situation during ~ 15 hour flights."


So you found a bunch of people that whine as much as our ZED traveler and his "supporters" who don't know that MCE for a non rev is NOT an upgrade but just ANOTHER Y SEAT... they must be the same group of people that get on yelp and think their critique is so important to the world. "OMG waiting for the lav was soooo long and it must be because of 3-4-3...OMG I have to tuck my elbows in when I eat next to someone" like are you for real? If ANYONE is next to you, you'll need to tuck in your elbow! Read those quotes and realize how unrealistic these people are but hey you didn't read them and posted them like a high school student copying and pasting anything they find online to support hot air. I've been on 737s where the line to the lav NEVER ended! (Except When the cart came out) so spare me the 3-4-3 'argument'
10 sec Google search shows you how ridiculously whiny people are. You lost a freaking INCHE! An inche ! Get over it!
The food is great for you but sucks for someone else, some people are overweight and can't fit in the seat but hate it on everyone else's behalf...just because you hate it doesn't mean everyone else should hate it with you. I couldn't roll my eyes enough. On top of that, two people defended him and he turned on one of them LOL
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:28 am

Rookie87 wrote:
The food is great for you but sucks for someone else, some people are overweight and can't fit in the seat but hate it on everyone else's behalf...just because you hate it doesn't mean everyone else should hate it with you. I couldn't roll my eyes enough. On top of that, two people defended him and he turned on one of them LOL


The funniest part of this is we have a non-rev traveler who has posted literally dozens of trip reports about free flights complaining that a free seat on AA is less comfortable than some other airline! I'm sure AA is perfectly happy to lose a non-rev traveler to another airline, especially one whose weight is so far off any height/weight/BMI chart that he cannot help but ooze into space occupied by a paying customer.
 
horizon360
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:48 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:32 am

Relax dude. My point was to show that the 3-4-3 layout is very commonly criticized. Pretending that 737max8's view is somehow in the minority or that he doesn't like it solely due to his weight / size is blatantly unfair.
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:44 am

horizon360 wrote:
Relax dude. My point was to show that the 3-4-3 layout is very commonly criticized. Pretending that 737max8's view is somehow in the minority or that he doesn't like it due to his weight / size is blatantly unfair.



You showed nothing serious at all so you chill out and sit this out. No one said he was in a minority group. This whole thing started because 737MAX made some points about a seat in main cabin being awful when a paying passenger has options! i.e MCE
Later on he claims no one but him (assuming) knows how to read....and that's where things got interesting. Someone else jumped in pointing out big buddy using passes to travel and that's why he's "stuck" in Y. He really has no business complaining about a seat he gets basically for free compared to those seating around him, who would need more than an inch to make up for what he would spill over on them.
Anyways people will complain about the sky being blue! So having sat in both I am telling you that for "me" it is no different. I'm 6 feet and 2 inches AND weigh over 200 pounds so I'd LOVE to know what "average size" is for these people that are complaining about the seat
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:53 am

horizon360 wrote:
Relax dude. My point was to show that the 3-4-3 layout is very commonly criticized. Pretending that 737max8's view is somehow in the minority or that he doesn't like it solely due to his weight / size is blatantly unfair.


I don't take any of those complaints seriously and I don't think many others do, either. Nobody pulled a gun on any of those whiners and forced them to sit 10-across on 15 hour flights. And it's not like they had no choice; there are plenty of other options in airlines and fare classes.

Passengers who buy a ticket, choose a seat, then complain about it deserve nothing but ridicule. It's like someone going to McDonald's, buying a Big Mac, then complaining that the meat does not taste like a filet.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7353
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:12 am

Sounds like AAs HKG flight is perfectly timed for connections on CX, with the flight from LAX being targeted for HKG O&D.

I was a bit skeptical of AAs TPAC expansion, but using DFW to gain traction in the market, and JVs to support AA in the intense TPAC competition, I applaud them. Hats off to you American Airlines!
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
horizon360
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:48 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:59 am

The key contention here is whether AA's basic Y product is 'suitable for use' or satisfactory. Some on here obviously think that it is, and that's fine. Many others would argue that it isn't. If you question the comments I posted before, feel free to access any number of articles written by experienced aviation journalists lamenting the move to 3-4-3 by most airlines. Now, if we go with the thinking that the core product is unsatisfactory, the availability of other fare classes is irrelevant IMHO. Think about it this way, if I order a standard steak from a restaurant and it's not up to my expectations (i.e. it's significantly inferior to that served by other restaurants, it's undercooked, overcooked, tough, whatever), you would be expected to be able to complain to the chef. You might expect the restaurant to apologise or to do something about it. You could choose not to go to that restaurant again. There are many options available but one thing you wouldn't expect would be for the restaurant's response to be, "Well, you should have spent more money to get the Filet Mignon."
 
737max8
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:13 pm

IPFreely wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
The food is great for you but sucks for someone else, some people are overweight and can't fit in the seat but hate it on everyone else's behalf...just because you hate it doesn't mean everyone else should hate it with you. I couldn't roll my eyes enough. On top of that, two people defended him and he turned on one of them LOL


The funniest part of this is we have a non-rev traveler who has posted literally dozens of trip reports about free flights complaining that a free seat on AA is less comfortable than some other airline! I'm sure AA is perfectly happy to lose a non-rev traveler to another airline, especially one whose weight is so far off any height/weight/BMI chart that he cannot help but ooze into space occupied by a paying customer.



Dozens? Doesn't that mean multiples of 12? I wasn't aware that 2 was anywhere close to a dozen, let alone dozens. Secondly, you do not know my body shape and I do not cross the arm rest at all. I am an ex-athlete that carries an equal amount of muscle and fat lol.

IPFreely wrote:
horizon360 wrote:
Relax dude. My point was to show that the 3-4-3 layout is very commonly criticized. Pretending that 737max8's view is somehow in the minority or that he doesn't like it solely due to his weight / size is blatantly unfair.


I don't take any of those complaints seriously and I don't think many others do, either. Nobody pulled a gun on any of those whiners and forced them to sit 10-across on 15 hour flights. And it's not like they had no choice; there are plenty of other options in airlines and fare classes.

Passengers who buy a ticket, choose a seat, then complain about it deserve nothing but ridicule. It's like someone going to McDonald's, buying a Big Mac, then complaining that the meat does not taste like a filet.


Exactly, which is why it's ok to have an opinion and choose to travel on CX over AA. You can fly on AA over CX, I don't care. But there is nothing wrong with me simply stating I prefer a 3-3-3 Y seat over (awful) 3-4-3 seating. That is literally all I said before I got attacked for my opinion :lol:

BTW nice screen name. It still cracks me up every time I read it (seriously).

As far as Rookie87...not even worth replying to any more. I know customers can choose MCE (for more $$$) in Y, or even get upgraded, or assigned that seat if they are lucky FOC, but that isn't what I was discussing in this thread. Just the hard product of the 3-4-3 Y seat vs the 3-3-3 Y seat (which according to this user is no big difference, yet the entire internet disagrees).
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:54 pm

horizon360 wrote:
Think about it this way, if I order a standard steak from a restaurant and it's not up to my expectations (i.e. it's significantly inferior to that served by other restaurants, it's undercooked, overcooked, tough, whatever), you would be expected to be able to complain to the chef. You might expect the restaurant to apologise or to do something about it. You could choose not to go to that restaurant again.


A good analogy. People who go to a restaurant and order something that isn't of the quality they expect don't have to return. But if they do continue to return, order the same thing off the same menu, and complain about it every time, should they be taken seriously? No. And the same thing is true of basic economy. All the whiners quoted above could speak with their wallets and buy something better if basic economy is "unacceptable". Their actions speak louder than their words.
 
CXGabriel
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:26 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:37 pm

All the "whiners" quoted above have said that they will avoid 3-4-3 on 77W after their experiences on that configuration. Where's the beef?

I do believe we're getting off topic. Some have suggested that CX is not happy about AA's entry to the HKG market. Well, from their inflight magazine "Discovery," their route map includes the code-shared HKG-DFW route, so I am not sure all that talk about CX not happy is true. As far as adding JFK or ORD to HKG, I don't think that's what they're trying to do. They want to build DFW and LAX as gateway to Asia, at least they stated as such if I remember correctly.
 
uberflieger
Posts: 1573
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:57 pm

CXGabriel wrote:
I do believe we're getting off topic

:checkmark:
Every time I click hoping to read arguments for or against 'JFK/OR-HKG on AA' there's more of the 777 Y configuration debate. We've had plenty already, but if you guys feel so strongly about it start up a new one. Thank you. :airplane:
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1759
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:50 am

737max8 wrote:

As a ZED traveler, you cannot purchase an upgrade to anything like MCE or J. T


Oh ok that makes so much sense why you would whine so much now! Nothing like getting something for free, then whining about it. You know, you could've said that from the very beginning, that you're flying around the world for free, and you hate AA's 3-4-3 Y class so when you freeload off airlines, you'd prefer to freeload a better product because you don't want to pay out of pocket for a better one. I would've totally gotten that. I hate 3-4-3 in the 777 too, that's why I prefer to either fly my preferred (for now) airline where I can access 3-3-3 seating for free, or pay extra for it if on another airline. Instead, you rant and rave and spew nonsense that does nothing but misinform other readers of this forum.

You could've made it clear and said from the very beginning that "I understand AA offers a special 3-3-3 Y cabin which is more comfortable, but I'm flying on a special nonrev ticket which specifically prohibits purchasing MCE."

Look - I hate AA as much as anyone else - not to mention the complete and utter gutting of AAdvantage, but I try to be fair too, and it's not unfair to at all say that AA's Y and J products (leaving out F here - CX clearly still wins that one) are in many ways preferable to CX.
 
737max8
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:16 am

9w748capt wrote:
737max8 wrote:

As a ZED traveler, you cannot purchase an upgrade to anything like MCE or J. T


Oh ok that makes so much sense why you would whine so much now! Nothing like getting something for free, then whining about it. You know, you could've said that from the very beginning, that you're flying around the world for free, and you hate AA's 3-4-3 Y class so when you freeload off airlines, you'd prefer to freeload a better product because you don't want to pay out of pocket for a better one. I would've totally gotten that. I hate 3-4-3 in the 777 too, that's why I prefer to either fly my preferred (for now) airline where I can access 3-3-3 seating for free, or pay extra for it if on another airline. Instead, you rant and rave and spew nonsense that does nothing but misinform other readers of this forum.

You could've made it clear and said from the very beginning that "I understand AA offers a special 3-3-3 Y cabin which is more comfortable, but I'm flying on a special nonrev ticket which specifically prohibits purchasing MCE."

Look - I hate AA as much as anyone else - not to mention the complete and utter gutting of AAdvantage, but I try to be fair too, and it's not unfair to at all say that AA's Y and J products (leaving out F here - CX clearly still wins that one) are in many ways preferable to CX.


I don't disagree with your last statement - and I just didn't think the reason why I typically fly in Y only was relevant to simply comparing the 3-4-3 and 3-3-3 Y seats of AA and CX. Just because I travel non-revenue does not mean I have to like every product out there. And I am not here to whine, but just to say that I far prefer the CX Y seating to the AA Y seating. Yes, I think 3-4-3 is awful. There is nothing wrong about saying that, no matter what kind of ticket or pass you are traveling on. And if I have a choice, I do make it and route myself on more comfortable carriers. Why would I not? What is so wrong about all of that that others had to attack me? And when circumstances are right, I happily pay full price for products that I enjoy for my travel. In fact, even the cost (yes, it's not free either and some trips cost hundreds of dollars. While compared to a revenue ticket it is not as much, it still adds up over the year and is far more than the average leisure traveler spends on airfare) for ZED tickets on CX are more than that of AA. So actually I am choosing to pay more for that product, which falls in line with some of the points you all have been trying to make :)
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
usflyer123
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: JFK/ORD - HKG on AA?

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:16 pm

So i guess you have turned this topic from JFK/ORD-HKG on AA to 3-4-3 or 3-3-3 on AA or CX...
Anyway, I think ORD and NYC to HKG are pretty much well served and I dont think AA would enter those markets. If there will be a JV between AA and CX maybe AA will swap some flights to AA metal but that could take some time.
for most people the sky is the limit. for those who love aviation, the sky is home...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos