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.