[Thinking aloud] Re: 77W F seat

[stargold]

(I recognise that not everyone is affected by the problem, especially if not too tall. But it's still a complaint that I see on trip reports quite often)

There are of course many complaints about the 77W F seat, such as being far too wide to be comfortable, insufficient recline for relaxing position and uncomfortable when lounging. But something else also made me wonder about one of the aspects of the 77W F seat that people seem to find annoying.

There is a cut-out in the foot space of Row 2 seats and also a corresponding cut-out in the head space of Row 1 seats. This means that people have to sleep at a slight angle, similar to how people sleep in J (but less extreme). I remember reading a trip report where the poster found this infuriating since you have to choose between your feet feeling restricted, and your head feeling trapped. Not something that you expect to encounter in F.

As far as I can see, the only reason behind the cut-out is to save 6 inches or so of seat pitch. Given that SQ was clearly on a "bigger is better" mission when designing the new F seat, what made them skimp on the seat pitch which resulted in this less than satisfactory compromise? Wouldn't it have been better to extend the seat pitch by the required distance and have two full sized beds?

To illustrate the issue:

[zvezda]

As far as I can see, the only reason behind the cut-out is to save 6 inches or so of seat pitch. Given that SQ was clearly on a "bigger is better" mission when designing the new F seat, what made them skimp on the seat pitch which resulted in this less than satisfactory compromise? Wouldn't it have been better to extend the seat pitch by the required distance and have two full sized beds?

There is a fixed distance between door 1 and door 2. In order to increase F pitch by 6 inches or so, SQ would have had to remove the first row of Business Class. Given the fixed dimensions of the 777-300ER, I think SQ made the best compromise possible.

[maxmin]

What % of people think the 77W seat is uncomfortable do you think, vs 744 F seat?

Is the J seat better than the F seat, or does is suffer from the same limitations?

[wdranne]

The protrusion in J is a real hinderance for any decent sleep. I'd say unless you're really tall, the subtle intrustion won't really be noticed (:

[flyingfox]

stargold, you make a good point.

Having flown in both row 1 and 2, I do find row 2 to be more comfortable for sleeping, as your feet rather than your head have less space.

What I don't get is why SQ had to do this, whilst JAL did not when they made their F "suites" in the 777.

I find the JAL F suite to be much more comfortable in all modes, and it is also more private (with a wall directly to your side, so you really cannot see anything of your neighbour).

[zvezda]

What % of people think the 77W seat is uncomfortable do you think, vs 744 F seat?

Is the J seat better than the F seat, or does is suffer from the same limitations?

The only things I prefer about F on the Jumbo versus F on the 777-300ER is that one must stand to convert the latter seat to a bed and no one passes through the F cabin on the way to somewhere else. The advantages of the latter are the seat is much wider and the IFE is much better. When I've had a choice, I have chosen based on schedule convenience.

[maxmin]

Odd, I had an email notifying me of the following reply but I don't see this reply in the thread:


***** has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - [Thinking aloud] Re: 77W F seat - in the All About Singapore Airlines forum of SQTalk.

This thread is located at:
http://www.sqtalk.com/forums/showthr...0&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
I personally have never flown the new J seats but many times on the 77W F on the SIN-HKG vv. run.

Being the busybody I was, I plonked myself down in an unoccupied J seat once. Boy...I had one word to describe it...SOFT!

The 77W F seat is rather solid, I must say, and the leather sort of gets a little warm and sticky after long periods of immobility.

The J seats have excellent upholstery. That's the sole plus point I think I have over F.
***************

[stargold]

The only things I prefer about F on the Jumbo versus F on the 777-300ER is that one must stand to convert the latter seat to a bed and no one passes through the F cabin on the way to somewhere else. The advantages of the latter are the seat is much wider and the IFE is much better. When I've had a choice, I have chosen based on schedule convenience.

Although the 77W F is much wider (better for sleep) and obviously has the latest and bestest IFE, I think SQ invested more thoughtful research and design into the SkySuites at the time than it did for the New First Class seat (taking into account the 1999 vs 2007 factor).

To give a more current comparison, even though the new JL F suites are similar in dimension to the SQ 77W F, JL suites recline properly into bed mode, the seat is a sensible width in relax mode and features Tempur memory foam. Although I have not tried the JL seat personally, I don't think it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to speculate that JL suite is a much better all-rounded seat than the SQ 77W F.

[SMK77]

There is a fixed distance between door 1 and door 2. In order to increase F pitch by 6 inches or so, SQ would have had to remove the first row of Business Class. Given the fixed dimensions of the 777-300ER, I think SQ made the best compromise possible.

SQ could have eaten into the seat pitch for J and the toilets/galley. "Saving" space in F is the worst possible compromise - SQ's 77W F has the smallest seat pitch of any international F. Any other airlines allows you to stretch out - and I would expect that to be a given in F.

[allmotor_2000]

SQ could have eaten into the seat pitch for J and the toilets/galley. "Saving" space in F is the worst possible compromise - SQ's 77W F has the smallest seat pitch of any international F. Any other airlines allows you to stretch out - and I would expect that to be a given in F.

SQ probably figured that unless you are actually sleeping, you will likely not utilize the entire length (hence pitch) of the seat. Assuming 10hr flight, you are sleeping about 6 hours tops, so 60%. They wanted to maximize (or minimize cost) where they can, and that's pitch. You can't make it 2-2-2 configuration, so might as well make the seat as wide as possible in 1-2-1 as a marketing tool.

I doubt 90% of the people traveling in F would complain.

[zvezda]

I don't think it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to speculate that JL suite is a much better all-rounded seat than the SQ 77W F.

I'm told the JL F suite weighs 70kg more than SQ's Diamond Plus seat.

SQ could have eaten into the seat pitch for J and the toilets/galley.

Sorry, no. There is no way to reduce the J pitch below 51 inches and have the seat still be reasonably functional. Toilets and galleys? Where? Not between doors 1 and 2.

[stargold]

Sorry, no. There is no way to reduce the J pitch below 51 inches and have the seat still be reasonably functional. Toilets and galleys? Where? Not between doors 1 and 2.

SQ 77W has two toilets, each just behind Door 1 (and hence between doors 1 and 2). The toilet doors face the front rather than the aisle which is quite unusual.

NH:

Door 1
Toilet
1A
2A
Partition
3A
5A
Door 2

C pitch is apparently just over 60", and F pitch is around 77". But I remember that the toilet behind Door 1 is slightly smaller than SQ, so perhaps that's where they found the space.

JL:

Toilet
Door 1
1A
2A
Partition
5A
6A
Door 2

So, in this case, JL obviously gave up trying to fit too much between the two doors, and opted to have one toilet next to the cockpit for the F cabin - so in this case, there is plenty of space. F pitch is shown as 79" and C pitch is shown as 58".

All 3 airlines have 2 rows of F and 2 rows of C between Door 1 and Door 2 but chose different combinations of space utilisation - I have a feeling that if SQ rotated the toilet to the "usual" direction then they would have found the space, although then the toilet wouldn't have been as nice.

[SMK77]

I doubt 90% of the people traveling in F would complain.

I have not read one review of the new F product that was full of praise - everyone noted the curve in the back of the seats in row 1. Again, no airline has reduced the seat pitch in F - and it is odd that SQ was doing that while adding 50% space to their seats in J.

I am very sorry to see the SkySuites being phased out...

[allmotor_2000]

I have not read one review of the new F product that was full of praise - everyone noted the curve in the back of the seats in row 1. Again, no airline has reduced the seat pitch in F - and it is odd that SQ was doing that while adding 50% space to their seats in J.

I am very sorry to see the SkySuites being phased out...

It is also likely that only 20% of the F-passengers actually write reviews... and generally folks like to point out shortcomings, so makes sense I think!

Agree on your SkySuites sentiment!

[SQflyergirl]

I think SQ invested more thoughtful research and design into the SkySuites at the time than it did for the New First Class seat (taking into account the 1999 vs 2007 factor).

I tend to agree. I have a feeling the 77W F product may have been slightly rushed as they had meant for R to be launched with the 380 and then a not too dissimilar product for the 77W, but couldn't get the best marketing bang for their buck when the 380 got delayed.