Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Travel Topics > Air Travel
Reload this Page >

Delta 767 from Atlanta to Madrid, Do recliner seats stink?

Delta 767 from Atlanta to Madrid, Do recliner seats stink?

Dec 4th, 2008, 12:40 PM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 489
GiuliaPiraino,
I have been following fodorite threads for some time now and I post occasionally.
Airline site is one of the sites I follow most closely.
While it may be true that rkkwan did not address your original Delta question, he did address the issue raised in the thread - that of "lie flat seats on Continental".
rkkwan, in my opinion, is one of the most knowledgeable and impartial posters on this site.
He is particularly familiar with Continental. I highly regard his opinion and value his advice.
I only know him from his posts.
Your personal attack against him was unwarranted - this is just my personal opinion (on a public forum)
Paulchili is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 02:04 PM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
There is some semantic confusion over "flat" and "horizontal."

rkkwan is correct about the CO seats.
smarty is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 03:46 PM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,995
The distraction is unfortunate, and rkkwan has provided a good deal of information to this forum.

In this instance, however, GiuliaPiraino has a valid point about the expression "lie-flat" as it applies to business-class seats. In current terminology, lie-flat does not horizontal. Lie-flat does mean that the seat extends so that there are no bends in the seat. Many lie-flat seats are at an angle, such as Continental's, and some are in fact horizontal (such as United's new seats).

While the distinction can be seen as one of terminology, it's extremely useful to know the difference if sleeping on a horizontal surface is important to you. American, for example, recently introduced their new seats and the describe them as "lie-flat" -- but you'll be very disappointed if you expect those seats to be like the horizontal business class seats on BA, VS, SA, et al.
DonTopaz is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 04:10 PM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
rizzuto - We are not debating the terminologies between "lie-flat" and "flat bed". There is no disagreement. We all agree that CO's seat is not horizontal to the floor.

The issue is that the seating/sleeping surface of CO's seat is not a flat surface. To me, to everybody on Flyertalk, and to Continental itself; the sleeping surface resembles a recliner/Lay-Z-Boy. You can see in the picture that I link to, on Continental's own website. Again, this is the link:

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...first/777.aspx

As you can see, there is an angle between the piece of cushion where your back lies and where your thighs rest. That's your 170-degrees. And then, the cushion where your lower legs rest angles further downward. So, three different pieces - three angles. Classic definition of a recliner.

Compare that to AA's, which can be seen in this flash page:

http://www.theflagshipexperience.com...page.html?en_2

Click on "Sleep", and you'll see what a "lie-flat" seat looks like at full sleep. It's a flat surface. No bumps, no different angles among the pieces.

The difference between the two is very apparent.

Continental itself knows its seats are not lie-flat. Or else, it won't call it "near-flat 170 degrees".

While I use seatguru.com all the time and find it in general a very useful tool, they are wrong to call CO's seat lie-flat, even if they put add the qualifier "with 170-degree recline". To most of the CO flyers, the comfort level between CO's 767's 156-degree and 777's 170-degree recline isn't that much. If 170 is "lie-flat", then maybe 156 should be "lie-flat" too? But seatguru calls CO's 767 a "standard seat with legrest".
rkkwan is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 04:45 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,995
I see, rkkwan -- you are absolutely correct.
DonTopaz is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 08:11 PM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 489
As I said before, I always listen to rkkwan - he knows his stuff.
It begs the question why couldn't Continental get those seats that are "almost" lie-flat to be really flat. They take up just as much space as the true lie-flat. Why couldn't they adjust a couple inches more at each joint to be flat? Same with AA lie-flat seat fiasco. They are flat but why couldn't the mechanism raised them to a true horizontal level? It wouldn't take up any more room.
Just plain dumb IMO for both seat designs
Paulchili is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 08:28 PM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
Paulchili - When CO introduced the current 777 BF seats, they were one of the best business class seats in the industry. Even now, they're one of the widest you'll find. "Lie-flat" wasn't in the vocab. It's just that times have past.

Changing anything on an aircraft isn't that easy, and it's not just changing the cushions. The seat manufacturer has to get involved, and probably have to get the seat design certified. CO's seats are still fairly competitive, which is probably why they decide not to go through all that trouble.

Anyways, CO have already announced their new flat bed BF seats. They were supposed to start appear in late 2009. But with their next two 777-200 and 787 deliveries from Boeing pushed into 2010, I think it'll be 2010 before we'll see those seats.
rkkwan is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 08:35 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 489
rkkwan,
I suppose I can see that one more easily as they are older seats.
But AA? They are quite new, developed in the age of "lie-flat" seats, they are in a shell - all they have to do is go a couple inches higher on the foot end. Not exactly rocket science.
To OP- sorry for this "Off the topic" rant.
Paulchili is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 09:12 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
Paulchili - It is not that simple to put flat-bed seats without taking up significantly more room. Airlines try many ways to do flat-bed in business class to minimize the space taken - including backward facing (BA, the new UA), herringbone (VS, CX, AC, etc). But even those still take more room than the recliner or lie-flat.

Lie-flats are efficient because one's foot is underneath the head of the person in front. You cannot just change the angle, like you suggested.

The only type of flatbeds that an airline can keep the density are the ones DL will put on its 767s, and CO will put on its 757 and 777s in the future. DL has a staggered configuration, and CO's will be slightly angled towards the windows. But both use the same idea that one's foot will be underneath the elbow rest (or a shelf) between the seats in front. These designs take a while to get realized, and AA decided not to wait for them.
rkkwan is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 10:06 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,525
Rkkwan-you definitely could win "airlines for $500,Alex!"
dutyfree is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 10:17 PM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 489
I see what you mean.
I assumed that because they are inside a "shell" they would be independent of the seat in front of them. I guess the foot part still slides under the shell of the seat in front of it.
I will fly in J LAX-LHR on AA in January so I will see it first hand (the next segment is J on BA LHR-JNB - that will be a treat).
Thanks for the patience in explaning it.
Paulchili is offline  
Dec 4th, 2008, 11:18 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
Here's a picture of AA's 763 with their new lie-flat shell seats:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ameri...-ER/1293469/L/

You can see the cutout where you feet will rest. That's how you can have a seat pitch of 58"-60", which is just 5 feet or slightly less.
rkkwan is offline  
Dec 5th, 2008, 10:08 AM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,291
Perhaps the airlines should consider seating like this:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air...ng_777-200.php

or like this:
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Cat..._777-300ER.php

But I guess they want everyone in straight rows so they can make sure their not trying to drink their own alcohol.
wally34949 is offline  
Dec 5th, 2008, 11:03 AM
  #34  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,160
Perhaps the airlines should consider seating like this:

Several carriers have opted for that style. Delta has it on their 777LRs and will roll them out across the 777 fleet. Virgin also has the same seat, as does Air Canada.

This is a common design, but it results in far more capacity loss than the angled lie-flat seats, the new designs like CO, or the front-back design BA has. To that end, I would think it will remain restricted to higher-yield destinations.

Besides, you should read some of the whining about these seats on FT and elsewhere - "It stinks when traveling in pairs", I miss my window, yadda yadda yadda". No seat is perfect and they will all have their compromises.
travelgourmet is online now  
Dec 5th, 2008, 12:21 PM
  #35  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,082
Hey....You are rocketing through space at nearly 600 MPH, sitting or reclining (lie flat/lie angled) in a chair...Get over it.
longboatkey is offline  
Dec 5th, 2008, 12:48 PM
  #36  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,160
Hey....You are rocketing through space at nearly 600 MPH, sitting or reclining (lie flat/lie angled) in a chair...Get over it.

I am willing to put up with a lot of indignation when flying coach, because I think the price is fair for the transportation. The price for biz is so high, whether paid with cash or miles, that I think it is only reasonable to pay strict attention to the details. When you are paying the kind of money it takes to sit up front, then I understand the concern about the amenities.
travelgourmet is online now  
Dec 5th, 2008, 12:52 PM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 489
I am with you on that one all the way travelgourmet.
Paulchili is offline  
Dec 5th, 2008, 07:04 PM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
The herringbone definitely takes up more room than lie-flats or recliners. For example, DL's 777-200LR has 43 herringbone flat-beds and 233 coach seats.

Similarly, Air Canada's 42/228. That's 24 seats in the section between Door 1 and Door 2. Air NewZealand put 26 of them in the same space.

In contrast, Continental's 772ER sits 50/235 with 32 business class seats in the front cabin between Doors 1 and 2.

That herringbone seating takes at least 15% more room, so the airline has fewer seats they can sell, and need to charge a premium.
rkkwan is offline  
Dec 6th, 2008, 04:03 AM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,995
For me, the horizontale seat in herringbone layout is a great option. I recently flew NRT-YYZ on AC, and I found it significanlt easier to get into a comfortable sleeping position than on any of the angled lie-flats I've flown (LH, TG, LX, NH, SQ Spacebed). And I'd take any of the angled lie-flats over the recliners (old UA, LX on 330s), in a heartbeat.
DonTopaz is offline  
Dec 8th, 2008, 02:35 PM
  #40  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,005
"The price for biz is so high, whether paid with cash or miles, that I think it is only reasonable to pay strict attention to the details. When you are paying the kind of money it takes to sit up front, then I understand the concern about the amenities."

I agree, it's obnoxious that these tickets cost $200,000, well that's the amount we had to spend on our credit card to get them. So I'm not willing to have a dumpy old Delta recliner when I can have an angled lie flat, especially on an 11 hour flight. Heck I was inconsolable when I saw Air France's pathetic toiletry kit, CO definitely has them beat there. Bottom line is, yes, it's a lot of research and bother, but it's also a lot of money and a lot hours in the air. To me it's worth it to try to get the best seat for the miles I'm using and the dollars I've already spent.

GiuliaPiraino is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:48 AM.