July 9 - 11 : SQ presents new F and J seats

[milehighj]

One thing I am glad to see is that seat controls remain individual buttons, and have not been integrated into the touchscreen control pad, a-la-Emirates.

[KC*]

this what makes me sad of this J part, like its predecessors,
squeeze your leg to this loophole , sleep diagonally and dont move..

The SQ J seat is in a way a herringbone for sleep and face-forward for seating. The advantage is that everybody gets a full isle access and the seat doesn't look as cloistered up some other airlines. To me, this is a good compromise.

To have a full foot width will require a much bigger pitch resulting in fewer seats (hence higher prices) or more seats per row (hence, no more full width aisle access).

Of course, once can go for row 11. And I usually do.

[SQflyergirl]

Truly I don't understand why people call this position sleeping "diagonally" - maybe the physiology of some don't agree with it and it makes it harder to sleep for them.

It is "diagonal" to the front of the plane yes.
But you are not contorted into some odd L shape. Your body still sleeps straight relative to itself. It's not terribly different to sleeping parallel to the front, perpendicular to the front (ala annexing a row of 4 seats in Y) or at any other angle relative to the front of the plane. most important: a flat well padded pane, long enough and wide enough that i can sleep on. Where it's pointing is not so relevant.

Didn't see too many people bitching about 2A and 2F on the old 744's though. Those were also "angled" relative to forward motion.....

[KC*]

Absolutely agree, SQflyergirl!

[cplh]

drinks placement and tray in J

a) seems a little odd to have the "cocktails" stand placed next the window rather than next to the aisle - is this meant to improve service?

b) is the tray mechanism less heavy than the current arrangement? does it lift up higher?

[viraj735]

Truly I don't understand why people call this position sleeping "diagonally" - maybe the physiology of some don't agree with it and it makes it harder to sleep for them.

It is "diagonal" to the front of the plane yes.

Didn't see too many people bitching about 2A and 2F on the old 744's though. Those were also "angled" relative to forward motion.....

IMO there is nothing wrong with sleeping diagonally. The issue arises when one is sleeping diagonally in a shell/frame that faces forward motion.

When the current J seat is "bed mode" some find that there isn't enough head or shoulder room at the top of the seat because of the box (the footwell from the seat behind). Said footwells are also extremely narrow thus adding to the problem.

CX's new J doesn't have this issue as the seat is built around the diagonal sleeping position. There is ample room head-to-toe. It seems like SQ just made accommodations for the diagonal sleeping position as an afterthought.

[SMK77]

Truly I don't understand why people call this position sleeping "diagonally" - maybe the physiology of some don't agree with it and it makes it harder to sleep for them.

It is "diagonal" to the front of the plane yes.
But you are not contorted into some odd L shape. Your body still sleeps straight relative to itself. It's not terribly different to sleeping parallel to the front, perpendicular to the front (ala annexing a row of 4 seats in Y) or at any other angle relative to the front of the plane. most important: a flat well padded pane, long enough and wide enough that i can sleep on. Where it's pointing is not so relevant.

Didn't see too many people bitching about 2A and 2F on the old 744's though. Those were also "angled" relative to forward motion.....

Every other airline is giving you a space that's 35" wide and 82" long. Within this space they put their First Class seat. Airlines coming to mind are NH, LH, LX, etc.

Singapore Airlines is giving you a space that's 35" wide and 71" long. Within this space they put their First Class seat. Kudos to the marketing jerks who measure corner to corner and find the 82" even on SQ... You gotta be kidding me.

I am not hung up on sleeping diagonally (if the whole seat design is aligned with this). I am hung up on the fact that I am having significantly less space to play with.

[SMK77]

IMO there is nothing wrong with sleeping diagonally. The issue arises when one is sleeping diagonally in a shell/frame that faces forward motion.

When the current J seat is "bed mode" some find that there isn't enough head or shoulder room at the top of the seat because of the box (the footwell from the seat behind). Said footwells are also extremely narrow thus adding to the problem.

CX's new J doesn't have this issue as the seat is built around the diagonal sleeping position. There is ample room head-to-toe. It seems like SQ just made accommodations for the diagonal sleeping position as an afterthought.

Perfect summary of the issue.

[MAN Flyer]

Thanks for posting, StarG. Hope you had a good evening.

Had good food and great company.

Good to see everybody last night, shame I had to leave early to fly home. Hope you didn't have a late one... Cheers to 9V-JKL for the lift to Changi.

Truly I don't understand why people call this position sleeping "diagonally" - maybe the physiology of some don't agree with it and it makes it harder to sleep for them.

It is "diagonal" to the front of the plane yes.
But you are not contorted into some odd L shape. Your body still sleeps straight relative to itself. It's not terribly different to sleeping parallel to the front, perpendicular to the front (ala annexing a row of 4 seats in Y) or at any other angle relative to the front of the plane. most important: a flat well padded pane, long enough and wide enough that i can sleep on. Where it's pointing is not so relevant.

Didn't see too many people bitching about 2A and 2F on the old 744's though. Those were also "angled" relative to forward motion.....

Indeed. I have just flown on BA012 back from SIN, which is a 744 with 10 diagonal seats (from 14), in F. It's all in the mind....

The great thing about early arrivals into LHR in BA F is it allows CCR access and I am sat on the 'outdoor terrace' here watching heavy, after heavy, after heavy landing using both runways.

[SQJunkie]

Some nice pix of F & J in situ, CGI of course:





http://www.wallpaper.com/travel/sing...ors/6634#84339

[HUGE AL]

SQ will still have the smallest F cabin of all international competitors. Standard seat pitch is 82" in First Class. SQ is doing 10" less.

The actual usable space is less than CX???

Thanks for posting, StarG. Hope you had a good evening.

Had good food and great company.

Great to hear you boys had a good time.

One thing I am glad to see is that seat controls remain individual buttons, and have not been integrated into the touchscreen control pad, a-la-Emirates.

You sure are comparing everything to EK lately.

[demue]

Some nice pix of F & J in situ, CGI of course:





http://www.wallpaper.com/travel/sing...ors/6634#84339

Particular J looks quite nice and seems to have resolved some key issues with the current product such as thin padding (I'm soft) and the lounging position. As shared with someone the other day over a drink I'm no fan of the feet cubby hole, but will survive.

[milehighj]

You sure are comparing everything to EK lately.

It's really not that I love EK. Rather respect as a business entity that takes risks and tries to be a market leader. Something that SQ was once, but not any longer.

[StarG]

I am going to reserve real judgements until I am actually on these new products, hopefully some time this year. Now just some obsevations from the event.
There were not enough opportunity to play with the new products as there were quite a number of people interested to do that. The lady in F seat seemed to be more interested in keeping traffic flowing than welcoming us to try the new seat.

What I can say is that the new products are very good improvements on the current products. If you like the current products, you will love them even more.
If you are looking to be impressed by the new products, you might be disappointed.

SQ impressed us with their new products (more J than F) in 2006. This seems to be just an update to those, rather than a whole new launch.

More efficient use of current space seems to be the mantra. They cleared 3 inches from the shell back thickness of J to create more personal space.
Economy gained one inch of personal space with the use of better contoured seats. The new Economy seat in reclined position is actually quite comfortable.

First Class update seemed a bit disappointing as improvements made were not significant. It is still 1-2-1 on the 77W with same pitch. I had a feeling that J seat was made to look less wide partially to differentiate F from J further. F should be improved more given what the competitors are doing with theirs, and it is a flagship product of SQ. The colors and materials used on the updated F are really pleasant though. The ambiance is Rolls-Royce-ish and the suite seem to be more sturdy. Ample storage in the First Class suite.

New IFE control unit was impressive. It mimics what is happening on the screen in horizontal mode. In vertical mode it goes more like a remote. Either way they seem to function well. Hopefully this will prevent economy passengers from poking the screen in front of them.

I am most interested to try the new J, whether this update really fix all the problems of the current one.

Hopefully with these new products SQ will remain one of the best around.
It is getting tougher to be the absolute best in all the products, and more needs to be done.

Now if only passengers in First and Suites can have better snacks than some shared ones with Economy, that would be great...

[Short Final]

Truly I don't understand why people call this position sleeping "diagonally" - maybe the physiology of some don't agree with it and it makes it harder to sleep for them.

It is "diagonal" to the front of the plane yes.
But you are not contorted into some odd L shape. Your body still sleeps straight relative to itself. It's not terribly different to sleeping parallel to the front, perpendicular to the front (ala annexing a row of 4 seats in Y) or at any other angle relative to the front of the plane. most important: a flat well padded pane, long enough and wide enough that i can sleep on. Where it's pointing is not so relevant.

Didn't see too many people bitching about 2A and 2F on the old 744's though. Those were also "angled" relative to forward motion.....

I agree. I have never understood the complaint about sleeping diagonally. When you lay down and close your eyes, how do you know you are diagonal relative to the seat in front of you or the aircraft aisle? You have your eyes closed, you are asleep, you cannot see the seat in front of you.

I give SQ credit for doing a front facing seat with a diagonal bed. It's a good compromise. To me, front facing for seated/awake position is more important, and the characteristic I would want to hold on to above else. And then the diagonal sleep profile is a good compromise to save pitch and cost.

For those who really hate the diagonal sleep position in J, I think they really have little standing to complain anyways if they are unwilling to pay for that additional seat pitch by paying for Suites. Why shouldn't SQ charge more for more seat pitch?