Ridiculous BA A380 economy seats

[nebpor]

Just came SIN-LHR and specifically picked the BA A380.

Travelling as a family of three and looking forward to some decent shut-eye, I was highly unamused to find the arm rests on the seats don't go up properly - they only go about 45%, so an uncomfortable night with a toddler.

Why on earth would they do this? I've never encountered it on any other config in my life (I fly a lot) and I'm struggling to understand any benefit gained from it. It's a shame - I love BA.

Will never fly it again - back to the 747 on our return leg, which will allow a sleep albeit in an older style cabin.

If anyone in BA reads this, please take this type of feedback into consideration - I've since read a bunch of other people complaining about it online, it's really family / couple unfriendly.

[TSR2]

If anyone in BA reads this, please take this type of feedback into consideration

Perhaps a polite 'Private & Confidential' letter to WW may do more good.

[mutt]

Its the same on some of their 777's, totally takes the fun out of an empty flight.

[DaveReidUK]

This may be a silly question, but isn't the ability to fold the armrests fully up out of the way, in the event of an evacuation, an airworthiness requirement?

[mockingjay]

Not at all. All armrests need to be down for landing and emergency landings too. If they're jammed half way up and could impede exit then those seats would be u/s however there's no requirement for armrests to be fully vertical and flush with the seat backs.

[champair79]

Hi nebpor,


I work for the airline and actually asked the same question when I was lucky enough to have 2 seats to myself and wanted to put the armrests up to make a sort of bed.


The reply I got was that the backs of the seats are wider to improve passenger comfort. This has had the effect of reducing the gap between the seats to less than the armrest width so the decision was taken to prioritise having a slightly wider seat over the armrest going fully up. It also reduced wear and tear on the IFE cables present in the armrest.


The 777 also has seats where the fuselage tapers in that have non-moveable armrests. This is because the armrests are padded in order to comply with the 16G protection that the interior on-board has to be certified to.


Hope that helps.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

might as well sleep on the floor. I also suspect that the people that make these decisions probably don't go Zoo class......

[Yaydoot]

Emirates is the way to go - they have this quaint idea that the passenger comes first!

[lomapaseo]

he 777 also has seats where the fuselage tapers in that have non-moveable armrests. This is because the armrests are padded in order to comply with the 16G protection that the interior on-board has to be certified to.


I was under the impression that only the seat attachments to the floor had to meet the 16G requirement

[MarkerInbound]

might as well sleep on the floor.


I remember an Air New Zealand briefing several years back that included "Sleeping on the floor is never allowed on Air New Zealand flights."

[Dct_Mopas]

might as well sleep on the floor.


I remember an Air New Zealand briefing several years back that included "Sleeping on the floor is never allowed on Air New Zealand flights."

Ah yes, well that's from an airline who care about economy passenger comfort 😀

With Air New Zealand the use of the economy SkyCouch is amazing for couples/those with toddlers. Again, those at BA who make these decisions are completely out of touch,.... why of course I want to sit upright in one position for 14 hours! Fine if flying alone but not for a large portion of passengers. I'll be avoiding BA because of it.

[air pig]

I avoid BA at all times, as somebody said Emirates all the way.

[Phileas Fogg]

Who are BA? :)

[WHBM]

I work for the airline and actually asked the same question when I was lucky enough to have 2 seats to myself and wanted to put the armrests up to make a sort of bed.

The reply I got was that the backs of the seats are wider to improve passenger comfort. This has had the effect of reducing the gap between the seats to less than the armrest width so the decision was taken to prioritise having a slightly wider seat over the armrest going fully up.
The railways in Britain overcame this one about a century ago (you don't see it so much now, but that's progress) by having the armrest just lift into a depression of it's own shape between the two seats. All the remainder of the seat backs is full width.

Send the seat designers down to a railway museum to see how to do it.

[nebpor]

Champair, thanks for your response - at least I now know why even if I don't agree with it, it's a shame as I certainly didn't notice the extra seat width!

And sorry, but i don't fly Emirates anymore if I can help it - I always found the cabin service indifferent, plus have had too many missed connections and awful DBX experiences with them, plus Dubai is no place to transit with a kid - I'm far happier having a couple of days in Singapore and a lot less stress.

[PAXboy]

I'd hazard a [cynical] guess that the extra seat width is only there to look good on paper. Increasingly, there are comparison sites for seats and someone might think that a vital enough extra width. I don't and certainly if it comes at the price of arm rests not fully lifting up.

I've just booked first trips on a 380 but not with BA.

[chrissw]

Slightly off topic, I know, but, continuing Paxboy's comment about comparison sites: it's curious that, thanks to the miracle of the Internet, we now have the means to find and make comments about pretty much every aspect of airline service, but at the same time it seems that we are facing ever-decreasing standards with many of the legacy carriers. At least you would think so from reading many of those comparison sites.

The point is that all the comparison sites in the world aren't encouraging increasing standards everywhere, and the difference in standards between the western and Asian carriers seems to be turning into a yawning chasm.

[Phileas Fogg]

Slightly off topic again but can anyone offer reasonable explanation, and I've only flown on AF/KL B777's, why their -200 series are 9 across in economy but their -300 series 10 across in economy?

I did a night CDG/SIN in a 10 across AF -300 and it was a most uncomfortable ride, I returned MNL/AMS in a 9 across -200 and despite it being a 14 hour journey without a cigarette it was OK.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Phileas
Nothing better than 3 seats in the underfloor galley of a DC10 from JFK-LGW.
After that it gets boring!
OC41

[Phileas Fogg]

Mr Angry,

Let it not be forgotten that I travelled TPA/BGR/LGW with my seat, during two landings, two take-offs, and plenty of turbulence, being a rear toilet on a DC10 ... Fortunately I had a good 'friend' working the flight who had used my toilet to stow vodka and tonic in.

Back at LGW in time to catch the midday LGW/LAX only to have a difficult passenger who, in front of some 300 passengers, a steward and I (and an American cop passenger) had a wrestling match with :)

[PAXboy]

Mr Angry from Purley
Nothing better than 3 seats in the underfloor galley of a DC10 from JFK-LGW.
Care to elaborate ...? :E

[Phileas Fogg]

It was a private joke PAXboy.

Mr Angry and I used to work together for the same operator more than 33 years ago and on our 5 quid staff tickets we would find ourselves occupying some unusual seating arrangements.

One flight, MIA/LGW, I was occupying a (boring) flight deck jumpseat when the senior stewardess came in to explain that the girl downstairs in the galley wasn't well and could I go downstairs to help.

Well I'm not stupid, downstairs was where all the beer was stashed, for the remainder of the flight I was cooking passenger meals, throwing cases of whatever canned drinks in to the elevator upon request, catering for the cabin crew as they came below deck for their meal breaks etc. whilst drinking as much beer as I cared to drink ... It was a brilliant flight :)

[El Bunto]

Slightly off topic again but can anyone offer reasonable explanation, and I've only flown on AF/KL B777's, why their -200 series are 9 across in economy but their -300 series 10 across in economy?A quirk of timing really. On the first-generation 777s ten-abreast was an exceptional configuration for short-range domestic use like intra-Japan. The aircraft was designed for nine-abreast.

But by the time most airlines came to order the second-gen, Emirates and Thai had proven that Economy passengers could be stuffed ten-abreast on long routes too. SO it is the dominant layout on the 300ER.

Both AF and KLM are retrofitting their -200s to ten-abreast, I think they're nearly there or have recently finished doing so.

That makes them one of very few airlines to operate the first-generation 777 ten-abreast. Austrian is another, huge difference in comfort between their 767s and 777s as a result. BA briefly tried ten-abreast -200 back in 2001 on the Gatwick holiday routes.

Ironically Thai rolled-back to nine-abreast!

[Phileas Fogg]

Thanks for the explanation El Bunto, that does make accountants sense if not common sense.

If ever I fly B777's again I'll be checking seating configs online before I book.

[Cymmon]

Qatar still have 9 abreast.