A couple of weeks ago, I received an invitation to “the British Airways Club World Experience” being hosted at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills. Not having flown BA’s Club World (their fancy name for Business Class) since 2003, I was certainly interested to hear about their enhancements. This was especially interesting to me since I had just “experienced” the Air New Zealand (Virgin Atlantic) seat, so I could really judge the seats side by side.

The event was last night, so what were my thoughts? Similar to what I’ve heard others say. The NZ/Virgin seat seems better for sleeping but the BA seat is better for relaxing. So for my westbound late afternoon flight, the BA seat probably would have been better, but for a flight over to Europe, I’d prefer NZ.

I headed over to the swanky Four Seasons to find a very nice spread. They had all kinds of food lining both walls of the room with a variety of exhibits scattered around the floor. One featured the new kitchen option which replaces the old “Raid the Larder.” Now you can get a variety of light meals instead of just snacks throughout the flight whenever you’d like. They also showcased the new Elemis toiletries which replace the old Moulton Brown ones.

I know, boring stuff. Let’s get to what really matters. The seat. I spoke with one of the “ambassadors” who also happened to be a flight attendant. She said there were really two big changes in the seat on which passengers commented most often.

First, they’ve changed the divider between the seats. Before, it was a flimsy fan-type device that folded out and attempted to give you privacy. It was not nearly as effective as you might hope. (Click here to see a picture of the old seat.)

They’ve now replaced this with an electronically-operated panel that slides up and down. The panel, as you can see, has a unique quality in that it’s only opaque from some angles. So when you’re sitting in the seat, you cannot see the person next to you. But if you’re a flight attendant and you’re looking down into the divider, you can see if the person on the other side needs any attention without having to lean over the person on the aisle. That’s nice.

Second, and definitely the best enhancement, is the new Z position. This is what the NZ seat was really missing when I flew. It’s a seat position unsurprisingly in the shape of a Z which is perfect for relaxing. Take a look at the picture to see what I mean. It would be nice if the head didn’t have to recline as far as it does, but since the screen is elevated, it’s actually in the perfect position to watch a movie.

The bed itself also seems more comfortable, but it doesn’t have as much width as the NZ seat when you’re fully reclined. I liked the room of the NZ bed and it would have been welcome on an overnight flight, but for a daytime trip, the BA seat probably has the advantage.

Judging from comments on previous posts in the last couple of days, I’m guessing many of you have already heard that SAS had yet another Q400 turboprop land with gear problems. This makes for an unbelievable third gear problem resulting in an emergency landing in less than two months. If you’d like to see the rather boring video of this landing, click here.

Before anyone had time to figure out what happened, SAS came out saying that they were permanently grounding the plane type and selling their fleet of 27 as soon as possible. That would certainly imply that SAS blames Bombardier, the manufacturer of the plane, for this. But is it their fault?

I’m not really convinced of that. There are many other operators of the Dash 8 in the world, including Horizon Air here in the US. They operate in the Pacific Northwest in a damp, cool climate not unlike that of Scandinavia. Their fleet is also about the same age as that of SAS with most aircraft being delivered in 2001. So why hasn’t Horizon had a single problem thus far?

Bombardier’s Marc Duchesne did say, “We did an internal investigation that confirmed there was no systemic problem with the landing gear of the Q400.” That would certainly point to something going on with the aircraft’s operation specific to SAS, but of course we just don’t know yet. Bombardier has also said that this problem was unrelated to the previous gear problems.

So, should SAS be grounding these planes and selling them off? It’s not an easy decision, but I would argue that it’s too early to make that kind of decision. They’re estimating this will cost the airline anywhere from $47m to $62m. (Actually 300m to 400m Swedish Krona.) That’s a lot of money considering they don’t even know what the problem is yet.

I think back to the DC-10, an airplane that had more than its share of serious problems. Unlike the Q400, its problems actually caused many fatalities, and it was ultimately grounded by the US for a short time until problems were fixed. That was a situation far more serious than what SAS is dealing with today, yet major operators like United and American did not walk away from the plane and sell their fleets. The planes were fixed and ended up having a good safety record until their retirement in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Of course, it’s easy for SAS to say that this is the third landing gear problem they’ve had and their customers have lost confidence in the aircraft. They have to get rid of it. But what if it really is something that SAS was doing? In that case, getting rid of the planes will only cost them more money without measurably improving public perception. If it is their fault, they’ll take the hit regardless. And what if it is an easily fixable problem? Will it be worth it to ditch the plane entirely? I remain unconvinced.

I completely agree that they should ground the aircraft until they figure out what’s going on and have other airlines do the flying for them in the short run. But selling the planes off right now seems premature. Let’s just hope they figure out what’s going on quickly so that it doesn’t have the opportunity to happen again.

I kept the title of this post simple because the plane needs no other introduction. We’ve been talking about this thing for years and years now and finally, it has entered commercial service. What can I say about it?

As with all new planes, I want to go for a ride.

The first plane was delivered to Singapore Airlines earlier this month and it went into service last Thursday between Singapore and Sydney. As more planes arrive we’ll see London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and San Francisco added to the route map. Nobody else will even operate the thing until later next year (Emirates), so for now, Singapore is your only shot. Let’s just take a look.

Despite all Airbus’ early promises, there is no gym and no movie theater. No, it’s just a bunch of seats, as most people predicted. Business Class and Coach don’t appear to be much different than what Singapore introduced earlier this year. Coach has the same standard 32″ pitch you’ll find on the rest of their long haul fleet. Business, on the other hand, has a little more room (pitch and width) than the already roomy standard on the 777-300s. But it’s First Class where things are really different.

Technically, there is no First Class on this plane. They’re calling it Suite Class, and it ain’t cheap. You can learn all about it here, but let’s go over some highlights.

The product seems to be similar to what Emirates pioneered onboard - the private suite. Well, it’s not entirely private because the walls don’t go all the way to the ceiling, but it’s pretty close. I wonder if putting the walls to the ceiling is some sort of safety issue? Anyway, it has everything you’d expect with a suite. Full flat bed, big tv screen, etc. But there are only twelve of these suites on each plane and they’re nestled up in the nose. I’d guess that 99.99999999% of the world will never even have a shot at flying this. So what else is there to love about this plane?

The thing I keep hearing over and over is that it’s a very quiet ride. That seems to be the only thing that really differentiates it in the eyes of the passenger in back. Business Class is all upstairs and actually takes up 2/3 of the cabin. The last third, along with 3/4 of the bottom deck is Coach. You can see the seat map here.

Unless you’re traveling in a group of three, it looks like the place to be in coach is on the upper deck. There it’s 2-4-2 instead of 3-4-3 and that makes a big difference for me. Then again, depending upon how many jet bridges they use, that could be the last part of the plane to get off.

A couple other things to note, the fuselage tapers in the back but they don’t seem to reduce the number of seats in each row. It might be a bit tighter back there. And what’s up with row 47? There appears to be only three seats in the middle there with an empty spot where the fourth should be. Maybe it’s a black hole.

The size of this thing is just incredible. Even though it looks pretty stumpy in person, that full second deck means Singapore can get 100 more seats on this plane versus their 747s. Even with that, they have only 471 seats onboard. Still, those extra 100 seats will help in places like London and Tokyo where they can’t add another flight because the airport is stuffed to the gills at peak hours.

I imagine the people at Airbus are happy to finally have this aircraft in service. Congratulations to them on delivering the first truly new widebody since the 777 back in 1995.

I’m not quite sure how such an anniversary slipped by so quietly, but a friend of mine just sent me an article that reminded me that this month celebrates 80 years since Pan Am’s inaugural flight.

It was October 18, 1927 that Pan Am’s first flight departed Key West for the short hop to Havana. Of course, Pan Am died in 1991 after a long illness. This shot summarizes my memories of Pan Am.

That’s ship N740PA, Clipper Ocean Pearl, at LAX in May 1988. (Copyright © AirNikon) I can remember two trips on Pan Am. One on 747s the whole way from LAX to JFK to Zurich and then back. The second trip was even more exciting as I flew again on a 747 from LAX to JFK and then JFK to Berlin on an A310. The return London to LAX on a 747 was my first time on the upper deck.

It’s sad that such a pioneering airline wasn’t able to survive deregulation. All we can do now is remember and recognize all the incredible contributions the airline made over the years.

I just found out that my fiancée and I will be heading down to Peru in the Spring. Of course, I’m excited about the chance to see Machu Picchu, but I’m also excited about getting to try a new airline.

Looking at my options, I see all kinds of exciting possibilities. Though I’ll wait to see what airfares do over the next couple of months, I’m eager to find out which option you all would recommend.

So, forget about mileage opportunities, because that’s not important. In terms of onboard experience, which airline would you choose?

Update 10/26 @ 1124a: An excellent point was raised in the comments that I didn’t mention what class I’d be flying. I’ll be in coach.

 Loading ...