V-Flyer

I have read lots of trip reports, but can anyone say for certain that the seats are narrower in the bump? I keep switching my seat reservation from the bump on the return flight to downstairs and then decide to switch it back again!

Thanks

Nope, the seats are the same size in the Bump for UC. I guess they gap is narrower (although it can get any narrower than 6A&K), but you know what I mean.

Paul

Actually Paul, I think you'll find they are.

They're technically longer, but each time I get into one upstairs, it feels significantly smaller (narrower) than the downstairs ones. More info is in some reponses to this trip report.

The last 4/5 trips, I've been making more of an effort to work this out - and I'm certain my inbound (upstairs) suites are about 1-2" 'thinner' than my outbound (downstairs) ones.


{ah - hold on, by "bump", I think UC-Newbie means upstairs, rather than the nose, hence the confusion }

I was also referring to the upper deck, is that what we are all referring to. I think these seats may be at a slightly different angle which may give the impression that they are narrower. Now ISTBC, but I am sure the actual width is the same.
I guess the only way to have conclusive proof it to get a measurement. Any volunteers?

Paul

editted to add that whether or not it is smaller, the fact that it "feels" smaller is probably reason enough to stick to the lower deck.

Well, let's put it this way - my shoulders are closer to each side upstairs than they are downstairs. I'm 100% sure the angle of the suite can't affect that...

TBH, I'm not entirely convinced that they're longer up there anyway - I'll check for sure in 2 weeks time. [:?]

Actually - on this page, it gives the dimensions of the bed:

The bed is 79.5" (202cm) long (82"/208cm on the upper deck) and 33" (84cm) wide across the shoulder area, making it the biggest fully flat bed in business class.

Now, in my rather cynical view, the "shoulder area" measurement gives them a LOT of leeway to adjust other measurements within the suite configuration. [}:)]

Originally posted by preiffer
...and I'm certain my inbound (upstairs) suites are about 1-2" 'thinner' than my outbound (downstairs) ones.[/i]

Are you sure that it is not that you're about 1-2" wider on the way home [:o)] [B)]

Phil

Originally posted by preiffer
Well, let's put it this way - my shoulders are closer to each side upstairs than they are downstairs. I'm 100% sure the angle of the suite can't affect that...

TBH, I'm not entirely convinced that they're longer up there anyway - I'll check for sure in 2 weeks time. [:?]

I quite agree with your comments and you later post.
But to answer your question above. If you take a rectangle and squeeze it to one side making the angles say 45%/135% (rather than 90%) you reduce the vertical space (Although the dimensions and area stay contant). Now apply the same principle to a UCS and you can see how they feel smaller.

As in my previous post, it is enough for me to accept that if they feel smaller I will choose the lower deck in preference.

Paul

(Man I gotta learn how to spell!)

Originally posted by BuffyTVS65
Are you sure that it is not that you're about 1-2" wider on the way home [:o)] [B)]

Not again...! [B)][:#][:p]

Originally posted by preiffer

Originally posted by BuffyTVS65
Are you sure that it is not that you're about 1-2" wider on the way home [:o)] [B)]

Not again...! [B)][:#][:p]

That's classic and has really cheered me up!:D:D

Paul

Originally posted by p17blo
I quite agree with your comments and you later post.
But to answer your question above. If you take a rectangle and squeeze it to one side making the angles say 45%/135% (rather than 90%) you reduce the vertical space (Although the dimensions and area stay contant). Now apply the same principle to a UCS and you can see how they feel smaller.

But there's one thing missing from this - the angle of the seat is altered too - so the parallelogram's sides are still in alignment with the seat's sides (ie: the seatback remains perpendicular to each plane)

The actual sides of the rectangle remain the exact same distance apart, if they're both moved by 45 degrees, as they were at 90 degrees.

Originally posted by preiffer

Originally posted by p17blo
I quite agree with your comments and you later post.
But to answer your question above. If you take a rectangle and squeeze it to one side making the angles say 45%/135% (rather than 90%) you reduce the vertical space (Although the dimensions and area stay contant). Now apply the same principle to a UCS and you can see how they feel smaller.

But there's one thing missing from this - the angle of the seat is altered too - so the parallelogram's sides are still in alignment with the seat's sides (ie: the seatback remains perpendicular to each plane)

The actual sides of the rectangle remain the exact same distance apart, if they're both moved by 45 degrees, as they were at 90 degrees.

Or maybe not, if the seat is in essence a rectangle inside the parallelogram! You could in essence make the rectangle in side narrower but longer (which I think you mentioned is a claim on the upper deck seats anyway).

Paul

Urggh. This is doing my head in now! [:0]

I'm going to stop short of dusting off my 15 year old Mecano set to try and work this out, and just take a measure along with me at the end of the month... [:?]:)

Don't you just love a good brain workout?:D:D

Paul

Make sure its a cloth measuring tape. Metal one might take some explaining @ security [:I]

I flew on Thursday to JFK downstairs, and back today in 1A. The return trip was not as confortable, esp as it was a night flight and I was trying to sleep. Why? I thought the seat was noticeably narrower, and was going to post the very same question as UC-Newbie.

I won't go upstairs again (apart from for PE, which is miles better upstairs IMHO...)

Has anyone been bothered to take a tape measure and get some "offical" VF measurements yet?

Any comment from staff?

Cheers,
VS045

I forgot my tape measure on my last trip but the seats are definitely narrower by around 5cm on the upper deck. In fact, they seem exactly the same width as the A346 UCS although they are longer.

I wish VS would be more consistent...

BC

I was told by FSM two weeks ago on Tinkerbelle that the upstairs UC suites are definitely longer--but the same width. There was some spirited debate about this with those sat at the bar. The sense of narrow, he assured us, comes from the angle and aisle. He gave me the dimensions--but as they accompanied a glass of champagne, they seem to have fizzled in my memory.

RR

Originally posted by roadrunner
I was told by FSM two weeks ago on Tinkerbelle that the upstairs UC suites are definitely longer--but the same width. There was some spirited debate about this with those sat at the bar. The sense of narrow, he assured us, comes from the angle and aisle. He gave me the dimensions--but as they accompanied a glass of champagne, they seem to have fizzled in my memory.

I think the FSM is wrong. The UCS upstairs is definitely narrower at the shoulders. I can do an easy test, since downstairs with the seat in its fully upright position the cocktail table (when down) is 3cm away from my shoulder. Upstairs my shoulder hits the cocktail table.

BC

Agree with BC. I flew out in 16, and back in 4. Although I forgot my tape measure [:I], I DID make a conscious effort to "guage" the widths. Coming back, BOTH shoulders were nearer to the walls of the suite than going out.

Agree with BC. I flew out in 16, and back in 4. Although I forgot my tape measure , I DID make a conscious effort to "guage" the widths. Coming back, BOTH shoulders were nearer to the walls of the suite than going out.

Did v:port not satisfy your entertainment needs?;)

Cheers,
VS045