Overheard Conversation

Whilst stood in the queue for security at JFK the other day i earwigged a conversation between two passengers on my flight stood directly behind me.

It was apparent they didn't know each other and were just chit chatting whilst in the queue (and in full public sight and sound to be heard - so no privacy issues)

She mentioned she was flying upper class and it was the first time she had been through JFK since the new lounge was opened.

He mentioned she would enjoy the lounge and that he worked for Virgin.

She asked doing what?

He replied that he worked for Virgin's holding company that oversaw all the individual Virgin companies and they had just appointed a new CEO for VS - Craig Keeger.

She remarked that she had heard the new UC suite was not as good as the old one

He replied that he didn't like the new suite as some of the space had disappeared for putting things like his phone in. He went on to say that in fact the new suite generally had not been well received, so much so VS had decided to revert to the old suite over time, as planes needed refitting or as new planes came along they would be fitted with the old version of the suite ! (that'll be an expensive mistake me thinks)

Can't confirm the validity of the information or whether he was who he said he was, she was rather gorgeous so may have been a bit of a chat up, but who knows !

Bit of an odd chat-up line to be fair, but yeh fully agree a half overheard conversation in an airport between strangers is not the best of places for info..... Good start for gossip on the other hand y) y)

I wonder which UC seats will appear on the Dreamliners when they finally enter service then..... The new UC suites could definitely work in a wider bodied cabin which the Dreamliner provides.

Personally I think VS need only to iron out a few wrinkles in the seats themselves, the shoehorn effect on the A333s should also be corrected to a 1-1-1 config. The cabin width of the Dreamliner should allow for the 1-2-1 config.. So lighter routes can be served by the airbuses and the busier routes served by Boeing.....

[mitchja]

The only problem is though didn't VS have a major fall-out with the company that made the original UCS seat because they started selling it or bits of it to other airlines (or something along those lines). it ended up in court I seem to remember.

I believe VS now have their own seat design company in-house but not sure if they manufacture as well as design?

[buns]

I wonder which UC seats will appear on the Dreamliners when they finally enter service then..... The new UC suites could definitely work in a wider bodied cabin which the Dreamliner provides.

Personally I think VS need only to iron out a few wrinkles in the seats themselves, the shoehorn effect on the A333s should also be corrected to a 1-1-1 config. The cabin width of the Dreamliner should allow for the 1-2-1 config.. So lighter routes can be served by the airbuses and the busier routes served by Boeing.....

I had heard that the new UC was intended for the 787 - just has been a long time coming

buns

I wonder which UC seats will appear on the Dreamliners when they finally enter service then..... The new UC suites could definitely work in a wider bodied cabin which the Dreamliner provides.

Personally I think VS need only to iron out a few wrinkles in the seats themselves, the shoehorn effect on the A333s should also be corrected to a 1-1-1 config. The cabin width of the Dreamliner should allow for the 1-2-1 config.. So lighter routes can be served by the airbuses and the busier routes served by Boeing.....

Couldn't agree less, the UCDS is a disaster in more ways than the cabin width, the whole seat is narrow, the shoulder and head space is made for pin heads with 12" across the shoulders, storage is dire, the table poor, the monitor is in an absolutely stupid position ... Need I go on. It reminds me of the debacle that CX experienced when they went herringbone, and lost a lot of custom, then had to redesign the whole thing - VS needs to fix it quick.

All VS ever needed to do was to update the existing suite, not recreate it with a design ethos driven by "get as many in as possible".

I wonder which UC seats will appear on the Dreamliners when they finally enter service then..... The new UC suites could definitely work in a wider bodied cabin which the Dreamliner provides.

Personally I think VS need only to iron out a few wrinkles in the seats themselves, the shoehorn effect on the A333s should also be corrected to a 1-1-1 config. The cabin width of the Dreamliner should allow for the 1-2-1 config.. So lighter routes can be served by the airbuses and the busier routes served by Boeing.....

Couldn't agree less, the UCDS is a disaster in more ways than the cabin width, the whole seat is narrow, the shoulder and head space is made for pin heads with 12" across the shoulders, storage is dire, the table poor, the monitor is in an absolutely stupid position ... Need I go on. It reminds me of the debacle that CX experienced when they went herringbone, and lost a lot of custom, then had to redesign the whole thing - VS needs to fix it quick.

All VS ever needed to do was to update the existing suite, not recreate it with a design ethos driven by "get as many in as possible".

+1000 from me there, my one experience of the new UCS was once too much, and I seem to remember that Slinky was a lot more measured in his TR than I was. If there genuinely is an intention to give this up as an experiment that failed, then it will significantly improve my perception of VS as an organisation that has the capacity to listen to feedback.

If ture, can only be a positive in so many ways - expensive though!

Couldn't agree less, the UCDS is a disaster in more ways than the cabin width, the whole seat is narrow, the shoulder and head space is made for pin heads with 12" across the shoulders, storage is dire, the table poor, the monitor is in an absolutely stupid position ... Need I go on. It reminds me of the debacle that CX experienced when they went herringbone, and lost a lot of custom, then had to redesign the whole thing - VS needs to fix it quick.

All VS ever needed to do was to update the existing suite, not recreate it with a design ethos driven by "get as many in as possible".

The seat space is narrower because the angle at which they are crammed in is steeper.. it will have a large effect on the shoulder width and the headspace available when in bed mode... look at the middle rows vs the window rows as an example... there is much more headspace available due to the angle of the suite and the curvature of the fuselage... anyway do you not think that with a 1-1-1 congfig the A333 UC cabin would be spaceous and, assuming the seats are no longer shoehorned in, allow for more space to be given at each seat?

I have found storage space ok so far... laptop/tablet fit in the seat pocket and wallet, phone, passport, book and flight supplies (usually something covered in chocolate ): ) fit in the compartment under the ottoman seat.

The table is a bit small.. however it is a plane, with space at a premium it is understandable... I am sure that if I had a lot of busy work to do on board I would agree with you - although a damn sight bigger than the tray tables in ECO and PE

Monitor position agreed it is a little difficult .... where do you think it should be? Personally i am not too sure, although if they remove the 'opaque' windows they could manoevre the screens further down the suite... no doubt queue the accusation that people cannot reach the screen from a seated position... perhaps a kind of mechanical swing arm then controlled by the remotes

One of the main things for me would be to up the ante with the materials used..... I mean come on, they are already showing a great deal of wear and tear, more so than their counterparts on other aircraft.. it just points at substandard materials used. Perhaps they did not build some of them to last for good reason. ii)

If there genuinely is an intention to give this up as an experiment that failed, then it will significantly improve my perception of VS as an organisation that has the capacity to listen to feedback.

Personally I would like to see a company listen to feedback and improve the product offering as opposed to abandoning the idea entirely and effectively going backwards in time... look at Microsoft for example, they released Windows Vista without any proper consultation and it was a complete shambles.. instead of throwing in the towel and reverting back to Windows XP they corrected the mistakes and ironed out the o/s to come out with Windows 7 - not the best o/s in the world granted but at least they pushed on.. y)

I was one of this products most vocal critics to begin with (check out some of my TRs from the VS3 and 4) and I am open to giving VS a shot at fixing it and moving forward as opposed to backwards.

However all unto their own I guess, sorry for prattling on for so long.. 8D

Joey I can see that you have flown on it, but do you really think:

there is much more headspace available due to the angle of the suite and the curvature of the fuselage

Did you fly on a 747 or a 346 in the UC suite?

As to storage have you tried to put anything behind the seat like you can on the old UC suite? Have you found anywhere to put your spectacles without crushing them when sleeping?

The table is a bit small.. however it is a plane, with space at a premium it is understandable

Compare it to the old table, bigger, sturdier, able to push back and hold in position without it springing back at you ... able to put a laptop, an iPad, a drink on it and not knock anything off or wobble it off!

Monitor position agreed it is a little difficult .... where do you think it should be?

Where the old one was, i.e. you can eat or work with the monitor out - now you can do neither comfortably.

Have you used the plug, in the most ridiculous place between your ankles?

Personally i am not too sure, although if they remove the 'opaque' windows ...

I don't think these are being removed, they're being made less opaque.

Personally I would like to see a company listen to feedback and improve the product offering as opposed to abandoning the idea entirely and effectively going backwards in time

In this instance going backward in time is a positive step, the UCDS is itself a backward step. As above, CX abandoned their's for a completely new design due to customer feedback and now it is heaps better - after one flight from HKG to SFO in the old CX coffin seat I vowed never to fly them again, now I may.

... look at Microsoft for example ... ot the best o/s in the world granted

And it's still less than good, from what was the world's largest software company!

However all unto their own I guess, sorry for prattling on for so long.. 8D

Exactly, if we all agreed, life would be dull indeed .

Well howdy there slinky, making life more interesting.. I won't go quoting each question and then answering as that will double the length of this post.. so let's see if we can follow along.

Yep that I do, comparably between the centre herringbone seats and the window seats there is a feeling of much more space and given the curve of the fuselage vs the pointed walls around the centre seats it seems only logical there is more room back there.. although I confess I have yet to board with a tape measure (or dettol wipes) - will try to sneak one past security next time through. Yes I have flown on the 747s and the 346s in UC too.

Thinking back, I do not think I have ever seen need to put anything behind the seats.. I know in the new UCDS there is no longer space for pillow and duvet upon reclining so they put them in the overheads... personally don't see a problem with that. Perhaps I take too little as carry on then :# Must up my game and see if I can fit a kitchen sink in there next time.. I don't wear glasses I am afraid, however breakable things I tend to hide under the ottoman.

Table agreed, older ones were more sturdy. Perhaps they were trying to streamline them to account for less wind resistence An improvement to feed back. I think they should also remove the 'opaque' windows and put something more useful in there... a better table for slinky and a better monitor for myself y) y)

Have not used the plug yet, where was it on the old suites

Never flew on the CX 'coffins' I'm afraid to say, have flown on several other business class seats though, the way some of them encompass the feet and legs, it is akin to being locked away in a morgue drawer.. I am glad VS are therefore different in this manner.

I am a Mac fan in truth, we use windows at work and back when vista was released we were unfortunantely updating several of our systems, needless to say havoc ensued and win7 seemed a god send at the end of it :w

I fear we are in danger of repeating the debate about the new UCS. But seeing as that is good fun, I'll add my own opinion...

I agree with various points made by both joey and slinky. I've only flown in it once, but I felt that the seat was less of a problem than the very cramped cabin. Solve the latter problem and you are a long way towards making things a lot better.

I didn't find the seat too tight for space, but I am quite slim; I noticed the angle of the seats, as joey says, which actually has a dramatic effect on the perception of roominess. I thought storage was OK if you used the ottoman thing; I missed having a place for a water bottle, though.

However, I do agree with slinky about the table. I thought I had broken mine the first time I tried to get out of the seat, because it was virtually pinning me back down into the chair! It is also less stable than the previous one.

But my bigger worry is that even though I flew on a brand-new plane (literally her maiden flight), some of the material looked a bit tacky and didn't give the impression it would last long. The awful faux-wood around the monitor is a good example.

It is a pity because the A333 is a terrific plane -- very quiet and comfortable. I still think VS can tweak it and make it better (and indeed good enough), but only if they reduce the number of seats.

Having travelled on the A333 twice I can echo the comments so far.

My first trip was returning from New York in August in PE. Great plane, very quiet and the experience in the PE cabin was superlative. Great new IFE, seat as good as ever and very spacious, exclusive feel in the cabin.

The second flight was a G to Delhi in UC in September. Seat was fine and again new IFE very good but the cabin did feel very cramped. Luckily an overnight flight so asleep most of flight. One of the cc told me she had heard very few positives about the new cabin and expected they would take out one of the central rows in due course.

I suspect UC passengers will probably avoid the A333 because of this which is a shame - its a fine experience further back!

Just out of interest, if you load up the space under the otterman, where do you put your feet?

I'm only 6 foot but fairly broad, and I have to say that there is more leg room in PE and EC than in the UC suite - unless you put your feet up on the otterman, and then it's fine but not comfortable for eating/working etc?

Not used the DS at all, but the oold" UC suite was tight on me, so to speak, and all reports are not filling me with optimism about a more comfortable experience in the DS given that I am a fairly well built chap...

Just interested for the moment, I'll be flying CW for my next 4 sectors and nothing else booked...

[preiffer]

Have not used the plug yet, where was it on the old suites

The in-seat power was/is in a reasonable location, inside the magazine storage. Many frequent travellers who know they have to work onboard carry an emPower adapter for use on many aircraft - not just VS ones.

The adoption of a more "standard" plug is a good move. Putting it where they have is just silly.

I dont think they could easily go 1-1-1 with the current suite as the centre beds are all interconnected.
You would have to rip out all the seats and repalce all the seats...

If you just took out the centre ones and put new ones in - the side ones would all still be slanted at the current angles as they can't just be made wider.

I also can't see them going from 33J down to 25J or what ever it would be with the seats removed.

That aside I believe the company do realise it is not a popular product, but I fear that it will remain and in the long run just be moved on more leisure routes from LGW. But hey I don't have a crystal ball.

Just out of interest, if you load up the space under the otterman, where do you put your feet?

Ahh sorry I should have been clearer... there is an actual stowage compartment by lifting up the seat of the ottoman.. Plenty of room still left for my feet and shoes..

I also can't see them going from 33J down to 25J or what ever it would be with the seats removed.

There are only 14 UC seats on flights from LGW or MAN.. up to 25 would be an improvement if they were looking at moving some of the A333s onto certain routes... LGW - LAS hopefully

Some engineering bod will no doubt correct me on this but the suites themselves are made up of several componant parts.. I confess I have no idea how easy it is to reconfigure, althought given the difference in product offerings accross airlines, the airbuses themselves must be flexible to a bit of a shuffle around. The question is whether or not VS will go for it and opt to push forward, making their 'experiment' not a complete waste of time and effort.

Oh, so in the DS the otereman itslef contains a stowage space under the cussioning?? Does this mean the gap underneath is not as tall?

Anyway, doubt I'll be trying the DS anytime soon...just interested for the future...

Oh, so in the DS the otereman itslef contains a stowage space under the cussioning?? Does this mean the gap underneath is not as tall?

Anyway, doubt I'll be trying the DS anytime soon...just interested for the future...

Yep. Errr not too sure as I have yet to board with a tape measure in hand. From the feel of the space though the ottoman appears to be slightly deeper, but narrower if that makes sense..

I have not noticed an obvious intrusion into the footwell, although thinking about it there is a sort of storage envelope under the ottoman attached to the wall of the suite for magazine/laptop stowage..

Even US Airways, not my favourite airline in the past, only puts 28 seats in between doors 1 and 2 on an A333 ... compared to VS and its 33 seats (plus don't forget the bar that takes up the space of another 3 or 4 seats). Just sayin' if you want a comparison with an airline that's not usually considered on a par with VS but clearly offers miles more room.

Oh, so in the DS the otereman itslef contains a stowage space under the cussioning?? Does this mean the gap underneath is not as tall?

Anyway, doubt I'll be trying the DS anytime soon...just interested for the future...

Doesn't the current one liift up as well or am I imagining that it did and I therefore accidentally broke one once ?

Either that or my befuddled brain is even more befuddled !

Doesn't the current one liift up as well or am I imagining that it did and I therefore accidentally broke one once ?

Either that or my befuddled brain is even more befuddled !

Ha ha ha it is not supposed to.. I do believe the cushion is removable though, so maybe those cleaning staff forgot to zip/velcrow it back down again

I didn't notice that the "old" UC otterman lifted up, but could equally be wrong on that.

What I do know is, I never felt there was a lot of scope for stretching out ones legs, if my concern here was that my chins might encounter the underside of the otteramn....

I think I'll join the befuddled brigade, and leave it at that!!!

that my chins might encounter the underside of the ..

?| ?| ?| ?| ?|

The old ottoman only lifted up if it was detached from the suite! The new one has a little storage compartment underneath the cushion. It is not huge, but quite useful.

I agree with the comment above about the dimensions of the ottoman -- I found it narrower but longer for feet, so I couldn't touch the end of the suite, whereas I can on the old seat.

Thought I would chip in my two pence worth here.
I don't like the new UCDS. I have had three or four goes of it and to me it's a step backwards in so many areas apart from the extra storage in the ottaman. I now find myself dreading (OK dreading is a very strong word, I could be sitting at the back) OLCI going to the seat map and the 330 type aircraft.
True, it's in the wrong aircraft but nether the less - Wrong, a case of design over function.

I have had a few conversation with CC, and the feedback from all of them was not great. From "We have had mixed feedback" with a smile, to "It's horrible, none of like it. I have even tripped over seat 1x and fell on a customer"!!

Do we really think that VS would pull them out?? I can't see that. I make the assumption that the ones in place will stay and perhaps any refurbs or new may get another type.