In 2025, Lufthansa Group carrier SWISS is expected to introduce a new passenger experience, known as SWISS Senses. This includes a new first and business class, and the plan is to install this on newly delivered Airbus A350s, and also to retrofit this on existing Airbus A330s and Boeing 777s.
Continue reading: Oops: SWISS’ New First Class Is Too Heavy, And It’s A Problem
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
I would guess the number of obese businessmen filling these seats will only further compound the issue.
Fits into the entire Allegris / Senses mess, nothing makes sense, not in first, not in business class. For some reason I seem to recall having read then same about an LH aircraft months ago as well, having to install weights in the rear to counterbalance.
Couldn't they just do what Air China did on their 747s, and have first class between business and economy? Surely centre of gravity problems wouldn't be so bad if the cabin was more central? Or is avoiding economy passengers walking past during boarding seen as such a problem that installing a ton of dead weight is better
This is the equivalent of carrying an extra 10 passengers, plus their luggage, just to offset the weight imbalance. I hope this makes it into the mainstream news as this is really a bad look. Aligns with another transport issue - Swiss Rail not allowing German trains into the country as they were so often late they messed up Swiss's own network / planning. Sad but I guess I shouldn't be totally surprised.
Why would obesity rates be higher in business than economy? If anything you could make the reverse argument based on socioeconomic trends.
"a fixed installation for weight regulation is unavoidable".
Well no, it's totally avoidable actually, if the design, planning and implementation of the new cabins wasn't a total shambles!
It would be funny except they make the economy seats thinner and thus more uncomfortable to save weight and then add a 1.5 ton weight!
You could also avoid it by installing heavier and more comfortable economy seats.
I assume that that useless dead weights being carried around in the plane will get the operating title of lufthansa group
That will be for the B747-8i
They don't even know what to do with business class seats on the upper deck, the upper deck is just too narrow to accommodate the seats
Why not put a couple of rows of business in front of the first class row on the A330? They can use the forward Business class section for top tier loyalty. They'll have some galley coordination to do but it's better than lugging around a big weight
Regardless of what side you come down on about energy, air travel -- flying around a 1.5 ton weight unnecessarily over the life of an aircraft is just a slap in the face to the environment.
What do the first class seats weigh by themselves? I think the fact that 1.5 tons of it is a dead weight at the back of the plane is a red herring: seems to me it's a part of the total weight of the first class product, and the conversation should be about whether heavy first class products are a good thing or not…
They could pull an Air China and install first class behind business class. Having the heavy first class seats right before the wing and behind door 2 should help with balance.
Please note, a metric ton (the only ton used in continental europe) equals (exactly) 1000 kg, so its rather approx. 3300 pounds
It is 2024! Climate change is real.
The amateurs who planned this or are otherwise responsible for this should be fired immediately This is so ridiculous. Flying 1.5tons of lead around all the time is just way beyond crazy. But maybe 2017 or whenever they started to plan for a new cabin product (LH group usually takes that long to introduce new things) they didn't think of it and never bothered to look back. Unbelievable.
There's an easy solution. Take the coach area and figure out how to cram in 50% more people. It wouldn't be the first time.
Thank you for this article. I had a good laugh. Nothing to add to the comments below.
🙂
Climate change might be real, but billions of people are not going to sacrifice their standard of living to "fight" it.
Swiss and Lufthansa group are so dumb. Scrap Allegris already and replace with proven reverse-herringbone seats. Heck, slap a door on it if they want.
Stephen, you’re on point. Why not improve the economy product by adding more padding or who knows, let the engineers get creative. And I’m sure that would elevate their bottom line long term. Considering their astronomical fares, nobody flies Swiss to save a euro…
Unfortunately it’s not just the F seats, but the new business seats are dramatically heavier than the current (terribly outdated) seats. The Swiss statement is ridiculous. If they were listening to customer wishes, they would have installed a competitive, but standard seat a decade ago.
Or, remove 1 row of economy seats up front and let the first few rows be an "extre legroom section" (available for elites or an upcharge)... And achieve the same W&B result.....
The "error is due to the complexity of internal processes, and a lack of communication within [insert any big company here] when planning"
And just like every other big company, I'm sure they'll find a way to blame the little guys rather than senior management.
Nobody cares about climate change. Individuals want others to solve the problem without forcing them to sacrifice their lifestyle. Businesses exist solely for the purposes of maximizing profits. Politicians want to advance their agenda and have learned to use climate change to gain support for even the most irrelevant acts. I say again, nobody cares about climate change.
In this case they are updating the product to improve the customer experience, remain competitive and increase revenue potential. The cost of the counterweight is in the fuel to carry it and the reduction of available payload capacity. The upgrade will easily increase revenue more than it will cost in fuel. The payload capacity is rarely an issue and can be mitigated by configuring ticketing to sell less seats impacted routes and spreading the lost revenue to the remaining seats.
Climate change is an expense in the form of public opinion and compliance with legal requirements. Any increase in compliance is passed on to the consumer. Any impact on brand goodwill is already covered by marketing and sustainability initiatives.
Aircraft carrying large weights to maintain the center of gravity has been very common throughout the history of aviation. There is a significant amount of weight intentionally added to the aircraft design for this purpose. Many flights operate with fuel in one or more tanks that can't be used because it is keeping he balance within limits.
I once flew on a star alliance. 2 sectors on UA 767 pre Polaris, LX 330, and on the return LH A380 ans 747-800. The Swiss J class hard product was at the bottom of the 4, but the genuine hospitality of the crew was number uno. UA was at the bottom.
Why not just add more weight to the back by increasing seat size/quality in the lower cabins?
Clearly a management failure. Most airlines manage to reduce the weight of their premium cabins, e.g., Finnair by 40%. The only exception is LH group….
The issue in economy is the thinner the seats the more rows can be installed without shrinking the "legroom". More comfortable seats = less seats rows or less legroom.
The whole issue of first class, business class, main cabin and economy seats is just plain stupid. Why don't airlines just have separate airplanes devoted to each class? Would be a lot more simple, less chaotic, and more satisfying.
This is just mind-bogglingly stupid. If no one is fired (including possibly the CEO) for such an astoundingly bad rollout of a cabin upgrade, the shareholders should revolt. Lufthansa is single-handedly destroying whatever reputation German engineering carried in the rest of the world. Right now, someone is writing a business school case study on how not to run an airline based on the entire Allegris affair.
With all that said, given that Allegris is currently installed and flying (albeit not on the A330), I imagine it's well into the certification process. Even if Lufthansa/Swiss is so stupid as to not realize their mistake, wouldn't the seat manufacturer have mentioned it? And even if those "internal processes" are so screwed up that a vendor saying "duh, you can't do this" doesn't make it to the appropriate executive, I'd imagine a regulator denying certification would cut through whatever dysfunctional internal process they have. Or maybe that's what happened here?
Maybe the rear section of the A330s could be reserved for overweight Americans and their copious carry-ons to help balance things out.
I don't get it. Additional weight like this is ultimately similar to payload, The MTOW will most likely not get changed because that would be a new weight variant, so yes, it impacts max payload (probably at the cost of cargo), which means that you operate at a higher cost per ATK, but nothing will change about the emissions of the aircraft. The payload range diagram stays the same. That's physics. Yes, efficiency will be lower in the sense of emissions per ATK, but that's it. The aircraft will not emit more CO2 as such.
There's a center of mass (CM) and a center of gravity (CG) and both are important for similar reasons but at different times. These discussions of CG often omit the "why" of the importance of calculating CG and keeping it within the safe envelope provided by the aircraft manufacturer.
First, though, there are three major types of CG laid along the axes of the aircraft body. One is up and down with respect to gravity and is disregarded (and is the difference between CM and CG). That leaves two - lateral CG and longitudionarl CG.
Lateral CG is often mostly disregarded because airframe layout is symmetric -- the right side mirrors the left side. That means both sides have equal CG. This changes in a bank, but that's why we have bank-angle limitations (among others such as lift, roll angle, wing loadaing, etc.)
Longitudional CG is what is discussed here... what is often variable (requiring movement of fat people on small planes front to back or vice versa)... and has great effect during particular maneuvers.
ROTATION. This is where the pilot rotates the aircraft nose up to leave the runway. Too much forward CG will make this more difficult requiring a shallower bank angle and a longer runway to take off. Too much aft CG will make the takeoff easier, but return to level flight more difficult.
STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT. Too much aft or forward CG and the elevators will work extra hard to maintain level flight. Drag is increased and fuel usage increased. As a result range and fuel mileage suffer.
LANDING. Too much aft CG and it's harder to get the nose down, so longer runway required, and less control on the ground until the nose wheel is down. Too much forward CG and it's harder to keep the nose up, so shorter runway works, but you can't land on the nose gear (it's not strong enough) so it's harder work to keep the nose in the air till the tail wheels have taken the brunt of the landing.
TAXI. CG and CM are meaningless here. You can taxi a box-truck if you like. An airplane on the ground is pretty much like that.
There's your "why". Hope it helps understand why this is a crucial element that needs correction prior to being deployed on dozens of aircraft, making hundreds of flights a day more difficult... and ultimately less safe.
I just posted a detailed answer to your question. The emissions will be greater because the drag will be greater because the control surfaces have to bring the aircraft to a neutral position. The more longitudional CG differs from neutral the more fuel must be expended.
More fuel burn means more CO₂ is emitted.
[Edit: reposted as me]
There's a center of mass (CM) and a center of gravity (CG) and both are important for similar reasons but at different times. These discussions of CG often omit the "why" of the importance of calculating CG and keeping it within the safe envelope provided by the aircraft manufacturer.
First, though, there are three major types of CG laid along the axes of the aircraft body. One is up and down with respect to gravity and is disregarded (and is the difference between CM and CG). That leaves two - lateral CG and longitudionarl CG.
Lateral CG is often mostly disregarded because airframe layout is symmetric -- the right side mirrors the left side. That means both sides have equal CG. This changes in a bank, but that's why we have bank-angle limitations (among others such as lift, roll angle, wing loadaing, etc.)
Longitudional CG is what is discussed here... what is often variable (requiring movement of fat people on small planes front to back or vice versa)... and has great effect during particular maneuvers.
ROTATION. This is where the pilot rotates the aircraft nose up to leave the runway. Too much forward CG will make this more difficult requiring a shallower bank angle and a longer runway to take off. Too much aft CG will make the takeoff easier, but return to level flight more difficult.
STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLIGHT. Too much aft or forward CG and the elevators will work extra hard to maintain level flight. Drag is increased and fuel usage increased. As a result range and fuel mileage suffer.
LANDING. Too much aft CG and it's harder to get the nose down, so longer runway required, and less control on the ground until the nose wheel is down. Too much forward CG and it's harder to keep the nose up, so shorter runway works, but you can't land on the nose gear (it's not strong enough) so it's harder work to keep the nose in the air till the tail wheels have taken the brunt of the landing.
TAXI. CG and CM are meaningless here. You can taxi a box-truck if you like. An airplane on the ground is pretty much like that.
There's your "why". Hope it helps understand why this is a crucial element that needs correction prior to being deployed on dozens of aircraft, making hundreds of flights a day more difficult... and ultimately less safe.
Are they operating every flight at maximum structural takeoff weight? If not, every other flight will have this extra fixed payload that will require extra fuel burn to carry.
Sounds like a typical German project, a country with some of the most incompetent and yet overpaid management talent.
Don’t be silly. You can’t possibly have comfortable seats in Y. It would set a wrong precedence and passengers would start expecting that everywhere.
Conversion bugbear here. "Roughly" 1.5 tons (which tons? Metric? Imperial? or the relatively puny American tons? Like Phillippe, my money is on metric.) Becomes 3000 pounds, a nice round number, becomes 1361 kg, which is ridiculously precise. (Any why not 1360.77711 kg?) If they're talking about "roughly" 1.5t, they mean "roughly" 1500kg. Not "roughly" 1361kg. Nothing "rough" about a number like 1361!
When putting a rough number into a conversion formula that provides a precise figure you need to think about reporting the result.
What a mess. I still don't understand how this first-class suite in the middle will work for 2 passengers and only open on one side. It looks very claustrophobic and cramped.
I don't understand why they didn't just choose an off-the-shelf 1-2-1 reverse herringbone with a door in business class like the BA Club Suite and then a 1-2-1 front-facing suite in first class like Oman Air's. Both tried and tested, and popular with passengers.
They could have had the entire fleet reconfigured with that by now!
So ridiculous. Just so the rich can have an exclusive cabin, they’ll be burning tons of more fuel. Quite stupid in my book.
It’s a Lufthansa group airline, so naturally the cabin reconfiguration project is a complete shambles.
Define “rich”. By my measure, rich people don’t fly commercial. The passengers in first class are financially fortunate, but not rich.
It sort of makes sense as well. When only 1 jet bridge is being used… it’s almost always connected to L2 door. First class in front would be stuck behind business class passengers when disembarking, where they would not have to if they were not at the very front
Now, that’s a surprise. While having ballast in the rear cargo hold was not uncommon for airplanes with engines in the rear (to cater for a full cabin and low baggage and freight load), it is rarely seen on aircraft with engines attached to the wings.
It’s bad for fuel economy, which favours rear centre of gravities and light aircraft weights, but it’s rather surprising that this could not be compensated against by leaving the most forward cargo pallet position(s) empty (either 2 LD3 units, or 1 AMF unit), as Swiss is not typically a heavy cargo carrier. It would also have preserved range at heavy takeoffs as at maximum takeoff weight and maximum available payload the airplane can now only carry 1500 kg less fuel (about 15 mins flight time).
Of course, I cannot rule out that the shift in balance was so extreme that such a dynamic load planning was not acceptable to the authorities.
As a rule of thumb for A330 and similar wide-body aircraft, an extra 1500 kg weight will consume about an extra 40 kg more fuel per hour.
That is all taken care off by the certified Centre of Gravity envelope that ensures that when the aircraft as loaded with payload (the so-called Zero Fuel Weight) and with payload and fuel at takeoff (the so-called Takeoff Weight) remains within the certified centre of gravity envelope.
Fuel (use) management from the various tanks (in case of the A330 one inner and outer tank in each wing, one centre tank, one trim tank in the tail) is also designed to keep the centre of gravity within these limits.
I presume that for the sake of news releases and such they're rounding. The engineers know the exact number; the public has no need to know if it is exactly 3000 kg, or 3017 kg, or 2946.... 3000 kg is adequate for public purposes.
I’m pretty sure that they are only doing that because of the design of the 747. They don’t do this in the 777, and if they ever install first class on A350s, they’ll most likely put it all the way in the front.
It’s also worth mentioning that no other airline is putting first class in A330s. Kuwait Airways retired their A330-200s (the first class seats in those are just business seats anyways), and Oman Air also retired their A330s. Yes, Qatar Airways is taking som ex-Oman A330s, but if I recall correctly, they aren’t taking the ones with first class cabins. Even airlines that order A330NEOs AND have recently introduced a first class product, such as Starlux, are not putting first class in A330NEOs.
You might reread my comment and the part of the article being discussed. Ben initially reported that the weight would need to be "roughly" 1.5 tons (again, which tons?) which he (assuming them to be US tons) reasonably converted to 3000 lbs. Where the article went awry in my view was the conversion of 3000 lbs (an approximate number) to 1361 kg (a precise number).
I'm not particularly picking on Ben here. We see this all the time in print.
Pete...why don't YOU define 'rich'?? Oh, that's right...you're scared someone will easily pick apart your very particularistic and highly personal definition.LOL
They should just scrap their plans and install a business cabin in the same space similar to the business suites. Adding 1.3 tons is really wrong for the environment.
You will not get a promotion in LHG like such, most be novel like the 7 year late allergis.
The problem is you don't board via L3 or L4 on a A359 on a typical day, and F pax doesn't like all these foot traffic.