Legroom on QF Jetconnect TT 737-800 Row 1 (J)

[auskiwiflyer]

I'll let the pics do the talking, but hey row 1 J sure looks good on the website!







(clue: how many windows?)

 

[maninblack]

Yes well... one can see how the photo in the promo has been doctored to add an extra window and an apparent surfeit of leg space.

Whatever happened to truth in advertising

 

[anat0l]

At just 1.75m short, row 1 J is fine for me! The thing that does get me is the reduced overhead compartment space in row 1 left (i.e. half of it taken up by the safety material, which is not negotiable of course but should be heeded by those storing items).

That's not to say that it's all fine and dandy, though bulkhead seats in most carriers in most classes (except F) rarely are great.


The advertising paints an apprently nice picture, but how else do you get a full profile of someone sitting down without removing a seat (non-bulkhead) or the wall (bulkhead)? In saying that, I think most of the people they do use in modelling for all of QF's pics are fairly short. FAs are particularly short, perhaps it is them? What's the mean height of Australians (both male and female) these days?

Mind you, if airlines truly designed airline seats (especially in Y) to accommodate the late Robert Wadlow, we'd all really, really enjoy flying (whilst paying through-the-roof airfares relative to today's cutthroats).

 

[serfty]

I flew in row 1 on Saturday night. For me, being 183cm, the leg room is fine.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

Yes well... one can see how the photo in the promo has been doctored to add an extra window and an apparent surfeit of leg space.

Whatever happened to truth in advertising

An extra two windows have been added. Look closely at the far right of the enlarged promo pic.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

The advertising paints an apprently nice picture, but how else do you get a full profile of someone sitting down without removing a seat (non-bulkhead) or the wall (bulkhead)?

This picture is a true shot. That's how you do it without "doctoring". Can't believe you are inferring in your post it's ok to "paint an apparently nice picture"

 

[anat0l]

This picture is a true shot. That's how you do it without "doctoring". Can't believe you are inferring in your post it's ok to "paint an apparently nice picture"

View attachment 4869

Seems a bit of a stretch that that photo is a true shot. How exactly did they position the camera to not get a single bit of the wall?

I'm not saying it's OK, so apologies if it appeared that way. By the way, I'm not a marketing person and I usually abhor marketing people and the modern day tactics they put the rest of us through. Though you are probably the person who has taken every single fast food company on the planet for their advertising as well (i.e. doctoring up perfect hamburgers and the like on TV which look nothing like they do in the restaurant). I'm also not saying that is a good or right thing, and also not saying that just because one person does it, or many do it, that it is OK. (Same as if someone jaywalks or speeds and doesn't get caught, doesn't mean they were doing the right thing, and neither should you.)

What I was saying is that it would be very difficult to get a front-on shot of someone in a seat without something covering them up (which is either the seat in front or a wall). But you sometimes want to show what the seat is like when someone is sitting in it. So how do you do it? Apparently you're suggesting it is possible. That's great then.... Though then I think about how did Qantas make up that picture promoting the DFW route of a man with a huge bullhorn hat sitting in J. They obviously couldn't show the full profile shot at the angle they did without doctoring away the row in front or the wall. Now how do we judge the merit of that particular photo?

As it appears in the true photo you supplied, I guess there isn't as much legroom as one would presume, unless you are short enough.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

I flew in row 1 on Saturday night. For me, being 183cm, the leg room is fine.

With all due respect - point of thread totally missed.

 

[maninblack]

If it is not a 'false and misleading representation' then it certainly goes close. I would like to hear the thoughts of the QF rep on the forum as to why QF would falsely represent their product. If they feel that it is inadequate and cannot stand up to scrutiny then they should improve it and they should advertise their products in a truthful manner.

 

[serfty]

With all due respect - point of thread totally missed.

This thread reminds me of the brouchure ads one sees for TV's there's gernally a little asterisk with "Simulated Picture" or something in fine print.

Or better yet, go to the TV shop and see all these bright pretty pictures on the display screens. Buy one and unpack it - read the 'manual' and find that this was a special 'shop[' mode that will burn the screen out in half the normal use time.

Maybe the mockup seat was placed further back for the advertising material on purpose.

 

[maninblack]

Maybe the mockup seat was placed further back for the advertising material on purpose.

No, the photo is 'doctored'. The purpose is quite clear. To make the product look far more spacious than it really is. This is a, 'false and misleading representation' of the product or service.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

Point is that it's an ad to promote sales for J class on the TT route.

The personal space shown in the doctored pic, is nothing like what you get in real life.

I don't care about the legalities of using an obviously photo shopped pic, but I do care that the photo conveys the product as a really spacious improvement over Y class when it really isn't.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

This thread reminds me of the brouchure ads one sees for TV's there's gernally a little asterisk with "Simulated Picture" or something in fine print.

It would be fine if they said "*simulated picture" but they didn't

 

[mannej]

No, the photo is 'doctored'. The purpose is quite clear. To make the product look far more spacious than it really is. This is a, 'false and misleading representation' of the product or service.

Could you not say the same for Virgin's A330 TV Commercial? How many flight attendants did they have there compared to a normal service?

 

[maninblack]

Could you not say the same for Virgin's A330 TV Commercial? How many flight attendants did they have there compared to a normal service?

That is not the point and is not the topic of this thread. I have not seen that ad but if Virgin are engaging in similar practice then that is wrong too. This is not a partisan issue.

 

[mannej]

That is not the point and is not the topic of this thread. I have not seen that ad but if Virgin are engaging in similar practice then that is wrong too. This is not a partisan issue.

Yes it may not be directly on topic, however I see no issue in highlighting a fact that it is not limited to one company.

 

[simongr]

[off topic]

Though then I think about how did Qantas make up that picture promoting the DFW route of a man with a huge bullhorn hat sitting in J.

That was not just any man, that was Larry Hagman!

[/off topic]

[on topic]

ACCC Home

Making a complaint

[/on topic]

 

[trippin_the_rift]

If you look closely at the windows, the 3rd/fake one is larger than the other two and the bulkhead is cut out all together.

I can't wait to fly on a QF 737 with that much legroom in Row 1

 

[wilco]

Has anyone considered the possibility that row one was removed and the pic taken is actually of of row 2??

it seems to me that the windows are in alignment, despite some PS doctoring of the light etc....

either way, I agree with the OP. This is deceptive and misleading advertising and should be reported to the authorities.

 

[el_rooto]

If you look closely at the windows, the 3rd/fake one is larger than the other two and the bulkhead is cut out all together.

I can't wait to fly on a QF 737 with that much legroom in Row 1

As soon as they start taking out row 1 for WP1's/CL's you'll be in luck