Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:37 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
OK, you go on living in your alternative facts universe where everything is as you want it to be, rather than how it actually is.

That's rather ironic, coming from someone who ACTUALLY believes that airlines give a damn about Y pax comfort, as anything more than a secondary consideration to any factor generating revenue or creating cost.


And you ACTUALLY believe that Boeing would invest money in widening a plane, significantly changing its structure, for a PR stunt that you at the same time don't believe will influence anyone. I would love to here an argument from you based on any kind of real world facts rather than just accusing me of being a bit dim. I've presented facts to support my argument, when you do the same, I'll listen. To answer your point, well you said it yourself, airlines do give a damn because Y pax comfort is a fundamental contributor to revenue once pax start to respond negatively. And there is a good chance this is why we don't see this information in search results, most airlines would be rather afraid of the results...

I think I'll leave it with this. I honestly don't know what you're arguing. I am saying nothing more than that I think it would be good to provide more information to passengers during booking about the difference in comfort levels between airlines. That's all I'm saying. The idea of offering this information, which would cost nothing, seems to make you very angry for some reason. If no-one cares, as you believe, well, it didn't cost anything and you get to tell me you told me so. If some people do care, they will be better off and will have better information to choose according to their true preferences. Good no? A lot of pax do care, give them the choice. I assume by now you've realised that actually the information isn't that easy to get hold of. And no, companies deciding passengers shouldn't have the information doesn't make it OK, unless you live in some kind of facist super state.

The internet is covered in bad reviews of the tighter seating arrangements. Which makes me wonder, is there anything that can be done about this? Seeing a problem doesn't have to just mean throwing your hands in the air and giving up. So some of us propose a simple idea that may help some of the people unhappy with the current situation. The world would never have made any progess in anything with your world view; it is how it is, suck it up, and hey, even if you come up with a no cost solution, I'm not interested becaue I can never be wrong so I can't allow even simple solutions that may prove me wrong.

On your first point, obviously a lot of airlines do care something about Y pax comfort, those that currently offer more pitch, more width, better food, cabin crew that treat their passengers courteously, better drinks etc etc. And a number of them already charge a premium. This would just mean that they had the opportunity to inform passengers when booking the better comfort of relative comfort levels, which to a probably not insignificant number of people would make a difference. It won't stop planes selling, it will just mean people can weight up price and comfort effectively, which is not possible now, and make an informed choice.

Anyway rather than answering my points with anything resembling factual points I guess you'll make some angry statements about nobody giving flying f**s or giving a damn, which are completely contradicted by the reality of boeing feeling it necessary to widen a plane, BA finding it necessary to widen seats, even if only by fiddling at the margins, in response to fairly well known abysmal passanger reaction.

You are against progess and innovation to improve the market, noted.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:07 am

Planetalk wrote:
You are against progess and innovation to improve the market, noted.

You STILL somehow manage to miss the forest of the trees...

Again: I'm not against progress, I'm against self-entitled putzes thinking that the market owes them anything beyond which it's obligated (by safety or by bargained consideration) to give. In essence-- you get what you pay for.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
gia777
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:27 am

this is a good idea to stick 9 seats
Cheers,

GIA777 :coffee:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:51 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
You are against progess and innovation to improve the market, noted.

You STILL somehow manage to miss the forest of the trees...

Again: I'm not against progress, I'm against self-entitled putzes thinking that the market owes them anything beyond which it's obligated (by safety or by bargained consideration) to give. In essence-- you get what you pay for.


That's incorrect LAX772LR, you are not getting what you pay for.

You pay the same or more, but the suppliers downgraded the product/ service.
Without properly informing in advance the millions of individual customers.
More over they invest in blurring the picture, sending contradicting messages, "better comfort" on top.

The interest of Aircraft OE and airlines investing in aircraft are enormous. The importance of keeping jack in the box, by generalizing, confusing and buy time is hard to quantify. Not properly informing the marked is key. Even Airbus' Leahy "18 inch" is careful. Many of his customers fly narrower seats on their Boeing fleets, and/or Airbus fleets, or are considering so..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:12 pm

Planetalk wrote:
I am saying nothing more than that I think it would be good to provide more information to passengers during booking about the difference in comfort levels between airlines.

I am thinking what would happen if some airlines would start doing it unilaterally? Just by themselves provide the figures when booking? Combined with an aggressive PR campaign. Possibly providing the figures of the competition too.

I could also be a private initiate, which creates a label called e.g. "The Space Revolution", "Space Excellence" or "Your seat for yourself". Any airline who wishes could join this initiative, they would just commit to let the seats be measured by a standardized method and to publish the seat space per booking (a small range would be allowed). Every airline could join, for some it would be more beneficial than for others. Especially for large Boeing operators it could be a double edged sword, but others like LH would be able, to underline the strengths of their fleet regarding seat space quite prominently...

IMO that would stop the race to the bottom. Airlines who did resist to particpate would be rewarded. I believe there is a long list of airlines for which this could be beneficial (just look for predominant Airbus operators)...
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:54 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
I am saying nothing more than that I think it would be good to provide more information to passengers during booking about the difference in comfort levels between airlines.

I am thinking what would happen if some airlines would start doing it unilaterally? Just by themselves provide the figures when booking? Combined with an aggressive PR campaign. Possibly providing the figures of the competition too.

I could also be a private initiate, which creates a label called e.g. "The Space Revolution", "Space Excellence" or "Your seat for yourself". Any airline who wishes could join this initiative, they would just commit to let the seats be measured by a standardized method and to publish the seat space per booking (a small range would be allowed). Every airline could join, for some it would be more beneficial than for others. Especially for large Boeing operators it could be a double edged sword, but others like LH would be able, to underline the strengths of their fleet regarding seat space quite prominently...

IMO that would stop the race to the bottom. Airlines who did resist to particpate would be rewarded. I believe there is a long list of airlines for which this could be beneficial (just look for predominant Airbus operators)...


It's a nice idea. I would imagine the problem is that it requires the buy in of the search engine providers to provide for displaying the data. Which means it needs industry approval.

An airline doing it on their own website probably won't achieve much, if a passenger goes to a specific website, they likely already have a preference for that airline. Its the search engines the masses use that really matter. I'm sure the likes of SQ would love a feature where pax could search by confort, and their flights would shift straight to the top!
 
sierra3tango
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:23 pm

Having flown BA, QR, VS, RJ & TG (mostly 788's) in Y, I have a personal rule, which is 'never again' in 9 across, Y on a 78X longhaul.

I will:
Pay more to avoid
Fly at a less convenient time to me for business & personal arrangements
Take an indirect routing
In extremis - not fly at all, (there almost always is a way around the problem)

From various discussions had with fellow travelers at airports around the world they have the same opinion, trouble is doesn't appear there are enough of us to make a difference.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:10 pm

keesje wrote:
That's incorrect LAX772LR, you are not getting what you pay for.
You pay the same or more, but the suppliers downgraded the product/ service.

No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
They offered you no promise nor guarantee for more, and you aren't paying for more.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:25 am

sierra3tango wrote:
I will:
Pay more to avoid
Fly at a less convenient time to me for business & personal arrangements
Take an indirect routing
In extremis - not fly at all, (there almost always is a way around the problem)

If you're willing to go through all that trouble just to avoid a slightly narrower seat, fine.
But not everyone is willing to do that.
The option to pay lower fares and end up in a narrower seat should still be there, for those who need it.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:34 am

Polot wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Could you come with the names of "a lot of airlines"? As far as I know were few airlines have 17 to 17,3 inch seats on the A330/340.


In Europe: WOW air, Lufthansa (only their A350s and A380s have seats wider than 17.3") and subsidiary Swiss International Air Lines, Iberia (on their A340-300s that are now retired; the A340-600s and all A330s are 18.1"), Air Europa, SAS, and Alitalia all have seats that small in economy (as well as a few seats on Turkish A330s---most are 18"---and the A340s which are now all-economy). In Asia, China Eastern, China Southern, Garuda Indonesia (although with a 34" seat pitch), Philippine Airlines (A340s, using the former Iberia configuration) and Sri Lankan. In the USA, American Airlines (former US Airways A330s). In Africa, South African Airways (A340s only with a 33.5" seat pitch). I didn't even talk about anyone who does 9-abreast---only 2-4-2 economy A330s.

It could also be a result of how the airlines measure seat "width" though. There is no universal standard definition like with seat pitch, some measure cushion width, some measure space between armrests, some include the armrests, some don't. Airbus, for example, was touting a "18in" 11-abreast A380 configuration by measuring the seat cushions but ignoring the fact that the poor window seat passengers were being squeezed in terms of foot space and room between armrest as the cabin wall (it might have been the other way around, they were measuring room between armrests and ignoring seat cushion width, can't remember exactly) was intruding into their space. Some airlines cut the size of their armrests to provide more seat room.


Interesting that you mention that. KLM, with a 10-abreast 777 cabin, still quotes on its site with the 777s having a 17.9 inch seat width (SeatGuru says 17.5 inches---same as it was in 9-abreast).
 
User avatar
NZPM
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:46 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:48 am

sierra3tango wrote:
Having flown BA, QR, VS, RJ & TG (mostly 788's) in Y, I have a personal rule, which is 'never again' in 9 across, Y on a 78X longhaul.

I will:
Pay more to avoid
Fly at a less convenient time to me for business & personal arrangements
Take an indirect routing
In extremis - not fly at all, (there almost always is a way around the problem)


Same here. And that is after one 4.5 hour flight, on JQ admittedly.
AB6 319 320 321 332 343 346 380 732 733 734 735 73G 738 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 788 M83 146 CR2 ER4 E90 A26 AT5 AT7 BEH DH1 DH3
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:27 am

LAX772LR wrote:
No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.


As there is no "standard" for an economy seat, your statement is false. That is the point be reiterated through this whole thread that EY seats vary between airlines, there is no "standard" to compare products between carriers. The only minimum requirement that I was aware of was a 66 cm pitch, most airlines exceed that. Seat width has been up to the airline.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:31 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Interesting that you mention that. KLM, with a 10-abreast 777 cabin, still quotes on its site with the 777s having a 17.9 inch seat width (SeatGuru says 17.5 inches---same as it was in 9-abreast).


The difficulty here is there is no "standard" way of measuring seat width, some will give you the figure between arm rests, some to middle of the arm rest, and some the cushion width. For example I have seen cases of where 18.5" seat width was quoted (middle of arm rest to middle of arm rest, when the seat cushion was under 17"). Some airline have done nothing except install skinnier arm rests and then claim they have wider seats.

It is all marketing games.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:06 am

zeke wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
As there is no "standard" for an economy seat, your statement is false. That is the point be reiterated through this whole thread that EY seats vary between airlines, there is no "standard" to compare products between carriers. The only minimum requirement that I was aware of was a 66 cm pitch, most airlines exceed that. Seat width has been up to the airline.

...where did you see me say anything about a "standard seat?" I'm talking about that class of service, relative to Y+.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 4691
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:26 am

LAX772LR wrote:
zeke wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
As there is no "standard" for an economy seat, your statement is false. That is the point be reiterated through this whole thread that EY seats vary between airlines, there is no "standard" to compare products between carriers. The only minimum requirement that I was aware of was a 66 cm pitch, most airlines exceed that. Seat width has been up to the airline.

...where did you see me say anything about a "standard seat?" I'm talking about that class of service, relative to Y+.


And when the seat gets more narrow you are getting less. There is less in the package one calls Y.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:45 am

mjoelnir wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
zeke wrote:
As there is no "standard" for an economy seat, your statement is false. That is the point be reiterated through this whole thread that EY seats vary between airlines, there is no "standard" to compare products between carriers. The only minimum requirement that I was aware of was a 66 cm pitch, most airlines exceed that. Seat width has been up to the airline.

...where did you see me say anything about a "standard seat?" I'm talking about that class of service, relative to Y+.

And when the seat gets more narrow you are getting less. There is less in the package one calls Y.

Too bad, so sad, when you weren't promised (nor did you bargain consideration) for anything beyond a seat that meets safety criteria, in "the package one calls Y." If you did, you'd be in Y+ or higher.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
WIederling
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:49 am

crazyplane1234 wrote:
The option to pay lower fares and end up in a narrower seat should still be there, for those who need it.


you don't.

Bulk of the market for 787 is 9 across.
Bulk of the market for A330 is 8 across.

Both groups compete for the same traffic while offering comparable pricing.
Underlying they have comparable cost. CASM is about on par
while the 787 product is more el cheapo than the A330 setup.

For the A330 an airline offering 9 across has additional leeway to go down on price.
For the 787 10 across is an unviable offer, completely out of the question.

Customer hinting at BA seems to have been "heard". correct?
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 4691
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:56 am

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
...where did you see me say anything about a "standard seat?" I'm talking about that class of service, relative to Y+.

And when the seat gets more narrow you are getting less. There is less in the package one calls Y.

Too bad, so sad, when you weren't promised (nor did you bargain consideration) for anything beyond a seat that meets safety criteria, in "the package one calls Y." If you did, you'd be in Y+ or higher.


The standard is lowered and it is called the same. I call it cheating. If they would call it Y- when stripping everything out and reducing the space, it would be a different case.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:50 pm

crazyplane1234 wrote:
sierra3tango wrote:
I will:
Pay more to avoid
Fly at a less convenient time to me for business & personal arrangements
Take an indirect routing
In extremis - not fly at all, (there almost always is a way around the problem)

If you're willing to go through all that trouble just to avoid a slightly narrower seat, fine.
But not everyone is willing to do that.
The option to pay lower fares and end up in a narrower seat should still be there, for those who need it.


I'm glad we agree. My problem is that presently passengers don't have an option - there is no way to trade off space and price when making a booking. As is clear from previous posts, seat information on the internet is either absent or very often wrong, and is certianly not available to make a comparison with price across airlines during booking.

At present passengers cannot look at the flights they are offered and say, 'hmmm this flight is $50 cheaper than this flight but has a less comfortable seat, which shall we take honey? Remember that last flight....'

This means passengers who want to pay less aren't being provided for any more than those who want to pay more, if you are right there would also be an opportunity for airlines to discount seats in the 787 compared to other planes. I think we know what would happen where two flights are at the same price, as is often the case now, and one is more comfortable.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:00 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
That's incorrect LAX772LR, you are not getting what you pay for.
You pay the same or more, but the suppliers downgraded the product/ service.

No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
They offered you no promise nor guarantee for more, and you aren't paying for more.


You're paying for whatever the airline you fly with offers in that class of service, just as you are in any other cabin. Some airlines offer a better seat, a better product, if you fly with them of course you're paying for it. You do realise not all Y flights are the same price, and there is a huge difference in quality out there? I dont see anyone demanding more for the same price, just letting pax see the trade offs between products, as with anything else you buy.

As for Y+, for the extra legroom you get you are absolutely not getting what you pay for, it's usually a small amount extra space for double the price. Many pax, even if they can afford it are smart enough not to be conned like that (I believe Y+ if often an airlines most profitable section). What would be beneficial is to let those pax know the trade offs available elsewhere between space and price, and allow airlines to price them.

You seem to have a problem with Y pax even being offered a choice between different products that the market offers, and just because they are Y pax they are not allowed to know the options, or choose the more comfortable ones. I'm not sure what your grudge is against Y pax, ot why you would judge the value of a person quite so much based on the class they fly in a plane...bear in mind pax on flexible Y tickets are often paying more than pax on restricted business tickets.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:13 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
...where did you see me say anything about a "standard seat?" I'm talking about that class of service, relative to Y+.


You never mentioned "class of service" or "Y+" in the prior post. There is not such thing as "standard economy" or "standard Y+" etc which is the whole smoke and mirrors you are trying to project. What you get for an economy fare in one airline can be vastly different to another, and one of the major complaints people have is the seats and leg room, especially long haul. Airlines are capitalizing on that by making people pay for preassigned seats, exit row seats, and "premium economy".

Its ironic that some of the best seats we can get as a passenger are on aircraft like the E jets.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:59 pm

zeke wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
...where did you see me say anything about a "standard seat?" I'm talking about that class of service, relative to Y+.


You never mentioned "class of service" or "Y+" in the prior post. There is not such thing as "standard economy" or "standard Y+" etc which is the whole smoke and mirrors you are trying to project. What you get for an economy fare in one airline can be vastly different to another, and one of the major complaints people have is the seats and leg room, especially long haul. Airlines are capitalizing on that by making people pay for preassigned seats, exit row seats, and "premium economy".

Its ironic that some of the best seats we can get as a passenger are on aircraft like the E jets.


I'm not sure I would waste your breath Zeke....our friend from LAX has gone from arguing that the information is all out there, that the market is completely transparent and passengers can easily compare comfort between airlines (shown to be completely wrong), to now telling us that all Y is the same and pax can expect nothing more than a safe seat as that's all they pay for. Complete contradiction. I don't think they're fooling anyone though.

How anyone can be so opposed on principle to giving max information to make an informed choice, purely on the basis that they are Y pax so don't deserve to be able to choose better comfort, is a mystery to me. But I'm sure there's a good role as an airline CEO for this one :)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14901
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:37 pm

zeke wrote:
What you get for an economy fare in one airline can be vastly different to another, and one of the major complaints people have is the seats and leg room, especially long haul. Airlines are capitalizing on that by making people pay for preassigned seats, exit row seats, and "premium economy".

They are also capitalizing on the lack of a standard by putting more seats in the same amount of space (10X 777s, lower pitch, etc). The airlines are thus changing the terms of the deal. I think it's pretty natural to expect pushback on this, such as consumers now wanting to be explicitly informed of what they are buying, because without this there will be nothing preventing even worse conditions for the same price.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:42 pm

[quote="zeke
Its ironic that some of the best seats we can get as a passenger are on aircraft like the E jets.[/quote]

I agree! One of the best rides I ever had was on an E jet , LH FRA-TRN
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:36 pm

Planetalk wrote:
[How anyone can be so opposed on principle to giving max information to make an informed choice, purely on the basis that they are Y pax so don't deserve to be able to choose better comfort, is a mystery to me. But I'm sure there's a good role as an airline CEO for this one :)


Transparency will not happen until an industry group like IATA publish a standard. You really need to be a lawyer to understand ALL of the fine-print in the T&C of carriage to know what you are buying. I find most people do not take into consideration what happens if there is a weather issue, lost baggage, tech diversion etc. Minimum price often wins, until something does not go as expected.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:20 am

Planetalk wrote:
our friend from LAX has gone from arguing that the information is all out there, that the market is completely transparent and passengers can easily compare comfort between airlines (shown to be completely wrong), to now telling us that all Y is the same

Droll how inventive you can be.

1) I said no institution cares what YOU feel/think/believe constitutes transparency, not that "the market is completely transparent."

2) Where did I say "all Y is the same"....???
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
WIederling
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:46 am

LAX772LR wrote:
2) Where did I say "all Y is the same"....???


How do you actually handle your multitudes of alternate fact universes?
( I'd like to have that tool :-)

Or you are rather "flink" with goal posts....
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:13 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
Shouldn't Boeing have designed the 777 and the 787 with a 'better' fuselage diameter in the first place? One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat?


The problem is that once you're in widebody size, any optimal width you design for can be squashed by the airline to get another seat in. The only "solutions" are to optimise for a slightly squashed seat (the new 'norm') or promote "all our aircraft are designed for 18 inch seats"... ;)
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:24 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
wingman wrote:
Seriously Keesje, listen to yourself. If what you said was anywhere close to true then 787 and 777 fleets worldwide that are plying routes against 330s, 340s, 350s and 380s would be flying noticeably reduced loads or would be empty. Is this a true statement? Of course it isn't. You just saw SQ order a batch of 787s and 777s when they already have 65 350s inbound. 18 inches may be better than 17.2 but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in this business.


I have seen Keesje post in three different threads about how apprehensive he was to take a 777 flight and then complain about how uncomfortable economy was. Some people certainly do care about economy seat width. Some people also keep posting about it to promote an agenda that clearly matches a lot of the Airbus marketing presentations regarding economy seat width and how Airbus planes are superior. I think we have both types of people posting on a,net. I have never flown long haul economy on a 777, so I can't really comment on the comfort debate. I have noticed a vocal minority who frequently discuss seat width, but I also know a.net users are the type who carefully study seatmaps ahead of a flight and are super upset if that seatguru map is a row off and they end up in a seat with a blocked window. :)


I've done "cattle-class" 777 twice (Emirates and KLM, 10+ hours) and will definitely avoid it in future...

I'm no SeatGuru obsessive and don't fly very often, but when I do it certainly plays a part in the price/route/convenience trade-off... the flight would have to be a lot cheaper for me to do 10 abreast 777 again.

I tried a well-priced SQ flight at 9 abreast a couple of years ago and that was fine (although still noisy compared to A380).

Basically, A380 good, 10x 777 bad, anything else okay. (Addendum: I would have doubts about 9 abreast A330 and 787 as well but these are never on the routes I fly. I might try a 787 just because I haven't been on one yet...)
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
WIederling
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:42 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
Shouldn't Boeing have designed the 777 and the 787 with a 'better' fuselage diameter in the first place? One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat?


The problem is that once you're in widebody size, any optimal width you design for can be squashed by the airline to get another seat in. The only "solutions" are to optimise for a slightly squashed seat (the new 'norm') or promote "all our aircraft are designed for 18 inch seats"... ;)


you design for acceptable seating in Y as an economical basis.
You fine tune that to allow 1 seat more in a marginal arrangement
for those airlines that really want to shovel people around.
that is 8+1 for the A330 and a slightly tighter 9+1 for the A350.

787 issues is that it was announced as 8 across
but all the weight increase and stuff
required 9 across to be competitive.
( and that must have been a thought from the get go going by fuselage diameter.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:11 pm

IIRC some of that weight increase came from reconfiguring that dreaded 9th row. I had remembered it as a substantial part of it but don't know.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:37 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
I am saying nothing more than that I think it would be good to provide more information to passengers during booking about the difference in comfort levels between airlines.

I am thinking what would happen if some airlines would start doing it unilaterally? Just by themselves provide the figures when booking? Combined with an aggressive PR campaign. Possibly providing the figures of the competition too.

I could also be a private initiate, which creates a label called e.g. "The Space Revolution", "Space Excellence" or "Your seat for yourself". Any airline who wishes could join this initiative, they would just commit to let the seats be measured by a standardized method and to publish the seat space per booking (a small range would be allowed). Every airline could join, for some it would be more beneficial than for others. Especially for large Boeing operators it could be a double edged sword, but others like LH would be able, to underline the strengths of their fleet regarding seat space quite prominently...

IMO that would stop the race to the bottom. Airlines who did resist to particpate would be rewarded. I believe there is a long list of airlines for which this could be beneficial (just look for predominant Airbus operators)...
I don't see this happening. I takes away flexibility from the airlines and gives it to the passenger. The airline would no longer be able to sub a different type with a different seat. Your seat has never been guaranteed, just your class of service. The airlines like it that way, and I don't see them wanting to change.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:52 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
I don't see this happening. I takes away flexibility from the airlines and gives it to the passenger. The airline would no longer be able to sub a different type with a different seat. Your seat has never been guaranteed, just your class of service. The airlines like it that way, and I don't see them wanting to change.


But there are airlines that could sub types, and still provide the space and service. The ones that will not like it are those who do have some very cramped cabins but advertise their best long haul cabin. Many airlines lack product consistency. It takes continual fleet investment to keep products consistent.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:24 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
our friend from LAX has gone from arguing that the information is all out there, that the market is completely transparent and passengers can easily compare comfort between airlines (shown to be completely wrong), to now telling us that all Y is the same

Droll how inventive you can be.

1) I said no institution cares what YOU feel/think/believe constitutes transparency, not that "the market is completely transparent."

2) Where did I say "all Y is the same"....???


OK, you asked for it...

LAX772LR wrote:
The FACT, whether you choose to accept it or not, remains that the information is freely and readily available to anyone who's 1) concerned enough to 2) look for it.


LAX772LR wrote:
What are you talking about?
Even if there's not a seat-map available prior to booking, which many airlines make available; a 5second Google will tell potential pax everything they need to know.


LAX772LR wrote:
Hogwash. A quick Google turned up seat pitch for each of the airlines you just listed.
Again, if patrons are too lazy to do something so simple, for an alleged problem, then why on earth should anyone care that they feel disenfranchised?


And here's the Bingo...

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
Just be more transparent, why not?

LAX772LR wrote:
They already are.


You now accept that actually the information isn't available then? The three results that appear in a google search for a British airways 787 list its seat pitch as: 17.5", 18.3", and 18.5"(!). The actual pitch is 17.3" in the -9, and 16.8" in the -8. Why don't you just say you are in favour of the market being skewed in favour of the business against the consumer?

LAX772LR wrote:
Too bad, so sad, when you weren't promised (nor did you bargain consideration) for anything beyond a seat that meets safety criteria, in "the package one calls Y." If you did, you'd be in Y+ or higher.


LAX772LR wrote:
No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
They offered you no promise nor guarantee for more, and you aren't paying for more.


LAX772LR wrote:
That's rather ironic, coming from someone who ACTUALLY believes that airlines give a damn about Y pax comfort, as anything more than a secondary consideration to any factor generating revenue or creating cost.


LAX772LR wrote:
I'm against self-entitled putzes thinking that the market owes them anything beyond which it's obligated (by safety or by bargained consideration) to give. In essence-- you get what you pay for.


You repeatedly state that in economy no-one is buying any more than a seat that meets regulations. As those regulations are standard, I would say that rather implies economy is pretty standard across all airlines no? Or now you accept that some airlines do provide more in economy. Which contradicts your earlier claims that no-one cares about economy passengers comfort no?

I think I'll go back to the grown up discussion emerging about possible solutions, rather than try and decipher what you're actually trying to say,
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:56 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
That's incorrect LAX772LR, you are not getting what you pay for.
You pay the same or more, but the suppliers downgraded the product/ service.

No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
They offered you no promise nor guarantee for more, and you aren't paying for more.

Completely agree with keesje here. It's a fact that you pay the same or more for a downgraded product/ service. More seats in economy means less space and comfort in economy. Why can't you accept that LAX772LR? They offered you no promise nor garantee for more? Right! Airlines offered us wider seats in the past than they are selling now.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:04 pm

Planetalk wrote:
I would say that rather implies economy is pretty standard across all airlines no?

No, it does not.


Planetalk wrote:
Or now you accept that some airlines do provide more in economy.

All economy being the same is your conclusion, not mine, remember.

Of course different carriers offer different things on different routes/markets. Which they are in no way obligated to do, thus they owe you *nothing* if (or more realistically for most routes/markets, when) they decide that the cost of doing so is no longer justified-- as the overwhelming majority of carriers have realized and reacted, for the market as a whole.


Planetalk wrote:
I think I'll go back to the grown up discussion emerging about possible solutions, rather than try and decipher what you're actually trying to say,

Pull the stick out. :roll:


MartijnNL wrote:
They offered you no promise nor garantee for more? Right! Airlines offered us wider seats in the past than they are selling now.

Great. Now show where they guaranteed you that that would remain on offer? Or promised that they wouldn't expect you to pay more to retain that same level of "comfort"? Or where any regulation or directive requires them to do either of the above.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
Gasman
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:29 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
I'm against self-entitled putzes thinking that the market owes them anything beyond which it's obligated (by safety or by bargained consideration) to give. In essence-- you get what you pay for.


Now this is true. The aviation industry is a business, and travel is a commercial arrangement between two parties. The transaction happens mostly with complete disclosure and prior to it occurring neither party is entitled to anything. Want that business class seat? Pay for it. That said, at no time in history has air travel been cheaper. So we ought to all be be pretty happy.

But where I - and others - have a problem, is with the argument that market forces will "take care" of the fare paying passenger passenger's comfort. That nine abreast on a 787 is nothing more than a reflection of the fare paying passengers frugality; that if we all weren't so tight then airlines would provide us with a more comfortable Y cabin - as opposed to it simply being all about airlines wanting to wring as much profit as they can out of their aircraft.

Such an argument is facile. It assumes that the "balancing effect" of market forces will permeate all the down to every little minutiae of the product which, of course, they don't. It also assumes that there is genuine choice at the point of sale, which there isn't. Sure the products in the various classes are well advertised; but the downgrades in Y have happened incrementally and by stealth over a period of 15 years or so. In a truly fair world, airlines should have to describe exactly, and in terms passengers can understand what they are getting with their "economy" ticket. On this point airlines are improving, but there's a long way to go.

Lastly many passengers feel forced into accepting an inferior economy product because the price jump to the higher classes is massive. I don't want to pay $3000 for a one way premium economy ticket between AKL and LAX. But I would happily pay $900 as opposed to $700 for a 9 abreast 777 with 36" pitch in Y.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:43 pm

Gasman wrote:
Lastly many passengers feel forced into accepting an inferior economy product because the price jump to the higher classes is massive.

Unfortunately for them, that's the way of the world, and it won't be changing.

Nor is it specific to the airline industry. What next, people feel "forced into accepting an inferior product" because they're in a cramped hotel room, but a suite is $1000/night more? Because they feel cramped into a tiny 4banger rentals, when a sedan with a V8 would be $300/day more?

Where does it end?


Gasman wrote:
I don't want to pay $3000 for a one way premium economy ticket between AKL and LAX. But I would happily pay $900 as opposed to $700 for a 9 abreast 777 with 36" pitch in Y.

From what I understand, you'll get your wish. Soon DL (and that means inevitably AA and UA) will be offering J, P, Y+, Y on their intercons. So if you want to pay more to get more, you'll have plenty of options for budget.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
waly777
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:53 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
That's incorrect LAX772LR, you are not getting what you pay for.
You pay the same or more, but the suppliers downgraded the product/ service.

No, you're getting exactly what you paid for, in standard economy: transportation within safety regulations at a given time.
They offered you no promise nor guarantee for more, and you aren't paying for more.

Completely agree with keesje here. It's a fact that you pay the same or more for a downgraded product/ service. More seats in economy means less space and comfort in economy. Why can't you accept that LAX772LR? They offered you no promise nor garantee for more? Right! Airlines offered us wider seats in the past than they are selling now.


Yes they once did offer wider seats, however take a look at the difference in profitability from back then and now. Airlines understand Y pax will majority of the time choose price as the primary factor behind a ticket purchase. You really cannot expect the same seats for lower fares? More seats were added by reducing pitch and/or adding one more seat per row where feasible. Pax spoke and airlines listened, it's worked well for the airlines bottom line and pax have some of the lowest fares ever seen.

Whilst this forum continues to pick apart the seat width as an issue with all sorts of ideals on how to make it more transparent, fact remains this forum is but a tiny % of global air travellers in Y and will not affect airline decision making any time soon.

Look @ ULCC and LCC as some of the more profitable operations out there, their reviews are littered with "I will never fly x airline again" and yet their passenger growth is ongoing with revenue and profit increasing. A further indication that pax will manage not so comfy seats for the right price.

To summarise, if you want a bigger seat...you have 2 choices; PAY FOR IT OR ACCEPT WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD. There are too many airlines with all sorts of AC types and configurations for this to be a recurrent topic.
Last edited by waly777 on Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:58 pm

waly777 wrote:
Yes they once did offer wider seats, however take a look at the difference in profitability from back then and now. Airlines understand Y pax will majority of the time choose price as the primary factor behind a ticket purchase. Pax spoke and airlines listened, it's worked well for the airlines bottom line and pax have some of the lowest fares ever seen.

Whilst this forum continues to pick apart the seat width as an issue with all sorts of ideals on how to make it more transparent, fact remains this forum is but a tiny % of global air travellers in Y and will not affect airline decision making any time soon.

Look @ ULCC and LCC as some of the more profitable operations out there, their reviews are littered with "I will never fly x airline again" and yet their passenger growth is ongoing with revenue and profit increasing. A further indication that pax will manage not so comfy seats for the right price.

To summarise, if you want a bigger seat...you have a 2 choices; PAY FOR IT OR ACCEPT WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD. There are too many airlines with all sorts of AC types and configurations for this to be a recurrent topic.

.........................................................^THIS
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:02 pm

anrec80 wrote:
And - many long haul routes are price sensitive (such as much of EK network to India) and such reduction won't yield better results. Many other routes do though - I can see plenty of people from/to cities like LAX, SFO, NYC, LON willing to pay +15-20% of Y fare to avoid this 3-4-3 layout.

Just out of curiosity - how do you see this? Do you work with ticket sales, or have access to data in some other similar way?

Planetalk wrote:
It's proven that there is no need for it to be as tight as the 10 across 777 and 9 across 787, Airbus have proven that. There are more comfortable planes flying the same routes at the same price and making money. These arguments about efficiency are a red herring, you can have more comfort and still make money. Some posters seem to take pleasure in Y pax suffering, I guess your fragile egos need to feel superior Maybe you should get out more and look for better ways to get your kicks?

Wow. Talk about hitting the nail on its head. (As you also did at a number of other occasions in your exchange with LAX772LR, I should add.)
 
Gasman
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:41 pm

Some airlines - way back when - discovered that they could cram more seats into an aircraft, incrementally reduce comfort and still call it "economy". All that was presented to the passenger was that it was "economy" (why would they think anything's changed after all?) and now suddenly it was $100 cheaper than the competition. In spite of the fare decrease, the nett profit to the airline would have been greater. THAT has been the the driver in the race to the bottom in terms of comfort and anyone that thinks otherwise is naive.

Airlines don't want a slightly more comfortable Y product that they charge more for, because they have worked out that their profit margins are still greater by cramming more pax into an aircraft even with reduced fares. 300 pax at $1500 a ticket yields $450,000. 350 pax at $1400 a ticket yields $490,000.
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:48 pm

A few thoughts on this discussion, directed at LAX772LR: I don't think there's anything wrong with your basic argument, namely that customer indifference to seat width/pitch while booking is (at least potentially) part of the problem. However, we don't know really know to what extent the problem is lack of interest, and how much is due to lack of awareness that there is even a choice. (And this is assuming there *isn't* any effect of seat dimensions on customer willingness to pay - and there seems to be diverging viewpoints on this.) We don't know to what extent passengers even understand that seat width and pitch actually vary between airlines and plane types, which is an explanation every bit as plausible as indifference, but one that you for some reason aren't very interested in exploring.

What's most strange is the rage, the smugness, constant sarcasm and the distinct air of moral superiority (something along the lines of "people less affluent than me should be damn happy they can fly at all") you display when discussing this topic in particular. The very constructive proposal of seat dimensions being presented in search engines seems to make you even more angry than you usually get. Like Planetalk, I have to wonder what the reason is.

It's not a huge leap from the current situation that websites like Expedia would also display information on seat configuration to customers when they are comparing flights. We can already expect to see what aircraft type is flown and whether a full, hot meal is served or just a snack, and whether meal/drink service is complimentary or has to be purchased extra. There would of course have to be some standardized way of measuring and presenting cushion width, aisle width, armrest width etc. Another issue is that the hard product on a certain flight can vary from day to day within a given airline, also between sub-fleets of the same aircraft type. However, there's the same issue with the reported equipment type and probably with meal service as well. There's really no reason that the possibility of irregularities (sudden change of equipment etc.) should mean that no information should be passed on to the customers.

I also don't think it would be strictly necessary (and probably not realistic, either) for any of this to be enforced by law. I doubt (but I could be wrong) that airlines currently have a legal obligation to pass on the equipment type and the offered meal service, and yet this is information you can always expect to be available when making reservations. There could be a role for standards organizations like ICAO/IATA to play here, or it could be enough that concerted pressure from consumer advocacy groups, internet communities, etc. sway at least the mainstream among airlines, travel agencies, booking engines etc. to consistently provide information on seat width/pitch.

The problem with this is of course that economy passengers would then be able to make informed decisions about what exactly what kind of seat pitch or width they can accept, without being forced to buy the whole, massively more expensive, premium package of business class or for that matter a premium economy ticket - both outside the realm of what a typical passenger can afford to fly on a regular basis. Is that what bothers you so much?
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:47 am

ThReaTeN wrote:
What's most strange is the rage, the smugness, constant sarcasm and the distinct air of moral superiority (something along the lines of "people less affluent than me should be damn happy they can fly at all") you display when discussing this topic in particular.

Thank you. I think you described the feelings of more people on this forum concerning the behaviour of LAX772LR on this thread.
 
reidar76
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:16 am

I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Europe there are a lot of regulations in place in order to guide the consumer, so he/she can make informed choices. Easily available, comparable information fuels competition. Airlines don't want more competition, hence necessitating a regulatory approach.

For example, if you are going to buy a new dishwasher here in Europe, you will find that all shops have the same energy efficiency marking on all products. It is a regulatory requirement, highly standardized marking, and uses an easy to understand A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc. scale. If saving electricity is important to you, you can easily select such a product. This also means there is an incentive for the manufactures to offer more energy efficient products.

I can imagine a cabin comfort class marking, using an A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H etc. scale. Whenever a price for a ticket is shown to a customer, it must be accompanied by a cabin comfort class letter. All cabins classes, not just economy, should be rated in the same system.

Cabin density (square feet/meters available space per passenger seat) would be a very important factor in determining comfort class, but I think that other factors should be included as well. For example, higher cabin air pressure, number of lavatories per passenger, available overhead space for luggage per seat etc. These other factors should not have much weight, but not should be completely overlooked.

Such a system could be a effective tool in order to stop the race to the bottom and ever worsening comfort standards. Airlines using 9 abreast seating onboard the 787 could in such a system compensate the narrower seats with more pitch to achieve same comfort class. For example, 1 inch wider seat equals about 2 inches more pitch, measured in square feet/meters per passenger).

For me, the most important thing for comfort is total travel time. Sitting in a wider seat, with more legroom, for several hours more, is not more comfortable. I'm willing to pay slightly more, sit in a 9-abreast 787 economy seat, if this means spending fewer hours onboard. More direct flights please. :-)
 
Draken21fx
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:38 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:11 am

:bigthumbsup: reidar76

Was about to post the same but I was reluctant as I suspect we will have the usual regulation vs deregulation of the market discussion.
 
Thorkel
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:38 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:47 am

Ok, first post - be gentle :)

Just to bring an example in to play here, these are the cheapest prices of a one-way direct flight from SYD to LAX (first route I could think of with multiple types flying on it), one month from today, on skyscanner.

VA1 - 773 (9Y) - AUD$1037.
AA72 - 773 (10Y) - AUD$1113
UA840 - 789 (9Y) ) - AUD$1113
DL6789 - 773 (Assume 10Y?) - AUD$1113
QF11 - A380 (10Y) - AUD$1196

This clearly ignores yield management, but the point is that the preferable Y cabins (in terms of seat width) are clearly VA1 and QF11 - and they don't appear to have much of an impact on price. Indeed, I'd personally choose QF11 in this instance because of the space and reduced noise of an A380. Making this information more explicit for people not as familiar with aircraft seems a reasonable proposal to me.
 
waly777
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:49 am

reidar76 wrote:
I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Europe there are a lot of regulations in place in order to guide the consumer, so he/she can make informed choices. Easily available, comparable information fuels competition. Airlines don't want more competition, hence necessitating a regulatory approach.

For example, if you are going to buy a new dishwasher here in Europe, you will find that all shops have the same energy efficiency marking on all products. It is a regulatory requirement, highly standardized marking, and uses an easy to understand A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc. scale. If saving electricity is important to you, you can easily select such a product. This also means there is an incentive for the manufactures to offer more energy efficient products.

I can imagine a cabin comfort class marking, using an A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H etc. scale. Whenever a price for a ticket is shown to a customer, it must be accompanied by a cabin comfort class letter. All cabins classes, not just economy, should be rated in the same system.

Cabin density (square feet/meters available space per passenger seat) would be a very important factor in determining comfort class, but I think that other factors should be included as well. For example, higher cabin air pressure, number of lavatories per passenger, available overhead space for luggage per seat etc. These other factors should not have much weight, but not should be completely overlooked.

Such a system could be a effective tool in order to stop the race to the bottom and ever worsening comfort standards. Airlines using 9 abreast seating onboard the 787 could in such a system compensate the narrower seats with more pitch to achieve same comfort class. For example, 1 inch wider seat equals about 2 inches more pitch, measured in square feet/meters per passenger).

For me, the most important thing for comfort is total travel time. Sitting in a wider seat, with more legroom, for several hours more, is not more comfortable. I'm willing to pay slightly more, sit in a 9-abreast 787 economy seat, if this means spending fewer hours onboard. More direct flights please. :-)


Frankly I agree with your idea and rating system. However, airlines are not to blame for a race to the bottom; pax are.

If pax were willing to pay more for more comfort, airlines would do so. However, they already did! And they lost money as pax preferred the LCC despite the cramped seating as they offered the lower fares.

The very fact that despite the reduced comfort found on most airlines be it via reduced seat pitch or an additional seat per row and airlines made record profits last year should be more than enough proof that pax want lower fares and airlines have provided this.

If airlines were to implement some of the ideas on anet and raise their fares to match, there's a good chance that a good chunk of anet will go for the cheaper fare as will a majority of global pax. Airline's are businesses afterall.

Airlines have simply identified what pax want vs what they will pay for and have found a balance which is working wonderfully for both pax and airline alike.

There's now Y+ for does who want more space and don't want to go to J.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
Eyad89
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:50 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Gasman wrote:
Lastly many passengers feel forced into accepting an inferior economy product because the price jump to the higher classes is massive.

Unfortunately for them, that's the way of the world, and it won't be changing.

Nor is it specific to the airline industry. What next, people feel "forced into accepting an inferior product" because they're in a cramped hotel room, but a suite is $1000/night more? Because they feel cramped into a tiny 4banger rentals, when a sedan with a V8 would be $300/day more?

Where does it end?


Gasman wrote:
I don't want to pay $3000 for a one way premium economy ticket between AKL and LAX. But I would happily pay $900 as opposed to $700 for a 9 abreast 777 with 36" pitch in Y.

From what I understand, you'll get your wish. Soon DL (and that means inevitably AA and UA) will be offering J, P, Y+, Y on their intercons. So if you want to pay more to get more, you'll have plenty of options for budget.




I am sorry, but that's not the way of the world. That's only the way of air travel industry. You don't see only hotels with a single star and hotels with five stars that you get to choose from. You see a good variety of different levels of services and quality and you get to choose what fits your budget, and you won't complain about what you got because you really here paid for what you could afford. Airlines have it two ways only, either you pay for an uncomfortable experience or you pay for a great experience. Nothing goes in the middle, and the price gap between the two types is huge. unlike other kinds of services, consumers behavior cannot affect this as options of air travel are limited. It's far from a competitive market. Airlines are definitely using this to their favor.

As mentioned before, airlines are using ignorance of public travelers to reduce seats width. They know that 95% of people don't even differentiate between a 747 or a 737, let alone recognizing what type gets you the more comfortable seat. If you think that public don't care about seat comfort, then why do they willingly pay more for an emergency exit seat? why do they pay more for a first row Y seat that has more leg? answer is that because they know those seats are more comfortable. Now, imagine that seat widths are shown next to other features of the trip before purchasing your tickets (things like availability of Wi-Fi, IFE, etc.), and let's imagine that I am about to purchase a ticket from Singapore to Dubai with two options of direct flights : CX and EK. CX has a note that says 18 inch seat next to its price and EK has a note that says 17 inch next to its price, would that affect decisions of travelers at all? I think the answer is clear as much as why people pay more for emergency exits seats.


Only difference is that it takes a person with good knowledge of air travel industry to recognize a type with narrower seats, but it takes anybody to recognize that emergency exits seats are more comfortable.
 
reidar76
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:22 pm

waly777 wrote:
airlines are not to blame for a race to the bottom; pax are.


I agree, but when the average Joe, who doesn't travel that often, is searching for tickets, he has little to no chance to select airline/flight based on other criteria than price plus travel/departure time.

Imagine an American tourist on his first vacation in Europe. Let's just say he is fat and wealthy, and therefore always travels in first or business class. After staying in Paris for a week, he is on his way to Scandinavia. He bought the most expensive ticket available, a J class ticket. If there were a comfort class rating system in place, he would have known at the time of purchase that there is no difference between J and Y seats (seat width and pitch is the same) on EU flights. The only difference between J and Y seats, is that some carriers will leave the middle seat empty, if possible.

waly777 wrote:
pax preferred the LCC despite the cramped seating


There are few LCC flying long haul, and those who do doesn't command any significant market share. We can't blame this on the LCCs, at least not yet. The importance of comfort increases with range. The 787 is an ultra long haul aircraft, and the problem is that premium legacy carriers, with the introduction of the 787, are now using the same seat width and pitch in Y, as 737 LCC does on short haul. In addition, 777s are being reconfigured with 10 abreast seating.

waly777 wrote:
There's now Y+ for does who want more space and don't want to go to J.


You are absolutely right, but the average Joe needs a standardized scale in order to have any idea how much better it is. Y+ standards differs significantly between carriers, and the average Joe needs help picking the best deal.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos