WIederling 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 airlines only followed suit because they had no profitable way around it.

To compete the 787 and 777 now _must have_ 9 resp. 10 across.
( and PR numbers for 777X gains leveraged going from 9 to 10 across on the platform.)

For the 222" X-section the demarcation between comfy-stuffed and unpleasantly-stuffed in the market is
"right" of the majority of installations (8 across). (same for XWB.)

For the 787 and 777 this demarcation is "left" of the majority of installations (9 across).

Never looked at where the swapover is for the 767 !?
However you slice it Airbus seems to be advantaged here.

I am not sure it is about being profitable or not. It most certainly about profit maximization. Again, this premise of this thread is why did Boeing make a plane that can seat 9 / 10 across. The answer is to maximize the revenue / profit potential for their customers.

Look at BA and going 10 abreast on Gatwick 777s vs Norwegian 787s. They could operate their 9 abreast 777 which are comfortable by any standard. But the market is clearly price driven, and they are fighting fire with fire, changing the config to 10 abreast. The flexibility of the 777 diameter allows them to operate the same plane to meet the needs of the market. At 20 years old, they can squeeze more life out of them. The 777 is an awesome machine, able to adapt to the evolving market.

Why is Boeing carving out sidewall space? If an extra few Inches is something your competitor is always talking about, and you can negate that selling point, why wouldn't they?

airzona11 wrote:

Why is Boeing carving out sidewall space? If an extra few Inches is something your competitor is always talking about, and you can negate that selling point, why wouldn't they?

IMU because they microscopically misjudged the fuselage dimensions.
Against a.net wisdom it looks as if there is some magic seat width limit
not prudent to be undercut in regular service.
people will accept "take your elbow out of my nose and remove thy feet from my lap"
in a low cost setting. El Cheapo, we knew what we were paying for.
But they will not accept the same from a major carrier
demanding a fare an arm and half of a leg higher.

Newbiepilot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Do you have a source or any evidence to backup the claim that Boeing is investing a billion to widen the 777x? That is a really big number for the cost of reshaping frames, changing the manufacturing process and modifying sidewall panels.

Do you have any evidence that they are not ?

I find it ironic that you are asking others for evidence when the very same was asked of you regarding your claims comparing the 787 to the A330-900, which you ignored.

In that other thread, I provided sources, but you called them trash; we already had that discussion. Keesje is the one saying that resculpting frames to widen the cabin interior costs a billion dollars. In my engineering judgment, that seems too high, so I ask how he came up with that number. Seems a little exaggerated to me.

People that have been involved in loads, stresses, fatigue calculations and production technology understand that "reshaping" frames with different materials on a load carrying pressure vessel changes everything. Reshaping means a total redesign of the fuselage and everything attached. Yes, around a billion of the 777x development costs going there, seems a reasonable estimation. Wether you like it or not Newbiepilot.

enzo011 wrote:

would this indicate that the A300 cross section is the most efficient, at least from a cargo capacity side?

The one that its own OEM is choosing to forgo? ...makes that a rather clear "no," I'd say.

scbriml wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Doubt they're particular worried about it at this point.
After all, it's only Y pax.

Yet they're apparently sufficiently bothered about it to be making changes to the 777X? If it wasn't seen as an issue, why spend the extra money?

Easy: weight-- a concept that they actually care about.

Effective marketing ("Oh, look how much we and your airlines care about Coach passengers' comfort, we're doing all of this JUST for YOU!") being a convenient, albeit transparent IMO, side benefit.

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR 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 fuselage design was predicated on drag and cargo capability, not what whiny Coach passengers think-but-don't-pay-for.

Wow, please tell me where I can get these free seats on A330s and A350s that whiny Y pax want aren't paying for?

I'll do even better.
Here ya go, start HERE

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.

Sure they have.

~signed,
A346... 8-abreast aircraft beaten 8:1 in sales by its equivalent (this word is emboldened for a reason) 10-abreast competitor.

Did the 77W obliterate the A346 in sales because it's 10-abreast? No.
Did the 77W destroy the A346 as a competitor in spite of being 10-abreast? Yes-- it took more people, further, for less. Exactly what airlines wanted, and pax as a whole did not alter their purchasing habits after the industry-wide switch to 10-abreast, despite the smaller space. The latter part being key.

Planetalk wrote:

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.

Can you? Sure.

Can you do it in the absence of an opportunity cost? For most carriers, no-- which is why they've chosen to add the extra seat.

What is needed is a carrier to install the Thompson Cozy Suite and get some consumer feedback. The staggered seating allows for 9 abreast 20"seat width on the 787, ( 18" 10 abreast on the 777 ) with no shoulder contact because of the stagger, each seat has a dedicated sleep space and egress to the aisle is a breeze in my view . Link...

http://www.thompsonaero.com/cozysuite

LAX772LR wrote:

scbriml wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Doubt they're particular worried about it at this point.
After all, it's only Y pax.

Yet they're apparently sufficiently bothered about it to be making changes to the 777X? If it wasn't seen as an issue, why spend the extra money?

Easy: weight-- a concept that they actually care about.

Effective marketing ("Oh, look how much we and your airlines care about Coach passengers' comfort, we're doing all of this JUST for YOU!") being a convenient, albeit transparent IMO, side benefit.

Do you have any evidence that it is actually about weight? Because unless you do, I'm going to stick with the reason actually publically stated by the manufacturer.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

The fuselage design was predicated on drag and cargo capability, not what whiny Coach passengers think-but-don't-pay-for.

Wow, please tell me where I can get these free seats on A330s and A350s that whiny Y pax want aren't paying for?

I'll do even better.
Here ya go, start HERE

Ok, so you can't refute my point and resort to sarcasm, noted. The fact is, passengers are paying for and getitng more space, on the competition's planes.

LAX772LR wrote:

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.

Sure they have.

~signed,
A346... 8-abreast aircraft beaten 8:1 in sales by its equivalent (this word is emboldened for a reason) 10-abreast competitor.

Did the 77W obliterate the A346 in sales because it's 10-abreast? No.
Did the 77W destroy the A346 as a competitor in spite of being 10-abreast? Yes-- it took more people, further, for less. Exactly what airlines wanted, and pax as a whole did not alter their purchasing habits after the industry-wide switch to 10-abreast, despite the smaller space. The latter part being key.

Well this battle was lost long before the industry wide switch to 10 across. I am not arguing that it will make or break an aircraft, and you are actually proving my point, since I would argue that passengers are not given adequate information when making flight bookings, and therefore cannot make informed or rational decisions. This is is most airlines interests who would rather pax weren't aware of the better comfort available elsewhere.

I argue merely that it evidently does matter to some passengers, and that planes can be perfectly efficient in a more comfortable layout that the current popular 777 and 787 layouts. A lot of posters like to claim that Boeing is responding to customer demand and has no chouce to design an efficient plane. That is manifestly not true. To use a different example, as you like cherry picking, the A330 has been outselling the 787 for a few eyars despite being a 20 year older design and having a less efficient layout. In your world this proves that pax must prefer the layout for airlines to continue ordering it no?

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

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.

Can you? Sure.

Can you do it in the absence of an opportunity cost? For most carriers, no-- which is why they've chosen to add the extra seat.

[/quote]

And why Boeing has had to spend a lot of money making the 777x wider, and I would bet that their next long haul design doesn't allow for a standard confiuration as narrow as the 777.

Put another way, what you seem to be acknowledging is that Boeing planes have to be less comfortable to be as efficient as airbus planes.

Good evening,
would there be any chance to get an internationally accepted legal regulation demanding broader seats even in Y? In other words: Go into the market and make flights quite simply more expensive by law. It quite certainly would upset those, who at any cost want to avoid cost. But for those, who regularly MUST fly in Y, possibly long distances, not for leisure but for professional reasons, such a regulation would really be a blessing. AND it would drastically reduce un-necessary air travel, which by nature is polluting.
Best,
Ferroviarius

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

zeke wrote:

Do you have any evidence that they are not ?

I find it ironic that you are asking others for evidence when the very same was asked of you regarding your claims comparing the 787 to the A330-900, which you ignored.

In that other thread, I provided sources, but you called them trash; we already had that discussion. Keesje is the one saying that resculpting frames to widen the cabin interior costs a billion dollars. In my engineering judgment, that seems too high, so I ask how he came up with that number. Seems a little exaggerated to me.

People that have been involved in loads, stresses, fatigue calculations and production technology understand that "reshaping" frames with different materials on a load carrying pressure vessel changes everything. Reshaping means a total redesign of the fuselage and everything attached. Yes, around a billion of the 777x development costs going there, seems a reasonable estimation. Wether you like it or not Newbiepilot.

What different materials are being used in the fuselage? I thought only about a four foot section was being resculpted on each side of the fuselage. A billion still seems exaggerated. What people are you talking to?

Planetalk wrote:

Do you have any evidence that it is actually about weight?

Remind me of all the times that OEMs have made significant structural changes to an established design, that weren't about decreasing weight, increasing performance, or complying with a directive?

Planetalk wrote:

Ok, so you can't refute my point and resort to sarcasm, noted.

Actually, I'm quite straightforwardly questioning your deductive reasoning capability, if you couldn't recognize the context in that statement. Nothing sarcastic about it.

Planetalk wrote:

you are actually proving my point

You display a rather nebulous usage of that word.

Planetalk wrote:

since I would argue that passengers are not given adequate information when making flight bookings

When did it become the airlines' responsibility to do so?

Planetalk wrote:

and therefore cannot make informed or rational decisions.

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.

That is, *if* they were that concerned (relative to the factors they do care most about: price and schedule); but they of course aren't.

Planetalk wrote:

This is is most airlines interests who would rather pax weren't aware of the better comfort available elsewhere.

Or, more realistically, airlines who realize just how low of a priority that is, for Y paxs' travel decisions, as an aggregate

Planetalk wrote:

I argue merely that it evidently does matter to some passengers

Sure, but nowhere near enough for it to MATTER.
That's sorta the whole point.

Planetalk wrote:

To use a different example, as you like cherry picking, the A330 has been outselling the 787 for a few eyars despite being a 20 year older design and having a less efficient layout. In your world this proves that pax must prefer the layout for airlines to continue ordering it no?

Indeed, no.

Leaving aside your strange-but-continual misuse of the word "proves," do ya think you might be omitting a few points of evidence in that (ridiculous) conclusion? Slot availability/acquisition time, price, commonality, etc?

Planetalk wrote:

Put another way, what you seem to be acknowledging is that Boeing planes have to be less comfortable to be as efficient as airbus planes.

#SwingAndAMiss

Ferroviarius wrote:

would there be any chance to get an internationally accepted legal regulation demanding broader seats even in Y? In other words: Go into the market and make flights quite simply more expensive by law.

Oh sure, let us get right on that. We all want more expensive flights!

~signed,
Members of any regulatory bodies who'd receive such a proposal.

Ferroviarius wrote:

It quite certainly would upset those, who at any cost want to avoid cost. But for those, who regularly MUST fly in Y, possibly long distances, not for leisure but for professional reasons, such a regulation would really be a blessing. AND it would drastically reduce un-necessary air travel, which by nature is polluting.

Extremely unlikely, especially if they were dumb enough to throw that last sentence in there, and think that wouldn't give the opposition everything it needs to have impacted regions reject this outright.

Ferroviarius wrote:

Good evening,
would there be any chance to get an internationally accepted legal regulation demanding broader seats even in Y? In other words: Go into the market and make flights quite simply more expensive by law. It quite certainly would upset those, who at any cost want to avoid cost. But for those, who regularly MUST fly in Y, possibly long distances, not for leisure but for professional reasons, such a regulation would really be a blessing. AND it would drastically reduce un-necessary air travel, which by nature is polluting.
Best,
Ferroviarius

A month ago I proposed to create an objective model to measure personal space.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1351701&p=19277799&hilit=keesje#p19277799

People came up with good ideas to simplify the score. Then someone influential made sure this went away, it was suddenly moved to a place people don't go / find it: Travel, Polls & Preferences

Factors included would be :

seat width (base is 18 inch seat pan, 2 inch armrests), weight: 5
pitch (base is 32 inch) weight : 7
toilet space (base seat width 30 inch) weight : 5
aisle width (base = 20 inch) weight : 4
number of lavatories per 50 seats, weight : 4
bin space per seat (volume) weight : 3

You could calculate a score per seat, cabin, cabin class and publish on places like seatguru.
I think everybody would be all behind transparency and objectivity on real personal space, before ordering a ticket.
It would stimulate respecting the people that pay all the aircraft, ATC, crews, HQ parking lots and salaries in our industry.

Ferroviarius wrote:

Good evening,
would there be any chance to get an internationally accepted legal regulation demanding broader seats even in Y? In other words: Go into the market and make flights quite simply more expensive by law. It quite certainly would upset those, who at any cost want to avoid cost. But for those, who regularly MUST fly in Y, possibly long distances, not for leisure but for professional reasons, such a regulation would really be a blessing. AND it would drastically reduce un-necessary air travel, which by nature is polluting.
Best,
Ferroviarius

The chance is Zero. None. Why?... you can pay for a better seat, upgrade to another class of service, fly another airline or plane. Best part, every option exists today. Without regulation of the nature you are describing. Having capable and flexible airplanes in airlines fleets allows them to do this (whole point of this thread).

The 787 was already built with thinner walls, because it uses new insulaion materials that don't need to be thick to provide equivalent insulation value. That's why the 777 walls can be thinned now. Boeing is using the 787 derived insulation technology on the 777X.

LAX772LR wrote:

Did the 77W obliterate the A346 in sales because it's 10-abreast? No.
Did the 77W destroy the A346 as a competitor in spite of being 10-abreast? Yes-- it took more people, further, for less. Exactly what airlines wanted, and pax as a whole did not alter their purchasing habits after the industry-wide switch to 10-abreast, despite the smaller space. The latter part being key.

At the time the 77W obliterated the A346, it was almost exclusively configured as 9 abreast in Y.

Beating topic to death...

LAX772LR wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

would this indicate that the A300 cross section is the most efficient, at least from a cargo capacity side?

The one that its own OEM is choosing to forgo? ...makes that a rather clear "no," I'd say.

You may have missed the part in bold, or is there anything more efficient than being able to load two LD3 containers next to each other as the industry is using containers at this moment?

enzo011 wrote:

You may have missed the part in bold

I didn't. Response remains the same.

airzona11 wrote:

The chance is Zero. None. Why?... you can pay for a better seat, upgrade to another class of service, fly another airline or plane. Best part, every option exists today. Without regulation of the nature you are describing. Having capable and flexible airplanes in airlines fleets allows them to do this (whole point of this thread).

Unfortunately the increase in price is not linear with respect to the increase in personal space, and no airline that I know of offers such.

keesje wrote:

You could calculate a score per seat, cabin, cabin class and publish on places like seatguru.
I think everybody would be all behind transparency and objectivity on real personal space, before ordering a ticket.
It would stimulate respecting the people that pay all the aircraft, ATC, crews, HQ parking lots and salaries in our industry.

Why not just mandate that seat pitch and width be published in airline reservation systems? That'd be the first order level information people would need. Any proposed weighting will be accused of being unfair, or potentially could be gamed.

Bottom line is I agree with the fact that the race to the bottom is producing a lot of dis-satisfied customers, and sooner or later I think there will be a reform where a lot more information will need to be presented at booking time to help us sort out what is a good deal vs a bad deal.

how many times is this going to be revisited or brought up again. The revision to 9Y 787 and 10Y 777 was not instant. It was not airlines cramming it down passengers throats. It has been in response to customer purchasing. There are plenty of airlines that have done a gradual shift or operated mixed fleets. AA, UA, BA, QR, etc have all operated fleets of 777 in 9Y and 10Y and are transitioning to 10Y. NH started out 8Y in the 787 and has since begun shifting to 9Y. If there was a premium being paid for the bigger seats, they would've noticed. If customers were favoring planes with the bigger seats, they would've noticed. Many of these airlines also operate either Airbus products with the bigger seats or partner with airlines who do. AA and BA have a JV on TATL. If BA's "more comfortable" 9Y 777s were generating a commensurate increases in revenue over AA's 10Y on the same route, AA would know. UA flies a 9Y 777 SFO-AKL and NZ a 10Y. If there was a difference, they'd know. Same goes for their 9Y 787 vs ANA 9Y 77W. EK claims the A380 commands a premium, so clearly if they thought they could get the same by switching their 777s to 9Y they would.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Do you have any evidence that it is actually about weight?

Remind me of all the times that OEMs have made significant structural changes to an established design, that weren't about decreasing weight, increasing performance, or complying with a directive?

Erm OK, well there is this one when the manufacturer has told us the reason. I'm sure if it was any of the above as well they might have mentioned it. So its your opinion based purely on the fact you don't want to admit Boeing's own stated reason? Any idea why BA decided to spend a load of money changing their seats?

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Ok, so you can't refute my point and resort to sarcasm, noted.

Actually, I'm quite straightforwardly questioning your deductive reasoning capability, if you couldn't recognize the context in that statement. Nothing sarcastic about it.

Your repeated context is that we have narrow seats because Y pax won't pay for more. Evidently nonsense. Y pax are paying for, and getting, more comfort in airbus planes. There is no need to seats to be this narrow for an efficient plane.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

since I would argue that passengers are not given adequate information when making flight bookings

When did it become the airlines' responsibility to do so?

In a properly operating market they would. That's first year economics. Its considered normal in most markets to be transparent about the product you're selling.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

and therefore cannot make informed or rational decisions.

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.

That is, *if* they were that concerned (relative to the factors they do care most about: price and schedule); but they of course aren't.

Why so defensive? Some pax are bothered, some aren't. Do you think everyone saying they care is lying? Forgive me but you seem to live in a slightly odd world where you claim to know everyone else's motivations even when they tell you otherwise, boeing included.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

This is is most airlines interests who would rather pax weren't aware of the better comfort available elsewhere.

Or, more realistically, airlines who realize just how low of a priority that is, for Y paxs' travel decisions, as an aggregate

Just be more transparent, why not? Are you against providing comfort information on search engines? If so why? I say again, it provides for a more optimal market, which you for some reason don't seem to like. Inform people in the easiest way possible at point of sale and let them choose. I don't think it would have a huge effect, but I think it would have some effect, especially on longer journeys and where the price difference isn't that great.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

To use a different example, as you like cherry picking, the A330 has been outselling the 787 for a few eyars despite being a 20 year older design and having a less efficient layout. In your world this proves that pax must prefer the layout for airlines to continue ordering it no?

Indeed, no.

Leaving aside your strange-but-continual misuse of the word "proves," do ya think you might be omitting a few points of evidence in that (ridiculous) conclusion? Slot availability/acquisition time, price, commonality, etc?

Thank you, that was my point, to show how absurd your A346 777w example was. That's why I said 'in your world', I know full well it's ridiculous.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Put another way, what you seem to be acknowledging is that Boeing planes have to be less comfortable to be as efficient as airbus planes.

#SwingAndAMmiss

Seems fairly objectively true to me, well I guess some of the 737 family manage to be less comfortable and less efficient.

LAX772LR wrote:

Ferroviarius wrote:

would there be any chance to get an internationally accepted legal regulation demanding broader seats even in Y? In other words: Go into the market and make flights quite simply more expensive by law.

Oh sure, let us get right on that. We all want more expensive flights!

~signed,
Members of any regulatory bodies who'd receive such a proposal.

Why would flights need to be any more expensive than they are on A330s/A350s/A320s now?

Would your world really come tumbling down if you accept some people find wider seats on airbus planes more comfortable. It takes some creative thinking to deny absolutely anyone could possibly find more space better. Does defending Boeing, a soulless corporation that certainly doesn't care about you, really mean that much you?[/quote]

Revelation wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

The chance is Zero. None. Why?... you can pay for a better seat, upgrade to another class of service, fly another airline or plane. Best part, every option exists today. Without regulation of the nature you are describing. Having capable and flexible airplanes in airlines fleets allows them to do this (whole point of this thread).

Unfortunately the increase in price is not linear with respect to the increase in personal space, and no airline that I know of offers such.

keesje wrote:

You could calculate a score per seat, cabin, cabin class and publish on places like seatguru.
I think everybody would be all behind transparency and objectivity on real personal space, before ordering a ticket.
It would stimulate respecting the people that pay all the aircraft, ATC, crews, HQ parking lots and salaries in our industry.

Why not just mandate that seat pitch and width be published in airline reservation systems? That'd be the first order level information people would need. Any proposed weighting will be accused of being unfair, or potentially could be gamed.

Bottom line is I agree with the fact that the race to the bottom is producing a lot of dis-satisfied customers, and sooner or later I think there will be a reform where a lot more information will need to be presented at booking time to help us sort out what is a good deal vs a bad deal.

Bingo, on both points. Can't see why anyone would oppose providing that simple information.

Planetalk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

The chance is Zero. None. Why?... you can pay for a better seat, upgrade to another class of service, fly another airline or plane. Best part, every option exists today. Without regulation of the nature you are describing. Having capable and flexible airplanes in airlines fleets allows them to do this (whole point of this thread).

Unfortunately the increase in price is not linear with respect to the increase in personal space, and no airline that I know of offers such.

keesje wrote:

You could calculate a score per seat, cabin, cabin class and publish on places like seatguru.
I think everybody would be all behind transparency and objectivity on real personal space, before ordering a ticket.
It would stimulate respecting the people that pay all the aircraft, ATC, crews, HQ parking lots and salaries in our industry.

Why not just mandate that seat pitch and width be published in airline reservation systems? That'd be the first order level information people would need. Any proposed weighting will be accused of being unfair, or potentially could be gamed.

Bottom line is I agree with the fact that the race to the bottom is producing a lot of dis-satisfied customers, and sooner or later I think there will be a reform where a lot more information will need to be presented at booking time to help us sort out what is a good deal vs a bad deal.

Bingo, on both points. Can't see why anyone would oppose providing that simple information.

But more people are flying today than ever. The airlines are growing and getting larger. the largest user of 10 abreast 777s is also the largest international airline. Airlines are shrinking their premium cabins, that means a smaller percent of those flying are wiling to pay for more space. Those who prefer more space have options to purchase it.

Airline do not hide their seat maps. There are plenty of sites to find that information. Airlines are adding Y+ and PY options, getting a few hundred extra dollars from travelers who don't quite value the full J experience.

Where is the market failure? It seems to be working out perfectly. Who is being exploited or harmed to require suggest regulation?

airzona11 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Unfortunately the increase in price is not linear with respect to the increase in personal space, and no airline that I know of offers such.



Why not just mandate that seat pitch and width be published in airline reservation systems? That'd be the first order level information people would need. Any proposed weighting will be accused of being unfair, or potentially could be gamed.

Bottom line is I agree with the fact that the race to the bottom is producing a lot of dis-satisfied customers, and sooner or later I think there will be a reform where a lot more information will need to be presented at booking time to help us sort out what is a good deal vs a bad deal.

Bingo, on both points. Can't see why anyone would oppose providing that simple information.

But more people are flying today than ever. The airlines are growing and getting larger. the largest user of 10 abreast 777s is also the largest international airline. Airlines are shrinking their premium cabins, that means a smaller percent of those flying are wiling to pay for more space. Those who prefer more space have options to purchase it.

Airline do not hide their seat maps. There are plenty of sites to find that information. Airlines are adding Y+ and PY options, getting a few hundred extra dollars from travelers who don't quite value the full J experience.

Where is the market failure? It seems to be working out perfectly. Who is being exploited or harmed to require suggest regulation?

The market failure is that when buying a product you shouldn't have to spend time searching third party websites to find out what it is you're actually buying. The vast number of negative reviews for the narrower configurations suggest it isn't working perfectly, and reading review sites it is these narrower congurations that consistently attract bad reports, so even Y pax do seem to notice.

A lot of people don't have that time to find the info, especially comparing multiple airlines, and given it is not made easy; most airlines I've used don't publish information on seat pitch and width, which makes their seat maps useless. Seat guru is also next to useless these days. So it's really not that easy, even if you're an a.net geek. Just provide seat pitch and width on search engines, it could easily be done, I have my suspicions why it isn't - most airlines basically don't want pax to be made aware easily of the better options.

airzona11 wrote:

But more people are flying today than ever. The airlines are growing and getting larger. the largest user of 10 abreast 777s is also the largest international airline. Airlines are shrinking their premium cabins, that means a smaller percent of those flying are wiling to pay for more space. Those who prefer more space have options to purchase it.

Airline do not hide their seat maps. There are plenty of sites to find that information. Airlines are adding Y+ and PY options, getting a few hundred extra dollars from travelers who don't quite value the full J experience.

Where is the market failure? It seems to be working out perfectly. Who is being exploited or harmed to require suggest regulation?

I never said the market is failing. I think it is evolving, and it'd evolve to a more equitable position (i.e. linear price increases for linear improvements in space, etc) faster if more information was presented.

Not hiding seat maps is pretty different than providing pitch and width information at booking time, IMHO. To use your conversational style, I ask who is being exploited or harmed if comfort information was presented on an airline reservation system?

tjh8402 wrote:

how many times is this going to be revisited or brought up again. The revision to 9Y 787 and 10Y 777 was not instant. It was not airlines cramming it down passengers throats. It has been in response to customer purchasing. There are plenty of airlines that have done a gradual shift or operated mixed fleets. AA, UA, BA, QR, etc have all operated fleets of 777 in 9Y and 10Y and are transitioning to 10Y. NH started out 8Y in the 787 and has since begun shifting to 9Y. If there was a premium being paid for the bigger seats, they would've noticed. If customers were favoring planes with the bigger seats, they would've noticed. Many of these airlines also operate either Airbus products with the bigger seats or partner with airlines who do. AA and BA have a JV on TATL. If BA's "more comfortable" 9Y 777s were generating a commensurate increases in revenue over AA's 10Y on the same route, AA would know. UA flies a 9Y 777 SFO-AKL and NZ a 10Y. If there was a difference, they'd know. Same goes for their 9Y 787 vs ANA 9Y 77W. EK claims the A380 commands a premium, so clearly if they thought they could get the same by switching their 777s to 9Y they would.

And there you have it - the A380 can command a premium because pax can easily see, through whatever source they book, that they are booking an A380 flight. The information is provided. And evidently pax are willing to pay for the higher comfort. So, imagine if pax could see x flight will give them y" of legroom and width, I imagine a lot of people would take that into consideration no? Particularly for very long flights.

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Do you have any evidence that it is actually about weight?

Remind me of all the times that OEMs have made significant structural changes to an established design, that weren't about decreasing weight, increasing performance, or complying with a directive?

Erm OK, well there is this one when the manufacturer has told us the reason.

So in other words, you believe that the marketed reason is automatically equivalent to the primary/driving reason behind corporate motive? That's an interesting level of naivete.

Curious: when airlines tell you that they're "enhancing their product due to customer demand" by removing an extant benefit, do you believe that too?

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Ok, so you can't refute my point and resort to sarcasm, noted.

Actually, I'm quite straightforwardly questioning your deductive reasoning capability, if you couldn't recognize the context in that statement. Nothing sarcastic about it.

Your repeated context is that we have narrow seats because Y pax won't pay for more. Evidently nonsense.

*sigh* What I'm talking about is PAY for such as to NEGATE THE OPPORTUNITY COST.
Come on dude, it's not difficult.

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

since I would argue that passengers are not given adequate information when making flight bookings

When did it become the airlines' responsibility to do so?

In a properly operating market they would.

Correction: in a fantasy market, which doesn't exist in reality.

Planetalk wrote:

That's first year economics.

Then maybe you should dial them up and offer your services, if you feel that these multi-billion dollar corporations (who spend multiple millions on research and marketing) aren't hiring the right economists for the job.

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

and therefore cannot make informed or rational decisions.

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.

Why so defensive?

I'm defending nothing. I'm simply asking why you'd make a statement that's so easily demonstrated to be false.

Planetalk wrote:

Some pax are bothered, some aren't. Do you think everyone saying they care is lying? Forgive me but you seem to live in a slightly odd world where you claim to know everyone else's motivations.

Reading comprehension is certainly not your strong suit.

Not only have I made no claim about "everyone" in any context, but I've specifically acknowledged that yes some poor sods DO probably care enough to modify their travel patterns, they're just not in sufficient number as to effectively matter the airlines-- as is demonstrated by those airlines actions.

In fact, there's a whole response devoted to me saying just that-- if you're going to attempt to refute, the least you can do is actually pay attention.

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

This is is most airlines interests who would rather pax weren't aware of the better comfort available elsewhere.

Or, more realistically, airlines who realize just how low of a priority that is, for Y paxs' travel decisions, as an aggregate

Just be more transparent, why not?

They already are.

Planetalk wrote:

Are you against providing comfort information on search engines? I so why? I say again, it provides for a more opimal market, which you for some reason don't seem to like. Inform people and let them choose.

The information is readily available to ANYONE who seeks it. From multiple sources, both subjective and objective.
If you're too lazy to read a seat map, then how's that an airline or OEM's problem?

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

To use a different example, as you like cherry picking, the A330 has been outselling the 787 for a few eyars despite being a 20 year older design and having a less efficient layout. In your world this proves that pax must prefer the layout for airlines to continue ordering it no?

Indeed, no.

Leaving aside your strange-but-continual misuse of the word "proves," do ya think you might be omitting a few points of evidence in that (ridiculous) conclusion? Slot availability/acquisition time, price, commonality, etc?

Thank you, that was my point, to show how absurd your A346 777w example was.

Well, you tried. But failed. Because the A346 had plenty of years of sales/availability at the point the market shifted to 10-abreast in 77Ws. If passenger disdain meant anything to airlines, sufficiently to affect fleet composition; then by your (erroneous) theory, shouldn't we have seen at least some recovery in A346 acquisition, even if only short-term? Which of course, we did not.

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Ferroviarius wrote:

would there be any chance to get an internationally accepted legal regulation demanding broader seats even in Y? In other words: Go into the market and make flights quite simply more expensive by law.

Oh sure, let us get right on that. We all want more expensive flights!

~signed,
Members of any regulatory bodies who'd receive such a proposal.

Why would flights need to be any more expensive than they are on A330s/A350s/A320s now?

I don't know, ask him. That wasn't my conclusion.

Planetalk wrote:

Would your world really come tumbling down if you accept some people find wider seats on airbus planes more comfortable. Doesvdefending Boeing, a soulless corporation that certainly doesn't care about you, really mean that much you?

You assume far too much.

I have no particular inclination to "defend" one over the other, and I'll happily do the same for Airbus when airlines eventually (and quite possibly, inevitably) start going 11-abreast in the A380.

enzo011 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

would this indicate that the A300 cross section is the most efficient, at least from a cargo capacity side?

The one that its own OEM is choosing to forgo? ...makes that a rather clear "no," I'd say.

You may have missed the part in bold, or is there anything more efficient than being able to load two LD3 containers next to each other as the industry is using containers at this moment?

The "222" cross section was the smallest perfect accommodation for (8 abreast) pax and established unit load devices.
obviously when you want to increase capacity at some point you have to go to the next "perfect" diameter.A350XWB

LAX772LR appears to not understand this. and tries to sell it as "forego"ing ... . Note the A330 cross section
is still available and very competitive.

Planetalk wrote:

The market failure is that when buying a product you shouldn't have to spend time searching third party websites to find out what it is you're actually buying.

It's a market failure when you have to research? I can't think of any product that costs near the price of an airline ticket that I haven't spent hours researching on third party websites. I don't make hotel reservations without checking yelp or trip advisor first. I don't buy coffee makers without researching the product first, much less something that costs hundreds, if not thousands, of $.

Planetalk wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

how many times is this going to be revisited or brought up again. The revision to 9Y 787 and 10Y 777 was not instant. It was not airlines cramming it down passengers throats. It has been in response to customer purchasing. There are plenty of airlines that have done a gradual shift or operated mixed fleets. AA, UA, BA, QR, etc have all operated fleets of 777 in 9Y and 10Y and are transitioning to 10Y. NH started out 8Y in the 787 and has since begun shifting to 9Y. If there was a premium being paid for the bigger seats, they would've noticed. If customers were favoring planes with the bigger seats, they would've noticed. Many of these airlines also operate either Airbus products with the bigger seats or partner with airlines who do. AA and BA have a JV on TATL. If BA's "more comfortable" 9Y 777s were generating a commensurate increases in revenue over AA's 10Y on the same route, AA would know. UA flies a 9Y 777 SFO-AKL and NZ a 10Y. If there was a difference, they'd know. Same goes for their 9Y 787 vs ANA 9Y 77W. EK claims the A380 commands a premium, so clearly if they thought they could get the same by switching their 777s to 9Y they would.

And there you have it - the A380 can command a premium because pax can easily see, through whatever source they book, that they are booking an A380 flight. The information is provided. And evidently pax are willing to pay for the higher comfort. So, imagine if pax could see x flight will give them y" of legroom and width, I imagine a lot of people would take that into consideration no? Particularly for very long flights.

You completely ignored the point. EK has had the A380 in the system for a long time. They spent many years flying Airbus's with the bigger seats. If they felt like they could make up the revenue by switching to 9Y in the 777, they would. Clearly, they don't feel they can make up the $ doing that.

It is noteworthy that their 777s actually have relatively generous pitch, and more than one commenter has said in other discussions how much they enjoy that. What if going to 9Y meant trimming that seat pitch to the 30-31" of their competitors to try to gain back some of the lost seats?

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Remind me of all the times that OEMs have made significant structural changes to an established design, that weren't about decreasing weight, increasing performance, or complying with a directive?

Erm OK, well there is this one when the manufacturer has told us the reason.

So in other words, you believe that the marketed reason is automatically equivalent to the primary/driving reason behind corporate motive? That's an interesting level of naivete.

Curious: when airlines tell you that they're "enhancing their product due to customer demand" by removing an extant benefit, do you believe that too?

No, because in that case the airline has a clear reason to be deceptive and spin. In this case the airline is doing something that according to you benefits both itself, and passengers. Why do they need to keep the real reason a secret here? Surely they would at leats have to tell their shareholders. Airlines will in their accounts be quite open about the savings removing a benefit provides. Again, have boeing stated anywhere how mich weight they will save/performance they will gain from making this structural change. They must have done somewhere, I'm sure they would like people to know about it given the costs involved. Otherwise shareholders might we quite miffed.

I think Occam's razor would say that Boeing saw a PR problem emerging and decided it oculd be addressed without too much cost. But go crazy with your consipracy theories. Until you provide a shred of proof for your assertion, I think we should leave this.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

When did it become the airlines' responsibility to do so?

In a properly operating market they would.

Correction: in a fantasy market, which doesn't exist in reality.

Planetalk wrote:

That's first year economics.

Then maybe you should dial them up and offer your services, if you feel that these multi-billion dollar corporations (who spend multiple millions on research and marketing) aren't hiring the right economists for the job.

I'm sure they are hiring the right economists, ones being paid to maximise the return to the airline, most certainly not to do what is best for the market as a whole. What they are doing is exactly what I would do if that was my remit. Sucks for the rest of us though.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

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.

Why so defensive?

I'm defending nothing. I'm simply asking why you'd make a statement that's so easily demonstrated to be false.

Please read the last few posts and the contribution from Revelation which summarises the problem well. The information isn't that easy to find, especially for non-experts, many airlines don't publish putch and width, seatguru is horrible. Again, what is your problem with pubblishing this in the reservation system? I don't get it. What's the down side?

I just looked at the British Airways, Qantas and American Airlines websites and could find nothing about seat pitch or width. So where is this transparency you claim already exists? United are good enough to provide it and list the minimum width on the 787 as 16.3"

LAX772LR wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Indeed, no.

Leaving aside your strange-but-continual misuse of the word "proves," do ya think you might be omitting a few points of evidence in that (ridiculous) conclusion? Slot availability/acquisition time, price, commonality, etc?

Thank you, that was my point, to show how absurd your A346 777w example was.

Well, you tried. But failed. Because the A346 had plenty of years of sales/availability at the point the market shifted to 10-abreast in 77Ws. If passenger disdain meant anything to airlines, sufficiently to affect fleet composition; then by your (erroneous) theory, we should've seen at least some recovery in A346 acquisition, even if only short-term. Which of course, we did not.

The airlines bought the 77W because it's a more efficient plane, and expect pax to take what they're given. As discusssed above, they rely on pax not being informed of the differences.

I should add that I've queried several non avgeek friends and family after flights about seat comfort on itineraries of mixed planes. By non avgeek, I mean these people couldn't tell the difference between an Airbus or Boeing. These are also people who won't pay for the extra 2-3" of legroom of an exit row or Y+ seat, so that should tell you whether they would pay extra for a one inch wider seat.

Admittedly, none of these were widebody flights, but when comparisons of A320s and 737s/757s. No one has ever noticed the extra width in the A320. After one trip involving both 737s and A320s, I asked my boyfriend if he noticed one plane being more spacious than the other. The flight he said felt like it had more room was the 737 one. What they do notice? How obnoxious other people are on the plane, how new the airplane seems inside, and what IFE they have available.

tjh8402 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

The market failure is that when buying a product you shouldn't have to spend time searching third party websites to find out what it is you're actually buying.

It's a market failure when you have to research? I can't think of any product that costs near the price of an airline ticket that I haven't spent hours researching on third party websites. I don't make hotel reservations without checking yelp or trip advisor first. I don't buy coffee makers without researching the product first, much less something that costs hundreds, if not thousands, of $.

Of course, but those products will actually at least list their basic specifications on the sellers website. Airlines don't. Imagine if a hotel didn't tell you whether it was a double or single bed, or whether it has wifi etc etc. the price, location, and nothing else. That's the comparison. Is it so hard to understand? Given the informaiton exists, would cost practically nothing to provide, harms no-one, and can only benefit those who find it useful, again, what is your concern?

Planetalk wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

The market failure is that when buying a product you shouldn't have to spend time searching third party websites to find out what it is you're actually buying.

It's a market failure when you have to research? I can't think of any product that costs near the price of an airline ticket that I haven't spent hours researching on third party websites. I don't make hotel reservations without checking yelp or trip advisor first. I don't buy coffee makers without researching the product first, much less something that costs hundreds, if not thousands, of $.

Of course, but those products will actually at least list their basic specifications on the sellers website. Airlines don't. Imagine if a hotel didn't tell you whether it was a double or single bed, or whether it has wifi etc etc. the price, location, and nothing else. That's the comparison. Is it so hard to understand? Given the informaiton exists, would cost practically nothing to provide, harms no-one, and can only benefit those who find it useful, again, what is your concern?

I don't rely on specs from the manufacturer. I always try to double check them with third party reviewers. Also, airlines do provide plenty of information about the plane and flight. Delta, for example, has a list of icons by each flight to tell you if the plane has seat back entertainment, satellite tv, power outlets, wifi, meal service, not to mention listing the plane type. I'm not opposed to including information like seat width and pitch, but again, I don't think 90% of people will care. Airlines provide the information they think their customers want or care about. Delta does actually include information about seat comfort, by having an icon to note if the plane has Lie Flat seats. However, that's probably because premium cabin customers will actually pay more for that.

Planetalk wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Bingo, on both points. Can't see why anyone would oppose providing that simple information.

But more people are flying today than ever. The airlines are growing and getting larger. the largest user of 10 abreast 777s is also the largest international airline. Airlines are shrinking their premium cabins, that means a smaller percent of those flying are wiling to pay for more space. Those who prefer more space have options to purchase it.

Airline do not hide their seat maps. There are plenty of sites to find that information. Airlines are adding Y+ and PY options, getting a few hundred extra dollars from travelers who don't quite value the full J experience.

Where is the market failure? It seems to be working out perfectly. Who is being exploited or harmed to require suggest regulation?

The market failure is that when buying a product you shouldn't have to spend time searching third party websites to find out what it is you're actually buying. The vast number of negative reviews for the narrower configurations suggest it isn't working perfectly, and reading review sites it is these narrower congurations that consistently attract bad reports, so even Y pax do seem to notice.

A lot of people don't have that time to find the info, especially comparing multiple airlines, and given it is not made easy; most airlines I've used don't publish information on seat pitch and width, which makes their seat maps useless. Seat guru is also next to useless these days. So it's really not that easy, even if you're an a.net geek. Just provide seat pitch and width on search engines, it could easily be done, I have my suspicions why it isn't - most airlines basically don't want pax to be made aware easily of the better options.

I guess my whole point is that If airlines were losing customers because of this, they would add it. The information is still available. Discerning passengers can use it to influence their decision. The vast majority of travelers are going to book based on price. If they weren't, we would still have 34inch pitch as standard (does any single non Av Geek even know what seat pitch means?). People will complain they aren't getting first class treatment on economy class fares, what they will also do is price shop, they buy based on price.

Don't get me wrong, I think the airlines run a lot of distasteful tactics with their nickel and diming. I just don't think the seat pitch is reason for a call for regulation. To go back to the original top of seat width, I fly A320s/737s weekly and never one time have I felt a difference on the width. Where I do find difference or added value is in pitch. Which is great bc the airlines offer Econ Plus, exit row, etc seating. That is agnostic to Airbus or Boeing.

Rather than regulate the issue away. If there is an actual problem, an airline would step in and capture the void left by the race to the bottom and be a successful airline offering premium product. When booking they would put the seat width and pitch as it would capture potential passengers money. Airlines do this today to varying extents, here in the US while service continues to deteriorate with Economy Minus, there is investment in Y+ and PY.

I wonder why no one has copied the L-1011 design of "stringerless sidewalls" and "tapered fuselage frames." Both can be seen here:

I think the biggest change to the consideration of comfort against price would come, if someone would put up a flight search engine, that would not only search regarding price, but also regarding comfort. I see now, using dohop, lowest price, fastest and best. If they would add most comfortable Y, people might consider paying more for comfort. Now only aviation geeks or people flying a lot, know the difference when booking.

Recently flew JL 001 SFO to HND in Y on a 77W. The 9 abreast seating in the Sky Wider seats are the best way to get to Japan in economy. Noticeably roomier and purposely avoided AA flights for this reason.

keesje wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Nobody cares about how Y pax feel about their seats.

Air travel is a commodity. They shop by price, period.

Either 17 inch seats is a serious issue or the expensive 777x cabin widening by Boeing is ridiculous.

You can't have them both.

How expensive, exactly, is the cabin widening? Compared to the other mods, (wings/engine/stretch), I'm willing to bet it's way down the price list.

Besides, the extra width can go towards the aisle, as well as the seats. Those cramped seats haven't prevented 10 abreast 77W's from becoming the standard, handily supplanting the 9 abreast option, with most major airlines. Airlines do love stuff that can help them with turnaround times.

The simple fact is that, so far, passengers don't seem to be staying away from 9 abreast 787's or 10 abreast 777's by the droves...yet. Maybe they will in the future, but why don't we wait until that future for real data, (which would be ticket sales dropping SPECIFICALLY due to seat width, not pitch or other factors)?

Then, we can be regaled with choruses of, "I told you so", and those idiots at Boeing, (and the morons who buy their products), can move on to boat building or something else they may finally be able to get right.

I am curious, though...would an extra inch width have kept that nasty fellow passenger from touching you?

Some people are absolutely determined to keep tilting at this windmill.

The 777x fuselage is expected to cost less to build than the current 777. Somewhere in the development of the new fuselage manufacturing processes is the cost of cabin widening.

https://worldindustrialreporter.com/kaw ... nvestment/

Kawasaki is spending 211 Million to reduce the costs of manufacturing fuselage panels:

https://worldindustrialreporter.com/boe ... roduction/

I suspect the actual cost of resculpting the frames is far less than a Billion. The cost of the frame modifications is probably part of the engineering work being done to increase the robotic manufacturing and reach the goal of 15% lower production costs as discussed in the article.

So a question, is the 10 abreast 777W using the rear cabin to pay for the flight and the front is just additional revenue?
Prior to the great depression most long haul airlines were premium heavy and had to reconfigure their cabins to maintain profitability, now that things are picking they are once again going premium heavy without the F, which also means there are much more premiums seats at more "affordable" prices. If 10Y is not comfortable there are much more non-Y seats available and usually they come with additional service.

I guess Y pax during the depression saw that they were more than just filling up the rear and are now trying to flex their muscles?
Since the 777 is wider than the A330 how much comfort will airlines assign when they go 9 abreast, and since the frames are older and may already been paid for with low fuel prices they could be a boon for pax.

par13del wrote:

So a question, is the 10 abreast 777W using the rear cabin to pay for the flight and the front is just additional revenue?

I think you have to look at each Airline's Configuration. AC and EK, for example, have 77W's with very small premium cabins (J only in between door 1 and 2) whereas AA and UA are all J and F forward of the overwing exits. ANA has one configuration where its the only Y cabin is aft of the 4L/4R doors, with everything ahead of that being F, J, and a small W cabin. Put another way, that ANA 77W has more F and J seats (76) than some Airlines put on their A380s. The way the cabin is configured will tell you who pays the bills.

This thread has veered off to include truly bizarre statements, my favorite of which has to be "Boeing has to produce less comfortable aircraft in order to be as efficient as Airbus". Where do people come up with this crap? Just looking at the widebody twin market since its inception with the A300 (and I'll include the A340 here since it competed directly against the 777), Airbus has sold some 3600 widebodies to Boeing's 4200. That's my rough addition as per Wiki Orders and Deliveries. In the 300/310/330/340 and 350 range we've always had the "magical" and "perfect" cross-section that Boeing (or in most cases its customers) has either matched or exceeded (777 v1.0, 777X, 767) or not matched with a standardizing 17.2" (777W) or standard 17.2" (787). Nowhere in any of the years soince all of these models been for sale is there a shred of evidence that seat width matters to customer or where reality smacks one in the face (ongoing and consistent load factors and profitability by type). To the contrary, I would argue that seat width has to be in the bottom 5th percentile of any meaningful decision-making process when a CEO buys a type or a passenger selects a type. In addition, 3 of the early "comfort kings" offering standrd 18"+ seat width in Y are now dead or on their last legs..the 310, the 340 and the 767. Airbus now has 3 remaining "comfort king" widebodies lest in its arsenal (the 330/350 and 380), so one would expect that they are blowing the snot off of Boeing's face in all head to head competitions over 3/5/10 year spans. But they are not, so again, I fail to see how anyone could argue that seat width matters. But one metric I do not have is type and airline profitability by type at 17.2 vs 18" in the above plane types. I suppose if someone could gather that and share it would be the foundation of a rebuttal. I'm not sure that would pan out though given the consistent long term sales figures of opposing types even at different seat widths per type.

As a final comment, and now to include a simplistic additional "data point" on the respective VLAs, the 747 at 17.2" soldiered on bravely for 3+ decades in the face of 18" competition. The A380, on the other hand, is the undisputed "comfort king" and is now by most accounts on life support. Given all this I just don't see how anyone can argue that seat width makes any difference whatsoever outside of fanbois on A.net or AvGeek blogs. And where it does it's at such a negligible level that it doesn't impact sales, profitability or traveler choice in any meaningful way whatsoever.

About the 777 vs 777X.

The 777 is (was) a very comfortable 9 abreast plane. Lateral comfort up there among the top in the industry.

Most airlines chose to convert them to 10 abreast (not Boeing's fault), putting them all way to the bottom, when we exclude real horror examples such as a few 9 abreast A330s used for pretty short stage super low budget charter work.

Boeing responds to the situation with the 777X, mainly because the quarter century old bird is in need for a string of updates:
- Totally new wing and engines.
- Revised horizontal tail.
- Thinner wall structures to get four inches wider cabin (from 230 to 234 inches).
- Wider floor.
- Stronger fuselage structure to allow higher pressure differential.
- Larger windows.
- Etc, etc.

So what will be left of the "old" 777 main structures? The fuselage nose and the tail cone, and very little else.

It is unbelievable that Boeing didn't use this opportunity to update the 777 to compete on level terms with the competition. The main fuselage barrel is a totally new structure. If they only had widened it some 10 inches, instead of keeping the exact same outer diameter on the otherwise totally new fuselage barrel.

If made 10 inches wider, then ordinary 9 abreast A350 seats would fit in at 10 abreast with one inch wider aisles to compensate for the extra seat per row. The A380 at 10 abreast would still be the lateral comfort king, but the difference would be hard to notice since shoulder rubbing would have become an issue of rather extreme cases only.

I feel kind of sorry for Boeing. Making this brilliant 9 abreast plane 25 years ago their intention was clearly to produce a perfect and efficient compromise between comfort and economy. Now they spend a fortune on updating the plane, but miss the point by making it into barely a 9.5 abreast plane when compared to the competition. Only because some carriers chose to cramp in one more seat.

Sure a wider fuselage barrel would have called for more changes such as reshaping nose and tail cone. But it seems like Boeing pays 90% of the costs for the perfect 777 modernization and miss out 75% on the lateral comfort issue.

It is to some extent right that today a lot of people chooses carrier based on price only. But if nothing changes, then over the next 20-30 years it will become better and better known, that if shoulder rubbing means anything to you, then better fly on A operators and avoid B, unless the B operator is noticeably cheaper to compensate for the discomfort. And even if Boeing changes that with a totally new range of long range airliners in 2040, then it will take another 20-30 years to get rid of that. Consumers do respond to price vs value issues, sometimes slowly, but they do.

It's quite funny watching people repeatedly say things like 'Nowhere in any of the years soince all of these models been for sale is there a shred of evidence that seat width matters to customer' even while Boeing, the people who make the planes have themselves decided to invest a load of money in, erm, making seats wider. It's quie incredible that people believe Boeing are doing this for every possible reason, except seat width, the actual reason Boeing have said they're doing it. Of course no-one has been able to provide one public quote or any substantiation for all these other real reasons for it. If Boeing was saving a lot of weight, doing it for structural reasons or whatever, they would say so. You don't change a plane's structure for the fun of it. BA decided to change the seats for the 787-9 so bad was customer reaction.

Look I don't know why it's controversial. Narrower seats and aisles are almost by definition less comfortable. Someone was saying the 787 can have the same seats as the A350 if they just make the aisles narrower. Obviously, but the aisles are already very narrow on a 787, already make it very uncomfortable for anyone sitting in an aisle seat, you can't spread your legs as much, trolleys bump, passengers bump, and it's harder for crew to deliver service (I've heard them complain). Making aisles narrower makes things worse for almost 50% of pax.

Some planes are a bit less comfortable, it seems modern planes don't atually need to be that uncomfortable, so I'm not sure why on earth anyone supports it? People are their own worst enemies sometimes. I strongly suspect from it's decision on the 777x that Boeing has learned though, let's see if it comes up with anything as narrow for long haul again. I bet it doesn't. Maybe customer feedback does matter hey?

Exactly Planesmart, customer feedback matters more than anything else, especially when it results in $20B widebody contracts. That's why Boeing, and Airbus, both listen to their customers. Look at Prebe's post just above yours, Boeing is spending say $10B on a whole slew of cost effective upgrades that already have yielded in a few years nearly the number of orders the 380 has garnered in 15. Thinning the sidewalls has to be amongst the cheapest of the upgrades. Christ, the wing alone must be 60% at least with a whole new plant to build. Point is, the customers writing the checks, they don't seem to care much about the 0.8 inches. And neither do the punters. You keep pointing out anecdotal evidence like BA, but big picture it's a random piece of flimsy circumstantial "proof" that does nothing to support your claims. Every day 77Ws and 787s take off full of profitable passengers side by side with 330s, 350s and 380s....how do you reconcile that fact with your position?

To be honest, AC's YVR-BNE route (14.5hrs in a 789) wasn't that bad. I'm 6'1", and didn't have any issues with fellow pax. Maybe I'm just lucky...

Planetalk wrote:

It's quite funny watching people repeatedly say things like 'Nowhere in any of the years soince all of these models been for sale is there a shred of evidence that seat width matters to customer' even while Boeing, the people who make the planes have themselves decided to invest a load of money in, erm, making seats wider. It's quie incredible that people believe Boeing are doing this for every possible reason, except seat width, the actual reason Boeing have said they're doing it. Of course no-one has been able to provide one public quote or any substantiation for all these other real reasons for it. If Boeing was saving a lot of weight, doing it for structural reasons or whatever, they would say so. You don't change a plane's structure for the fun of it. BA decided to change the seats for the 787-9 so bad was customer reaction.

Let us see the alternate truth for this slide by the Boeing fanboys

Planetalk wrote:

Why do they need to keep the real reason a secret here?

No secret, just simple marketing.

Another common one you'll hear from Boeing is "Investing in new technologies!" when what they're primarily doing is looking to lower mtx cycles and airframe cost over lifetime, above all else.

Planetalk wrote:

The information isn't that easy to find, especially for non-experts

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?

Planetalk wrote:

As discusssed above, they rely on pax not being informed of the differences.

As discussed above, that's a fallacy that only exists as a problem in the mind of aviation geeks. If it truly was an issue in the market, the spend would reflect it. There's no way around that.

wingman wrote:

Exactly Planesmart, customer feedback matters more than anything else, especially when it results in $20B widebody contracts. That's why Boeing, and Airbus, both listen to their customers. Look at Prebe's post just above yours, Boeing is spending say $10B on a whole slew of cost effective upgrades that already have yielded in a few years nearly the number of orders the 380 has garnered in 15. Thinning the sidewalls has to be amongst the cheapest of the upgrades. Christ, the wing alone must be 60% at least with a whole new plant to build. Point is, the customers writing the checks, they don't seem to care much about the 0.8 inches. And neither do the punters. You keep pointing out anecdotal evidence like BA, but big picture it's a random piece of flimsy circumstantial "proof" that does nothing to support your claims. Every day 77Ws and 787s take off full of profitable passengers side by side with 330s, 350s and 380s....how do you reconcile that fact with your position?

^ This.

DL_Mech wrote:

I wonder why no one has copied the L-1011 design of "stringerless sidewalls" and "tapered fuselage frames." Both can be seen here: ...

Great picture...worth a 1000 words! Probably close to what B is doing on 777X. Lockheed was ahead of their time. L1011 shows, sadly, that elegant design does not always win in the marketplace.

prebennorholm wrote:

...It is unbelievable that Boeing didn't use this opportunity to update the 777 to compete on level terms with the competition. The main fuselage barrel is a totally new structure. If they only had widened it some 10 inches, instead of keeping the exact same outer diameter on the otherwise totally new fuselage barrel.

Non-starter! That is a whole different airplane you are describing...you can't change the diameter even a few inches without revisiting wing box, landing gear, weight, engines , etc. That would be billions more and I'm not sure a twin widebody can get much wider than a 777 without the aerodynamic and weight penalty killing the economics.

But my vote is for max 8-across Y in 787 and A350 (I'm a dreamer!) and max 9-across 777...we A.Netters will rise up in righteous anger if we don't get our way !!

For Boeing and the airlines operating the narrow seats it's of vital importance not to inform / confuse the passengers. By not mentioning it, promoting "new" seats, great IFE, cabin air, big window, young fleet, etc. So far this seems to have worked successfully. But they aren't introducing economy plus / wasting space for nothing. I'll try to work out the personal space score, to maybe create objective transparency.

DL_Mech wrote:

I wonder why no one has copied the L-1011 design of "stringerless sidewalls" and "tapered fuselage frames." Both can be seen here:
Fuselage-Barrel-Section.jpg

Interesting details. It is not stringerless overall but the window belt is stringerless.
design wise it is a stiff crown and belly shell connected by soft(er) sidewalls ( window belt ).
is this style "failsave"?

The reality seems to be that most passengers don't know what aircraft they are travelling on. They probably notice the difference between a A380 and a 777, but between a 787/350/330 and a 777 very few would. We do of course, because that is our interest.

Although the reviews on sites such as seatguru for most airlines 787's, in Y are mainly bad, I doubt that will make much difference. The A350 reviews seem slightly better, but will that help Airbus? I doubt it somehow.

Perhaps it is Airbus who have got it wrong and should have made the A350 wide enough for 10 abreast. Time will tell, but SQ's 777X order if followed by too many others might answer that question. For me who knows a little, when I travel in Y, I look for an A380, 767, A330/340 or 747.