User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:50 pm

Most 787 operators utilize a 9-abreast configuration for their fleet, which according to the interwebz is pretty uncomfortable. Same can be said for 10-abreast 777s. Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration. My question is, could Boeing revamp the sidewalls on the 787 to make a 9-abreast configuration with 18-inch seats possible? Could that redesign even become a future retrofit option for current 787s; and a similar retrofit for the existing 777 frames to bring it up to par comfort-wise with the 777X? Precedent has been set with Boeing now offering Sky Interior retrofits to the 737.

Thanks!
And for my next miracle, I'm gonna turn water into funk!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:53 pm

Could they? Probably.

Is there sufficient financial incentive + timing for them to? Probably not, at least until an -NG/refresh of the 787 is called for. And with that model still selling well, new variants left to launch, and massive program debt.... it probably won't come any time soon.

Doubt they're particular worried about it at this point.
After all, it's only Y pax.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3318
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:54 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
My question is, could Boeing revamp the sidewalls on the 787 to make a 9-abreast configuration with 18-inch seats possible? Could that redesign even become a future retrofit option for current 787s; and a similar retrofit for the existing 777 frames to bring it up to par comfort-wise with the 777X? Precedent has been set with Boeing now offering Sky Interior retrofits to the 737.

Thanks!

They don't really need to. It can have 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests(like on the A350) with 17 inch aisles. Or if they want to make all things even and have 18 inch aisles as well, then they have to widen the cabin by only 2 inches.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:09 pm

Cabin interior panels are only the surface of what you see. Behind them is insulation and frames and stringers holding the fuselage together. To get a wider fuselage interior, the 777x has re shaped the frames. These are the structural pieces holding the airplane together. You can't retrofit smaller frames. The stress calculations would be exorbitant and such a modification would be practically impossible.

This is what a conventional fuselage (747) looks like with no sidewall panels or insulation

Image

Composite planes still have the same structural shape. In between windows are structural pieces which dictate how far the sidewall panels are from the fuselage skin. Shrinking this space is virtually impossible on an existing plane

Image
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:11 pm

I doubt that any fat can be carved out of the 787 sidewalls without a major revisit to the structure of the aircraft. That plane was designed and built well after the 777 was up and running, so Boeing would have already made any insulation and structure as thin as they could without compromising comfort. They had experience on the 777 to call upon and wanted to save every last ounce of weight. Maybe materials could be revisited though, if newer insulation is becoming available that weighs less and is much thinner.

The A330 is even worse. 9 abreast on an Airbus A330 (or 340 although I don't know of any of those being fitted like that) is torturous. Even a few inches out of the sidewall wouldn't improve matters there; it's just not 'right' in 3-3-3 format.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:22 pm

One of the risks of increasing passenger space is the temptation for airlines to use it to squeeze in more passengers. Back when the 7E7 was announced, the Boeing claim was that the biggest passenger complaint was the desire for individual armrests. This was supposed to be accomplished with 8 abreast seating in the 787 but in the end, almost none of the airlines used it and nearly all went to 9 abreast.

I do not think the airlines feel that economy seat size makes much difference to passenger preference. They just look for the lowest fares. The A320 series has wider seats than the 737 but that does not prevent the 737 from dominating narrow body flying in the United States. Getting an extra half inch of seating space is probably not going to have much impact on aircraft sales, particularly of the existing models.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:04 pm

I did a 10+ hrs flight a week ago. No night rest, because fellow cramped passengers can't avoid touching you.

The airlines operating those narrow 787/777 seats and Boeing have no other option then to suggest there's no real problem, say the entertainment and windows are great, and hope it goes away.

Against a background of undeniable feedback from passenger surveys and investing a billion to widen the 777x cabin.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4110
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:51 pm

keesje wrote:
I did a 10+ hrs flight a week ago. No night rest, because fellow cramped passengers can't avoid touching you.

The airlines operating those narrow 787/777 seats and Boeing have no other option then to suggest there's no real problem, say the entertainment and windows are great, and hope it goes away.

Against a background of undeniable feedback from passenger surveys and investing a billion to widen the 777x cabin.


I did 3-4-3 on a 777 for the first time last month, TPE-LAX. It wasn't as bad as I expected. Granted, myself and my two seat mates were all fairly slender so that helped. I was at the window.

it was tolerable and I slept fine.

3-3-3 on the 787 and 3-4-3 on the 777 were intended as high density holiday charter type configurations. The airlines got greedy and decided to do this for all of their routes.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:54 pm

AADC10 wrote:
The A320 series has wider seats than the 737 but that does not prevent the 737 from dominating narrow body flying in the United States

Because the 737 has a home advantage in the US? In Europe there are probably more A320's flying.
 
PlaneAdmirer
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:00 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Cabin interior panels are only the surface of what you see. Behind them is insulation and frames and stringers holding the fuselage together. To get a wider fuselage interior, the 777x has re shaped the frames. These are the structural pieces holding the airplane together. You can't retrofit smaller frames. The stress calculations would be exorbitant and such a modification would be practically impossible.

This is what a conventional fuselage (747) looks like with no sidewall panels or insulation

Image

Composite planes still have the same structural shape. In between windows are structural pieces which dictate how far the sidewall panels are from the fuselage skin. Shrinking this space is virtually impossible on an existing plane

Image


What's with the massive spider in the picture? Is the goal to get people who suffer from arachnophobia to also be afraid of flying?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:08 pm

PlaneAdmirer wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Cabin interior panels are only the surface of what you see. Behind them is insulation and frames and stringers holding the fuselage together. To get a wider fuselage interior, the 777x has re shaped the frames. These are the structural pieces holding the airplane together. You can't retrofit smaller frames. The stress calculations would be exorbitant and such a modification would be practically impossible.

This is what a conventional fuselage (747) looks like with no sidewall panels or insulation

Image

Composite planes still have the same structural shape. In between windows are structural pieces which dictate how far the sidewall panels are from the fuselage skin. Shrinking this space is virtually impossible on an existing plane

Image


What's with the massive spider in the picture? Is the goal to get people who suffer from arachnophobia to also be afraid of flying?

That's of the NASA 747s, SCA I believe. The rear pressure bulkhead looks like a spider web. Someone put the spider there for humor.
And for my next miracle, I'm gonna turn water into funk!
 
ikolkyo
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:09 pm

I feel it's just completely overblown.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:20 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration.

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? As someone who travels mostly in economy I always prefer an A330 over a 777 or 787 because of the 2-4-2 seating plan. Being only one seat away from the aisle makes all the diference to me. So when I flew with my brother on the Swiss 777 last year I was very happy to have secured one of the few double seats in the last rows.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:26 pm

Nobody cares about how Y pax feel about their seats.


Air travel is a commodity. They shop by price, period.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:28 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration.

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? As someone who travels mostly in economy I always prefer an A330 over a 777 or 787 because of the 2-4-2 seating plan. Being only one seat away from the aisle makes all the diference to me. So when I flew with my brother on the Swiss 777 last year I was very happy to have secured one of the few double seats in the last rows.

I completely agree, but hindsight is 20/20.
And for my next miracle, I'm gonna turn water into funk!
 
airzona11
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:35 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration.

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? As someone who travels mostly in economy I always prefer an A330 over a 777 or 787 because of the 2-4-2 seating plan. Being only one seat away from the aisle makes all the diference to me. So when I flew with my brother on the Swiss 777 last year I was very happy to have secured one of the few double seats in the last rows.


They did design it better and it is why those planes are so popular. Both planes are incredibly efficient, money making machines.

Every 2 days we talk about it on Anet. If you are such savvy AvGeeks, book around them, or do as you did and book the "better" econ seats. Or if you really are such a sophisticated traveler, buy PY, J or F. You have options. Heck you have all those options on the very same much maligned "777 and 787 @10 and 9 abreast"

One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat? They could have, and there would be a lot less 77Ws and a lot more A346s/744s still flying. Let me rephrase, "Shouldn't they sell a plane that is more limited in revenue capability?"
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:45 pm

airzona11 wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration.

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? As someone who travels mostly in economy I always prefer an A330 over a 777 or 787 because of the 2-4-2 seating plan. Being only one seat away from the aisle makes all the diference to me. So when I flew with my brother on the Swiss 777 last year I was very happy to have secured one of the few double seats in the last rows.


They did design it better and it is why those planes are so popular. Both planes are incredibly efficient, money making machines.

Every 2 days we talk about it on Anet. If you are such savvy AvGeeks, book around them, or do as you did and book the "better" econ seats. Or if you really are such a sophisticated traveler, buy PY, J or F. You have options. Heck you have all those options on the very same much maligned "777 and 787 @10 and 9 abreast"

One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat? They could have, and there would be a lot less 77Ws and a lot more A346s/744s still flying. Let me rephrase, "Shouldn't they sell a plane that is more limited in revenue capability?"

To be fair, I myself am not saying they suck. I've flown on UAs 787s and it was OK (I'm a big guy (6'2" 260 but not obese) and it was similar to flying on a 737. And I've never flown on a 10-abreast 777, but I have on the 744 and A380. I just made the thread to see if Boeing could upgrade the cabin on later frames.
And for my next miracle, I'm gonna turn water into funk!
 
Gasman
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:55 pm

Let's make one thing clear - 9 abreast on a 787 is better than 10 on a 777, for any given pitch and seat width. With 10 abreast, the middle block of four sucks. Having more bodies around you sucks. And given the fixed twin aisle format, 10 abreast puts more pressure on overhead bin space than does 9.

I recently did AKL-LAX-AKL on AA's 788 in "Economy plus". 9 abreast, but a generous 36" pitch. It was brilliant. I got more sleep than I usually do lying flat in J.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:06 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
airzona11 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? As someone who travels mostly in economy I always prefer an A330 over a 777 or 787 because of the 2-4-2 seating plan. Being only one seat away from the aisle makes all the diference to me. So when I flew with my brother on the Swiss 777 last year I was very happy to have secured one of the few double seats in the last rows.


They did design it better and it is why those planes are so popular. Both planes are incredibly efficient, money making machines.

Every 2 days we talk about it on Anet. If you are such savvy AvGeeks, book around them, or do as you did and book the "better" econ seats. Or if you really are such a sophisticated traveler, buy PY, J or F. You have options. Heck you have all those options on the very same much maligned "777 and 787 @10 and 9 abreast"

One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat? They could have, and there would be a lot less 77Ws and a lot more A346s/744s still flying. Let me rephrase, "Shouldn't they sell a plane that is more limited in revenue capability?"

To be fair, I myself am not saying they suck. I've flown on UAs 787s and it was OK (I'm a big guy (6'2" 260 but not obese) and it was similar to flying on a 737. And I've never flown on a 10-abreast 777, but I have on the 744 and A380. I just made the thread to see if Boeing could upgrade the cabin on later frames.


I think it is a fair question to ask. If you have never seen an airplane behind the sidewall panels, I can understand asking if it is possible to widen the interior. The sky interior does not actually widen the cabin, but it is more of a cosmetic change.

The thing with this subject though is that economy seat width gets brought up in almost every 787 or 777 thread that has a decent number of posts. It is a discussion that never ends with some people thinking it is a bigger deal than others. I am convinced some people bring tape measures on board and claim to notice fractions of an inch. To add to this, Airbus marketing really pushes the economy seat width debate since it is in many of their marketing presentations. This exacerbates the partisan A vs B discussions, which add another layer and can make it hard to have a meaningful discussion.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:14 pm

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:23 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration.

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.

If anything, they likely wish they would've made it WIDER from the start, in retrospect; as they wouldn't have to pay any associated costs down the road, and it leaves the competitive option of an additional seat per row-- which is one of (if not THE) main things currently saving the 777's arse from being outright obliterated by the A350 right now.


Varsity1 wrote:
Nobody cares about how Y pax feel about their seats.

This.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
MooLor
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:13 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:35 am

keesje wrote:
I did a 10+ hrs flight a week ago. No night rest, because fellow cramped passengers can't avoid touching you.

The airlines operating those narrow 787/777 seats and Boeing have no other option then to suggest there's no real problem, say the entertainment and windows are great, and hope it goes away.

Against a background of undeniable feedback from passenger surveys and investing a billion to widen the 777x cabin.


Well I recently booked SYD - LHR & MUC - BKK for my family and myself, in Y on QR. I very carefully chose flights that are not scheduled to use 777 or 787, in order to avoid those cramped configs. I even elected to take a longer transit time at DOH to avoid 777 to LHR.

I know airlines invest a lot in data warehousing / data mining. They have got to know pax are avoiding the more cramped configs, but are pax doing so in great enough numbers to make a difference?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:36 am

MooLor wrote:
keesje wrote:
I did a 10+ hrs flight a week ago. No night rest, because fellow cramped passengers can't avoid touching you.

The airlines operating those narrow 787/777 seats and Boeing have no other option then to suggest there's no real problem, say the entertainment and windows are great, and hope it goes away.

Against a background of undeniable feedback from passenger surveys and investing a billion to widen the 777x cabin.


Well I recently booked SYD - LHR & MUC - BKK for my family and myself, in Y on QR. I very carefully chose flights that are not scheduled to use 777 or 787, in order to avoid those cramped configs. I even elected to take a longer transit time at DOH to avoid 777 to LHR.

I know airlines invest a lot in data warehousing / data mining. They have got to know pax are avoiding the more cramped configs, but are pax doing so in great enough numbers to make a difference?


I do too. But imagine you bought a 787 fleet and now passenger keep complaining, avoiding etc. After you identified its an issue, what is the solution? . So far ignoring the issue (publicly), diverting attention, everybody does it, great IFE, has been the "solutions".
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
wingman
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:29 am

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23717
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:54 am

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?


Yes they could have, but it would have reduced the economic usable life of the airframe. One of the main reasons 777s are still flying in a world with more efficient A330s, A350s and 787s is because operators have gone from 9-abreast to 10-abreast.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:08 am

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.


It's neither.

The change is to improve manufacturability. The classic 777 fuse design did not anticipate the manufacturing volumes that occurred 10-20 years later. Current system is very labor intensive and inefficient for the volumes being produced.

The 777 NG (aka -8 -9) is optimizing the design for manufacturing cost. Newer insulation strategies & materials and better FEM optimization allow for these improved pax comfort features with little weight and in an more cost-effective way.

-Larger Windows
-Lower Altitude Cabin (higher pressure)
-Cabin width optimization (to get those extra easy inches of width)

These improvements are the icing to the manufacturability cake. Make no mistake, the new "design" is an investment that's planned to pay back quickly with reduced manufacturing costs.

PS: Boeing also did this same "fuselage manufacturing optimization" when switching from 737 Classic to NG.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:21 am

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. :)
 
Btblue
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:57 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:23 am

I've just flown Qatar 787, 777 and A380 Economy and business.

777 economy and 787 was awful. Bumping, touching - really conscious of it and couldn't sleep. I came off those aircraft primising never to fly that configuration again if I could avoid it. Legroom was fine, just the constant moving to get comfortable and bumping into your neighbour was irritating. Total body spamming, really not ideal and the aisles were incredibly tight. I did wonder how dangerous they would be in an emergency.

I changed connected at Diha to the A380 and in comparison economy on that was luxury. So much room, you really felt the difference. Just a shame it has those God awful windows. I sat there thinking the A380 could go 11 abreast if they upgrade the aircraft. Reduce sidewalls, lift the cabin floor etc... But this windows. Urgh.
146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:37 am

817Dreamliiner wrote:
They don't really need to. It can have 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests(like on the A350) with 17 inch aisles. Or if they want to make all things even and have 18 inch aisles as well, then they have to widen the cabin by only 2 inches.


How can they do the same as the A350 if the fuselage cross section narrower ?
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
anrec80
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:04 am

AADC10 wrote:
I do not think the airlines feel that economy seat size makes much difference to passenger preference. They just look for the lowest fares. The A320 series has wider seats than the 737 but that does not prevent the 737 from dominating narrow body flying in the United States. Getting an extra half inch of seating space is probably not going to have much impact on aircraft sales, particularly of the existing models.


Except that here we are talking about 2-3 hour sectors, not 12 or 15 hour ones.
 
anrec80
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:28 am

Varsity1 wrote:
Nobody cares about how Y pax feel about their seats.
Air travel is a commodity. They shop by price, period.


Not my observation. I generally try to avoid 3-4-3 777 and 787. And I noticed that frequently fares are higher on flights operated by 330, 748, 380 and seat availability are rather limited. And - cheapest flights do tend to be 3-4-3 77W or 787. So it does look like this has impact on yields, or at least starts to have one.

airzona11 wrote:

One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat? They could have, and there would be a lot less 77Ws and a lot more A346s/744s still flying. Let me rephrase, "Shouldn't they sell a plane that is more limited in revenue capability?"


Not necessarily. Even a 3-3-3 77W (as they are designed to have been for long haul routes) is a magnificently efficient people mover, and has phased out 744/346 before they are all gone 3-4-3. I think out-regulation of things like 3-4-3 777 or 3-3-3 787 would have been perfectly appropriate.

MooLor wrote:
I know airlines invest a lot in data warehousing / data mining. They have got to know pax are avoiding the more cramped configs, but are pax doing so in great enough numbers to make a difference?


Well, even if the data shows that a 3-3-3 77W can generate for their route network a higher yield - how can they justify lowering capacity for the same fixed costs to their shareholders/bean counters? In this case, for example, EY will need to operate "premium" 3-3-3 flights under their brand, and "low-cost" 3-4-3 ones need to be "outsourced" to a subsidiary, not unlike Cathay Pacific/DragonAir. The latter will require separate brand creation, maintenance, marketing, etc. And those are major expenses.

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.
Last edited by anrec80 on Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3318
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 am

zeke wrote:
817Dreamliiner wrote:
They don't really need to. It can have 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests(like on the A350) with 17 inch aisles. Or if they want to make all things even and have 18 inch aisles as well, then they have to widen the cabin by only 2 inches.


How can they do the same as the A350 if the fuselage cross section narrower ?

The seat specified in Airbus' A350 ACAP is 60.11 inches. The 787 seat in Boeing's ACAP is 59.6 inches. If you use 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests, which Airbus specifies in their ACAP, you get 60 inches flat. Put 3 of those together with two 17 inch aisles you get 214 inches. 787 cabin is 216 inches.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
reidar76
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:00 am

Singapore Airlines recently placed an order for more 787-10. They haven't yet any 787 in operation, and I haven't seen any announcement concerning 787 cabin layout. Their large 777 fleet is all comfortable 9 abreast in Y, with 18.5 inch wide seats. The 787-10 will replace many 777-200 aircraft.

I wonder if a premium airline like Singapore Airlines, well known for their excellent comfort and service level in all classes, will go for 9 abreast on the 787-10. If they do, it will be the most cramped Y-cabin they ever have had on offer. I think their brand will be unreparably damaged. A Y-seat in their 777 will be like a Y+ seat in their 787s. Will their regular, loyal customers accept same fare while being downgraded a class?

Anyone heard any news about cabin layout for Singapore Airlines? Will they go 9 abreast?

With 9 abreast in Y on the 787, airlines can have the same seats as on their 737s. The aisles will be ever so slightly narrower onboard the 787, so if the 787 was a short range or regional aircraft, we wouldn't need to discuss seat widths.

The problem is that premium legacy carriers are configuring their 787 with the same comfort level as LCC and charter operators. That has never happened before, and is quite unique to the 787. Few airlines are more premium in all classes than Singapore Airlines, so it will be important to see what they do. Others might follow them.
 
User avatar
PHBVF
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:45 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:28 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
I did a 10+ hrs flight a week ago. No night rest, because fellow cramped passengers can't avoid touching you.

The airlines operating those narrow 787/777 seats and Boeing have no other option then to suggest there's no real problem, say the entertainment and windows are great, and hope it goes away.

Against a background of undeniable feedback from passenger surveys and investing a billion to widen the 777x cabin.


I did 3-4-3 on a 777 for the first time last month, TPE-LAX. It wasn't as bad as I expected. Granted, myself and my two seat mates were all fairly slender so that helped. I was at the window.

it was tolerable and I slept fine.

3-3-3 on the 787 and 3-4-3 on the 777 were intended as high density holiday charter type configurations. The airlines got greedy and decided to do this for all of their routes.


I'don't say passengers got cheap....
Licensed 737 driver
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:10 am

817Dreamliiner wrote:
The seat specified in Airbus' A350 ACAP is 60.11 inches. The 787 seat in Boeing's ACAP is 59.6 inches. If you use 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests, which Airbus specifies in their ACAP, you get 60 inches flat. Put 3 of those together with two 17 inch aisles you get 214 inches. 787 cabin is 216 inches.


Still does not answer the question, how can it be the same as the A350 as you stated if the 787 cabin is not as wide ?

Something has to be different !!!!!

The A350 has a wider cabin, a set of 3 seats is 60.11", an isle of 18.1" means to fit 9 across they need 216.5" at floor level.

According to the 787 ACAPS they only have (59.6"x3)+(18"x2) means to fit 9 across they need 214.8" at floor level.

The main difference is at shoulder height where the side wall curvature eats into the cabin more..
Last edited by zeke on Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
WIederling
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:17 am

PlaneAdmirer wrote:
What's with the massive spider in the picture? Is the goal to get people who suffer from arachnophobia to also be afraid of flying?


Remedial action towards fear of flying.

Like strong pains you can only concentrate on one fear at a time.

:-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3318
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:24 am

zeke wrote:
817Dreamliiner wrote:
The seat specified in Airbus' A350 ACAP is 60.11 inches. The 787 seat in Boeing's ACAP is 59.6 inches. If you use 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests, which Airbus specifies in their ACAP, you get 60 inches flat. Put 3 of those together with two 17 inch aisles you get 214 inches. 787 cabin is 216 inches.


Still does not answer the question, how can it be the same as the A350 as you stated if the 787 cabin is not as wide ?

Something has to be different !!!!!

The A350 has a wider cabin, a set of 3 seats is 60.11", an isle of 18.1" means to fit 9 across they need 216.5" at floor level.

According to the 787 ACAPS they only have 206.7" (56.9"x3)+(18"x2).

Therefore in reality there is about 10" difference hence the smaller seats on the 787. the main difference is at shoulder height where the side wall curvature eats into the cabin more..

Same seat dimensions as the A350. Read my first post again:

817Dreamliiner wrote:
It can have 18 inch seats with 1.5 inch armrests(like on the A350) with 17 inch aisles.


And the 787 ACAP has 59.6, I don't know where you are getting 56.9 from.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
WIederling
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:33 am

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.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:37 am

817Dreamliiner wrote:
Same seat dimensions as the A350. Read my first post again:


You will not get it as the A350 cabin is 5" wider at the shoulder height.

817Dreamliiner wrote:
And the 787 ACAP has 59.6, I don't know where you are getting 56.9 from.


It was a 9.6 to 6.9 typo that I had fixed before you submitted your reply.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
enzo011
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:59 am

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

If anything, they likely wish they would've made it WIDER from the start, in retrospect; as they wouldn't have to pay any associated costs down the road, and it leaves the competitive option of an additional seat per row-- which is one of (if not THE) main things currently saving the 777's arse from being outright obliterated by the A350 right now.



Do you mean the ability to fit two LD3's next to each other when talking about cargo ability? Seeing as we have 4 different designs that all fit the same cargo size in the hold and the only difference between them is the length available to fit in the LD3 containers or pallets, which is different due to the wing box designs of the OEMs and their designs, would this indicate that the A300 cross section is the most efficient, at least from a cargo capacity side?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13938
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:01 am

LAX772LR wrote:
CDoubt 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? :scratchchin:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Strato2
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:03 am

zeke wrote:
Something has to be different !!!!!


Alternative facts you know.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:55 am

“We think there’s ways to provide more space and a bigger cabin for the customer without changing the outside dimensions of the airplane” as far as width goes, Tinseth said. “We’re looking for a more comfortable 10-abreast.”

I think it takes a high level of Brand loyalty and intelectual flexibility to ignore the thousands of 787 / 777 10 abreast trip reports by a global public on dozens of carriers, plus airlines like BA admitting and Boeing spending on the 777x. Boeing Fanboyism by folks that willfully choose to ignore, confuse by publishing half truths and tiring personal attacks by Newbiepilot to anyone addressing what he doesn't like. For me, and apparently others, I just avoid the narrower seat without a discount flights as much as possible.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:10 pm

To be fair to Boeing I don't believe they ever intended to make Y seats as narrow as they are.

If I am correct they initially launched the 747 at X9 with 18.5.They certainly did this for the 777 and indeed the initial 787 with X8 at 18.5".
It is the airlines that have chosen to 'cram 'em in'.
With the 777X they saw the writing on the wall and did something about it (whilst improving manufacturing techniques).

However...Whilst they claim (the possibility of) 18" seats.It comes at the expense of (minimum width) aisles (and thin armrests).I wonder how many airlines will choose such a narrow aisles for such long journeys? But let's hope that 18" does happen on this aircraft.

Note.For me it's not the 17" seat per se that is the main issue.Its the reduced shoulder width that comes with it.It doesn't matter on 1-4 hour narrow bodied aircraft (much).But very different on a 9 hour sleeper flight!
IMHO this is a real A380 usp and a key reason that Emirates have avoided the attractive notion of a 'So called' 18" X11 seating config.But who knows one day even they may be forced to go down that route (after introducing Y+ ??).
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:26 pm

keesje wrote:
I did a 10+ hrs flight a week ago. No night rest, because fellow cramped passengers can't avoid touching you.

The airlines operating those narrow 787/777 seats and Boeing have no other option then to suggest there's no real problem, say the entertainment and windows are great, and hope it goes away.

Against a background of undeniable feedback from passenger surveys and investing a billion to widen the 777x cabin.


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.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:07 pm

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.
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

Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:41 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Boeing is learning from the negative passenger feedback about the cramped cabin of the 777 and 787, and making the sidewalls of the 777X thinner to allow for a comfortable 18-inch seat in a 10-abreast configuration.

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.

Varsity1 wrote:
Nobody cares about how Y pax feel about their seats.

This.


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

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?

As some more enlightenes posters have noted in previous discussions, it is not at all proven that pax demand tight seating for lower fares. The way plane tickets are sold creates an extremely inefficient market, anyone who believes in an efficient optimal market should be campaigning for better information for pax at point of sale. I thought most Americans believed in market solutions? We've seen Boeing invest in actually changing the shape of a plane, by their own admission to make it more comfortable. And BA change the seats in their 787s because they were getting so many complaints. But no, 'pax don't care'. Isn't it good when businesses respond to customer concerns?

I was recently forced from an LH A340 onto an AV 787 from Europe to Bogota due to a delay meaning I missed my connection in FRA and got re-routed. A flight I had been very much looking forward to turned into a very unpleasant experience. At shoulder level the difference is particularly marked. But hey, those of you who don't notice can continue to enjoy that for 15 hours while I fly on a more comfortable airbus for the same price.

I personally am an aviation fan, and find it sad his many people are gleeful about aviation becoming less and less pleasant and the general public feeling more and more disdain for.
 
LXwing
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:32 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:15 pm

keesje wrote:
“We think there’s ways to provide more space and a bigger cabin for the customer without changing the outside dimensions of the airplane” as far as width goes, Tinseth said. “We’re looking for a more comfortable 10-abreast.”

I think it takes a high level of Brand loyalty and intelectual flexibility to ignore the thousands of 787 / 777 10 abreast trip reports by a global public on dozens of carriers, plus airlines like BA admitting and Boeing spending on the 777x. Boeing Fanboyism by folks that willfully choose to ignore, confuse by publishing half truths and tiring personal attacks by Newbiepilot to anyone addressing what he doesn't like. For me, and apparently others, I just avoid the narrower seat without a discount flights as much as possible.

:checkmark:
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:24 pm

Planetalk wrote:
As some more enlightenes posters have noted in previous discussions, it is not at all proven that pax demand tight seating for lower fares. The way plane tickets are sold creates an extremely inefficient market, anyone who believes in an efficient optimal market should be campaigning for better information for pax at point of sale. I thought most Americans believed in market solutions? We've seen Boeing invest in actually changing the shape of a plane, by their own admission to make it more comfortable. And BA change the seats in their 787s because they were getting so many complaints. But no, 'pax don't care'. Isn't it good when businesses respond to customer concerns?.


When investing into a new aircraft the selection in most cases is very numerical, it is very difficult to quantify "comfort" in economy. Airlines do quantify different fare classes and products like business, premium economy, and economy but it is very difficult to quantify 1" of bottom, shoulder, or knees room in economy, unless for example you say lets squeeze more people in and see how many seats you have available. Looking at the way most airfare search engines list available itineraries, the popular choices seem to be by minimum overall trip time, minimum number of connections, and minimum cost. If seems to be the model if you want "comfort" you need to pay for a premium product. It does not take a genius to see which parts of the world have been driving "customer pays for what it uses" vs "service and quality". Unfortunately those parts of the world that have "service and quality" and being forced to compete on price with "customer pays for what it uses".

Personally I am like you, I like to know what I am getting into at the time of purchase. When I go to a restaurant I like to see the price advertised and know that is what I will pay. In other parts of the world, you have the sticker price, add tax, and then are forced to pay a "tip". You will get people defending that model saying it is an "an efficient optimal market", I think it is a con.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:10 pm

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.

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