Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:58 am

keesje wrote:
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.


This is not just a Boeing problem. Read Air Transat's claim regarding their 9 abreast configuration A330

Our Economy Class offers a warm welcome and personalized service, with unparalleled comfort, ergonomic Italian-leather seats, a dedicated crew and an inflight entertainment system. Enjoy a whole new experience on one of our wide-body Airbus aircraft!

Unparalleled comfort with the narrowest seat in the industry. Yet they still win awards? Marketing claims don't really match reality.

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ai ... 82411.html
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:21 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
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.


This is not just a Boeing problem. Read Air Transat's claim regarding their 9 abreast configuration A330

Our Economy Class offers a warm welcome and personalized service, with unparalleled comfort, ergonomic Italian-leather seats, a dedicated crew and an inflight entertainment system. Enjoy a whole new experience on one of our wide-body Airbus aircraft!

Unparalleled comfort with the narrowest seat in the industry. Yet they still win awards?

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ai ... 82411.html


Don't confuse, on leisure it's different, price, expectations are different. It's about mainline silently downgrading to narrow seats, without informing but confusing passengers. That just ain't right. :bitelip:

You are correct it is not exclusively a Boeing issue. Carriers specifying 9 abreast on the A300/A330, 10 abreast on the A350. 11 on A380; the jury is out, lot's of space left there. 8 abreast on the 767 is also put there on leisure.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:33 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
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.


Look, even if a company does something for cost reasons, but is able to market it as a product improvement, they still at least tell someone, their investors, clients (airlines), the real reason they are doing it. I think we can safely say that all evidence points to Boeing making their plane wider for the reasons they stated. The various other improvements people mention, such as larger windows, could have been done on a narrower frame. If you can't source something, just drop it.

LAX772LR wrote:
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?


Oh this is so tiresome. I'll say this one last time, if people keep coming back with the same incorrect information, well it's more than my job's worth trying to put them right. Please show me anywhere, where people can compare airline comfort across airlines and choices at the point of sale? Despite it having been shown that many airlines do not have any of this information on their websites, including the first 3 I looked at, we have people saying they do.

A third party website, that people have to search for using techincal information does not pass any definition of transparency and full information in the market. Many people won't even know the term 'seat pitch' so would not be able to do your 'simple search', in which case it's impossible. Then there is the fact that seatguru is often wrong, has multiple versions of aircraft...the market is not providing the einformation at present.

But passengers would be able to compare two numbers provided with the other information. Honestly, why is it even controversial? Can you accept that that would be an improvement and would enable a more informed choice? I would think it would be interesting for all of us to see how significant the effect was if such informaton was provided and people could compare and even search by comfort, without having to know technical information or scour various possibly inaccurate third party websites. It would mean we could settled this debate for one thing, which I'm sure would be a relief for us all.


LAX772LR wrote:
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.


The market isn't functioning efficiently, it isn't an issue because passengers are denied the opportunity to express any preference around comfort. You've been told that enough times. I'd suggest going and doing some reading on assymetric information then come back.

In any case, the market has identified it as an issue no? that's why boeing is making it's seats wider. Perhaps we finally hit the turning point. After years of everyone saying 'the market would do something if it mattered', now the market does something and people come up with all sorts of excuses for why it doesn't count.

LAX772LR wrote:
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.
[/quote]

That quote rather contradicts itself, first it says they are spending some amount on thinning the sidewalls because they listened to their customers who told them they should thin the sidewalls. To make the seats wider presumably. It may not be a particularly large part of investment in the airframe, the point is Boeing have decided it's worth spending money on. Then the post turns around and says the customers, who are paying for that investment, don't care? So which is it? As for BA, yes it's one data point, but as with Boeing we know the reasoning, it's on pupblic record. Or was this also some secret weight saving measure the airline for some reason doesn't want to tell anyone about.

All this says to me is is matters by some unknown amount, and it would therefore be better if it was made easy for passengers to choose by comfort if they wish. Some will, some won't, it would be interesting to see. How can anyone have a problem with that? I'm not saying the 787 shouldn't exist ir this will drive it out of business, just that it is less pleasant, and perhaps unnecessarily so if planes can be perfectly efficient with a more comfortable interior. My hunch is that given what we are seeing with the 777X we won't see another plane for long haul with 787 seat width. But we'll have to wait a while for that. It's Sunday, have a good day :)
 
tjh8402
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:59 pm

cv990Coronado wrote:
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.


This has been my experience with most people. They know a 747 and A380. A few know the 787 because of all the hype but that's dying down. That's it.

cv990Coronado wrote:
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.


Airbus was pushing to get 10Y in at close to the 17" width that seems to be the minimum acceptable. Last article I saw on this was a few years ago and they were up to a 16.8-16.9 inch seat. I'm sure if they could find that extra couple tenths of an inch they would. Among others, it would probably seal the deal for the A350 vs the 787 at EK.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/06/1 ... mfortable/
 
tjh8402
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:17 pm

Planetalk wrote:

Oh this is so tiresome. I'll say this one last time, if people keep coming back with the same incorrect information, well it's more than my job's worth trying to put them right. Please show me anywhere, where people can compare airline comfort across airlines and choices at the point of sale? Despite it having been shown that many airlines do not have any of this information on their websites, including the first 3 I looked at, we have people saying they do.


Airlines tell their customers what they want to know. Hence why pretty much every flight search tells me at the point of sale whether or not the plane has wifi and what meals area available. United tells me if the plane has power outlets or DirectTV. Delta tells me all that plus whether there is AVOD is and if the plane has lie flat seats. All of these are comfort features. They just aren't the ones you want (width and pitch). My guess is that that the airlines have determined that these are the features customers want to know about and that does influence purchase decisions, so it's the information they provide. I'd be fine if airlines disclosed pitch and width there as well. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying I don't think it matter to most travelers, and to those that do, they know where to find the information they want.

By the way Delta, United, and American give pitch, width, and all the other features on their websites fleet info pages.

https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/exp ... planes.jsp
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... fault.aspx
http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/ ... craft.html
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:18 pm

tjh8402 wrote:
cv990Coronado wrote:
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.


This has been my experience with most people. They know a 747 and A380. A few know the 787 because of all the hype but that's dying down. That's it.

cv990Coronado wrote:
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.


Airbus was pushing to get 10Y in at close to the 17" width that seems to be the minimum acceptable. Last article I saw on this was a few years ago and they were up to a 16.8-16.9 inch seat. I'm sure if they could find that extra couple tenths of an inch they would. Among others, it would probably seal the deal for the A350 vs the 787 at EK.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/06/1 ... mfortable/


You have a very good point there, it could well help with EK, sadly a race to the bottom these days. Personally I have never been one for government interference, but there might come a time for legislation, for a minimum standard for transporting people, as there are for animals in most civilized countries.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:22 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
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.


This is not just a Boeing problem. Read Air Transat's claim regarding their 9 abreast configuration A330

Our Economy Class offers a warm welcome and personalized service, with unparalleled comfort, ergonomic Italian-leather seats, a dedicated crew and an inflight entertainment system. Enjoy a whole new experience on one of our wide-body Airbus aircraft!

Unparalleled comfort with the narrowest seat in the industry. Yet they still win awards?

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ai ... 82411.html


Don't confuse, on leisure it's different, price, expectations are different. It's about mainline silently downgrading to narrow seats, without informing but confusing passengers. That just ain't right. :bitelip:

You are correct it is not exclusively a Boeing issue. Carriers specifying 9 abreast on the A300/A330, 10 abreast on the A350. 11 on A380; the jury is out, lot's of space left there. 8 abreast on the 767 is also put there on leisure.


17 inch width has been a common seat width for decades so I don't agree that we need some declaration regarding seat width. Airbus has been making a big enough deal over seat width for a while. They did put the letters XWB after the A350 name after all.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:33 pm

I think Airbus and Boeing have nothing to hide. The airlines are responsible for specifying personal space.

In the past MD11, 747, 777, A340 offered wider seats than 787 and 777 10 abreast. But you know that don't you?

So are we witnessing a product downgrade without a discount to compensate? Well, yeah.

It amazing how people are not able to set aside preferences when the writing is all over the wall.

Instead looking for alternative facts, distractors, generalization, nit picks.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
wingman
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:51 pm

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

Zeke, come on man, you just encourage this pedantic argument. You're a friggin professional flying for an airline that itself flies 17.2" vs. 18" aircraft every single day to hundreds of destinations. You of all people should be able to provide the direct evidence we need to put this thread to bed. Do your 330s and 340s fly out a consistently higher loads than your 777s and 747s, did they ever? Does or did CX ever command a per seat pricing premium for that 0.8" of comfort bliss? I don't recall ever seeing a CX advert saying "Fly CX Economy and for just $50 extra dollars each way you can let your jiggly thighs roam free!". Come on man, admit the truth...it just doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

And that slide you showed..what number is it in the deck? When CX ordered the 777X I guarantee it had to be one of 60 and the other 97% had to do with relative weight loss efficiency, the wings, the new materials, the stretch, the barrel, the powerplants, the infinite financial analyses based on CX route structure...and yes, that slide about increased passenger comfort. Sit every CEO and Fleet Manager in a room and show them 25 reasons to buy the 777X or 787 or any plane on the market and I'd give you 2 to 1 odds not a single one says "seat width"! It's a factor only for a statistically insignificant number of people. And I guarantee Boeing didn't start out with the 777X on a blank canvas and the first diagram was an 18" seat and they then built the new plane around that seat. Just the reverse I bet, they did everything else first and then a light went off somewhere and an engineer said "hey guys, check it out, we can even get 10X now at 18"!". The wings, engines and materials drove the development and you know it because it's what drives development of every aircraft ever made.
 
WIederling
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
They did put the letters XWB after the A350 name after all.


That acronym stands for "Extra Wide Body" and not "Extra Wide Bootie" :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:59 pm

Planetalk wrote:
Look, even if a company does something for cost reasons, but is able to market it as a product improvement, they still at least tell someone, their investors, clients (airlines), the real reason they are doing it. I think we can safely say that all evidence points to Boeing making their plane wider for the reasons they stated. The various other improvements people mention, such as larger windows, could have been done on a narrower frame. If you can't source something, just drop it.

I'll talk about what I choose, thanks. If you elect to be THAT much of a sucker for marketing on the most basic level, that's your prerogative.


Planetalk wrote:
A third party website, that people have to search for using techincal information does not pass any definition of transparency and full information in the market.

I'm going to introduce you to a number, it's very round: "0"

That constitutes the aggregate sum of airlines, OEMs, and regulator bodies who give a flying f#ck as to what the likes of you believes constitutes "the definition of transparency."

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



Planetalk wrote:
But passengers would be able to compare two numbers provided with the other information. Honestly, why is it even controversial?

It's not, I'm just wondering how you can continue repeating the lie that it's someone unavailable for those who (actually) want it.



Planetalk wrote:
without having to know technical information

Which one doesn't. Contrary to your example, they don't need to be familiar with the word "pitch" to search seat spacing.



Planetalk wrote:
The market isn't functioning efficiently, it isn't an issue because passengers are denied the opportunity to express any preference around comfort. You've been told that enough times. I'd suggest going and doing some reading on assymetric information then come back.

And, as you've been responded to enough times, that's a fallacy that only exists in your imagination.


Planetalk wrote:
In any case, the market has identified it as an issue no? that's why boeing is making it's seats wider.

When did Boeing start making seats? (See how ridiculous it sounds when someone takes something out of its OBVIOUS context? Learn from it.)


Planetalk wrote:
Perhaps we finally hit the turning point. After years of everyone saying 'the market would do something if it mattered', now the market does something and people come up with all sorts of excuses for why it doesn't count.

Easy: because it's no example of a market correction.

Passengers radically shifting their travel patterns to airlines with 9abreast (and yes, they can figure it out). THAT would be an example.
Airlines radically shifting their buying patterns to aircraft that don't realistically offer a configuration option (yeah, right). THAt would be an example.

A modification, that serves multiple purposes, in an aircraft that's not going to even debut for another half-decade? Hardly.


keesje wrote:
So are we witnessing a product downgrade without a discount to compensate? Well, yeah.

You say that as if pax somehow have a right to such compensation. They don't.
The right that basic Y pax have is to a right to a seat + aisle that meets evacuation standards. That's it.

They don't owe you anything if parameters are changed, but still meet those criteria.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:25 pm

tjh8402 wrote:
I should add that I've queried several non avgeek friends and family after flights about seat comfort on itineraries of mixed planes. (...) No one has ever noticed the extra width in the A320.

Friends and relatives of mine however did notice the wider cabin of the A320 compared to the B737 and mentioned it to me even before I could ask them about their experience.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:29 pm

EK is running ads saying that their 10-abreast B777's "economy that feels like an upgrade".
https://www.facebook.com/Emirates/video ... 622703288/

Nowadays you can get away with anything.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14901
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:39 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
EK is running ads saying that their 10-abreast B777's "economy that feels like an upgrade".
https://www.facebook.com/Emirates/video ... 622703288/

Nowadays you can get away with anything.


Pretty much making the case that the actual specifications should be on the CRS, or at most one click away.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Swadian
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:13 pm

Still beating topic to death...
Viribus Unitis!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:27 pm

wingman wrote:
You're a friggin professional flying for an airline that itself flies 17.2" vs. 18" aircraft every single day to hundreds of destinations. an let your jiggly thighs roam free!". Come on man, admit the truth...it just doesn't really matter at the end of the day


We don't have any 17" seats, they left when the 744 was retired. One of the reasons the 787 was not selected at CX was that we could not offer a consistent product across types. E.g. You fly SFO-HKG in a 77W and then HKG-DEL in a 787 would require a different product.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6772
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:44 pm

Why, what seats have they put on the 777W that the OEM cannot place on the 787, does it have anything to do with how the 787 is built?
I'm thinking its a numbers game, if the 787 is configured with the same product the pax count will be too low to be economical?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:55 pm

Our 777s are 9 across, not 10. I was told you cannot get the same 777 seat in the 787 9 across.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6772
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:51 pm

Ah, ok, so more a numbers game, if they put the same seats in they will have to go 8 across and probably to low a pax count, would make for a more comfortable ride for the shorter trip.
Thanks
 
waly777
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:46 am

zeke wrote:
Our 777s are 9 across, not 10. I was told you cannot get the same 777 seat in the 787 9 across.


And yet CX is moving to 10Y in the 777. What happens to product consistency moving forward?

Smh, if it was half as bad as folks on this forum suggest, pax trends would indicate this via preference for wider seats and so far that is most certainly not the case.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/community/view ... oeing-777s
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:59 am

reidar76 wrote:
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.


Their Y product has 19-inch seats on the 77Ws. If they go 9-abreast on the 787-10s...and it's not SCOOT, I expect that it will be 17.5 inches, which it is on VS, KL, and BA. (Those 3 airlines, however, were already using 17.5 inch seats on long-haul planes, including KLM on a 10-abreast 777---it was the same on their 9-abreast 777, which BA still uses, meaning the width came out of the aisle.)

What would be interesting is if Japan Airlines went 10-abreast but kept their 34-inch seat pitch. A lot of airlines, however, have 17-inch to 17.3 inch seats in Y on an A330/340.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:18 am

Like I said before on this forum, the difference in Y seat width between the 787 and A350 is less than half an inch. The A350 itself has the same Y seat width as the 747 has had for decades and less than practically all of Airbus' other aircraft - Airbus has effectively reduced Y-class customer seat width comfort.

I do not see why this topic is so controversial.

Regarding SQ and the 787-10:
If they (foolishly) insist on configuring this aircraft with 8-abreast Y, it will be a regional aircraft with wider seats than their long-haul A350... A real difference. I am talking 17.75 inches on their long haul A350 and 19.5 inches on their short-medium haul 787... That is just daft. LOL.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:29 am

waly777 wrote:

And yet CX is moving to 10Y in the 777. What happens to product consistency moving forward?



On the 777X and some second hand regional 777s that we are looking at, I have seen nothing to suggest that will be applied on long haul flights on the 77W.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 4691
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:31 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
A lot of airlines, however, have 17-inch to 17.3 inch seats in Y on an A330/340.


Could you come with the names of "a lot of airlines"? As far as I know were few airlines have 17 to 17,3 inch seats on the A330/340.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:09 pm

I think this an almost purely A.net thing.
Yes, a 9 abreast 787 is not as great as when it has 8 abreast, but it's really not the end of the world.
Same goes for the 777. I've recently flown A LOT of EK's 77W and A380s, in several cases one in close succession to the other, and I can say that the difference is not nearly as great as some A.netters are hyping it to be... Yes, the A380 is wider, and thus more comfortable, but it's still Y we are talking about. The extra width coupled with a better air quality, an amazingly quiet cabin, and good legroom plus wider armrests and aisles do make flights more comfortable. Still.... Y is Y is Y. A long Y flight remains just that.
The EK 777s offer at least a decent seat, with enough padding, plus pretty generous legroom and good IFE. I have flown on considerably more uncomfortable 8-abreast Airbus aircrafts (and I am generally an A330 fan).
Also, back in the day many L-1011s were being flown with 10-across in Y, even by some legacies (PA, UA, CX, BA), and still I don't remember such bitter acrimony against it... Please note that the TriStar offered a cabin that was narrower than that of the 777...
 
User avatar
Keith2004
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:59 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:36 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
I think this an almost purely A.net thing.
Yes, a 9 abreast 787 is not as great as when it has 8 abreast, but it's really not the end of the world.
Same goes for the 777. I've recently flown A LOT of EK's 77W and A380s, in several cases one in close succession to the other, and I can say that the difference is not nearly as great as some A.netters are hyping it to be... Yes, the A380 is wider, and thus more comfortable, but it's still Y we are talking about. The extra width coupled with a better air quality, an amazingly quiet cabin, and good legroom plus wider armrests and aisles do make flights more comfortable. Still.... Y is Y is Y. A long Y flight remains just that.
The EK 777s offer at least a decent seat, with enough padding, plus pretty generous legroom and good IFE. I have flown on considerably more uncomfortable 8-abreast Airbus aircrafts (and I am generally an A330 fan).
Also, back in the day many L-1011s were being flown with 10-across in Y, even by some legacies (PA, UA, CX, BA), and still I don't remember such bitter acrimony against it... Please note that the TriStar offered a cabin that was narrower than that of the 777...


:checkmark:

9 across 787 and 10 across 777 sure does inspire passion on A.net and flyer talk, but beyond that not so much.
Y for 12-15 hours is Y is Y , I have done long haul Y in 10- Across Y 777 and 9 across 787, as well as 340, 330, 380, 767, and 747.
Best config I would say is 767 of that lot; and the difference was still marginal. The only time I have every really been comfortable long-haul is in J or W+

If 9 across 787 and 10 across 777 is really torture upgrade to Premium economy.....Unless you are on a UA 777W, where Economy plus is 3-4-3 :crowded:
 
waly777
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:52 pm

zeke wrote:
waly777 wrote:

And yet CX is moving to 10Y in the 777. What happens to product consistency moving forward?



On the 777X and some second hand regional 777s that we are looking at, I have seen nothing to suggest that will be applied on long haul flights on the 77W.

http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econom ... 10-abreast

"The Cathay chief said he was confident he could maximise the cabin real estate to ease the “pain” associated with travelling in a full long-haul economy-class flight through the latest seat and cushion technology."

Seems to suggest it will include long haul which seem to be primarily done by 77W.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:48 pm

Keith2004 wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
I think this an almost purely A.net thing.
Yes, a 9 abreast 787 is not as great as when it has 8 abreast, but it's really not the end of the world.
Same goes for the 777. I've recently flown A LOT of EK's 77W and A380s, in several cases one in close succession to the other, and I can say that the difference is not nearly as great as some A.netters are hyping it to be... Yes, the A380 is wider, and thus more comfortable, but it's still Y we are talking about. The extra width coupled with a better air quality, an amazingly quiet cabin, and good legroom plus wider armrests and aisles do make flights more comfortable. Still.... Y is Y is Y. A long Y flight remains just that.
The EK 777s offer at least a decent seat, with enough padding, plus pretty generous legroom and good IFE. I have flown on considerably more uncomfortable 8-abreast Airbus aircrafts (and I am generally an A330 fan).
Also, back in the day many L-1011s were being flown with 10-across in Y, even by some legacies (PA, UA, CX, BA), and still I don't remember such bitter acrimony against it... Please note that the TriStar offered a cabin that was narrower than that of the 777...


:checkmark:

9 across 787 and 10 across 777 sure does inspire passion on A.net and flyer talk, but beyond that not so much.
Y for 12-15 hours is Y is Y , I have done long haul Y in 10- Across Y 777 and 9 across 787, as well as 340, 330, 380, 767, and 747.
Best config I would say is 767 of that lot; and the difference was still marginal. The only time I have every really been comfortable long-haul is in J or W+

If 9 across 787 and 10 across 777 is really torture upgrade to Premium economy.....Unless you are on a UA 777W, where Economy plus is 3-4-3 :crowded:


:checkmark: :checkmark:

Spot on mate. Good to find some common sense and some sense of reality here too!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10373
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:15 pm

waly777 wrote:
Seems to suggest it will include long haul which seem to be primarily done by 77W.


The article also says " 35 more economy seats on regional aircraft and at least 17 more on long-haul flights", the 35 seats gels with 10 across on the 777-300 (773/73Z), the 17 does not on the 777-300ER (77W/ 77G) or 777-300ER (77W/ 77H). I thought the 17 were to come from a reconfiguration of the PEY and Y cabin making PEY smaller and expanding Y, similar was done on the A330.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:04 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
EK is running ads saying that their 10-abreast B777's "economy that feels like an upgrade".
https://www.facebook.com/Emirates/video ... 622703288/

Nowadays you can get away with anything.


Well, if you compare EK's Y with those of DL, UA and AA it indeed feels like a (pretty major!) upgrade, trust me! It's still an upgrade in comparison to most Euro carriers too, but when compared to the US3 the difference in Y is really rather striking!
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:07 pm

And yet CX is moving to 10Y in the 777. What happens to product consistency moving forward?

CX was 10-abreast for decades on the TriStar. And the world never stopped turning, surprisingly enough. Please note that the TriStar had a cabin slightly narrower than that of the 777. :-)
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:10 pm

zeke wrote:
wingman wrote:
You're a friggin professional flying for an airline that itself flies 17.2" vs. 18" aircraft every single day to hundreds of destinations. an let your jiggly thighs roam free!". Come on man, admit the truth...it just doesn't really matter at the end of the day


We don't have any 17" seats, they left when the 744 was retired. One of the reasons the 787 was not selected at CX was that we could not offer a consistent product across types. E.g. You fly SFO-HKG in a 77W and then HKG-DEL in a 787 would require a different product.


Well well.. CX could simply be that market leader and select 8-abreast for their 787s!!!..and win all those A.netter's preferencies in a heartbeat!
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:12 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
Look, even if a company does something for cost reasons, but is able to market it as a product improvement, they still at least tell someone, their investors, clients (airlines), the real reason they are doing it. I think we can safely say that all evidence points to Boeing making their plane wider for the reasons they stated. The various other improvements people mention, such as larger windows, could have been done on a narrower frame. If you can't source something, just drop it.

I'll talk about what I choose, thanks. If you elect to be THAT much of a sucker for marketing on the most basic level, that's your prerogative.


OK, you go on living in your alternative facts universe where everything is as you want it to be, rather than how it actually is. Still no sources :lol: Though if you're saying Boeing are only doing it for marketing, I guess that means you believe it DOES have some impact on customers no? Or are they doing it for no reason? I can't keep up.

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
A third party website, that people have to search for using techincal information does not pass any definition of transparency and full information in the market.

I'm going to introduce you to a number, it's very round: "0"

That constitutes the aggregate sum of airlines, OEMs, and regulator bodies who give a flying f#ck as to what the likes of you believes constitutes "the definition of transparency."

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


Maybe they don't, that doesn't make it right though does it? There are plenty of elements of a fair market businesses have tried to stifle for their own interests, against the interests of the consumer. Normally it's generally desirable to correct them. If you genuinely believe the coporation is always right, and we should just roll over and accept the consumer being mislead, well, that's an interesting outlook on how markets should function. But it's becoming clear that you have absolute loyalty to business in whatever it does, and the consumer should just suck it up, so I see we're comming from very different stand points. And no the information is not freely and easily available, as several posts here have shown, the information out there is plain wrong.

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
But passengers would be able to compare two numbers provided with the other information. Honestly, why is it even controversial?

It's not, I'm just wondering how you can continue repeating the lie that it's someone unavailable for those who (actually) want it.



It's not a lie. As I posted, if you go and do a search on many leading airlines websites, you will not find the information. Seat guru is plain wrong on seat pitch for many airlines, so even if people can find it, they won't get the information to make an informed choice. Given that these are the only two sources most people will ever find, we can safely say it isn't transparent. For example, Seat guru says BA has 17.5" seats in its 787s. Wrong, BA in fact has 16.8" seats in the 787-8, and 17.3" in the 787-9.

By the way, there's some interesting quotes here from an internal BA magazine about why they did it. So not just 'marketing'
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/08/2 ... for-787-9/

Or here's the public quote confirming 17.3"
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/08/2 ... aints.html

Passengers complained, the market responded. QED.

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
The market isn't functioning efficiently, it isn't an issue because passengers are denied the opportunity to express any preference around comfort. You've been told that enough times. I'd suggest going and doing some reading on assymetric information then come back.

And, as you've been responded to enough times, that's a fallacy that only exists in your imagination.


OK, please correct my ignorance and show me a search engine that provides easily comparable informtion on seat comfort? And find me an accurate source where passengers can easily compare seat width across all airlines? Would you consider it transparent if search engines didn't provide the price and passengers had to search through 18 other tabs for each flight to find it?

MoKa777 wrote:
Like I said before on this forum, the difference in Y seat width between the 787 and A350 is less than half an inch. The A350 itself has the same Y seat width as the 747 has had for decades and less than practically all of Airbus' other aircraft - Airbus has effectively reduced Y-class customer seat width comfort.


The A350 seat is wider than the 747 seat. This is the problem, even people on here regularly get seat widths wrong because the information just isn't easy to find. Seat guru is a mess, as already noted by anther poster it has many airlines with 787 seat widths that are impossible, and also lists many A330s/A340s as having smaller seats than they actually do. No idea why.

The refusal by some to accept that information for passengers could be improved I find very bizarre. It's denial of reality. The fact is it is impossible for anyone here to say, whatever they claim, what impact there may or may not be if this information was provided to passengers. I'm not saying it would be game changing, but there would almost certainly be some behavioural effect. I would be interested to see what that might be, I'm not sure why others are not?

As for why airlines don't provide the information presently. Airlines provide the information it is in their interests to provide. People mention airlines informing them about wifi etc. but that's only on their own websites and because it is seen as an enticement. With seats it is the opposite, for most carriers revealing their space in comparison with other carriers will just show them up as being at the bottom of the pile.

We're talking about information that can be compared across carriers in global search engines, easily, alongside price etc. Many airlines have no incentive to provide this whatsoever, on a comparable basis, even if it would help the consumer. For this reason they would far rather passengers select on price alone. It's rather unfortunate and unfair on the higher comfort airlines that without this information being included in search results, they do not have the chance to advertise their superior offering for which it would then be much easier to charge a premium.
Last edited by Planetalk on Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:15 pm

keesje wrote:
I think Airbus and Boeing have nothing to hide. The airlines are responsible for specifying personal space.

In the past MD11, 747, 777, A340 offered wider seats than 787 and 777 10 abreast. But you know that don't you?


Well, MD11s were flown with 10 abreast too...not sure you are aware of that.. AY was flying them as far afield as BKK...
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:56 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
A lot of airlines, however, have 17-inch to 17.3 inch seats in Y on an A330/340.


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


In Europe: WOW air, Lufthansa (only their A350s and A380s have seats wider than 17.3") and subsidiary Swiss International Air Lines, Iberia (on their A340-300s that are now retired; the A340-600s and all A330s are 18.1"), Air Europa, SAS, and Alitalia all have seats that small in economy (as well as a few seats on Turkish A330s---most are 18"---and the A340s which are now all-economy). In Asia, China Eastern, China Southern, Garuda Indonesia (although with a 34" seat pitch), Philippine Airlines (A340s, using the former Iberia configuration) and Sri Lankan. In the USA, American Airlines (former US Airways A330s). In Africa, South African Airways (A340s only with a 33.5" seat pitch). I didn't even talk about anyone who does 9-abreast---only 2-4-2 economy A330s.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:05 pm

keesje wrote:
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.
http://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 :

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


I would like something like this. When I book a motel I want a hot breakfast and 3 stars. I like the former because me, my wife( and often other traveling companions) like to start the morning differently, and with the breakfast downstairs we can. I like three stars because rooms are large enough to have bath/shower, small table and 2 or 3 chairs as well as enough lamps, electronic plug ins etc. I don't spend enough time in the room to need more stars or recreation.

With the exception of WN and B6 you have no idea of how lousy your accommodations on a plane may be, and for most of the legacies they and their service are lousier and lousier as time goes by. I am willing to pay 10-20% more for better but it generally is not an easy option.

Standard 707 seat, 34 inch pitch, not next to the bathroom, no electronics where my feet go. Don't mind paying for food and drink (water or coffee should be free, and maybe a bag of peanuts). Also, unforgiveable, the plane arrives on time, but I miss my connecting flight because I was in the back of the plane.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:10 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
A lot of airlines, however, have 17-inch to 17.3 inch seats in Y on an A330/340.


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


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

It could also be a result of how the airlines measure seat "width" though. There is no universal standard definition like with seat pitch, some measure cushion width, some measure space between armrests, some include the armrests, some don't. Airbus, for example, was touting a "18in" 11-abreast A380 configuration by measuring the seat cushions but ignoring the fact that the poor window seat passengers were being squeezed in terms of foot space and room between armrest as the cabin wall (it might have been the other way around, they were measuring room between armrests and ignoring seat cushion width, can't remember exactly) was intruding into their space. Some airlines cut the size of their armrests to provide more seat room.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:54 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
A lot of airlines, however, have 17-inch to 17.3 inch seats in Y on an A330/340.


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


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


Out of interest, what's your source?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:10 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Airbus and Boeing have nothing to hide. The airlines are responsible for specifying personal space.

In the past MD11, 747, 777, A340 offered wider seats than 787 and 777 10 abreast. But you know that don't you?


Well, MD11s were flown with 10 abreast too...not sure you are aware of that.. AY was flying them as far afield as BKK...


Of course, I worked on MD11 cabins. Finnair was the odd one out, sure you are aware of that. I remember all (5?) their MD11s were different. DL, AA, KLM, JAL,Thai all 9 abreast. It is often picking out the exception and trying to generalize that into an equal alternative that proves effective in confusing your public away from unwanted observations. Is there a debating name for it?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:04 am

Planetalk wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
Look, even if a company does something for cost reasons, but is able to market it as a product improvement, they still at least tell someone, their investors, clients (airlines), the real reason they are doing it. I think we can safely say that all evidence points to Boeing making their plane wider for the reasons they stated. The various other improvements people mention, such as larger windows, could have been done on a narrower frame. If you can't source something, just drop it.

I'll talk about what I choose, thanks. If you elect to be THAT much of a sucker for marketing on the most basic level, that's your prerogative.


OK, you go on living in your alternative facts universe where everything is as you want it to be, rather than how it actually is. Still no sources :lol: Though if you're saying Boeing are only doing it for marketing, I guess that means you believe it DOES have some impact on customers no? Or are they doing it for no reason? I can't keep up.

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
A third party website, that people have to search for using techincal information does not pass any definition of transparency and full information in the market.

I'm going to introduce you to a number, it's very round: "0"

That constitutes the aggregate sum of airlines, OEMs, and regulator bodies who give a flying f#ck as to what the likes of you believes constitutes "the definition of transparency."

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


Maybe they don't, that doesn't make it right though does it? There are plenty of elements of a fair market businesses have tried to stifle for their own interests, against the interests of the consumer. Normally it's generally desirable to correct them. If you genuinely believe the coporation is always right, and we should just roll over and accept the consumer being mislead, well, that's an interesting outlook on how markets should function. But it's becoming clear that you have absolute loyalty to business in whatever it does, and the consumer should just suck it up, so I see we're comming from very different stand points. And no the information is not freely and easily available, as several posts here have shown, the information out there is plain wrong.

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
But passengers would be able to compare two numbers provided with the other information. Honestly, why is it even controversial?

It's not, I'm just wondering how you can continue repeating the lie that it's someone unavailable for those who (actually) want it.



It's not a lie. As I posted, if you go and do a search on many leading airlines websites, you will not find the information. Seat guru is plain wrong on seat pitch for many airlines, so even if people can find it, they won't get the information to make an informed choice. Given that these are the only two sources most people will ever find, we can safely say it isn't transparent. For example, Seat guru says BA has 17.5" seats in its 787s. Wrong, BA in fact has 16.8" seats in the 787-8, and 17.3" in the 787-9.

By the way, there's some interesting quotes here from an internal BA magazine about why they did it. So not just 'marketing'
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/08/2 ... for-787-9/

Or here's the public quote confirming 17.3"
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/08/2 ... aints.html

Passengers complained, the market responded. QED.

LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
The market isn't functioning efficiently, it isn't an issue because passengers are denied the opportunity to express any preference around comfort. You've been told that enough times. I'd suggest going and doing some reading on assymetric information then come back.

And, as you've been responded to enough times, that's a fallacy that only exists in your imagination.


OK, please correct my ignorance and show me a search engine that provides easily comparable informtion on seat comfort? And find me an accurate source where passengers can easily compare seat width across all airlines? Would you consider it transparent if search engines didn't provide the price and passengers had to search through 18 other tabs for each flight to find it?

MoKa777 wrote:
Like I said before on this forum, the difference in Y seat width between the 787 and A350 is less than half an inch. The A350 itself has the same Y seat width as the 747 has had for decades and less than practically all of Airbus' other aircraft - Airbus has effectively reduced Y-class customer seat width comfort.


The A350 seat is wider than the 747 seat. This is the problem, even people on here regularly get seat widths wrong because the information just isn't easy to find. Seat guru is a mess, as already noted by anther poster it has many airlines with 787 seat widths that are impossible, and also lists many A330s/A340s as having smaller seats than they actually do. No idea why.

The refusal by some to accept that information for passengers could be improved I find very bizarre. It's denial of reality. The fact is it is impossible for anyone here to say, whatever they claim, what impact there may or may not be if this information was provided to passengers. I'm not saying it would be game changing, but there would almost certainly be some behavioural effect. I would be interested to see what that might be, I'm not sure why others are not?

As for why airlines don't provide the information presently. Airlines provide the information it is in their interests to provide. People mention airlines informing them about wifi etc. but that's only on their own websites and because it is seen as an enticement. With seats it is the opposite, for most carriers revealing their space in comparison with other carriers will just show them up as being at the bottom of the pile.

We're talking about information that can be compared across carriers in global search engines, easily, alongside price etc. Many airlines have no incentive to provide this whatsoever, on a comparable basis, even if it would help the consumer. For this reason they would far rather passengers select on price alone. It's rather unfortunate and unfair on the higher comfort airlines that without this information being included in search results, they do not have the chance to advertise their superior offering for which it would then be much easier to charge a premium.


According to this website:

http://www.a350xwb.com/technical-specifications/

Maximum Cabin Width is 5.61m (220.87 inches).

According to Wikipedia (I know...) and calculating from Boeing's own 747 ACAP, cabin width is 6.08m or 239.37 inches.

On Airbus' ACAP for the A350, they achieve maximum seat width with 18.1 inch aisles.

Let us do little calculation:
2 x 18.1 inch aisles = 36.2 inches
12 x 1.5 inch armrests = 18 inches
9 x 18 inch seats = 162 inches
220.87 - (162 + 18 + 36.2) = 4.67 inches for spacing, etc.

For the Boeing 747:
2 x 18.1 inch aisles = 36.2 inches
13 x 1.5 inch armrests = 19.5 inches
4.67 inch spacing, etc. adjusted for 10 seats instead of 9 = 5.19 inches
239.37 - (36.2 + 19.5 + 5.19) = 178.48 inches
178.48 / 10 = 17.848 inches per seat or not even 1% narrower than a seat on the A350.

So I concede, the A350 Y seat IS wider... by 0.8%, 0.152 inches (less than 4mm).
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:06 am

keesje wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Airbus and Boeing have nothing to hide. The airlines are responsible for specifying personal space.



Well, MD11s were flown with 10 abreast too...not sure you are aware of that.. AY was flying them as far afield as BKK...


Of course, I worked on MD11 cabins. Finnair was the odd one out, sure you are aware of that. I remember all (5?) their MD11s were different. DL, AA, KLM, JAL,Thai all 9 abreast. It is often picking out the exception and trying to generalize that into an equal alternative that proves effective in confusing your public away from unwanted observations. Is there a debating name for it?


No, I am trying to point out the obvious fact that it's the different market dynamics that have brought about an influx of denser cabins...I am sure that is the Md11 was around still, it would surely be flying in a 10-abreast configuration just like the 777... that's all.. It's not the manufacturer: it's the airlines. However I don't think they are robbing you of anything, or are being dishonest. It's just that when they have the option to maximize revenue for a given asset they do it.
The whole debate about this issue (whether or not this is in fact an "issue" I am wondering ..) is getting staler by the minute..
In reality the difference is not that great, and as much as A.netters would like this to move within the top 5 MDGs, fact is most people will not notice the difference or care enough, end of story. People have always complained that Y in tight and uncomfortable. Even when most Y seats offered 34' of space. :-)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:27 am

Better deny there's a problem when there's no solution. Passenger appreciation tumbles with the new small seats, airlines know, Boeing knows. Stating it's just another opinion, not really a problem, will go away, is actually pretty arrogant towards customers. You basically don't take them serious at all.

"Yes we hear you, screw you, get used to it." It's pretty bad really, isn't it?.

BA took (limited) action, Boeing did (777x widening). They are above blunt denial to some extend.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:39 am

BA took (limited) action, Boeing did (777x widening). They are above blunt denial to some extend.

[/quote]

BA did what? They've just gone 10-abreast for good on their 777s! Not to mention their short haul fleet, which is tighter than FR!
And as far as the 777X is concerned, it's mostly a PR stunt: we are talking mere inches (very few inches..), which are probably simply the incidental byproduct of a general spruce up.
 
WIederling
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:58 am

... PR stunt: we are talking mere inches (very few inches..),...

The straw that broke the camels back :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9384
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:01 pm

oldannyboy wrote:

BA did what? They've just gone 10-abreast for good on their 777s! Not to mention their short haul fleet, which is tighter than FR!


BA has no real solution. But at least they didn't put up their middle finger towards their customers.
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/08/23/negative-feedback-prompts-british-airways-to-widen-seats-for-787-9/

oldannyboy wrote:
And as far as the 777X is concerned, it's mostly a PR stunt: we are talking mere inches (very few inches..), which are probably simply the incidental byproduct of a general spruce up.


Oldannyboy, either the 777 cabin width is really suboptimal or Boeing seriously invests in cabin width, after not very unclear market feedback. what fits your case best? ;)
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:20 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I'll talk about what I choose, thanks. If you elect to be THAT much of a sucker for marketing on the most basic level, that's your prerogative.


OK, you go on living in your alternative facts universe where everything is as you want it to be, rather than how it actually is. Still no sources :lol: Though if you're saying Boeing are only doing it for marketing, I guess that means you believe it DOES have some impact on customers no? Or are they doing it for no reason? I can't keep up.

LAX772LR wrote:

I'm going to introduce you to a number, it's very round: "0"

That constitutes the aggregate sum of airlines, OEMs, and regulator bodies who give a flying f#ck as to what the likes of you believes constitutes "the definition of transparency."

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


Maybe they don't, that doesn't make it right though does it? There are plenty of elements of a fair market businesses have tried to stifle for their own interests, against the interests of the consumer. Normally it's generally desirable to correct them. If you genuinely believe the coporation is always right, and we should just roll over and accept the consumer being mislead, well, that's an interesting outlook on how markets should function. But it's becoming clear that you have absolute loyalty to business in whatever it does, and the consumer should just suck it up, so I see we're comming from very different stand points. And no the information is not freely and easily available, as several posts here have shown, the information out there is plain wrong.

LAX772LR wrote:

It's not, I'm just wondering how you can continue repeating the lie that it's someone unavailable for those who (actually) want it.



It's not a lie. As I posted, if you go and do a search on many leading airlines websites, you will not find the information. Seat guru is plain wrong on seat pitch for many airlines, so even if people can find it, they won't get the information to make an informed choice. Given that these are the only two sources most people will ever find, we can safely say it isn't transparent. For example, Seat guru says BA has 17.5" seats in its 787s. Wrong, BA in fact has 16.8" seats in the 787-8, and 17.3" in the 787-9.

By the way, there's some interesting quotes here from an internal BA magazine about why they did it. So not just 'marketing'
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/08/2 ... for-787-9/

Or here's the public quote confirming 17.3"
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/08/2 ... aints.html

Passengers complained, the market responded. QED.

LAX772LR wrote:

And, as you've been responded to enough times, that's a fallacy that only exists in your imagination.


OK, please correct my ignorance and show me a search engine that provides easily comparable informtion on seat comfort? And find me an accurate source where passengers can easily compare seat width across all airlines? Would you consider it transparent if search engines didn't provide the price and passengers had to search through 18 other tabs for each flight to find it?

MoKa777 wrote:
Like I said before on this forum, the difference in Y seat width between the 787 and A350 is less than half an inch. The A350 itself has the same Y seat width as the 747 has had for decades and less than practically all of Airbus' other aircraft - Airbus has effectively reduced Y-class customer seat width comfort.


The A350 seat is wider than the 747 seat. This is the problem, even people on here regularly get seat widths wrong because the information just isn't easy to find. Seat guru is a mess, as already noted by anther poster it has many airlines with 787 seat widths that are impossible, and also lists many A330s/A340s as having smaller seats than they actually do. No idea why.

The refusal by some to accept that information for passengers could be improved I find very bizarre. It's denial of reality. The fact is it is impossible for anyone here to say, whatever they claim, what impact there may or may not be if this information was provided to passengers. I'm not saying it would be game changing, but there would almost certainly be some behavioural effect. I would be interested to see what that might be, I'm not sure why others are not?

As for why airlines don't provide the information presently. Airlines provide the information it is in their interests to provide. People mention airlines informing them about wifi etc. but that's only on their own websites and because it is seen as an enticement. With seats it is the opposite, for most carriers revealing their space in comparison with other carriers will just show them up as being at the bottom of the pile.

We're talking about information that can be compared across carriers in global search engines, easily, alongside price etc. Many airlines have no incentive to provide this whatsoever, on a comparable basis, even if it would help the consumer. For this reason they would far rather passengers select on price alone. It's rather unfortunate and unfair on the higher comfort airlines that without this information being included in search results, they do not have the chance to advertise their superior offering for which it would then be much easier to charge a premium.


According to this website:

http://www.a350xwb.com/technical-specifications/

Maximum Cabin Width is 5.61m (220.87 inches).

According to Wikipedia (I know...) and calculating from Boeing's own 747 ACAP, cabin width is 6.08m or 239.37 inches.

On Airbus' ACAP for the A350, they achieve maximum seat width with 18.1 inch aisles.

Let us do little calculation:
2 x 18.1 inch aisles = 36.2 inches
12 x 1.5 inch armrests = 18 inches
9 x 18 inch seats = 162 inches
220.87 - (162 + 18 + 36.2) = 4.67 inches for spacing, etc.

For the Boeing 747:
2 x 18.1 inch aisles = 36.2 inches
13 x 1.5 inch armrests = 19.5 inches
4.67 inch spacing, etc. adjusted for 10 seats instead of 9 = 5.19 inches
239.37 - (36.2 + 19.5 + 5.19) = 178.48 inches
178.48 / 10 = 17.848 inches per seat or not even 1% narrower than a seat on the A350.

So I concede, the A350 Y seat IS wider... by 0.8%, 0.152 inches (less than 4mm).


Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as arithmetically dividing cabin width by number of seast etc. because of the way the cabin is shaped and how this affects what seats can be installed I think similar issues throw up a peculiar result between the 777 10 across and 787 9 across in terms of which can fit a better seat.

In reality the 747 has the same 17.2/17.3" seats as the 737/757.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:24 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
BA took (limited) action, Boeing did (777x widening). They are above blunt denial to some extend.



BA did what? They've just gone 10-abreast for good on their 777s! Not to mention their short haul fleet, which is tighter than FR!
And as far as the 777X is concerned, it's mostly a PR stunt: we are talking mere inches (very few inches..), which are probably simply the incidental byproduct of a general spruce up.[/quote]

So people don't care about seat width, but it's worth Boeing investing not unconsiderable sums of money in a 'PR stunt'? Which is it? You do understand a PR stunt has to have a receptive audience?

The feedback is all out there very publically aout what people think about the tighter seating. It seems, as Wiederling says this may be the straw that broke the camels back as more and more planes are tightly configured, on longer routes, passengers are noticing more. So the industry is (slowly) responding. Which is a good thing no? Aren't you all in favour of market responses? Just stick a couple of numbers on each result on kayak/orbitz etc. and everyone has what they want, for zero cost, what's not to like?
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:35 pm

Planetalk wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
BA took (limited) action, Boeing did (777x widening). They are above blunt denial to some extend.



...So the industry is (slowly) responding. Which is a good thing no? Aren't you all in favour of market responses? Just stick a couple of numbers on each result on kayak/orbitz etc. and everyone has what they want, for zero cost, what's not to like?



Absolutely! I'm all for more spacious configurations, don't get me wrong! I'm just saying that I wouldn't hold my breath or bet on any major airline 'just' switching back to 9-across on 777 ops... not quite yet maybe..
And also that -but that's just me here :-) I know...- that -10 vs -9 is not such a big deal breaker to me. Overall comfort or otherwise I find to be defined by other factors mostly, including if anything legroom more than seat width.
I agree that being a somewhat slender man with a small bum does help, especially on long hauls! ;-)
 
planeophilic
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:37 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


"Now with complementary Giant Spider Thingy"
IQ 6969- If I wasn't addicted to Frog Porn, I would be perfect.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: The 787 and 9-abreast

Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:45 am

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

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


Planetalk wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
A third party website, that people have to search for using techincal information does not pass any definition of transparency and full information in the market.

I'm going to introduce you to a number, it's very round: "0"

That constitutes the aggregate sum of airlines, OEMs, and regulator bodies who give a flying f#ck as to what the likes of you believes constitutes "the definition of transparency."

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

Maybe they don't, that doesn't make it right though does it?

Of course it's right; it adheres to the most consistent truth in the universe: you get what you pay for.



Planetalk wrote:
Would you consider it transparent if search engines didn't provide the price and passengers had to search through 18 other tabs for each flight to find it?

Scroll up, one quoted response above this one.



Planetalk wrote:
Passengers complained, the market responded. QED.

QED, you say? ...hardly. :roll:

In your zeal to pat yourself on the back, you don't seem to realize that you missed a crucial factor in attempting to demonstrate anything with that scenario: Review Reply #76, the second response paragraph (it's in all-caps, convenient) then tell me the additional cost in selecting a different seat relative to what they would've posited otherwise. Because with no such cost, you've shown nothing.
We'll discuss... later, if you somehow manage to survive that is. ~Sesshomaru

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