WIederling wrote:MartijnNL wrote:Shouldn't Boeing have designed the 777 and the 787 with a 'better' fuselage diameter in the first place? One that wouldn't have given airlines the idea and opportunity to put in an extra seat?
The airlines only followed suit because they had no profitable way around it.
To compete the 787 and 777 now _must have_ 9 resp. 10 across.
( and PR numbers for 777X gains leveraged going from 9 to 10 across on the platform.)
For the 222" X-section the demarcation between comfy-stuffed and unpleasantly-stuffed in the market is
"right" of the majority of installations (8 across). (same for XWB.)
For the 787 and 777 this demarcation is "left" of the majority of installations (9 across).
Never looked at where the swapover is for the 767 !?
However you slice it Airbus seems to be advantaged here.
I am not sure it is about being profitable or not. It most certainly about profit maximization. Again, this premise of this thread is why did Boeing make a plane that can seat 9 / 10 across. The answer is to maximize the revenue / profit potential for their customers.
Look at BA and going 10 abreast on Gatwick 777s vs Norwegian 787s. They could operate their 9 abreast 777 which are comfortable by any standard. But the market is clearly price driven, and they are fighting fire with fire, changing the config to 10 abreast. The flexibility of the 777 diameter allows them to operate the same plane to meet the needs of the market. At 20 years old, they can squeeze more life out of them. The 777 is an awesome machine, able to adapt to the evolving market.
Why is Boeing carving out sidewall space? If an extra few Inches is something your competitor is always talking about, and you can negate that selling point, why wouldn't they?