trex8 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787 offers significantly better CASM at equal comfort levels. The 787 offers better comfort at equal CASM level.

The 9 abreast A330's run a decent 32" seat pitch. The 787-9 can easily run 30" seat pitch and have the same comfort levels thanks to its wider seats. That's quite a few extra seats while the 787-9 still burns less fuel.

I can definitely see AirAsia X in the future wanting to move away from the 9ab A330 and improve comfort slightly. Its currently using it to increase market share as they are in growth stage. A tight pitch 787 provides that slight upgrade.

I'm under the impression the 9ab A339 will better the 787 on CASM, with the opposite true of the (regular) 8ab A339.

Is that not the case?

An 8AB A339 has similar seat capacity to a 9AB 789 but may ( we dont really know for sure at this point without data ) have slightly higher trip costs, you go to 9 on the A339 and it should be better on CASM than a 789.

That isn’t accurate. American runs A333’s and 789’s. While they run similar seat counts at 291 and 285 respectively the 787 runs true lie flats with 30 compared to 28 business class 180 degree recline seats. It runs 21 premium economy at 38 inch pitch and 7 wide and 36 Main cabin extra at 35 pitch. The A333 runs only two rows on main cabin extra behind each bulkhead with no premium economy. The 789 is 2 feet less in length but tapers less at the back of the cabin which usually cost about 5 seats off the last 5 rows on most A333 setups.

Similarly configured at 9 wide you have cabins of about the same length. If you run all economy at same pitch in both planes your passenger figures will be virtually identical.

Most 789 run similar or lower figures to the A333 because they run more premium products up front and fewer economy seats by choice. Run the same pitch and same number of seats across and you can get maybe another row in an A333 I would think. But it about evens out due to the narrowing towards the back of the A333. Air Asia X loses 2 seats per row from 8 rows in the back. It will basically run the same number of seats.

Air Asia will run 9AB in the A339 for sure, they will not run more than 9AB in a 789. They will run pretty much a full Y cabin with minimal premium seats, they have only 12 angled lie flats on their present A333 and 35 rows minimum Y. Even if you somehow squeeze an extra row or two or three into a 789 because it has J seat which takes up more length, you arent likely to negate the extra 30 + seats having an extra seat per row will give you going 9AB on the Airbus compared to these 8AB seating on these airlines for A333 and 9 for 787.

From Seatguru
A333 789
VS 31or 33/233 31/233
KL 30/262 30/264
CA 30/271 30/263
KE 6/18/248 6/18/247

trex8 wrote:

Air Asia will run 9AB in the A339 for sure, they will not run more than 9AB in a 789. They will run pretty much a full Y cabin with minimal premium seats, they have only 12 angled lie flats on their present A333 and 35 rows minimum Y. Even if you somehow squeeze an extra row or two or three into a 789 because it has J seat which takes up more length, you arent likely to negate the extra 30 + seats having an extra seat per row will give you going 9AB on the Airbus compared to these 8AB seating on these airlines for A333 and 9 for 787.

From Seatguru
A333 789
VS 31or 33/233 31/233
KL 30/262 30/264
CA 30/271 30/263
KE 6/18/248 6/18/247

You have two planes that have basically the same cabin area. I believe you get an extra 6 feet of cabin on the A333 va 789 and the 787 is wider. That translates into two to three rows of identically equipped at 32 inches pitch. In 9 wide Air Asia X loses 16 seats in the back 8 rows due to tapering. The 789 generally doesn’t lose any. You get an extra 27 seats but lose 16 to tapering. So I would expect an identically outfitted A333 to have 11 more seats than a 789 with both running 9 across.

That is just the math. On the examples above you get different galley and restroom configuration and different vintages of business class seats so it’s very hard to compare. But the physical space in the cabin is what it is, basically a wash between the two.

Any interest in the 789 would be for the superior payload/range. Interest in increased capacity (in Air Asia X’s 2 class layout) would be in the -10.

bigjku wrote:

In 9 wide Air Asia X loses 16 seats in the back 8 rows due to tapering. The 789 generally doesn’t lose any. You get an extra 27 seats but lose 16 to tapering. So I would expect an identically outfitted A333 to have 11 more seats than a 789 with both running 9 across.

That's the same numbers I get.

The 787 run seats a full inch wider than the 9ab A330. The 787 cabin could reduce seat pitch by an inch and still have better comfort than the A330. This would allow the 787 to fit an extra row of seats.

So the A339 advantage of 11 seats would then drop to only 2 seats.

As the 789 burns fractionally less fuel than the A339 it still has better CASM both in 9ab. 2 extra passengers can't offset that little bit of trip fuel burn.

Polot wrote:

Any interest in the 789 would be for the superior payload/range. Interest in increased capacity (in Air Asia X’s 2 class layout) would be in the -10.

Yep the 787-10 takes it to the next level. CASM is far superior to even the tightest 9ab A339. Air Asia X would definitely go with 787-10's and fill them right up to the exit limit.

RJMAZ wrote:

bigjku wrote:

In 9 wide Air Asia X loses 16 seats in the back 8 rows due to tapering. The 789 generally doesn’t lose any. You get an extra 27 seats but lose 16 to tapering. So I would expect an identically outfitted A333 to have 11 more seats than a 789 with both running 9 across.

That's the same numbers I get.

The 787 run seats a full inch wider than the 9ab A330. The 787 cabin could reduce seat pitch by an inch and still have better comfort than the A330. This would allow the 787 to fit an extra row of seats.

So the A339 advantage of 11 seats would then drop to only 2 seats.

As the 789 burns fractionally less fuel than the A339 it still has better CASM both in 9ab. 2 extra passengers can't offset that little bit of trip fuel burn.

The 789 and A333 has similar cabin areas available and this is reflected somewhat in the layouts where airlines have them at similar seating capacities at airlines that use both. It takes some mental arithmetic to figure that there will only be a 2 seat difference between the two if an airline decides to use the A330 at 9-abreast instead of 8-abreast.

What you seem to fail to take in account is that the current 8-abreast A330's loses seats to tapering at the moment where it goes from 2-4-2 to 2-3-2 so the capacities stays the same for airlines even with this tapering. Yes it would result in one more lost seat for Air Asia compared to the A330, but the A330 is longer so the extra length should compensate for that.

You can get around 29 rows of Y seats for the 789 from the second door to the back. For the A330 you get 26 rows of 3-3-3 Y in that same space. You also then get 8 rows of 2-3-2 and if you make up the 27 seats the for the extra rows of Y for the 789 that is around 29 extra seats for the A330.

Now that is if the front section is equal length on the A330 and the 789 as well. If the A330 is longer and you have the same amount of premium seats in both it then the seating advantage for the A330 should be around 30 seats. If the A330 is longer and you fit one more row it is 39. Two more rows you are looking at 48 seats, not just 2.

RJMAZ wrote:

Polot wrote:

Any interest in the 789 would be for the superior payload/range. Interest in increased capacity (in Air Asia X’s 2 class layout) would be in the -10.

Yep the 787-10 takes it to the next level. CASM is far superior to even the tightest 9ab A339. Air Asia X would definitely go with 787-10's and fill them right up to the exit limit.

More Y seats mean less range, right? So the more passengers the 78X will have the less range it will have. So if Air Asia X is in need of pure capacity on their regional trips then the 78X should be fine. If they need the range to Europe than surely the 78X will be short of range if the A339 can only just reach.

enzo011 wrote:

The 789 and A333 has similar cabin areas available and this is reflected somewhat in the layouts where airlines have them at similar seating capacities at airlines that use both.

Yes. Near equal cabin area means why there is that's why there is a 2 seat difference in my first estimate.

enzo011 wrote:

If the A330 is longer and you fit one more row it is 39. Two more rows you are looking at 48 seats, not just 2.

Not sure what your smoking. Seriously 48 more seats?

Let's try again.
787-9 cabin length is 48.4m
a330-900 cabin length is 50.35m

That 2metres allow for 2.5 extra rows in the A339. Let's call it 3 rows to work in the your favour. That's 27 seats if the whole cabin is 9ab. The last 7 rows of a 9ab A330 drops to 7ab. That's brings the A330-300 down to only 13 more seats.

As the A330 9ab seats are considerably narrower than the 787's you could run half an inch less pitch on the 787 and still be more comfortable. This would allow one extra row of seats in the 787. The A330 advantage then drops from 13 seats to only 4 seats.

RJMAZ wrote:

So if Air Asia X is in need of pure capacity on their regional trips then the 78X should be fine. If they need the range to Europe than surely the 78X will be short of range if the A339 can only just reach.

The best thing is the 787-10 and 787-9 have 95% commonality. So a mixed fleet has very minor extra costs. The 787-10 not only beats the 9ab A339 in CASM in a big way it also beats in in comfort.

The 787-10 actually has greater range than their current A330-300's so it should be able to operate all of their current routes. The 787-9 can then be added at very minor cost to fly any routes that the A339 would open up.

So the 787-10 would have better CASM on all of their current routes when compared to the A339. The 787-9 would have equal CASM to the A339 on any new longer routes. So there's really no situation where the A339 would be winning.

RJMAZ wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

The 789 and A333 has similar cabin areas available and this is reflected somewhat in the layouts where airlines have them at similar seating capacities at airlines that use both.

Yes. Near equal cabin area means why there is that's why there is a 2 seat difference in my first estimate.

enzo011 wrote:

If the A330 is longer and you fit one more row it is 39. Two more rows you are looking at 48 seats, not just 2.

Not sure what your smoking. Seriously 48 more seats?

Let's try again.
787-9 cabin length is 48.4m
a330-900 cabin length is 50.35m

That 2metres allow for 2.5 extra rows in the A339. Let's call it 3 rows to work in the your favour. That's 27 seats if the whole cabin is 9ab. The last 7 rows of a 9ab A330 drops to 7ab. That's brings the A330-300 down to only 13 more seats.

As the A330 9ab seats are considerably narrower than the 787's you could run half an inch less pitch on the 787 and still be more comfortable. This would allow one extra row of seats in the 787. The A330 advantage then drops from 13 seats to only 4 seats.

RJMAZ wrote:

So if Air Asia X is in need of pure capacity on their regional trips then the 78X should be fine. If they need the range to Europe than surely the 78X will be short of range if the A339 can only just reach.

The best thing is the 787-10 and 787-9 have 95% commonality. So a mixed fleet has very minor extra costs. The 787-10 not only beats the 9ab A339 in CASM in a big way it also beats in in comfort.

The 787-10 actually has greater range than their current A330-300's so it should be able to operate all of their current routes. The 787-9 can then be added at very minor cost to fly any routes that the A339 would open up.

So the 787-10 would have better CASM on all of their current routes when compared to the A339. The 787-9 would have equal CASM to the A339 on any new longer routes. So there's really no situation where the A339 would be winning.

Do your CASM figures include ownership costs? If not, then Boeing still have to discount on the 787, and this situation is less in their favour than HA and AA were. We haven't seen them discount much for the 78X yet, and not outside the US yet.

MrHMSH wrote:

Do your CASM figures include ownership costs? If not, then Boeing still have to discount on the 787, and this situation is less in their favour than HA and AA were. We haven't seen them discount much for the 78X yet, and not outside the US yet.

Yes they do include ownership costs. I'll save everyone from a 1000 word post full of numbers.

RJMAZ wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Do your CASM figures include ownership costs? If not, then Boeing still have to discount on the 787, and this situation is less in their favour than HA and AA were. We haven't seen them discount much for the 78X yet, and not outside the US yet.

Yes they do include ownership costs. I'll save everyone from a 1000 word post full of numbers.

How do you know what the ownership costs are if they vary from airline to airline?

Anyway, you’re probably right. But then you’d have to ask why the A339neo sells at all and why 78Xs aren’t flying off the shelves? Still only 171 orders (though with EK’s confirmation pending).

MrHMSH wrote:

How do you know what the ownership costs are if they vary from airline to airline?

Anyway, you’re probably right. But then you’d have to ask why the A339neo sells at all and why 78Xs aren’t flying off the shelves? Still only 171 orders (though with EK’s confirmation pending).

Over the years I've seen multiple press releases or airline CEO's mention swapping some of their order to the 787-10.

A percentage of 787-9 orders will most definitely end up being 787-10 aircraft. With the EK commitments the 787-10 has effectively outsold the entire A330NEO family. I would consider that flying off the shelves for an aircraft that was only launched 5 years ago. The 787-8 and 787-9 were both launched 14 years ago. Since the 787-10 was launched its been a 50/40/10 splits between models. With the 787-10 coming in close second.

In terms of CASM the purchase price really only has a big effect on a short term lease. After 10 or 15 years a 50% purchase price difference ends up making very little difference to the overall ownership cost with fuel, staff, maintenance and airport fee costs.

RJMAZ wrote:

Over the years I've seen multiple press releases or airline CEO's mention swapping some of their order to the 787-10.

A percentage of 787-9 orders will most definitely end up being 787-10 aircraft. With the EK commitments the 787-10 has effectively outsold the entire A330NEO family. I would consider that flying off the shelves for an aircraft that was only launched 5 years ago. The 787-8 and 787-9 were both launched 14 years ago. Since the 787-10 was launched its been a 50/40/10 splits between models. With the 787-10 coming in close second.

In terms of CASM the purchase price really only has a big effect on a short term lease. After 10 or 15 years a 50% purchase price difference ends up making very little difference to the overall ownership cost with fuel, staff, maintenance and airport fee costs.

I count 40 78Xs for EK, if they are all firmed then they still fall just short (211)of the A330neo (which has 214). The A330neo has been on the market for less time though, launched 1 year later. If you consider the 78X to be 'flying off the shelves' then you must also do the same for the A330neo, given that it has sold more to date in a shorter space of time. I speculate that a few largeish A330neo orders will come at Farnborough, Airbus will want to have some good publicity after a turbulent year. If I'm right then the A330 could regain some ground against the 787.

Bear in mind that for this case: AirAsia's short haul arms at least don't hold onto aircraft that long (in typical LCC fashion). I'm not sure about the specifics for AirAsiaX, but it's not a stretch to claim that they could cycle through aircraft quickly, and the shorter the time period they have them for, the more the A330neo stacks up against the 78X. The average fleet age is 5.4 years old, I doubt their A333s will last much longer than 10 years at the airline. And if maintenance, staff and airport fee costs are considered the A330neo should be competitive on most of those given the A330 is well-established at AirAsia and lighter.

MrHMSH wrote:

And if maintenance, staff and airport fee costs are considered the A330neo should be competitive on most of those given the A330 is well-established at AirAsia and lighter.

The 787-10 has 12% more cabin area than the A330-900.

I can't see the costs you mentioned being 12% lower on the A330-900 to make up for its lower revenue potential.

I guess your definition of flying off the shelves is different to mine.

The 787-10 is a niche member of the 787 family. If has the 787-9 directly below it stealing sales as airlines usually buy both together. For the 787-10 to get 200+ orders I consider that brilliant and definitely flying off the shelves.

The A330NEO family with its order book I would not call that flying off the shelves.

RJMAZ wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

And if maintenance, staff and airport fee costs are considered the A330neo should be competitive on most of those given the A330 is well-established at AirAsia and lighter.

The 787-10 has 12% more cabin area than the A330-900.

I can't see the costs you mentioned being 12% lower on the A330-900 to make up for its lower revenue potential.

I said 'competitive', not better. The actual costs will probably be lower even if the revenue does cover that cost and then a bit extra for the 78X. Assuming you fill all the extra seats.

Going back to the other point, bearing in mind you consider the 78X to be 'flying off shelves', do you consider the A330neo to be doing the same?

MrHMSH wrote:

Going back to the other point, bearing in mind you consider the 78X to be 'flying off shelves', do you consider the A330neo to be doing the same?

No.

We are talking one member of a 3 aircraft family versus an entire family.

The 787-10 has the 787-9 directly below with equal MTO stealing sales as airlines usually buy both together. This does not represent the true sales potential of the 787-10 if it was sold as the only member of its family.

The A330-900 does not have an Airbus aircraft within 10% of its size or weight stealing/sharing sales. So to get just over 200 sales is quite poor.

RJMAZ wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Going back to the other point, bearing in mind you consider the 78X to be 'flying off shelves', do you consider the A330neo to be doing the same?

No.

We are talking one member of a 3 aircraft family versus an entire family.

The 787-10 has the 787-9 directly below with equal MTO stealing sales as airlines usually buy both together. This does not represent the true sales potential of the 787-10 if it was sold as the only member of its family.

The A330-900 does not have an Airbus aircraft within 10% of its size or weight stealing/sharing sales. So to get just over 200 sales is quite poor.

Apart from that pesky A330-300, which leverages all the strengths the A330neo was aimed to have of commonality, low capital cost and availability in an era of lower fuel prices. You could easily argue the A330ceo has taken away some orders from the A330neo. And the ceo has more than pulled its weight in recent years even with 787s, A330neos and A350s on the market.

Yes, even AirAsia X themselves have gotten 4 used A333s for delivery in 2018. They did not bother asking Airbus if they could expedite A339 deliveries.

With the used A333s, AirAsia X can expand very quickly with no learning curve to master.

RJMAZ wrote:

bigjku wrote:

In 9 wide Air Asia X loses 16 seats in the back 8 rows due to tapering. The 789 generally doesn’t lose any. You get an extra 27 seats but lose 16 to tapering. So I would expect an identically outfitted A333 to have 11 more seats than a 789 with both running 9 across.

That's the same numbers I get.

The 787 run seats a full inch wider than the 9ab A330. The 787 cabin could reduce seat pitch by an inch and still have better comfort than the A330. This would allow the 787 to fit an extra row of seats.

So the A339 advantage of 11 seats would then drop to only 2 seats.

As the 789 burns fractionally less fuel than the A339 it still has better CASM both in 9ab. 2 extra passengers can't offset that little bit of trip fuel burn.

There exists no 787-9 low cost configuration today afaik, that has more than 375 seats, which is 61 seats less than existing A333 configurations. So you guys must overlook something. No tapering and no "lets assume equal comfort" will close that gap.

Even putting in the 5 premium front rows @46" of the Norwegian config into the Air Asia X A333, still leaves nearly 30 more Y seats in the Air Asia X config. And the Norwegian already has less pitch in Y...

Boeing says, 787-9 all economy capacity is 406 -> 30 seats less than existing A333 configurations
FAA says, 787-9 exit limit is 420 -> 16 seats less than existing A333 configurations

Not to forget the increased cabin space of the NEO (notice also that at 8 abreast the tapering costs only 4 seats):
https://leehamnews.com/2014/09/06/final ... days-a330/

So there are 6 additional seats just from the cabin improvements. Which put the A339 solidly 20 seats above the 789 exit limit for low cost carriers.

And regarding 787-10:
Boeing and the FAA say, 787-10 all economy capacity and exit limit is 440 -> a mere 4 seats more than existing A333 configurations
B.t.w. the A333/A339 exit limit is 440 too.

For low cost operators, the only thing that increases by going to 781 is the price, but capacity is capped at the same level that the A339 has.

RJMAZ wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Going back to the other point, bearing in mind you consider the 78X to be 'flying off shelves', do you consider the A330neo to be doing the same?

No.


The A330-900 does not have an Airbus aircraft within 10% of its size or weight stealing/sharing sales. So to get just over 200 sales is quite poor.

A339neo MTOW 242t
A359 268
Almost 10%

RJMAZ wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

The 789 and A333 has similar cabin areas available and this is reflected somewhat in the layouts where airlines have them at similar seating capacities at airlines that use both.

Yes. Near equal cabin area means why there is that's why there is a 2 seat difference in my first estimate.

Wow, you moved the A330 from 8-abreast to 9-abreast and you somehow got the difference between the A333 and 789, which airlines now have similar (that is the same) capacities, to somehow only have a 2 seat advantage for the A330. Well done, as I said you have done some amazing mental arithmetic to get to that.

RJMAZ wrote:

Not sure what your smoking. Seriously 48 more seats?

Let's try again.
787-9 cabin length is 48.4m
a330-900 cabin length is 50.35m

That 2metres allow for 2.5 extra rows in the A339. Let's call it 3 rows to work in the your favour. That's 27 seats if the whole cabin is 9ab. The last 7 rows of a 9ab A330 drops to 7ab. That's brings the A330-300 down to only 13 more seats.

As the A330 9ab seats are considerably narrower than the 787's you could run half an inch less pitch on the 787 and still be more comfortable. This would allow one extra row of seats in the 787. The A330 advantage then drops from 13 seats to only 4 seats.

I think you should look at the replies all these years from people when discussing seats on this site. I have always argued that the A330/A350 is much more comfortable to fly on. In some cases posters have been at pains to point out it is not seat width but pitch that is important. Now you want to argue it is seat width. I look forward to your participation in threads where you will comment to this and praise the A350 for being more comfortable than the 777X and the 787. (Not likely I know)

The only way you can get to a seating levels that are the same is to reduce the pitch on the 787. As airlines have not done this on their current fleets against the A330 I think it is just your own wishful thinking and it should be treated as such.

RJMAZ wrote:

The best thing is the 787-10 and 787-9 have 95% commonality. So a mixed fleet has very minor extra costs. The 787-10 not only beats the 9ab A339 in CASM in a big way it also beats in in comfort.

The 787-10 actually has greater range than their current A330-300's so it should be able to operate all of their current routes. The 787-9 can then be added at very minor cost to fly any routes that the A339 would open up.

So the 787-10 would have better CASM on all of their current routes when compared to the A339. The 787-9 would have equal CASM to the A339 on any new longer routes. So there's really no situation where the A339 would be winning.

Your arms must be ripped, with all that goal post moving. Now you are talking about a combined fleet to beat one aircraft. If you need to beat the A339 in CASM, the 78X is your plane. Flying that A339 at ranges that the 78X cannot fly? Well the 789 is your answer. But if you need more seats? The 78X is your answer. Do I have that right?

Sorry, ScootBiz is in no way comparable to Airasia X's Premium Flatbeds. Totally different product.

I created some more seat maps to make full economy cabins.

The 787-9 uses 17.5inch seats with 31inch pitch.
The A330-300 uses 16.5inch seats with 32inch pitch.




The 787-9 is still winning. More comfort, more seats less fuel burn. That translate into more profit. More comfort means extra demand. More seats means extra money coming in. Less fuel means less money going out.

Even with the 787 in 8ab it still wins with economics airlines just take the extra profit.

9ab on the A330 is the only way to get the economics remotely close to the 787. More people would actively avoid flying a 9ab A330 than a 9ab 787 so airlines prefer the 787.

RJMAZ wrote:

So the 787-9 fits more seats, is more comfortable and still burns less fuel. This is why the 787 is selling so well.

RJMAZ, let me tell you honestly - I admire your monster, King Kong size balls. 'Cuz no matter how many people come running at you, you've got a way of writing that just makes me want to believe you.

Whether its your utterly convincing argument that MoM will be a "tight 8ab", or your later, still utterly convincing argument that MoM will be a lightened 787 frame/9ab, or now, that 787 can always top any variety of A330........ I'm buying in. Hook, line and sinker; you've got chutzpah.

I can't tell whether you're completely full of s**t , or if the others just cannot see your clear and leveled head logic, but regardless...... I enjoy your posts and your crazy back of napkin mathematics. Its people like you that make a.net fun when I can't take any more pilot-bashing, EK worshipping or "yields are trash" posts.

Now, if you could just get your images to show up so I can see what kind of fun I am missing, I would be most grateful.

PS- I've been trying to figure out for a long time what "RJMAZ" might mean......

FlyHappy wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

So the 787-9 fits more seats, is more comfortable and still burns less fuel. This is why the 787 is selling so well.

RJMAZ, let me tell you honestly - I admire your monster, King Kong size balls. 'Cuz no matter how many people come running at you, you've got a way of writing that just makes me want to believe you.

Whether its your utterly convincing argument that MoM will be a "tight 8ab", or your later, still utterly convincing argument that MoM will be a lightened 787 frame/9ab, or now, that 787 can always top any variety of A330........ I'm buying in. Hook, line and sinker; you've got chutzpah.

I can't tell whether you're completely full of s**t , or if the others just cannot see your clear and leveled head logic, but regardless...... I enjoy your posts and your crazy back of napkin mathematics. Its people like you that make a.net fun when I can't take any more pilot-bashing, EK worshipping or "yields are trash" posts.

Now, if you could just get your images to show up so I can see what kind of fun I am missing, I would be most grateful.

PS- I've been trying to figure out for a long time what "RJMAZ" might mean......

Thank you for your kind words.

I think my biggest mistake is initially posting something controversial lacking evidence. I end up having to invest more time to prove the point when I should have done that in the very first post. It also wastes other members time.

I could take things one step further and create a new topic in tech/ops and write one large coherent post with graphics. I can then just link to it instead.

Some topics could have been:
"Why 8ab will always beat 7ab"
"Why a lightweight 787 is the best VALUE mom solution."
"A330 vs 787 economics and seat maps - why the 787 is selling so well.

Basically I'm not trying to say the 787 beats the A330 by 10% or even 5%. Nothing huge like that. It's just that even if you create a situation that plays to the A330's strength it only just reachs the 787. But it most normal situations the 787 has a clear lead.

Someone might say "The A330-900 can fit a max of 440 passengers where the 787-9 has to stop at 420 due to exit limits." Sure, but that requires the A330 to use 28inch pitch seats and narrow 16.5inch seats. They will have to reduce ticket price. If the A330 ticket price is only 5% cheaper the 787 will win again.

440 seats at $95 is $41,800
420 seats at $100 is $42,000

RJMAZ. First initial, second initial and first three letters of my surname

RJMAZ wrote:

Someone might say "The A330-900 can fit a max of 440 passengers where the 787-9 has to stop at 420 due to exit limits." Sure, but that requires the A330 to use 28inch pitch seats and narrow 16.5inch seats. They will have to reduce ticket price. If the A330 ticket price is only 5% cheaper the 787 will win again.

440 seats at $95 is $41,800
420 seats at $100 is $42,000

See now? there you go - who else comes up with wacky thoughts like that?
I can't see a necessity to reduce ticket price due to reduced seating area UNLESS there is a direct route competitor with even lower CASM.... and how will that happen, unless Nok AirX (or whatever) is going to actually fly a 420 seat 789 as competition?

But bless your heart for thinking, way, way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside the box!

FlyHappy wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Someone might say "The A330-900 can fit a max of 440 passengers where the 787-9 has to stop at 420 due to exit limits." Sure, but that requires the A330 to use 28inch pitch seats and narrow 16.5inch seats. They will have to reduce ticket price. If the A330 ticket price is only 5% cheaper the 787 will win again.

440 seats at $95 is $41,800
420 seats at $100 is $42,000

See now? there you go - who else comes up with wacky thoughts like that?
I can't see a necessity to reduce ticket price due to reduced seating area UNLESS there is a direct route competitor with even lower CASM.... and how will that happen, unless Nok AirX (or whatever) is going to actually fly a 420 seat 789 as competition?

But bless your heart for thinking, way, way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside the box!

Don't his seating charts kinda prove his point though?

I've used both Air Asia X and Scoot to get to "secondary" points in Asia from Australia for long weekends, i.e. not SIN or KUL. I go out of my way to use Scoot because the 9 abreast A330 is unbearable, including paying up to 20 per cent more. 9-abreast on a 330 for 8 hours is pretty much the pits of hell.

I get the feeling that the 787-10 is going to become the 77W of the 2020s. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out with AAX.

RJMAZ wrote:

I created some more seat maps to make full economy cabins.

The 787-9 uses 17.5inch seats with 31inch pitch.
The A330-300 uses 16.5inch seats with 32inch pitch.




The 787-9 is still winning. More comfort, more seats less fuel burn. That translate into more profit. More comfort means extra demand. More seats means extra money coming in. Less fuel means less money going out.

Even with the 787 in 8ab it still wins with economics airlines just take the extra profit.

9ab on the A330 is the only way to get the economics remotely close to the 787. More people would actively avoid flying a 9ab A330 than a 9ab 787 so airlines prefer the 787.

I think you overstate the role of comfort in passengers’ thinking: just think of the 777, airlines have actively moved to 10ab from 9ab, even airlines where comfort is more valued, like CX.

If comfort is that important then an airline can order the A330. I don’t think the economics even at 8ab are as bad as you say, because as I said previously, there would be zero reason to buy an A330 if it’s that far apart.

Also waiting for clarification about the sales.

aerokiwi wrote:

Don't his seating charts kinda prove his point though?

I've used both Air Asia X and Scoot to get to "secondary" points in Asia from Australia for long weekends, i.e. not SIN or KUL. I go out of my way to use Scoot because the 9 abreast A330 is unbearable, including paying up to 20 per cent more. 9-abreast on a 330 for 8 hours is pretty much the pits of hell.

I get the feeling that the 787-10 is going to become the 77W of the 2020s. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out with AAX.

I'm glad you chimed in, as you are an actual potential customer of AAX, while I am not, nor are most others posting. I haven't flown an Asian LCC since the Tiger Air days.

One thing is that as an Australian resident, you likely have much higher discretionary income than do most of the the Asian clientele who are originating from AAX's other served cities. It seems probable to me that AAX is creating new markets that didn't previously exist in those cities. Simply put, you can afford to make that choice to fly Scoot, or more premium carriers if you wished. You probably aren't highly typical of AAX's non-Australian routes.

We can all agree that 9ab A330 is inhumane..... but having said that, AAX has already built a pretty successful operation using 9ab A330, so I see little reason that they could not continue to do so with A330neo in the same configuration. As you've said, the more comfortable Scoot offering comes at a higher price point.

But there's a reason why CEO declared he was considering the B787, and it isn't just renegotiation leverage with Airbus, despite a.net fanboy proclamations; there's something to it. As you say, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

RJMAZ wrote:

Someone might say "The A330-900 can fit a max of 440 passengers where the 787-9 has to stop at 420 due to exit limits." Sure, but that requires the A330 to use 28inch pitch seats and narrow 16.5inch seats. They will have to reduce ticket price. If the A330 ticket price is only 5% cheaper the 787 will win again.

440 seats at $95 is $41,800
420 seats at $100 is $42,000

RJMAZ. First initial, second initial and first three letters of my surname

That is exactly what Cebu Pacific is using already, 430+ seats on the A330, that is who Air Asia is competing with, also the Philippine Airlines narrow body services into Australia.

Air Asia is not competitive against Scoot, Scoot is competing against the likes of Jetstar, Virgin, and the cheap seats on EK. They are supplying a product closer to a US domestic airline.

You have provided no actual DOC or Total costs for any of these aircraft, everything you are relying on is purely your speculation based on zero facts.

FlyHappy wrote:

But there's a reason why CEO declared he was considering the B787, and it isn't just renegotiation leverage with Airbus, despite a.net fanboy proclamations; there's something to it. As you say, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

I have never seen a declaration by the CEO that he was interested in the 787, there was a photo of him with a model of one (no statements) and everyone jumped to that conclusion from what I understand.

RJMAZ wrote:

I created some more seat maps to make full economy cabins.

The 787-9 uses 17.5inch seats with 31inch pitch.
The A330-300 uses 16.5inch seats with 32inch pitch.




The 787-9 is still winning. More comfort, more seats less fuel burn. That translate into more profit. More comfort means extra demand. More seats means extra money coming in. Less fuel means less money going out.

Even with the 787 in 8ab it still wins with economics airlines just take the extra profit.

9ab on the A330 is the only way to get the economics remotely close to the 787. More people would actively avoid flying a 9ab A330 than a 9ab 787 so airlines prefer the 787.

I notice that your A333 has two extra toilets than your 787-9 - 7 versus 5. That's two extra seats right there. . But clearly one toilet takes up 6 seats in rows 15 and 16.

zeke wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

But there's a reason why CEO declared he was considering the B787, and it isn't just renegotiation leverage with Airbus, despite a.net fanboy proclamations; there's something to it. As you say, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

I have never seen a declaration by the CEO that he was interested in the 787, there was a photo of him with a model of one (no statements) and everyone jumped to that conclusion from what I understand.

It's a little bit more than a photo:

“AirAsia X will need more planes. We are now looking at (Airbus) 330 (and) 350s, (Boeing) 787,” Fernandes told reporters on the sidelines of a business forum in Manila.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/bus ... et-growth/

Agree, Always lively when rjmazz is aboard.

I have not heard of an airline CEO who said that they ordered the aircraft type for its better passenger comfort. Most of the time, they just talk about lowering costs.

I can't see Airasia X ordering the B787 for its whole fleet - it may decide to use the B787 for different markets like Europe and US, where caucasian pax are physically larger and need the wider seats that the B787 provides. But they have to consider the total cost of operations (i.e. purchase price, finance costs, MRO costs, crew and tech personnel costs, airport charges, direct operating costs, etc.) before they can decide. Having a sub fleet can be very costly - that is one of the reasons why they are looking to dumping the 10 A350-900s on order..

Asian markets find the 3-3-3 A330-300 acceptable and Airasia Group are beginning to introduce new, slimline (carbon fibre chassis) seats on their aircraft. No doubt, these will be fitted to the upcoming A330-900s as well - seat pitch can then be reduced to 31 inches and more pax can be packed into the plane. The reduced weight of carbon fibre chassis seats and increased seat counts will enable Airasia X to offer competitively priced tickets for the Asian routes.

RJMAZ wrote:

I created some more seat maps to make full economy cabins.

The 787-9 uses 17.5inch seats with 31inch pitch.
The A330-300 uses 16.5inch seats with 32inch pitch.

You compare the worst existing 789 configuration with an A330, that has 60 seats less than the worst existing A330 configuration. It is not apples to apples.

The capital error, that you make is assuming that airlines will configure an A330 with the same level of comfort, as they would configure a 789 (by compensating more-width-by-less-pitch). This is not how it works. Subpar configurations in 777s and 787s all over prove this. The same way, low cost carries have the opportunity to put in much more seats into A330s. And so they did it. 60 seats more in the worst A330, than in the worst 789. Up to the exit limit. Nobody dared to fill up 789s to anywhere near the exit limit. And if someday somebody would, the seatcount would still be 20 seats less than doing the same with the A339 (due to the 420 vs. 440 exit limit). Comfort would surely be better in the 789, but having more comfort for a low cost carrier means only that he is wasting potential revenue.

B.t.w. I will remind you to apply your compensating-more-width-by-less-pitch rule to all your future CASM comparisons (e.g. 737 vs A320, 777 vs A350, 787 vs A330 mainline), so that the Airbus cabins should see nice seatcount boosts in all the non-low-cost applications. I believe using this rule even the A380 has a chance...

flee wrote:

I have not heard of an airline CEO who said that they ordered the aircraft type for its better passenger comfort. Most of the time, they just talk about lowering costs.

I can't see Airasia X ordering the B787 for its whole fleet - it may decide to use the B787 for different markets like Europe and US, where caucasian pax are physically larger and need the wider seats that the B787 provides. But they have to consider the total cost of operations (i.e. purchase price, finance costs, MRO costs, crew and tech personnel costs, airport charges, direct operating costs, etc.) before they can decide. Having a sub fleet can be very costly - that is one of the reasons why they are looking to dumping the 10 A350-900s on order..

Asian markets find the 3-3-3 A330-300 acceptable and Airasia Group are beginning to introduce new, slimline (carbon fibre chassis) seats on their aircraft. No doubt, these will be fitted to the upcoming A330-900s as well - seat pitch can then be reduced to 31 inches and more pax can be packed into the plane. The reduced weight of carbon fibre chassis seats and increased seat counts will enable Airasia X to offer competitively priced tickets for the Asian routes.

They've been serving those "wide Australians" all along
I agree that this or any other CEO isn't too concerned with passenger comfort, and in that same vein, I don't think they're worried about 9ab to Europe or US, and will move forward with A330 if it suits them best.

I really do think they see a legitimate case to consider the B787 for their unique application, even if to us armchair CEO's it seems insane to abandon their existing commonality.

The Airasia Group's CEO is well known for thinking aloud - throwing ideas out into the public space and getting free feedback. That is his way of doing market research! So don't take everything he says too seriously.

For a ULCC the biggest factor is that pesky exit limit. It’s why the MAX200 was created. I asked this before and I’ll ask it again, would a 78J-475 be possible? Add 2 exits (same as what was originally being planned for 779) and voila Boeing has a 333 replacement that has great revenue potential. That would increase the capacity gap as the 78J has more space. The -9 will suffer from being ever so slightly smaller than the 333. All things being equal the 333 will have more seats. More seats=more income. Now it comes down to operating costs and if the 789 can make that up, or if the 789 can command a higher ticket price, the latter I find doubtful when the difference is in the realm of 4-20seats all things (pitch, seats per row) being equal. At 32 inches of pitch, the 339 gets 2.5 additional rows, so either 27 or 18 additional seats. The last 8 rows lose 2 seats each on 333. So now we’re at 2 or 11 extra seats. The 789 loses 2 seats on the last row. So it’s a difference of 4 or 13 seats. Now with exit limits, the 789 maxes at 420. The 333 can hit 440. So the largest difference we can achieve is 20 seats from the exit limit difference. The A330-300 is a marginally bigger aircraft in 9ab configurations. Airlines would have to rely on 789 commanding a higher ticket price. So that gets us back to, on these shorter Asia flights, where the range isn’t necessary, would a 78J with additional exit capacity be a solution for Boeing to sell some planes into the A330 dominated Asian ULCC market?

On the seats airlines use we have been told many things on this website by different people, from the extra space in an Airbus doesn't really mattering as airlines buy the same seats to save money to its not seat width that matters but pitch. The argument now seems to go against most of the arguments we have had before on comfort for passengers. We have been told before comfort doesn't really matter as its only price. But comfort seems to matter now when the favoured product has more comfort than the competition.

As we can see with the points made here somehow an airline will use the same type of seats it has (for premium seating if used) but somehow it will only have 2 more seats. This goes against real world examples where the same two aircraft in other airlines currently having similar capacities when they use the same type of seats. The only way to get to that argument is the change the pitch in the 787, but is there examples where this has happened? Otherwise it is really nothing more than wishful thinking on the posters part.

So if I have this correct the arguments are as follows:

Comfort doesn't matter to passenger when its the 18" Airbus seat vs the 17" 787 seat as its all about price.
Comfort does matter when its the 17" 787 seat and the 16.5" Airbus seat because price isn't worth 0.5".
Seat width doesn't matter as much as pitch.
Seat pitch can be reduced if the seat is wider as its width that is more important.
Air Asia can buy both the 78X and 789 to compensate for the A330 capabilities (if you need more seats, its the 78X, if you need capability you have the 789, but what if you need both?)

enzo011 wrote:

So if I have this correct the arguments are as follows:

Comfort doesn't matter to passenger when its the 18" Airbus seat vs the 17" 787 seat as its all about price.
Comfort does matter when its the 17" 787 seat and the 16.5" Airbus seat because price isn't worth 0.5".
Seat width doesn't matter as much as pitch.
Seat pitch can be reduced if the seat is wider as its width that is more important.
Air Asia can buy both the 78X and 789 to compensate for the A330 capabilities (if you need more seats, its the 78X, if you need capability you have the 789, but what if you need both?)

I created a graph for you. As you clearly don't get it.



This curve will hopefully explain why it is OK to go from an Airbus 8ab seat to a 787 9ab but it is not OK to go from a 787 9ab seat to a A330 9ab seat. It's not moving goal posts it's just how the world works. Any product can have a similar curve.

You completely missed the point about the 789, 78X combo. There is minimal extra cost to operate two different aircraft due to the very high commonality.

The 787-9 aircraft beats the A330-900 on all routes in CASM, comfort and capacity as shown by my seat maps. It does all three at once by a very tiny margin.

The 787-10 beats the A330-900 by a very significant margin but as it can only fly 4000nm at max payload jnto the wind it would only be on the shorter routes.

To explain how this affects an airline decision making process I'll explain with some numbers (I like numbers)

Let's say the 787-9 provides a 1% CASM advantage and the 787-10 provides a CASM 5% advantage over the 9ab A330-900.

If an airline had 20 routes over 4000nm and 20 routes under 4000nm then you would run a 50/50 fleet of 9's and 10's. The fleet would then average out to a 3% advantage over the A330-900. It is this fleet advantage that is the most important.

You could even give the 787-9 a 1% disadvantage to the A330-900 but as long as the 787-10 had a 5% advantage then the 787 50/50 combo would still have a 2% advantage over the A330-900.

AIr Asia and Air Asia X cater towards the predominantly Asian clientèle, who are of smaller stature than most others. 9ab on an A330 is not a major problem for their target market.

Fiend wrote:

AIr Asia and Air Asia X cater towards the predominantly Asian clientèle, who are of smaller stature than most others. 9ab on an A330 is not a major problem for their target market.

Not really. They don’t care what race, shape or size you are.

RJMAZ:
Not that I do not appreciate your contribution, actually I enjoy it, but a bit you sound like a Boeing salesman who just passed the Boeing academy with the best graduation results a candidate ever had.
You should definitely consider a hiring. I am sure many A.netters will give reference recommendation.
A bit all reminds me the elasticity of the Ford sales guy when he argues against the Chevy or Toyota. (or the other way round).
I continue enjoying.

But definitely real competition is a fact.
An example where comfort really matters is Emirates, when ECO Passengers do everything to have the A380 10 abrest when the same route is also served by the B777, while they take the route with the narrower B777 when there is no A380 choice if prices are rather similar.

Would I enjoy a Cebu Airline 9 Ab A330 when I could fly a b787 9 Ab Jetstar on just a few bucks different pricing? Never ever, unless we talk 50% difference.

Real world is real world.

Flyglobal

Fiend wrote:

AIr Asia and Air Asia X cater towards the predominantly Asian clientèle, who are of smaller stature than most others. 9ab on an A330 is not a major problem for their target market.

WOW! What a stereotype response! When was the last time you visited Asia? Yes, compared to an average "most others" , an average Asian is not overblown is proportion but that does not mean the A330 in 9ab is okay for us but not for the "most others". Have you tried Air Asia A330 9ab? I have and it SUCKS! Way worse than 9ab 787 or 10 ab 777. Like some have said here, if Air Asia X orders 787s with 9ab, it would be a major upgrade for passergers from the 9ab A330s.

RJMAZ wrote:

This curve will hopefully explain why it is OK to go from an Airbus 8ab seat to a 787 9ab but it is not OK to go from a 787 9ab seat to a A330 9ab seat. It's not moving goal posts it's just how the world works. Any product can have a similar curve.

You just happen to invent a graph showing that the B787 seat width is the perfect width. What's that based on, except your own fantasy? You're going to argue that if an airline did 9 abreast on a A330 for $50 less, almost no one would take it as that's 'too' narrow? Well AirAsia are already doing that and cheaper.

And as you said, any product can have a similar curve. The 330 could have one showing that it is the 'optimum' width and no one will pay extra to fly on a slightly wider B787.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787-9 aircraft beats the A330-900 on all routes in CASM, comfort and capacity as shown by my seat maps. It does all three at once by a very tiny margin.

You have not acknowledged that your seat map is inaccurate and it should have an additional 9 seats where the additional 2 bathrooms are, tipping that balance back to the A330.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787-9 aircraft beats the A330-900 on all routes in CASM, comfort and capacity as shown by my seat maps. It does all three at once by a very tiny margin.

The 787-10 beats the A330-900 by a very significant margin but as it can only fly 4000nm at max payload jnto the wind it would only be on the shorter routes.

To explain how this affects an airline decision making process I'll explain with some numbers (I like numbers)

Let's say the 787-9 provides a 1% CASM advantage and the 787-10 provides a CASM 5% advantage over the 9ab A330-900.

If an airline had 20 routes over 4000nm and 20 routes under 4000nm then you would run a 50/50 fleet of 9's and 10's. The fleet would then average out to a 3% advantage over the A330-900. It is this fleet advantage that is the most important.

You could even give the 787-9 a 1% disadvantage to the A330-900 but as long as the 787-10 had a 5% advantage then the 787 50/50 combo would still have a 2% advantage over the A330-900.

You're just making things up now. Let's just say the B787 runs on rainbows and sunbeams and it'll have 100% CASM advantage too.

Is there any improvement in interior cabin width between the A333 and A339?

I recall that the A350 Mk 1 proposal, based on the A330, featured interior sculpting to achieve a wider interior width. I accept that it would have had only a small impact, but at that time it was considered significant for marketing the A350 Mk 1.

Good lord. People are arguing the minutia now. The practical argument is effectively this. You have 2 more meters to play with which buys you 2-3 rows of seats. You lose more to tapering. Similarly equipped your seating will be similar within a couple of percentage points.

What isn’t relevant really are the exit limits because neither plane will approach it in Air Asia X configuration, though the 787-10 would be close.

I think we all ought to be able to concede that Air Asia X could configure the 789 to a very similar seat load to which it could configure an A339. Beyond that it’s just guessing and we can all change pitch a bit here or there and mess with bathrooms and galleys to get it just so.

But for the love of god we should be able to agree that 2 meters or so extra length means another 2-3 rows and that the taper at the end cost you a few seats making things overall pretty close.

Flyglobal wrote:

An example where comfort really matters is Emirates, when ECO Passengers do everything to have the A380 10 abrest when the same route is also served by the B777, while they take the route with the narrower B777 when there is no A380 choice if prices are rather similar.

Actually, its been repeatedly said on other threads that EK charges more on A380 than same-route B777 flights by what I percieve as fanatical A380 boosters.
If true, the A380/B777 seating comfort is a bit of an analog to a hypothetical B787-9ab/A330-9ab seating comfort and price dynamic.
Jus' sayin.

Flyglobal wrote:

Would I enjoy a Cebu Airline 9 Ab A330 when I could fly a b787 9 Ab Jetstar on just a few bucks different pricing? Never ever, unless we talk 50% difference.
Flyglobal

Earlier in this thread, an Australian resident says he chooses Scoot over AirAsiaX and pays a 20% premium specifically because of the seating. So there's some anecdotal input that's relevant.

Fiend wrote:

AIr Asia and Air Asia X cater towards the predominantly Asian clientèle, who are of smaller stature than most others. 9ab on an A330 is not a major problem for their target market.

Yes..... is it true that Asians have been their primary clientele, though based on long standing service into Australia, and clear expansion efforts into EU, they may be concerned about cabin density with a more diversified clientele. The walk-back from the A350 may be prompting this.

Something I'd like to educate you on - I am quite short/slim ("Asian stature" you might say), but my shoulders... they are wide. Literally wider than a B737 seat, for example. If I am seated between 2 adults, and they do not "give ground" in their respective (window/aisle) directions, both of my shoulders will be touching theirs. It is cramped and uncomfortable. Losing an inch from that already miserable position is 100000000% intolerable. Using my arms in the seat where elbows naturally extend becomes a civic disturbance.
I am not freakishly proportioned, my dimensions are not unusual for the Asian population. As the Asian flying public gains in wealth (happening pretty rapidly), their tolerance for these conditions will diminish.
It isn't about body size... its about the money/comfort ratio.

Though I think AAX is likely to stick with A330, and for good reason - I can see legitimate reasons why they are considering B787.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787-9 aircraft beats the A330-900 on all routes in CASM, comfort and capacity as shown by my seat maps.

Your seatmap does not show that at all imho. Not even close. I explained why above. One point to remember is, that I discussed about the general capabilities of the A330 in a low cost role and not the specific Air Asia configs (because RJMAZ made general claims in the beginning). We have to concede, that in the ultimate race to the bottom the A339 can offer a significantly higher seat count than the 789. The difference is real. The seatcount gap between existing low-cost configs is 60 seats. And by the regulator this gap will never shrink to less than 20 seats...

One more thing: if the above is true, why did the A333 (for usage as 8ab mostly and not the NEO!) outsell the 789 for many years?

bigjku wrote:

But for the love of god we should be able to agree that 2 meters or so extra length means another 2-3 rows and that the taper at the end cost you a few seats making things overall pretty close.

We should, but the Airbus guys want to still think it magically can fit 40 extra seats.

Pointing out something so obvious will just get you called a "Boeing salesman who just passed the Boeing academy with the best graduation results a candidate ever had."

TheFlyingRaven wrote:

I notice that your A333 has two extra toilets than your 787-9 - 7 versus 5. That's two extra seats right there. . But clearly one toilet takes up 6 seats in rows 15 and 16.

I made this just for you.



Identical layouts, toilets, meals area. Shock horror the 787-9 still wins.

TheFlyingRaven wrote:

You just happen to invent a graph showing that the B787 seat width is the perfect width. What's that based on, except your own fantasy? You're going to argue that if an airline did 9 abreast on a A330 for $50 less, almost no one would take it as that's 'too' narrow? Well AirAsia are already doing that and cheaper.

And as you said, any product can have a similar curve. The 330 could have one showing that it is the 'optimum' width and no one will pay extra to fly on a slightly wider B787.

You've missed the point of the graph.

The average standard economy seat is very close to 17.5inch. If we assume a 50/50 Boeing Airbus market we can develop a nice average. Nearly all Airbus products have an 18" seat. Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"

Now If we look at the extreme seat widths out there I would estimate there are more small 16.5inch wide seats than larger 18.5inch wide economy seats. This would lower the average very close to 17.5inch.

If the average is 17.4" 17.5" or 17.6" it is irrelevant as that is not the point of the graph.

You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable. The price would have to be significantly lower and with only 10% extra seats the profit would be less. I would definitely fly a 10ab 787 if the tickets were half price. Simply buy two tickets and out the armrest up.

rheinwaldner wrote:

We have to concede, that in the ultimate race to the bottom the A339 can offer a significantly higher seat count than the 789. The difference is real. The seatcount gap between existing low-cost configs is 60 seats. And by the regulator this gap will never shrink to less than 20 seats..

Or we could agree that at 420 seats the 787-9 beats the A330-900 convincingly?

We could also agree that squeezing in an additional 20 seats into the A330 requires the ticket price to drop at a greater percentage than the percentage of extra seats. That means overall less profit.