Eightball From Saudi Arabia, joined Oct 2007, 287 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6523 times:
I know that EK's 10-abreast Y class seating on their 777s has been discussed many times on these forums, but I want to look at this topic from a different perspective.
Having flown on the 777s of EK and QR in long-haul trips several times in the past few years, all in Y class, I used to prefer EK for having a better transit experience. This changed last May when I was flying on EK 225, DXB-SFO, a 77W, in Y class; in terms of both leg room and seat width, I felt cramped in my seat throughout the whole flight. This is probably because before that flight, the majority of my flights in Y class on the EK 777s have been in a seat that is part of one of the pairs of seats at the back of the plane, which feel less cramped, while on that last flight I was in a left-side window seat that was next to two other seats. On the other hand, on all of my flights on QR 777s in Y class, which have 9-abreast seating, I never felt cramped, in terms of both leg room and seat width.
A lot of passengers just care about getting the cheapest fare when choosing an airline to fly on; however, based on passenger opinions I've read on the web, there is a significant amount of passengers that dislike the 10-abreast seating on EK's 777s, who prefer to fly on airlines that have 9-abreast Y class seating on their 777s. By now I prefer to fly on QR's 777s if I have to fly in Y class, simply because I want to feel comfortable during my travels.
Since EK aims to have a huge presence in the world-wide airline industry, what if they decided to change the Y class seating on their 777s to 9-abreast with more seat width and slightly more leg room in order to gain the business of travelers who prefer to have a more comfortable Y class experience? This might mean that they would need to increase the number of Y class seats at the expense of the number of seats in J class and/or F class in order to maintain a good amount of revenue from Y class, but in the long run I think that it could be a positive move from a marketing perspective.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6456 times:
The problem is that for every one person that displays a dislike on the internet, there are 100,000 who don't know and don't care. EK isn't too worried about it -- their planes are still full at good fares (at least in my experience on the Kangaroo route which is the only time I've flown them) so there's no need to change.
Hopefully as the next gen of EK planes comes in comfort will increase. The A380 is exponentially better, and the A350 will not take 10 abreast, so seat width should increase across the fleet.
TreeHillRavens From Malaysia, joined Jun 2007, 406 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6448 times:
That's because all newly delivered 77W feature only 31" - 32" of seat pitch in Economy Class. EK used to have 33" 34" of seat pitch in all of their 777 but only few still left this above average seat pitch in Y now.
There are five different seat configurations for the 77W.
- P8, J42, Y304 **(31" - 32" of seat pitch in Y)
- P12, J42, Y304 **(31" - 32" of seat pitch in Y)
- P12, J42, Y310 **(33" - 34" of seat pitch in Y)
- J42, Y385 **(33" - 34" of seat pitch in Y)
- J42, Y400 **(31" - 32" of seat pitch in Y)
Most of EK 77W are in the 1st, 2nd or 5th seat configuration.
I once flew their 772 in 2-class configuration (J49, Y304) in 2004 and despite the tighter seat width, the above average seat pitch (33"-34") really made all the difference and it was anything but cramped. Too bad this is all diseappearing at EK and there is absolutely no sign at all that they will go 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 in Y on any of their 777
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5682 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6263 times:
It has been a few years since I was on an EK 777, but the 10 abreast didn't bother me nearly as much as the seats themselves. I found the seat cushions very uncomfortable. It took less than two hours for me to grow weary of those terrible cushions.
I know it is possible to have a comfortable 17" seat since Austrian has some on the 738's. DXB-VIE..almost 6 hours without a hint of numb butt.
The 9 across on Singapore is the most comfortable economy I've ever flown. The seat and service made upgrading a waste of money.
I assume it would be the other way around-- i.e, fewer seats in the configuration with greater leg room? Or is it something else, like different galley/toilet/crew rest layouts that account for the odd numbers?
I thought the whole raison d'etre of the 10 abreast was in fact so that they could offer extra leg room without losing seats.
If they're going to eliminate the extra legroom now, then the 10 abreast has really no advantage.
I've flown on 4 77Ws (A6-ECD/ECS/ECT/EBS) within the last couple of years and didn't find the legroom too bad. The A380s did feel more spacious though, both in terms of legroom and overall.
ZKEOJ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 1077 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6166 times:
I only flew on EK's B77W AKL-SYD once, and had a "normal" window seat (i.e. not the two-seater in the rear), and I found it very cramped. It felt like the wall is curving in and pushing your head towards the aisle. Despite everything else having been nice on that flight, it was a very uncomfortable, and I was glad only to have 3 hours to endure. Since then I have avoided 10 abreast 777s like the plague (and have been successful so far, but the day I will fly on NZ's 300s will come soon I think).
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 3): didn't bother me nearly as much as the seats themselves. I found the seat cushions very uncomfortable.
Funny enough, I didn't mind the 777 cushions, but the A345 seats (MEL-AKL) felt old and worn, and quite uncomfortable.
Overall, EK didn't impress me much, but there was nothing really wrong either. If they were in an alliance I would certainly not mind flying them (although you can collect UA miles with EK).
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6150 times:
I preferred it when EK flew the old Airbus into PER if only because no passenger had to get past more than one seat to get out. I prefer a window seat and having to disrupt two passengers if I want to walk to the WC is a bit of a nuisance to them as well as me. It also makes it more difficult for the crew to serve meals and drinks, not to mention clearing up afterwards.
I haven't found the seat pitch too bad, except where ICE boxes take up some of the room. The width is of more concern if you end up sitting next to someone, to use that dreadful euphemism, of size. But generally it is only at meal times that it becomes uncomfortable: it is not natural to use a knife and fork with your elbows wedged against your ribs because you can't move sideways.
Am I right in thinking that the actual seat width is not that much different to many other carriers (half an inch, maybe) but that the seat spacing is what makes the difference? Certainly the aisles would be narrower in ten abreast, with additional space being gained by shared arm rests and a smaller gap between the seats.