Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3832561/

Topic: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kappel
Posted 2008-02-06 10:43:29 and read 17381 times.

Boeing is pitching a 3-2-3 layout for premium economy in the 787, although they have gotten mixed reactions so far. The reason for the 3-2-3 layout:

"In economy, if you get an empty seat next to you, it feels like you've won the lottery. With a triple, for every empty seat two passengers benefit, whereas with doubles and quads it only makes one passenger more comfortable."

Boeing have also patented the 3-2-3 layout (didn't know that was possible), so I guess Airbus can't use it on the a350.

Funny how 8 abreast is now suddenly "premium economy" in the 787. The 787 used to be marketed with 8 abreast as standard for Y. Guess we'll have a lot of    aircraft in Y.  

[Edited 2008-02-06 10:50:56]

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Moo
Posted 2008-02-06 10:51:44 and read 17298 times.

According to Flight Global, Boeing has this '3-2-3' layout patented - now *thats* a wtf?! Seriously, how did that get past either of the 'non-obvious' or 'novel' checks at the Patent office?!

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-02-06 10:53:21 and read 17303 times.



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Funny how 8 abreast is now suddenly "premium economy" in the 787. The 787 used to be marketed with 8 abreast as standard for Y. Guess we'll have a lot of    aircraft in Y.

Blame the airlines. They don't want to offer 18.5" seats, as passengers won't pay extra for it in Y. Considering some airlines have F seats that are 18.5" wide, a premium Y 18.5" with 38" pitch would match the F domestic product in the USA (albeit with narrower armrests).

3-2-3 is ideal if you have empty seats, but the way Y+ is put into aircraft, the airline knows how many they can sell, and will upgrade customers to the rest, so the odds of having an empty seat are slim to none. So the point is not valid. Sorry Boeing. It is a valid argument for standard Y (with higher odds of empties), but not Y+...  Wink

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: WILCO737
Posted 2008-02-06 10:56:57 and read 17232 times.



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Guess we'll have a lot of aircraft in Y.

As I always say: Fly more Business or First class! then you have enough space Big grin Big grin

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: EvilForce
Posted 2008-02-06 11:00:21 and read 17186 times.

Sorry but 3-2-3 sucks. It means you have two people to crawl over if you have a window seat to use the bathroom or get up. 2-4-2 you only have to disturb one other to get up. Given the long flight segments this plane is built for, no thanks.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: JoKeR
Posted 2008-02-06 11:03:20 and read 17151 times.



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 4):
2-4-2 you only have to disturb one other to get up.

2-4-2 rules, only one person's head to stomp before you reach the freedom of the aisles Big grin

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kappel
Posted 2008-02-06 11:07:15 and read 17105 times.



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 3):
As I always say: Fly more Business or First class! then you have enough space

Sure, we'd all love to be able to fly nothing but C or F. But not everybody's a millionaire..  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
3-2-3 is ideal if you have empty seats, but the way Y+ is put into aircraft, the airline knows how many they can sell, and will upgrade customers to the rest, so the odds of having an empty seat are slim to none. So the point is not valid. Sorry Boeing. It is a valid argument for standard Y (with higher odds of empties), but not Y+...

Agreed. I don't like this layout at all. Sure, it's great to have an empty seat next to you, but what are the chances for that? Anyway, no wonder Boeing got "mixed reactions" from the airlines.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: N1120A
Posted 2008-02-06 11:10:10 and read 17052 times.



Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):

Sure, we'd all love to be able to fly nothing but C or F. But not everybody's a millionaire..

Or any airline pilot, in Phil's case  Wink

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: EYKD
Posted 2008-02-06 11:18:04 and read 16953 times.

Yes, Boeing somehow patented this layout. I've heard of this a couple of years ago (probably it was yet pending at that time).

I just read an article in 10 years jubilee issue of Aircraft Interiors International magazine. It was actually an interview with Boeing's Klaus Bauer. He said that Boeing designed 787's fuselage to accomodate both 9-abreast as regular Y and 8-abreast as Y+.

As reported, a huge passenger survey had been put into the basement of that configuration. It turned out that there were generally 2 large groups of Y-class flying public. The first one was travelling foe leisure, primarily with their families and friends and did not mind to fly in more condensed layout.

The other group was business travellers flying alone. They appreciate more personal space a lot. So Boeing targeted to have them in 8-abreast Y+ cabin.

As a side note: It is well known that not only seat pitch affects your feel of comfort. Distance between you and your neighbour at shoulder level plays a very significant role.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: EYKD
Posted 2008-02-06 11:23:14 and read 16930 times.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
Sure, it's great to have an empty seat next to you, but what are the chances for that?

Boeing also considered average cabin load factor to come up to that layout.

Just for fun I would also suggest 2-3-3 layout, how do you like that?

[Edited 2008-02-06 11:23:51]

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: ChrisI1024
Posted 2008-02-06 11:49:47 and read 16701 times.

Better than Finnair's 2-5-2 in the back, 2-4-3 in the front.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Multimark
Posted 2008-02-06 11:55:42 and read 16627 times.



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 5):
2-4-2 rules, only one person's head to stomp before you reach the freedom of the aisles

Yes 2-4-2 is far better, but maybe Airbus has patented that!

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Killjoy
Posted 2008-02-06 12:01:32 and read 16582 times.



Quoting ChrisI1024 (Reply 10):
Better than Finnair's 2-5-2 in the back, 2-4-3 in the front.

That's 3-4-2 and 3-4-3. The A340 is 2-4-2 throughout. 3-4-2 is the best nine abreast layout imho.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: A350
Posted 2008-02-06 12:07:05 and read 16509 times.

At least it increases the chances of getting a window seat for us aviation nuts  cloudnine 

A350

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Indy
Posted 2008-02-06 12:08:49 and read 16484 times.



Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
According to Flight Global, Boeing has this '3-2-3' layout patented - now *thats* a wtf?! Seriously, how did that get past either of the 'non-obvious' or 'novel' checks at the Patent office?!

The U.S. Patent office has no shame or credibility. There are times I wonder if they even check the submissions. I believe it was Microsoft that accidentally got a patent or trademark on a tree. The idea of a patent, trademark or copyright is to protect intellectual property. I think 3-2-3 would be a HUGE stretch.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2008-02-06 12:11:27 and read 16465 times.



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Funny how 8 abreast is now suddenly "premium economy" in the 787. The 787 used to be marketed with 8 abreast as standard for Y. Guess we'll have a lot of aircraft in Y.

I've sat in the 8 abreast and 9 abreast layouts on the 787, and 9 abreast is still reasonably comfortable. It's a bit difficult when sharing armrests, but I think airlines can get away with 9 abreast on that plane. The 3-2-3 seats though are very nice. Very spacious and if you get a seat free next to you, it is very comfortable. Boeing is telling the airlines that with 80% load factor, 3-2-3 is way better than 2-4-2 and I agree.

Quoting Multimark (Reply 11):

Yes 2-4-2 is far better, but maybe Airbus has patented that!

Believe it or not, but there have been 767s flying in that configuration.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kiwiandrew
Posted 2008-02-06 12:17:08 and read 16384 times.



Quoting A350 (Reply 13):
At least it increases the chances of getting a window seat for us aviation nuts

huh ? there are still only two window seats per row regardless of whether you have 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 , so how does it improve the odds ? unless you mean that 'normal' people will stop requesting window seats - and dont forget that the cabin crew will be able to switch off your window at any time

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Stitch
Posted 2008-02-06 12:38:38 and read 16225 times.

Of course, each airline will decide on the setting, but if costs rise and leisure traffic falls, it may yet be that 3+2+3 becomes the more preferred layout.

Now that UA ruthlessly enforces access to Economy Plus to only those directly eligible for it, on narrowbodies and the center row of the 767 I find the middle seat empty the significant majority of the time and much more then when I am in the outer set of two on the 777 (I will not be caught dead in Economy on a UA 744, even from SFO to OAK). Even the 777 is usually 1+0+1+0+1 in the center set of five, so I might start looking at the C seat instead of B during check-in.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Heavierthanair
Posted 2008-02-06 12:40:04 and read 16210 times.

G´day

Quoting EYKD (Reply 9):
Just for fun I would also suggest 2-3-3 layout, how do you like that?

A 3-3-2 layout would definitely be the preferred option! Being a Socialist you do not want to have an overly rightist layout, having less weight to the right should equally suit the majority of the US Democrats.  Embarrassment

Politics do have to be considered in whatever you want to sell, be it airliners to airlines or airline seats to the travelling public. The Boeing 3-2-3 proposal did not consider either, the arrangement is too heavily left or right oriented while simply ignoring the neutral and less politically active majority.  Angry

With the Bus´ traditional 2-4-2 layout you are politically correct, neutral so to say with no preference for either right or left (or should I say left or right), so why change?  Wink

So much for politics today  old 


Cheers

Peter

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: N1120A
Posted 2008-02-06 12:40:28 and read 16207 times.



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
and dont forget that the cabin crew will be able to switch off your window at any time

What are you talking about?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Stitch
Posted 2008-02-06 12:47:18 and read 16132 times.



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
and dont forget that the cabin crew will be able to switch off your window at any time



Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
What are you talking about?

Kiwiandrew is operating under the mistaken assumption, shared by many, that the FAs can make the electronic window shades of the 787 go completely opaque.

In fact, the polarization even at it's most aggressive setting will still allow people to see out in daylight. It will be more resemblant of looking through a pair of highly-tinted lenses or car windows. It will certainly not be like the solid pull-down shades of today.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: TCT
Posted 2008-02-06 12:51:07 and read 16093 times.

I was wondering do the airlines have to do this type of 3-2-3 layout, or are they allowed to arange seats in wich ever way they want??

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Stitch
Posted 2008-02-06 12:55:08 and read 16044 times.



Quoting TCT (Reply 21):
I was wondering do the airlines have to do this type of 3-2-3 layout, or are they allowed to arange seats in wich ever way they want?

They have full freedom to arrange the seats anyway they want, within the physical constraints of the floor and walls.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Simairlinenet
Posted 2008-02-06 12:57:12 and read 16028 times.



Quoting EYKD (Reply 9):
Boeing also considered average cabin load factor to come up to that layout.

Average load factor (ex. 80%) isn't the right way to approach this, since it's entirely possible that the average load factor never happens. I hope they looked at the average outcome of all of the possibilities (i.e., some airlines with 75%, some airlines with 85%) when considering this option.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RJ111
Posted 2008-02-06 12:57:27 and read 16029 times.

Completely illogical for many reasons and probably just there incase anyone suggests they are copying Airbus' typical seating cross section.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: N1120A
Posted 2008-02-06 12:58:45 and read 16005 times.



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 24):
Completely illogical for many reasons and probably just there incase anyone suggests they are copying Airbus' typical seating cross section.

I don't see how they could claim that, because the 787's cross section is significantly larger.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: FDH
Posted 2008-02-06 13:06:01 and read 16667 times.

For those interested, I think the US Patent number for this invention is: 5,611,503

You can get the patent details at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

FDH

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Indio66
Posted 2008-02-06 13:11:37 and read 16516 times.



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 5):
2-4-2 rules, only one person's head to stomp before you reach the freedom of the aisles

I agree.

3-2-3 is a stupid idea, and the rationale is even dumber. I can't imagine a Boeing sales person going into an airline for a pitch and justifying the seats on the grounds of a low load factor. You would basically be insulting your customers.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RJ111
Posted 2008-02-06 13:19:11 and read 16309 times.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 25):

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 24):
Completely illogical for many reasons and probably just there incase anyone suggests they are copying Airbus' typical seating cross section.

I don't see how they could claim that, because the 787's cross section is significantly larger.

The fact that the seating arrangements would be identical would probably be the basis of the claims. However, only rather sad people would bleat about that.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2008-02-06 13:33:50 and read 15957 times.



Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
Sure, it's great to have an empty seat next to you, but what are the chances for that?

Quite a high chance. With 3-2-3 you need a 75% load factor before any middle seats have to be used. Even today, the average load factor on most longhaul flights doesn't exceed 80% on an annual basis, so for much of the year you'd have a good chance of an empty seat next to you.

Quoting EYKD (Reply 8):
As a side note: It is well known that not only seat pitch affects your feel of comfort. Distance between you and your neighbour at shoulder level plays a very significant role.

Very true, and why I avoid carriers with 10-abreast 777s.

Quoting ChrisI1024 (Reply 10):
Better than Finnair's 2-5-2 in the back, 2-4-3 in the front.

AY's MD-11s are 3-4-3 (10-abreast) in the rear cabin, not 2-5-2.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2008-02-06 13:37:39 and read 15828 times.



Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
According to Flight Global, Boeing has this '3-2-3' layout patented - now *thats* a wtf?! Seriously, how did that get past either of the 'non-obvious' or 'novel' checks at the Patent office?!

Well, nobody is doing it today so "novel" is easy. How they got over "non-obvious" I'm not so sure.

Quoting Indio66 (Reply 27):
3-2-3 is a stupid idea, and the rationale is even dumber. I can't imagine a Boeing sales person going into an airline for a pitch and justifying the seats on the grounds of a low load factor. You would basically be insulting your customers.

80% isn't a low load factor. As a fleet average, that's pretty good. Sales is about knowing your customer and what they want. It's not insulting to tell a customer with 80% load factor that this layout will be more comfortable than that one. It is insulting to offer a customer a layout that's not suited to their actual business, because it tells them you don't care enough to do your homework.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: AlexInWa
Posted 2008-02-06 13:40:45 and read 15769 times.

Why aren't there any seating diagrams on the boeing website for the 787 like all the rest???

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Joni
Posted 2008-02-06 13:47:08 and read 15633 times.



Quoting EYKD (Reply 8):
Yes, Boeing somehow patented this layout. I've heard of this a couple of years ago (probably it was yet pending at that time).

Does someone know the patent number?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Stitch
Posted 2008-02-06 13:57:29 and read 15453 times.



Quoting AlexInWa (Reply 31):
Why aren't there any seating diagrams on the boeing website for the 787 like all the rest?

The 787 Airport Compatibility Guide available under "Technical Information" has seating diagrams for the 787.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Ytib
Posted 2008-02-06 13:58:46 and read 15405 times.



Quoting FDH (Reply 26):
For those interested, I think the US Patent number for this invention is: 5,611,503



Quoting Joni (Reply 32):
Does someone know the patent number?

There is quite a mathematical formula to determine the optimal seating configuration.

It was filed in 1993, and is " Optimal airplane passenger seating configurations and methods therefor"

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: KochamLOT
Posted 2008-02-06 14:06:12 and read 15225 times.

Just make it 2-4-2! The 767 is great because its not to crammed with so many seats abreast each other. Heres an idea; make a long range a/c similar to a 757 with an extra aisle so in Y its 2-2-2 and in first 1-1-1. Now thats awesome.
How is possible to 'patent' the way you configure seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: PanAm747LHR
Posted 2008-02-06 14:08:57 and read 15171 times.

I would go out of my way to avoid flying on an aircraft with this seating arrangement - I don't know what Boeing is thinking. Being on an aircraft with a 2-4-2 arrangement is far more appealing, since the farthest you will ever be from the aisles is 1 seat. With 3-2-3 you have not one, but TWO people who will be two seats away from the aisles, and I'm sorry, but the chances aren't that great that you'll have an empty seat. Given the way gate agents hand out seats, there would be plenty of people packed into those triples, while others would have them to themselves (and spread out across them after about 2 minutes, if they're smart.) Is Boeing going to send a directive to gate agents of the airlines buying the 787 telling them to keep the middle seats empty until the plane is booked above 75%? I don't think so.
Boeing, you need to head back to the drawing boards on this one. Just because Airbus came up with the 2-4-2 idea doesn't mean its a bad one...

Nick

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RedChili
Posted 2008-02-06 14:23:52 and read 14875 times.

So, if an outbound flight goes with 60 percent load factor, and the inbound flight goes with 100 percent, Boeing says that the "average" load factor on that round-trip flight was 80 percent, and the best seating for this 80 percent load factor is 3-2-3...

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kieron747
Posted 2008-02-06 14:48:13 and read 14747 times.



Quoting Indy (Reply 14):
The U.S. Patent office has no shame or credibility.



 Wink

Kieron

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: MotorHussy
Posted 2008-02-06 15:23:36 and read 13938 times.

What's best for an airline that aims at filling its seats?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: 787KQ
Posted 2008-02-06 15:33:09 and read 13816 times.

This thread cannot be serious.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-02-06 15:50:19 and read 13570 times.



Quoting EYKD (Reply 9):
Boeing also considered average cabin load factor to come up to that layout.

But even on 75% load factor, Y+ is going to be all but full. It's a small cabin, and there's no reason for the seats to remain free. Most airlines put it in too small, then expand it as they see the demand. It's often hard to book close to the day of departure.

Quoting EYKD (Reply 9):
Just for fun I would also suggest 2-3-3 layout, how do you like that?

I was thinking the same thing.

Now, in the olden days, 4 seats in a block meant 2 control boxes for PTVs, which is why 3-3-3 and 3-2-3 make a lot of sense. (Go to seatguru, check out various planes and read about where the limited foot space is). It was 75% of the complexity and weight of putting PTVs in 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 layout. But with the modern AVOD, I don't know this is true anymore. There must be a reason Boeing wants 3-2-3. Maybe it has to do with the side bins intruding into the aisle if it's 2-4-2?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2008-02-06 16:23:07 and read 13128 times.



Quoting KochamLOT (Reply 35):
How is possible to 'patent' the way you configure seats.

Provided it meets the criteria for a patent, which is notoriously low in the US, you can patent pretty much anything. It's not just objects...methods, techniques, configurations, etc. are all fair game.

Quoting PanAm747LHR (Reply 36):
I don't know what Boeing is thinking. Being on an aircraft with a 2-4-2 arrangement is far more appealing, since the farthest you will ever be from the aisles is 1 seat.

You're assuming that passengers' priority is aisle proximity. I'm sure that's true for lots of people, obviously including yourself, but it's not true for all passengers. I don't know what the relative proportion is but it's certainly not 100% as you seem to be suggesting. Just as one data point, my priorities in descending order are:
1) Proximity to window
2) Chance of an empty seat next to me
3) Aisle proximity

I've never really understood the obsession with aisle proximity...it's something that happens maybe twice per flight and last about 30 seconds.

Quoting PanAm747LHR (Reply 36):
Is Boeing going to send a directive to gate agents of the airlines buying the 787 telling them to keep the middle seats empty until the plane is booked above 75%?

Boeing doesn't set the seating arrangements. They offer them up and the airlines pick what they want. If you find a seating arrangement you don't like, be it 3-2-3 or something else, blame the airline, not Boeing or Airbus.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Indy
Posted 2008-02-06 16:33:08 and read 13008 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
Provided it meets the criteria for a patent, which is notoriously low in the US, you can patent pretty much anything. It's not just objects...methods, techniques, configurations, etc. are all fair game.

I should patent the concept of arranging seats with an aisle. Yeah I didn't come up with the idea but I doubt someone at Boeing just now thought up 3-2-3.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: ThegreatRDU
Posted 2008-02-06 19:10:28 and read 11626 times.

man that is some weird stuff

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: MotorHussy
Posted 2008-02-06 19:11:14 and read 11633 times.



Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 39):
What's best for an airline that aims at filling its seats?

The answer's "What's most attractive to its customers." and that is 2-4-2.

As for patenting the layout, the airline (customer) specifies their desired layout.

MH

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: MotorHussy
Posted 2008-02-06 19:41:12 and read 11353 times.

Flight International reports reactions to be "mixed" with regard to the novel layout idea:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-configuration-on-boeing-787.html

From my experience, "mixed reactions" are a PR person's way of not having to say people hate it.

Regards
MH

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: YYZA330
Posted 2008-02-06 20:19:31 and read 11045 times.

The point of an airline is to fly passenger, not empty seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2008-02-06 20:24:29 and read 11182 times.

Here's why I think it'll never work:

Big version: Width: 238 Height: 159 File size: 37kb
The problem with a 3-2-3 arrangement

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2008-02-06 20:55:07 and read 10782 times.

I wonder, is it possible to have a 2-5-2 layout on the 787? I know that the 787 is capable of featuring 3-2-3, 2-4-2, or 3-3-3. Most airlines are going with 3-3-3, with a few going with 2-4-2. I haven't heard of any airlines that intend on going 3-2-3. However, some airlines, such as American, would maybe like a 2-5-2 layout. The underfloor tracks may not allow 2-5-2 though.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RedChili
Posted 2008-02-06 21:16:25 and read 10592 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
I've never really understood the obsession with aisle proximity...it's something that happens maybe twice per flight and last about 30 seconds.

It's not only a question of aisle proximity, it's also a question of not having to get up for people who don't have aisle proximity.

If the seating is 3-2-3, ABC-DE-FGH, it means that two people per row (CF) are in the aisle seat where they're blocking aisle access for two other passengers. These two will probably be hassled several times during the flight (remember that many 787 flights will be very long), and they might have a hard time getting a good night's sleep with two people needing to climb over them every once in a while.

Also, two people per row (BG) will be in the even worse position of double inconveniency: They will have to disturb one person to get to the aisle (C/F), and they will be disturbed by one other passenger wanting to get into the aisle (A/H).

With 2-4-2 seating, AB-CDEF-GH, all passengers will only either be disturbed by one other passenger (BCFG), or will have to disturb one other passenger (ADEH) to get to the aisle.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2008-02-06 21:52:32 and read 10321 times.



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 48):
Here's why I think it'll never work:

 rotfl  No wonder Airbus didn't contest the patent.

Quoting Kieron747 (Reply 38):

Wink

Kieron

 wideeyed  Ok... now I know you can patent everything!

Quoting JoKeR (Reply 5):
2-4-2 rules, only one person's head to stomp before you reach the freedom of the aisles

 rotfl 

Yea... I can't take this thread seriously either.

But who the heck thinks its better to have to center seats both on the isle and a 'double oops' window seat when a known working configuration, 2-4-2, is 'single oops.'

lol

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Odwyerpw
Posted 2008-02-06 23:14:09 and read 9834 times.

2-4-2 requires 4 IFE units per seat row. 3-2-3 requires only 3 IFE units per seat row. even 3-3-3 only requires 3 IFE units per seat row. 2-4-2 is expensive from an IFE equipment purchase standpoint (33% higher)

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RedChili
Posted 2008-02-06 23:24:29 and read 9768 times.



Quoting Odwyerpw (Reply 52):
2-4-2 requires 4 IFE units per seat row.

The seat box for the Thales i-5000 used on the A380 can serve four seats. I don't know whether the 787 will revert to the technology of the 1990s.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: HawkerCamm
Posted 2008-02-06 23:29:31 and read 9747 times.

3-2-3 is not novel. It's used in the rear of a Ilyushin Il-96-300.
There must be other claims otherwise this patent is worthless on prior art grounds.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...dth=1024&height=706&sok=&photo_nr=

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kappel
Posted 2008-02-07 00:31:06 and read 9369 times.



Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 46):
From my experience, "mixed reactions" are a PR person's way of not having to say people hate it.

Indeed, my experience too. I doubt we'll see many airlines adopting this configuration.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 49):
I wonder, is it possible to have a 2-5-2 layout on the 787? I know that the 787 is capable of featuring 3-2-3, 2-4-2, or 3-3-3. Most airlines are going with 3-3-3, with a few going with 2-4-2. I haven't heard of any airlines that intend on going 3-2-3. However, some airlines, such as American, would maybe like a 2-5-2 layout. The underfloor tracks may not allow 2-5-2 though.

I suppose if 3-3-3 is possible, they could also fit 2-5-2. But that was never a popular configuration to begin with, even on the T7, IIRC some airlines who used this, reverted to 3-3-3.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Scbriml
Posted 2008-02-07 00:33:47 and read 9343 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
I've never really understood the obsession with aisle proximity...it's something that happens maybe twice per flight and last about 30 seconds.

Depends on a number of factors - how long the flight is, and the size of the other passengers' bladders.  wink 

I have no problem with 3 seats next to a window as long as I have the window seat - even on a 12 hour flight, I know I'm only getting out 3-4 times. But, I have also been in the aisle seat on an 8 hour flight where both other passengers got out of their seats at least 8 times each.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kappel
Posted 2008-02-07 00:54:40 and read 9214 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
I've never really understood the obsession with aisle proximity...it's something that happens maybe twice per flight and last about 30 seconds.

Depends on the length of the flight. On long flights (more than 6 hours) I like to get up and walk around a bit, just to stretch my legs.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kieron747
Posted 2008-02-07 01:03:33 and read 9269 times.

Check this then... (And remember all patents are in the public domain) - check out:

http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/free/espacenet.html

http://www.espacenet.com/index.en.htm

and

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html


One of Boeing's European patents.






The corresponding US patent.




I didn't check if the patents specifically claim such a configuration, but they are certainly exemplified in the disclosure.  Smile

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kieron747
Posted 2008-02-07 01:08:50 and read 9282 times.

As a side note, take a look at this design!

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: BrianDromey
Posted 2008-02-07 01:09:04 and read 9135 times.



Quoting Indio66 (Reply 27):
3-2-3 is a stupid idea, and the rationale is even dumber.

I think the load factor thing is just faffe. Perhaps the IFE boxes is more the issue.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 41):
It was 75% of the complexity and weight of putting PTVs in 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 layout. But with the modern AVOD, I don't know this is true anymore. There must be a reason Boeing wants 3-2-3. Maybe it has to do with the side bins intruding into the aisle if it's 2-4-2?

I tend to agree about the IFE boxes, but as another poster siad some systems are now capable of supporting 4 units. Also, if you mounted the boxes under the floor (a la AC) you should be able to power AB-C on one box DEF on another and GH on a third. You could still keep the far superior 2-4-2

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
I've never really understood the obsession with aisle proximity...it's something that happens maybe twice per flight and last about 30 seconds.

I think its an embarrassment thing, and the need to perform all sorts of acrobatics to get into the aisle. On a 777 its a nightmare to get into the aisle, OMHO, you have to disurb 2 others, and then climb over them without kicking them, knocking any drinks, etc, and the same on the way in. At least on 2-4-2 you only have one person to climb over. Its just easier and less embarrassing.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 48):
Here's why I think it'll never work:

hehe. Actually I've seen that happen on a T7 as well. On the T7 its very important that the bins are all open, or all closed, becasue of the pivot they protrude into the aisle quite a bit, which is good for loading, but bad for heads if people are not paying attention!

Seriously, though how is 3-2-3 attractive to premium Y travelers? Heck, even 2-4-2 is more a Y layout than Y+.

Brian.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Mir
Posted 2008-02-07 01:28:40 and read 8975 times.



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29):
Quite a high chance. With 3-2-3 you need a 75% load factor before any middle seats have to be used.

It'd be the same with 2-4-2, just swap the two middle seats into the center section instead of having them on each side.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RJ111
Posted 2008-02-07 01:37:00 and read 8920 times.

Another thing that's probably a bit off-putting about 3-2-3 is that the two centre seats might feels somewhat exposed, a little like the centre seat of a 2-1-2 first on some 767s.You may feel you have no privacy and that everyone can see what you're up to.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Baroque
Posted 2008-02-07 02:49:12 and read 8493 times.



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 4):
Sorry but 3-2-3 sucks. It means you have two people to crawl over if you have a window seat to use the bathroom or get up. 2-4-2 you only have to disturb one other to get up. Given the long flight segments this plane is built for, no thanks.

That should have been the end of the thread except we would never have had:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 48):
Here's why I think it'll never work:

- what DO they say about one picture?!!

Priceless as it would be true.

On patents, Exxon once tried to patent the study called palynology - examining fossil spores and pollens. They tried to do that about 40 years after the first papers on the topic were published and at a time when there would have been about 500 practicing the discipline world wide, about 30 or more in the US. So who holds the patents for seats in airplanes?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: AutoThrust
Posted 2008-02-07 03:21:56 and read 8273 times.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
Provided it meets the criteria for a patent, which is notoriously low in the US, you can patent pretty much anything. It's not just objects...methods, techniques, configurations, etc. are all fair game.

Then i can patent in the US coughing or sneezing? Big grin $$$$$

Back to topic, personally the best configuration is 2-4-2 and nothing else. So no thanks, 3-2-3 will avoid that even if that means not to fly on the 787 if it has this config.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Ravel
Posted 2008-02-07 03:28:00 and read 8222 times.



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Boeing have also patented the 3-2-3 layout (didn't know that was possible), so I guess Airbus can't use it on the a350.

What's your source?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: CPH757
Posted 2008-02-07 03:42:25 and read 8113 times.



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29):
Quite a high chance. With 3-2-3 you need a 75% load factor before any middle seats have to be used. Even today, the average load factor on most longhaul flights doesn't exceed 80% on an annual basis, so for much of the year you'd have a good chance of an empty seat next to you.

But again, the 80% average load could easily reflect 100% load in the summer, and 60% load in the winter. At 60% the 3-2-3 would be great, but so is 2-4-2. At 100% the middle seat argument doesn't really hold. In fact the 2-4-2 is better at close to 100% load, as if you just remove one passenger from each seat, no one has passengers on both sides. You have to remove two pax for this to be true on the 3-2-3. Again, as many others have suggested, depends on your preferences, but I think the personal space is the most important.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 18):
With the Bus´ traditional 2-4-2 layout you are politically correct, neutral so to say with no preference for either right or left (or should I say left or right), so why change?  

So much for politics today

Do you really believe that a French based company is the most extensive user of the 2-4-2 neutral seating arrangements? Big grin

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2008-02-07 04:19:26 and read 7884 times.



Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 18):
A 3-3-2 layout would definitely be the preferred option

Aaaaaaaagggghhhhhh! Nooooo! I hate asymmetrical layouts - I JUST HATE THEM! They look so annoying!  banghead 

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Baroque
Posted 2008-02-07 04:23:06 and read 7847 times.



Quoting Kieron747 (Reply 58):
One of Boeing's European patents.

Those suggest WMs pic is spot on - TDC for the forehead by the look of it. I cannot see a solution where the lockers could open and not get most folk between the eyes. If the solution is very high ceilings, the lockers would not be reachable.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Chautauquasaab
Posted 2008-02-07 04:44:09 and read 7701 times.

Perhaps the ultimate solution is the Thompson staggered seat arrangement for economy-class travel. You would have a greater sense of personal space, regardless of proximity to the aisle.
Has anyone ever sat in a prototype of this system?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kappel
Posted 2008-02-07 05:13:35 and read 7520 times.



Quoting Ravel (Reply 65):
What's your source?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-configuration-on-boeing-787.html

At the end of the article:

Quote:
The configuration has been patented by Boeing which gives it "a few more years" exclusivity, says Craver, who is unable to confirm whether any 787 customer has formally specified the concept for its aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kieron747
Posted 2008-02-07 05:18:35 and read 7561 times.



Quoting Chautauquasaab (Reply 69):
Perhaps the ultimate solution is the Thompson staggered seat arrangement for economy-class travel. You would have a greater sense of personal space, regardless of proximity to the aisle.

Another patent...

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: YXD172
Posted 2008-02-07 07:57:53 and read 6325 times.



Quote:

"The typical knock-back is that with this layout there is a better chance that travelling couples will get split up, but that is only a possibility if you're more than 90% full."

Is it just me, or has Boeing completely ignored families/couples flying together? Other than the quote above, I found no mention of families wanting to sit together. IMO, over half of the travellers that I see, especially long haul, are either with a partner, family, or friends. Usually, these people want to sit together. From personal experience, and as an aviation geek, 2-4-2 is much better for this for couples and families of 4+, because they can sit together with less of a chance of having someone take a seat next to them (in the outside rows by the window). As a bonus for couples, it is almost impossible for both of them to be a seat away from the aisle. I've flown with my family of four twice across the Atlantic and once to Mexico and back, and there is a notable feeling of comfort gained by having your whole family in one area (two rows of 2 or one row of 4 in 2-3-2), rather than across the aisle (3+1 in 3-3-3 or narrowbody 3-3).

IMO, 3-2-3 only really benefits families of 3 or solo travellers, even at 80%LF

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: RJ111
Posted 2008-02-07 08:28:51 and read 6080 times.



Quoting Kappel (Reply 70):

The configuration has been patented by Boeing which gives it "a few more years" exclusivity, says Craver, who is unable to confirm whether any 787 customer has formally specified the concept for its aircraft.

That's a no then. Big grin

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2008-02-07 08:49:34 and read 5930 times.



Quoting Odwyerpw (Reply 52):
2-4-2 requires 4 IFE units per seat row. 3-2-3 requires only 3 IFE units per seat row. even 3-3-3 only requires 3 IFE units per seat row. 2-4-2 is expensive from an IFE equipment purchase standpoint (33% higher)

Dare I say this is why there seems to be more IFE problems on the 777s than other aircraft?

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: ATLflyer
Posted 2008-02-07 08:53:00 and read 5894 times.

3-2-3 seating is ridiculous. Airlines are filling their planes to their max so the chance of having an empty seat next to you these days is essentially 0. 2-4-2 is the only way to go. Sorry Boeing...that is a horrible sales pitch.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2008-02-07 08:56:06 and read 5857 times.

Boeing simply will not publicly admit, that 2-4-2 layout, often associated with Airbus, works better. Instead, they will try to push their alternative "findings" on general public...

In the meantime, both NW and NH ordered their 787s with 2-4-2 economy Big grin Big grin Big grin

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Tdscanuck
Posted 2008-02-07 08:59:09 and read 5828 times.



Quoting YXD172 (Reply 72):
Is it just me, or has Boeing completely ignored families/couples flying together?

Apparently this can't be repeated enough...Boeing doesn't set the layout. Boeing offers options. Airlines pick their layout. Some airlines do not cater to families/couples (e.g. business shuttles), and their layout choices may be different than one that does.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Mrocktor
Posted 2008-02-07 10:12:55 and read 5286 times.



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
didn't know that was possible

In a reasonable system, it would be laughed at.

Quoting Indy (Reply 14):
The U.S. Patent office has no shame or credibility.

Or it has an agenda. I expect such subtle trade barriers to increase continuously, since lately the WTO makes direct subsidy such a large, visible target to shoot at. Just making competitors have to study, contest, tap-dance around or otherwise deal with these junk patents is worth the (negligible) cost of applying for them.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: AirlineEcon
Posted 2008-02-07 10:32:41 and read 5138 times.

The Benefit of 3-2-3 only comes when there are 2 or 3 empty seats per row
See below assuming all that matters to passengers is an empty seat next to them

1 empty seat : XOX_XX_XXX = 2 benefit vs XX_XOXX_XX=2 benefit
2 empty seats: XOX_XX_XOX = 4 benefit vs XO_XOXX_XX = 3 benefit
3 empty seats: XOX_OX_XOX = 5 benefit vs XO_XOXX_OX = 4 benefit

But in reality aisles and windows matter, hence why we don't see the 2+4+2 filled as I depicted. And if there is only 1 empty seat 2+4+2 trumps 3+2+3 because there is one guy with 2 people surrounding him, vs nobody with 2 bodies around him.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Ramzi
Posted 2008-02-07 10:32:54 and read 5140 times.



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 67):
aaaaaaagggghhhhhh! Nooooo! I hate asymmetrical layouts - I JUST HATE THEM! They look so annoying! banghead

certainly agree. they hurt my eyes =/
even the 3-2-3 looks somewhat uneven to me. just my way of seeing it.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2008-02-07 10:51:47 and read 4982 times.

I much prefer 2-4-2, as I usually travel with my wife and absolutely require a window seat. That way my wife and I will sit together and not have anyone else to deal with. I have stopped doing business with Orbitz because the last flight I booked with them (I always select my seats) they changed planes after I booked the flight, and my wife and I were separated. I called them and complained; they said they would fix it. They didn't. I tried numerous times to change it online and was not successful. On the flight I was able to trade with the person who had the seat next to my wife, but I was still annoyed. I haven't flown Southwest because I wanted to be able to choose my seats, but since it doesn't seem that that works anymore I think next time I will.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Bwphoto
Posted 2008-02-07 11:19:46 and read 4847 times.

As a patent attorney, allow me to shed a little light on the patent matter. The scope of protection afforded by a patent is defined by the claims, which are the legalese numbered sentences at the end of the patent document. Note that using the patent number link provided in one of the earlier posts, the claims are listed after the bibliographic information. The claims of the Boeing patent require the performance of a series of steps. Boeing hasn't patented 2-3-2, but a way of figuring out the optimal layout based upon a series of variables. Anyone can use 3-2-3, but no one can use Boeing's claimed algorithms without a license.

Also, someone commented how outrageous it was that a company could trademark a tree. There's nothing outrageous about that at all if you understand what sort of protection a trademark actually provides. But the patented dog toy that looks like a stick? Now those claims are outrageous. Another ridiculous example of an issued patent: A Method of Exercising a Cat, U.S. Pat. No. 5,443,036, immediately springs to mind.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2008-02-07 11:54:07 and read 4794 times.



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 62):
Another thing that's probably a bit off-putting about 3-2-3 is that the two centre seats might feels somewhat exposed, a little like the centre seat of a 2-1-2 first on some 767s.You may feel you have no privacy and that everyone can see what you're up to.

That's why I've never liked CO's 2-1-2 business class layout on 767s as that middle seat is very exposed with traffic in the aisle on both sides of you. Of carriers with 5-abreast 767 business classes, those with 2-2-1 (or 1-2-2) like AC's pre-flat bed configuration are better where the single seat is next to a window. However any 5-abreast business class layout on a 767 is much better than 6-abreast like DL where the seats/aisles are narrower and the overall impression of space is much less.

Topic: RE: Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787
Username: Kieron747
Posted 2008-02-08 18:16:37 and read 4407 times.



Quoting Bwphoto (Reply 82):
The claims of the Boeing patent require the performance of a series of steps.

Wouldn't this come under the 'process' or at least 'generic' claim type though?.. They claimed a system of fitting seats as far as we are told and not the actual eventual layout???

 Smile

I deal with chemical patents, and 'generic' or Markush (in chemical terms) claims go a long way in certain respects, you don't need to specifically claim it but you can 'imply' it and exemplify it. In your mind is their disclosure similar or not?

K


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/