Skedguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 134 posts, RR: 3 Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
When FL first announced the 73G, I recall reading that the seat configuration would be 12/125 for a total of 137 seats. According to the "seating configuration" link (http://www.airtran.com/info/aircrafts/737_seatmap.jsp) on FL's own site, the plane seems to be configured 12/131 (3 rows of F and 22 rows of Y with one middle seat missing out of row 31) for a total of 143 seats.
However, in the same section, the "737 aircraft specifications" link (http://www.airtran.com/info/aircrafts/737specs.jsp) clearly states that the plane is configured 12/125 - not 12/131 as indicated on the seat map.
I was really under the impression that FL's 73G's were delivered in the 12/125 config. Does anyone know what is going on? Is FL quietly adding an additional row of Y to their 73Gs, or have the planes been that way all along (thus the info on the specification link is wrong)? Better yet, is it possible that FL's seat map is incorrect?
Skedguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 134 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
Thanks for the clarification.
As BOSSAN pointed out, though, your own site shows 12/131 as the seating configuration with rows 10 through 31 being in the Y-cabin (22 rows of Y with six seats each, minus one middle seat in row 31). I wonder if the folks that do the web site simply made an error? After all, as I pointed out before, your site also states that the configuration is 12/125 on the specs page. Hmmm....
It DOES seem like 131 Y-seats would be tight when you throw in 12 F seats, too. I know seatguru.com claims the pitch is 30" in the supposed 12/131 configuration, but that doesn't seem mathematically possible now that I think about it.
BOSSAN From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 255 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
PHLBOS, that's entirely possible.
On the back of an envelope, I've sketched out the seat configurations for a Southwest 737-700 and an AirTran 737-700 (with 125 and with 131 coach seats). Comparing the two should make sense, since neither serves food (so similar galley requirements) and the same extra space should be left for exit rows and bulkhead seats.
If Southwest has a 33" seat pitch with 23 rows (137 seats) that's 759 inches total; AirTran can do 3 rows of business class at 37 inches and 21 rows of coach (125 seats) at 30" and have 18 inches left, or 22 rows of coach (131 seats) at 30" and be short 12 inches. So, the 12/125 configuration seems more likely, and the missing Row 13 would be an explanation for why a discrepancy would exist.
Travatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2173 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
Yep - there's no Row 13. There's also no aft galley, and the coach seats are Recaro's "slim line". I'm 6'4", and have no problem in them....they're actually better than the 717 seats.
Additionally, the seating configuration for the 738 (if optioned) will be 12/153 with an aft galley and 12/163 without an aft galley. Apparently no decision yet. (Although word on the street is that they will indeed have the galley.)
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25989 posts, RR: 78 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Remember, WN has an Aft galley (well, half galley) and a 33 inch pitch. FL has a smaller coach pitch, making them able to squeeze more seats in while having a J section. Just another reason people like Southwest.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
717-200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 601 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Remember also along with the aft galley there is only one lav at the back and
one at the front on WN's 73G, while on FL's 73G there are two aft lavs and
one at the front. On WN,especially their long transcons, a line usually forms
to use the single back lav b/c the FA's usually 'scare' the pax from using the
front lav because of the front lav's very close proximity to the flight deck door.
Travatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2173 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Obviously it stems from the superstition of it (lots of hotels still don't have a 13th floor), but I'm not certain where it originated at AirTran.
It was definitely an old Eastern thing (the only concourse in ATL that didn't have a gate "13" is C - the old Eastern concourse), so I wonder if because so many of ValuJet's original managment (not the 4 who started the thing, but the flight ops people who really got the operation going) were ex-EA people I wonder if that's where it came from.
I'm also thinking maybe the ex-DL DC9s they started with came without row 13s, and so the tradition was just continued. One other possible excuse was that in the original ex-DL ValuJet config, the exit rows were 14, 15, and 16, so by NOT changing them, the first exit row would have been 13, and maybe
that was the reason.
Who knows, but for which ever reason, it was begun in the early days of ValuJet and just continued on....