Columbia107 From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 8516 times:
Boeing's Randy Baseler, vice president of marketing for Boeing commercial airplanes, said in a conference call today that Boeing had no immediate plans to start offering a larger version of its 787 in response to the A350, saying Airbus was "exaggerating the seat count" on its newest jet.
Is this correct?
Is the largest A350 model to seat 300 + passengers, compared with 296 on the largest 787 Dreamliner?
Seems fairly closely matched if you ask me - if anything, based on the above, the seat-count Boeing show for the 787 is slightly exaggerated as 52" pitch in C is now below-standard for a long-haul premium cabin.
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 8480 times:
There was a pdf file about the A350 posted on here some time ago comparing the 772ER to the A350-900. The problem with it was that the A350-900 seating capacity was quoted in a 2 class layout compared to the 772ER which had a three class layout giving the A359 similar capacity to the 772ER. I'm sure there had to have been some mistake b/c airlines who obviously know more than we do wouldn't have been fooled by this inflated seat count. I think the only fair comparisons between the a/c would be the cabin floor area as manufacturers tend to skew seat counts.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 8475 times:
Airbus tends to include a noticeably higher proportion of economy seats and fewer business and first seats in their reference configurations than Boeing, leading to a relatively higher seat count for Airbus. Based on the way most airlines configure their planes, Boeing's configurations are usually more "real world" than Airbus', although even Boeing's are too high in many cases.
In any case, this is purely a PR issue. No airline in the world is dumb enough to take Boeing and Airbus' standard configurations at face value. Each airline will model its own seat configurations on candidate aircraft and come to its own decision on which is most appropriate for its needs.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 8379 times:
Quoting Crosswind (Reply 1): Seems fairly closely matched if you ask me - if anything, based on the above, the seat-count Boeing show for the 787 is slightly exaggerated as 52" pitch in C is now below-standard for a long-haul premium cabin.
Even if you move to 60" removing 6 F/C seats from the 787 (you have about 300" to work with between L1 and L2 doors - unless revision E changes this) it nets you 30F in 2+2+2 at 60" and 226 in 2+4+2 (Net 256 seats) 6 additional seats in the 350-800 and a known poorer fuel performance from the same engine with bleed air and a heavier airframe will never offset the price tag difference of nearly $30-40 Million for the 350-800 vs. the 787-8.
For the -8 CO and NW have demonstrated the target seating is 240 in a two class arrangement so it's relative to the buyer more than anything else. That said, adjustments would be made to the 350 layout as well meaning it's more likely a 350-800 would seat the same number of pax as the 330-200 in a "normal airline configuration", plus or minus a couple of seats.
The A350-900, based on it's cabin length can add about 16 more seats in Y over a standard 330-300 in a typical configuration assuming the airline wants to maintain the same level of comfort available and amenities available in the 330-300. The -800 deletes (from the 332) the lav near the R-2 door as well as the Galley at the L2/R2 location and replaces that with seats and what appears to be a bar and a "mini" lav behind the center seats in the last row of the forward cabin.
It all boils down to the airline in the end, but in a nutshell, the numbers are exagerated by Airbus somewhat because cabin amenties have been removed to provide additional seats, amenities that most airlines would want to maintain from the 332/333. If that happens, you have an A350-800 that is almost a foot shorter than it's cousin the 330-200 and an A350-900 that is only 4 feet longer than it's cousin the 330-300.