Mah584jr From United States, joined Mar 2006, 417 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15449 times:
Based on those photos, Airbus should stick to their 8 abreast seating configuration for the A350. But perhaps they could use larger seats and still match or exceed the comfort level of the 9 abreast seating option that Boeing offers. All this, of course, is speculation.
-Mah584jr
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10189 posts, RR: 71 Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15370 times:
Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 3): Based on those photos, Airbus should stick to their 8 abreast seating configuration for the A350. But perhaps they could use larger seats and still match or exceed the comfort level of the 9 abreast seating option that Boeing offers.
In terms of seat comfort, 8 abreast in an A350 will be more comfortable than 9 abreast in a B787. The seats or aisles or both would be wider in an 8 abreast A350 than in a 9 abreast B787. Further, 25% of 8 abreast seats are middle seats, while 33% of 9 abreast seats are middle seats.
On the other hand, a 9 abreast B787 will still have been cabin pressure than an 8 abreast A350. Comfort is more than just seat spacing. How many lavs each airline fits will also affect passenger comfort.
Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4123 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15321 times:
Randy certainly makes a compelling argument in this column. I'm sure this is what airline executives all over the world have been briefed. I would like to see the Airbus counter argument for comparison. Note to Mr. Humbert or Leahy: suggest starting a blog guys. Real soon....
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): Is that "Dale" from Australia referenced in Randy's blog Dalecary?
That was my guess, too.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10189 posts, RR: 71 Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15273 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
Question: can anybody copy the person, paste him 8 times on the free seats & publish it?
Good catch. The man's arm is occupying all of the 2 inch space between the seats. Typical Economy class spacing. I never have any place to put my arms or shoulders if I'm sitting next to another adult male in Economy class.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 43 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15273 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7): Randy certainly makes a compelling argument in this column. I'm sure this is what airline executives all over the world have been briefed. I would like to see the Airbus counter argument for comparison. Note to Mr. Humbert or Leahy: suggest starting a blog guys. Real soon....
Would there be fight over the language used for the blog?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
XXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 706 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15255 times:
For my $0.02
8 abreast is a much more pleasant layout from a passenger perspective but it must be difficult to compete on CASM against a 9 abreast layout all other thing being equal.
Airbus seem to have hobsons choice.
If they use a new cross section they will face a huge gap in funding as well as long delays, if not they look like they will loose out to Boeing.
Perhaps the new wider fuselage will become the A360.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5179 posts, RR: 86 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15230 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9): Good catch. The man's arm is occupying all of the 2 inch space between the seats. Typical Economy class spacing. I never have any place to put my arms or shoulders if I'm sitting next to another adult male in Economy class.
And if you have shoulders like the man illustrated, the window seat occupant is crammed on the aircraft wall and the isle seat occupant hangs out into the isle. I've had this issue on 757's and 737's.
I'm not bashing Boeing, but Keesje made a good point here. Oh man, I'm agreeing with him! Hell hath frozen over. But an 8 across 787 would be comfy. E+ on the 787?
On a side note, I would like to see the same "man" and fit him into identically scaled cross sections of the E145, CR2, CR7/9, E170/E190, DC-9, 737, A320, A330, 767, 777, 747, and A380. (All economy.) I'm not asking for much, am I?
SNATH From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2788 posts, RR: 37 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14975 times:
I like Randy and read his blog regularly. And I do tend to lean towards Boeing but...
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12): But an 8 across 787 would be comfy. E+ on the 787?
That would be nice but...
Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 11): 8 abreast is a much more pleasant layout from a passenger perspective
This is totally spot on. Boeing made pompous claims about the B787's comfort levels. But, with the prospect of a large portion of the airlines who will fly it opting for 9-abreast, the B787 seems a huge step backwards in my opinion. We (the passengers) do not need a 9-abreast plane with the same "comfort levels" as the B747 and A330/A340 (which are based on 30-year old designs). We need an 8-abreast plane with the same comfort levels as the B777 and A320. Yes, an 8-abreast B787 will be something to look forward to. But we'll see how often will have the pleasure to fly on one.
Am I the only person here who's getting disappointed with the 9-abreast B787?
Tony
"4 engines for too long!", Randy Baseler on Airbus
Gigneil From United States, joined Nov 2002, 13893 posts, RR: 90 Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14968 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8): I have the distinct feeling Randy is reading a.net here...first the 737 and now the 787, following our discussions pretty closely.
Its just you. There is a zero percent chance that Randy Baseler is following anything said here by anyone.
Dale emailed him the question, which Randy then did not answer but did make clear that the 787 was a fine plane for 9-across.
B2707SST From United States, joined Apr 2003, 1310 posts, RR: 66 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14896 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 15): Its just you. There is a zero percent chance that Randy Baseler is following anything said here by anyone.
He may not personally, but at least someone on his staff does. From his March 14 entry:
Now, in one key way, I think this all accomplished something interesting. It got a robust discussion going. Airliners.net has had quite a few posts on the subject.
And some of the people posting to that site caught on to another key point I was trying to make: that schedule reliability can be a much higher decision factor from a passenger point of view than a minor difference in cabin width.
One participant in the Airliners forum, after flying an A319 and then getting on a 737, conceded there may be a slight difference in width, but concurred with the fact that the A320 family has more technical delays:
Our A319 flight was delayed over 1/2hr when we had to shut down the engines and reset the computers because of what the pilot called "a slight computer glitch." Our 733 left right on time. Ok, sure, that's just one time, but in my 100,000 miles a year of flying over the past 2 1/2 years, I've only had one delay on a 737 aircraft based on mechanical problems, and that was a microphone in the pilots emergency oxygen mask was not working properly. It was fixed within 20 minutes. They're a very reliable aircraft.
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2919 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14849 times:
Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17): Our A319 flight was delayed over 1/2hr when we had to shut down the engines and reset the computers because of what the pilot called "a slight computer glitch." Our 733 left right on time. Ok, sure, that's just one time, but in my 100,000 miles a year of flying over the past 2 1/2 years, I've only had one delay on a 737 aircraft based on mechanical problems, and that was a microphone in the pilots emergency oxygen mask was not working properly. It was fixed within 20 minutes. They're a very reliable aircraft.
hardly a scientific study!! I fly UA all the time and I honestly don't think their A320s are any less reliable than their 737s (except for the 732 20 years ago which left me stuck at DSM and then a March snowstorm struck and I was left there for another 36 hours!)
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5179 posts, RR: 86 Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14713 times:
Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 21): I like the 767 with 2-3-2 seating. The 787 looks like min shoulder room.
Thanks for doing the GIMP or photoshop work.
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 16):
yes but its ok I got over 747s going from 9 to 10 across and Dc10s and L1011 going to 9 from 8 across!
I hate to say it, but I recall riding oh L1011's with both seating configuration. Oh, I was unhappy, but if it really made a difference, people would pay for a bigger seat.
Again, I wonder has any airline opted for E+ 8 across on the 787? 8 across 34" pitch takes about 25% more space than 9 across 31" pitch. Thus, if an airline charged a 33% or greater premium... we could find out who really cares "a little" for that extra space. I'm not saying a business ticket which is often 4X the price of coach and therefor in a much different market. Just a small premium to see how much of a market exists for a true E+. Any comments? The 788 is for ULH travel...
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7195 posts, RR: 42 Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14668 times:
Don't forget that the 787 already has three range/payload options (soon four). I expect that the 8,000-mile-plus versions, in 8-across, will offer more width/comfort in economy than the A350 can; while the shorter-range version, if fitted-out in optional 9-across, will carry more people than the A330/A350 can, also in reasonable comfort. Isn't that one of the reasons why Boeing won the Air India order?
The general picture is that the Boeing sales-force just holds all the cards in terms of flexibility and meeting the needs of each individual customer. They just have more 'things to talk about', more options to offer, than their Airbus counterparts.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1663 posts, RR: 53 Reply 25, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14625 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4): Further, 25% of 8 abreast seats are middle seats, while 33% of 9 abreast seats are middle seats.
Not only that, but from a lavatory standpoint...
The 9 abreast config has two "double excuse me" seats
The 8 abreast config has zero "double excuse me" seats
Some might trade the headroom at the window seat for one fewer "excuse me" ! Not me, I like the window and I can go for a long time without a trip to the lav.
Either way it'll still be flying in a cramped tube with hundreds of other people, which is just as barbaric as it is technologically marvelous.
26 Atmx2000: Based on the dimensions, the guy is at least 6' 6". He's going to feel squished in a 747 as well. People who are going to go for the ULH nonstops rat
27 SNATH: Actually, the 2-5-2 config only has one "double excuse me" and that person has an option whether they would annoy the people on their left or on thei
28 JayinKitsap: That is the configuration that Boeing thinks is best and their market surveys say is preferred. If not flying full it gives the best chance of having
29 LawnDart: When you figure the 777 in most configurations is 9 abreast (and wider than the 787), then no, you are not the only one getting disappointed. My feel
30 NAV20: The theory is that (leaving parties and families aside) most people want either a window seat or an aisle seat. The last seat that anyone wants is a c
31 Molykote: Nope. I prefer Boeing aircraft from the technical perspective most of the time and Airbus from the interior/passenger perspective. The 2-4-2 seating
32 Sllevin: Practically speaking, since load averages are typically not 100%, you end up having more empty middle seats (which travelers like). So it's a tossup,
33 Bohlman: I know that I would certainly pay more money to fly on an 8 abreast 787. Using the 787-8 diagram from the other 350/787 cabin comparison thread going
34 Kaitak: I can see some airlines offering a no-frills "long haul, low cost" operation at nine abreast, but offering a "frilly" (ooh, I say!) Economy class at 8
35 Aviator27: Randy is a bit biased if you ask me. Then again, most of us are. The only facts that I know is the A320 cross section is marginally larger than the B7
36 NAV20: Can't blame him for that. I do admire his adroit tactics, though. A couple of weeks ago he put on a slightly lame defence of the 737 being narrower t
37 KhenleyDIA: I find many parts of this discussion interesting and yet kind of silly. Each airline will choose to do what they want with the seating, regardless of
38 Bohlman: I've been meaning to come to this point. Airbus says in their press release regarding the Airbus cabin that What seating options are there? Going fro
39 SNATH: Well, KLM and Finnair (to a certain extend) have 2-4-3 in their MD-11s, AC (and others) have 1-2-2 / 2-2-1 in their first class, and the Mad Dogs are
40 JoeCattoli: I just don't get why airlines do configure 3-3-3 instead of 2-5-2, it's so much better from a pax point of view... Even 2-4-3 is viable as stated bef
41 Kangar: Can someone please tell me what the seat width would be in a 9 abreast A350 versus that in a 787.
42 TGV: I am 100% with you on this one. From a passenger point of view the 2-4-2 is the best option. Even if you end in a middle seat, you have the advantage
43 Kangar: One thing I noticed Randy failed to do in his graphic is move the seats in to actually fit into the A350 fuselage in the first place, thereby mistaken
44 Manni: Interesting calculation. Let me add that those 16 passengers together with their bags and carry on items will weigh atleast 1600KG, weight that now h
45 Atmx2000: Oh, I think he meant to do it, because otherwise he would not be able to superimpose the figures and joke about the head being in the wall. To avoid
46 Kangar: That's not strictly correct. Taking away 12 inches of the armrest width on the A330 fuselage would match the width at Boeing's claimed average head h
47 Hb88: Umm - you do know that he's a marketing mouthpiece* for Boeing? Don't you? That's what industry blogs are for, they're complimentary PR channels. The
48 A319XFW: So it wasn't only me who noticed that he cunningly avoided the answer regarding a comparison between the 9 abreast to 8 abreast. I think by options t
49 Astuteman: And rightly so - I think Airbus "came undone" on the A380 interior configurations because it actively promoted a host of options. Henry Ford was at o
50 Hb88: I'm sort of curious, could you explain what you mean by this? How has Airbus "come undone" on the A380 interior fitout?
51 Astuteman: According to Airbus, they had to redesign a large proportion of the wiring harnesses "because of customer cabin customisation options well in excess
52 AirFrnt: Airbus has used the interior fit as their primary skapegoat since day one. In part that may be because Airbus was passing the buck to their vendors (
53 BlueSky1976: No, you're not. I was excited when Boeing first advertised 2+4+2 as standard economy on 787. Now they're going with that 3+3+3 BS... A330/340/350 win
54 BoomBoom: It's not Boeing's chance, it's the airlines chance. They can use the extra space of the 787 cabin however they see fit. Well then he would have to pu
55 Atmx2000: Boeing isn't advertising 3+3+3 as standard. The relation should be more like: (787)2+4+2 >> (A350) 2+4+2 > (787)3+3+3 The seat bottom width on the A3
56 BlueSky1976: Yeah, but he did not. Besides, 3+3+3 on A350 is not standard, it's optional and only two or three leisure carriers like Monarch went with it when the
57 Widebodyphotog: Right, 19 inch seat bottoms with nearly 20 inch isles. Even larger seats and isles than 777. Furthermore if anyone does not like nine abreast on 787
58 Incitatus: So first Randy writes a blob at how the difference between the A320 and 737 cabins is insignificant. Then he writes about how great the 787 cabin is c
59 Hb88: As I said way up there ^ somewhere, that is what he is paid to do. He is vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. His blog is not
60 Antoniemey: Depends on the Pax, doesn't it? I'd rather a 3-3-3 over a 2-5-2 if I were in that middle section, and a 2-5-2 over the 3-3-3 if I were on the side. W
61 FlyingHippo: Well, as a reader, I can only speculate on his point. Both A and B are saying that their respective product is wider, (A320 v B737, A350 v B787). How
62 Atmx2000: ">>" means much greater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols It even has a single character unicode coding: ≫[Edited 2
63 TGV: Are you sure ? Every time I take the BR Evergreen Deluxe class (2-4-2 in a 744 with 38" pitch) it is fully booked, while there are sometimes seats av
64 787engineer: Heh, he's a salesman for Boeing, of course his views are going to be biased for Boeing. When you spout enough biased one-sided arguments you start be
65 Ikramerica: I'm not happy about 17.2" seats at 31" pitch, but I'm not so sure which is better: 17.2" seats at 34" pitch 18.5" seats at 31" pitch In the same space
66 Jacobin777: seat pitch over seat width any day of the year!
67 Swissy: I guess we would have to ask some people from Texas on that!! I am 6.2 and I prefer seat width on long haul, short haul do not care Cheers,
68 Jacobin777: at 5'10' and slim, seat width doesn't bother all too much.
69 AirFrnt: Airlines so far disagree. And even if they did agree, don't you think they would prefer to have the flexability to go with either seat layout?
70 Tigerotor77W: And slim and Asian, neither bothers me very much. (5'6" for the Asian comment... no racism intended) Although I must agree -- if Airbus is pitching 2
71 Atmx2000: I suppose that is the issue. Though the question I ask is it costing them more for 8 abreast on the 787 than A350 fuel wise. The OEW weight increase
72 LawnDart: Air Inter A330-300 from NCE to ORY...420 all-economy configuration, as I recall.
73 Shenzhen: Well, per Leahy, the difference is only 4.5 inches, and the A330 is more effcient then the 787. Who to believe? http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsCo
74 Jacobin777: he's full of rubbish spin..otherwise QF/JQ would't be dumping all their A330's for 787's...neither would AC or NW.....especially given that all three
75 Tigerotor77W: And Korean Air, also. But ultimately, I don't think the 787-A330/A350 wars have even begun to near the end...
76 TGV: Of course. Because we (I fully agree with BlueSky1976) consider the comfort, from a passenger point of view, while the airlines only consider the pro
77 Joni: This also reminds me that Boeing derisively called the A380 a "cattle car" and said airlines are just going to squeeze it full of seats From Randy's
78 Widebodyphotog: Without putting words in Mr Baesler's mouth I'll present the following for consideration: A300/A330/A340 nine abreast: 16.7 inch seats, 16.5 inch isl
79 JoeCattoli: Kinda childish I'd say... Well I think the airlines doesn't think about how to spread the money lost.. but how to make money... and it works better t
80 Keesje: I don´t think this is the mother of all Randy´s Blogs. Not sure if he tackled or got tackled here
81 DL021: I actually thought that the illustrations showing the comparable interiors did the job for him. He was simply reinforcing the point that the A350 can
82 Antoniemey: Except from the perspective of the poor sap in that very middle seat. I'd say a more apt comparison is that he "took a swing at it." Wasn't quite a h
83 Joni: If you read the reader's question at the beginning of the blog, you'll see that the point was precisely 8-abreast A350 vs. 9-abreast 787. I wrote thi
84 Ikramerica: Thanks for that. One note is that the 787 8 abreast should have a double arm rest between 4 and 5, so that would cut the aisle to 19.3 inches like th
85 JayinKitsap: Randy is watching http://www.boeing.com/randy/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, I see that another go
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 472 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9915 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2004, 5615 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10189 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3084 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
I've had this issue on 757's and 737's. 
Printer friendly format 
