1 Keesje: Man, that A350 cabin surely looks bad if you put a 9 abreast 787 seatrow in it. Thank you Randy for the insight
2 N328KF: Is that "Dale" from Australia referenced in Randy's blog Dalecary?
3 Mah584jr: 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 ma
4 Zvezda: 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
5 Keesje: Question: can anybody copy the person, paste him 8 times on the free seats & publish it? Quickly pls, before Randy has the poor man shrunk 10%..
6 PanAm_DC10: Yes sir, I believe it is. Regards, PanAm_DC10
7 Lumberton: 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 lik
8 AndesSMF: Is it me? I have the distinct feeling Randy is reading a.net here...first the 737 and now the 787, following our discussions pretty closely. For reals
9 Zvezda: 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 arm
10 Atmx2000: Would there be fight over the language used for the blog?
11 XXXX10: 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 lay
12 Lightsaber: 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 int
13 RedFlyer: Cute how hyperlink for the word head in the comment "mind your head" in the last sentence references Max Headroom of 1980's pop culture fame.
14 SNATH: I like Randy and read his blog regularly. And I do tend to lean towards Boeing but... That would be nice but... This is totally spot on. Boeing made p
15 Gigneil: 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
16 Trex8: yes but its ok I got over 747s going from 9 to 10 across and Dc10s and L1011 going to 9 from 8 across!
17 B2707SST: 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
18 SNATH: Be careful what you say! We are being watched! Seriously, now, someone might have left a comment on his site mentioning the thread... Tony
20 Trex8: 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
21 Bobster2: I like the 767 with 2-3-2 seating. The 787 looks like min shoulder room.
23 Lightsaber: Thanks for doing the GIMP or photoshop work. I hate to say it, but I recall riding oh L1011's with both seating configuration. Oh, I was unhappy, but
24 NAV20: 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 mor
25 WingedMigrator: 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 m
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
TGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 800 posts, RR: 18 Reply 63, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 10592 times:
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 57): That's a good point, but I think the question the operators have asked is if customers are willing to pay for that extra space and it has been a resounding "no".
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 available in normal eco (around 30% cheaper).
We also have read various times here that WT+ is a cash cow for BA.
Maybe others can come with similar examples for other airlines.
When the flight duration is long (CDG-TPE is 13/14 hours), you really appreciate to have some more personal space. You also appreciate the 2-4-2 config, with no double excuse seats, and no middle seats where you are disturbed by your neighbour when he needs to exit.
For these advantages a significant quantity of passengers is ready to pay more, but reasonably more (business class is usually out of range for normal people paying their tickets themselves).
Avoid AFKL 773 sardine cans with their 3-4-3 config in Y ! AF 772 are next
787engineer From United States, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 16 Reply 64, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 10578 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 58): 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 compared to the A350. He may have a point but he sounds just like a used car salesman. If it's going to sound like an advertisement, what is the point of reading his blog? None
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 believing some of it. I think his blog gives a lot of insight into the marketing strategies and ideology. At least he gives some reasons to backup his views. I'd take anything he writes with a big grain of salt, but if you can read past the bias there's some decent info in there.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18403 posts, RR: 60 Reply 65, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 10560 times:
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, the 9 abreast at 34" pitch holds 2 more Y pax.
NZ fits their 747s this way (17.2/34) on the 747. On the 777, it's 18" seats at 32". Not sure which is better.
On a 787, 20 rows of 8Y at 32" = 160 seats. 19 rows of 34" 9Y seats is 171 seats. So NZ would fit 11 more pax in 20 rows of space. And they would offer 3-2-3 40" Y+ at 18.5" seats for those who wanted to pay a little more.
Which is better on a long trip: 2" of legroom or 1" of seatwidth?
I don't know the answer. I can't stand any Y seat on a very long trip. I'd be uncomfortable in any situation. I save my miles up to use on long trips in J, and pay for Y on shorter trips.
But I'm also tall. So I'd probably appreciate the 2" of legroom even if my sides were cramped a little. After all, if the seat next to me is empty (far more likely on 3-3-3 than 2-4-2, BTW), I can put the armrest up on the 17.2" seat and get more room. But you can't push an empty seat out of the way to get more legroom...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Tigerotor77W From United States, joined Mar 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10452 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 68): at 5'10' and slim, seat width doesn't bother all too much.
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 2-4-2 and Boeing 3-3-3 (even if it's not standard), as a passenger I'd feel more comfortable on a A3x0, x>/=3.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 42 Reply 71, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10414 times:
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 57): 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 blame your airline of choice not the manufacturer. It is the airlines that have come to the conclusion that passengers are not willing to pay more for marginal increases in space so why try to squeeze blood from a turnip?
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 on the A358 compared to a hypothetical "787-8.5" sized to have the same cabin length is about 10%, which should translate to a 7% to 8% increase OEW+payload. The increased weight's drag contribution should exceed that from the 8% increase in fuselage cross sectional area for the 787, correct?
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 56): 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 they bought A330. Baseler makes it look like it is standard offering. On the other 2+4+2 is standard on 787, but nowhere in the blog entry Baseler makes a mention of it. It looks to me like Boeing is pushing less comfortable seating option on airlines, and the explanation in the blog entry is a classic "salesman BS" I heard many, many, many, MANY times from people like Baseler or Leahy. Classic case of false advertising*.
I don't think Boeing is pushing anything on anyone. Airlines consider it acceptable, and Boeing has pushed itself to make it even better by shaving an inch or so out of the cabin walls to increase cabin width.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 74, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10282 times:
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 73): Well, per Leahy, the difference is only 4.5 inches, and the A330 is more effcient then the 787. Who to believe?
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 have the A330's in their fleet........people can say what they want, but the facts speak for themselves.......
Tigerotor77W From United States, joined Mar 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10196 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 74): 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 have the A330's in their fleet........people can say what they want, but the facts speak for themselves...
And Korean Air, also.
But ultimately, I don't think the 787-A330/A350 wars have even begun to near the end...
Of course. Because we (I fully agree with BlueSky1976) consider the comfort, from a passenger point of view, while the airlines only consider the profit they can make.
And as their pricing structure is in fact quite disconnected from the comfort (just look at the range of Eco prices you can have, the Y price being in various cases more expensive than a discounted business !), I think most airlines don't consider the comfort factor (in Eco at least).
This may not be true for all airlines as some have installed Eco+ cabins, but they are a minority for now.
[Edited 2006-04-05 14:34:44]
Avoid AFKL 773 sardine cans with their 3-4-3 config in Y ! AF 772 are next
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 77, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10127 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 14):
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.
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 blog:
(apparently a reader's question
Randy, could you please clarify a couple of points for me? Is the 787 configured at 9-abreast offering the same level of seat comfort as an 8-abreast A350? What level of comfort does the A350 go down to at 9-abreast?
(...)
Randy responds:
This brings me back to the 8 vs. 8 or 9 vs. 9 comparison question.
Clearly, if you're comparing these airplanes on per-seat efficiency measures, such as fuel consumption-per-seat, or cost-per-seat, then I think the appropriate comparison is the 9-abreast 787 vs. the 8-abreast A350.
Note that the question didn't involve any of the things Randy is discussing. Randy simply didn't want to answer the question with a "No, at 9-abreast the 787 cannot offer the same level of comfort as the A350".
Widebodyphotog From United States, joined Jun 1999, 916 posts, RR: 67 Reply 78, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9979 times:
Quoting Joni (Reply 77): Note that the question didn't involve any of the things Randy is discussing. Randy simply didn't want to answer the question with a "No, at 9-abreast the 787 cannot offer the same level of comfort as the A350".
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 isles 1.8 inch armrests, 39.5 inch s.h. @ window seat
Note: A350 allows 17.5 inch isles with equal shoulder height to A300/A330/A340
A300/A330/A340 eight abreast:
17.8 inch seats, 19 inch isles, 2 inch armrests, 40 inch s.h. @ window seat
Note: A350 allows 18 inch seats with equal shoulder height to A300/A330/A340
787 nine abreast:
17.2 inch seats, 19 inch isles, 2 inch armrests, 43.9 inch s.h. @ window seat
787 eight abreast:
19 inch seats, 20.3 inch isles, 2 inch armrests, 46.1 inch s.h. @ window seat
777 nine abreast:
18.5 inch seats 19.3 inch isles, 2 inch armrests 47.4 inch s.h. @ window seat
s.h. = shoulder height at outer edge of seat bottom
Quoting Manni (Reply 44): Quoting Bohlman (Reply 33):
Using an approximate round trip cost of $828 from ORD-FRA, using UA (leaving 04/16/06, returning 04/23/06), that equates to about $13,248 in lost revenue (I know I'm taking airport tax into this equation, but I'm doing my best!). That means that in an 8-abreast airplane, that $13,248 gets spread out over the remaining 170 pax, so about $78 per person. I would pay even more than that in a heart beat.
Interesting calculation. Let me add that those 16 passengers together with their bags and carry on items will weigh atleast 1600KG, weight that now has become available to carry additional cargo.
Well I think the airlines doesn't think about how to spread the money lost.. but how to make money... and it works better the lower the fares... average people don't care about the seat till when they get into the airplane...
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 60): 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. Whatever seat layout an airline chooses, someone's going to be in a position to complain about it... even a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.
Yes but the side rows are 2 and the middle row is 1, so for the passengers 2-5-2 is clearly better
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 66): seat pitch over seat width any day of the year!
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11073 posts, RR: 97 Reply 81, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9874 times:
Quoting Joni (Reply 77): Note that the question didn't involve any of the things Randy is discussing. Randy simply didn't want to answer the question with a "No, at 9-abreast the 787 cannot offer the same level of comfort as the A350".
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't really do 9 abreast, so what's the point of trying to compare the two. I'd bet that the A350 is more comfortable at 8 abreast than the 787 is at 9, but what's the point there? You're trying to deflect from reality.
Airbus has heard from one of it's most important customers over the last 15 years and it ignores them at their peril.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 83, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 9730 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 81):
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't really do 9 abreast, so what's the point of trying to compare the two. I'd bet that the A350 is more comfortable at 8 abreast than the 787 is at 9, but what's the point there? You're trying to deflect from reality.
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 this precisely the same thing above in Reply 77.
19 inch seats, 20.3 inch isles, 2 inch armrests, 46.1 inch s.h. @ window seat
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 the 777, right? Or did you account for that.
Also, might carriers not choose 17.2" seats and 19" aisles and go for 17.4" seats and 18" aisles instead? Are 19" the minimum standard for proper boarding of a widebody?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
By the way, I see that another good discussion is underway about cabin interiors on Airliners.net. And yes, I do browse these threads from time to time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Randy's point was that A350 with 9 across is substandard, that the 787 with 9 across is OK, 8 across in the A350 is confortable, and the 787 with 8 is spacious for Y.
It is up to the airlines to decide to really pack the seats in, offer 9 across in the 787 & increase the pitch, do a Y+ area or whatever. The point above was made where fewer pax increases cargo capacity. I'm sure they figure that in also.
MD-90 From United States, joined Jan 2000, 7402 posts, RR: 18 Reply 86, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9478 times:
Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 85): By the way, I see that another good discussion is underway about cabin interiors on Airliners.net. And yes, I do browse these threads from time to time!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 472 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2004, 800 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1396 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 538 posts, 
Kinda childish I'd say...
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9773 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
