Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cabin Width Of Y1 And Y3  
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6433 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

Appearently, it seems like the industry is moving towards wider cabins. The 787, which replaces the 767, is wider and could seat either 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 comfortably. The same goes for the even wider A350XWB.

What about Y1 and Y3? Y1 is supposed to replace the 737 and 757-200, and is widely expected to feature a wider cabin than the 737 or the A320 series. Some have suggested to use an aisle 1.5x or 2x the width of the 737. Some have suggested that Y1 should use a 2-2-2 configuration for speedy boarding and unboarding. However, some rumors have stated that Y1 will split up into two families, with the upper end featuring a wider cabin. Perhaps at the low end (717/737-600/737-700 replacement), a 5-abreast seating arrangement may be used, and a 6-abreast seating arrangement may be used for the upper end (737-800/737-900/757-200 replacement).

Y3, which should replace the 777-300 and 777-300ER (and possibly the 777-200LR), may indeed adopt a wider cabin than the 777. The cabin should perhaps be about the same width as a 747, featuring a 3-4-3 seating arrangement, with 3-5-3 as an option.

What are your thoughts on this?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Appearently, it seems like the industry is moving towards wider cabins. The 787, which replaces the 767, is wider and could seat either 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 comfortably. The same goes for the even wider A350XWB.

Brother, what are you smoking? A B747 has 17.2 inch seat width in coach. Those are horrible seats. The 9 abreast B787 will have 16.7 seat width in coach. How is that comfortable? I will buy your argument that 8 abreast B787 will be comfortable. Let's see what the airlines choose to do.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 1):
The 9 abreast B787 will have 16.7 seat width in coach.

I thought it was a bit wider? I sure would not like to sit in that on a long flight, the 747 is narrow enough!


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3699 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 1):
Brother, what are you smoking? A B747 has 17.2 inch seat width in coach. Those are horrible seats. The 9 abreast B787 will have 16.7 seat width in coach.

Seat width for 787 in 9-abreast is the same as the 747, @17.2" (or 17.3" in some references). Incidently, the A350XWB will have 17.5" seats in 9-abreast.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 1):
Brother, what are you smoking? A B747 has 17.2 inch seat width in coach. Those are horrible seats. The 9 abreast B787 will have 16.7 seat width in coach

What are you smoking?

The 787 in 9-abreast will use the 17.2 inch seat, which is used in many 747, A330/A340, and even 777.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Y1 is supposed to replace the 737 and 757-200, and is widely expected to feature a wider cabin than the 737 or the A320 series. Some have suggested to use an aisle 1.5x or 2x the width of the 737. Some have suggested that Y1 should use a 2-2-2 configuration for speedy boarding and unboarding

I think many will be disappointed to see Boeing retain the 3+3 arrangement for Y1, perhaps with an extra-wide isle to facilitate cabin service and rapid turn-arounds.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Y3, which should replace the 777-300 and 777-300ER (and possibly the 777-200LR), may indeed adopt a wider cabin than the 777. The cabin should perhaps be about the same width as a 747, featuring a 3-4-3 seating arrangement, with 3-5-3 as an option.

It's even more difficult to say what Y3 will become. It's possible Boeing might not even built a new product for the Y3 slot at all.

Boeing will need to wait and see how the 787 is able to grow in response to the A350. IMO, Boeing would be wiser to build a new, larger wing for the 787 and thus create a 787-10ER and 787-11 with the approximate payload and range of the 772LR and 773ER today. I would target an EIS of 2018, coupled with some midlife upgrades where possible. A new wing platform would retain 787 tooling and carry a lower price tag than an all-new product.

That would give more time for Boeing to evaluate the VLA market and decide if a true 747 replacement is needed.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
I think many will be disappointed to see Boeing retain the 3+3 arrangement for Y1, perhaps with an extra-wide isle to facilitate cabin service and rapid turn-arounds.

I think that Y1 final configuration is going to be really tough to predict. The earlier the EIS, the more conventional it will probably be. However, I think that EIS is looking increasingly like 2015-16 as there is no compelling reason to come out with a replacement, and that bodes really well for something a bit more innovative than many will expect.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1541 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

I see two possible widths for the Y1.
Either a cross section slightly wider than todays 320 with 3+3 seating, or
an 18" wider cross section to allow 2+2+2, or heaven forbid a 4+3 arrangement.

If they go for the latter, then they will definitely need a 5 abreast cross section if they want to take on the lower end of the market < 130.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
That would give more time for Boeing to evaluate the VLA market and decide if a true 747 replacement is needed.

And here I thought that the VLA market was dead. At least that's what is repeatedly hammered into our brains on a.net.

To slot comfortably above an eventual 787-10, I imagine a possible Y3 would have to seat at least 350 passengers, probably more. I suspect it would be the biggest single-deck, twin-aisle, twin-engine aircraft you could possibly build, bumping up against limitations of the 80 x 80 m box, maximum seating cross section (3-5-3), and limitations of engine fan diameter (high thrust, low noise, therefore high bypass ratio and HUGE diameter, leading to uncomfortably tall landing gear.)

There's sort of a sweet spot there, but with a definite breakpoint as those limitations kick in. Any larger, and you need to increase the number of decks (so as not to make the aircraft too long or the fuselage too wide) and increase the number of engines. Let's see... two decks, four engines, where does this lead, hmmm...  scratchchin 

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
or heaven forbid a 4+3 arrangement.

I believe a fourth seat is too far from an aisle would not be allowed under evacuation regs.


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Boeing is in something of a bind concerning Y3. The 787-10 conceived to fend off the 350VW (Version Whatevah) will be grazing in its presumed territory, while the finally launched 748I's run should be considerably foreshortened by a launch.

The Y3, if it ever gets built, needs to present an exceptionally attractive business case to airlines, not unlike the 777-300ER today, just one step up the capacity ladder. The air gets thinner up there.

Would an ovoid cross section with 3-3-3-3 seating fit the bill? Is it realistic? Unlike the A380 or 748I, freight capacity would be substantial. A twin with 33% more capacity than the great 777-300ER could have an appealing sales trajectory due to unbeatable economics.

After Y1, and hopefully Y1+, Boeing will have to decide if they want to be the uncontested Numero Uno for a generation, or putter along contentedly, with all the risk that implies.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 7):
leading to uncomfortably tall landing gear.)

Just quick speculation but... there is a perhaps a very small possiblity of OTW mounted engines a la VFW614 and HondaJet that would obviate uncomfortably tall landing gear.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 7):
And here I thought that the VLA market was dead. At least that's what is repeatedly hammered into our brains on a.net.

Then may I suggest you let go of the hammer?  Wink

The message on a.net has consistently been:

1) the trend is towards smaller aircraft.

2) The VLA market is small

3) Boeing never said there wasn't a VLA market.

The positions have oft been mischaracterized and misquoted by those who, well, oft mischaracterize and misquote a great deal. I'm not suggesting that you are one of these people (any update on that link regarding engine efficiency, btw?), but from your comment it appears you are falling in line with those that do, and I didn't see a smiley.

[Edited 2006-12-17 00:38:13]

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 9):
Just quick speculation but... there is a perhaps a very small possiblity of OTW mounted engines a la VFW614 and HondaJet that would obviate uncomfortably tall landing gear.

I doubt it, for three reasons:

1) maintenance access. If you put an engine that high off the ground, a third tail-mounted engine would be a more natural solution which avoids the large engine-out thrust asymmetry and reduces the max thrust requirement.
2) the thrust moment would no longer oppose the natural lift-induced pitching moment, requiring a larger horizontal stabilizer with associated weight and drag
3) to avoid interaction of aero surfaces with the engine slipstream, it would probably end up a T tail, which is less structurally efficient

There are probably other reasons as well...

Quoting Khobar (Reply 10):
and I didn't see a smiley.

My apologies, a smiley was definitely intended. Sometimes it's hard to communicate sarcasm effectively  Smile

The VLA market is hard to predict, since the slice is getting smaller but the pie is getting bigger. Which effect eventually wins out is anybody's guess-- but perhaps when the time comes to consider whether to launch a Y3, the picture will be clearer.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 9):
Just quick speculation but... there is a perhaps a very small possiblity of OTW mounted engines a la VFW614 and HondaJet that would obviate uncomfortably tall landing gear.

Holy crap. Imagine looking out the window and seeing a GE90+ right next to you! Insane!

Would it not be better to just build quads? For one, I don't know how comfortable the average pax would feel with an enourmous engine right next to him - and I'm not talking blocking view!

Cheers

[Edited 2006-12-17 01:00:56]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 954 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

3-5-3 would have to be the worst conceivable layout in the sky. Having to climb across 1 person in a 2-4-2 or a 2-3-2 layout is reasonable. But having 3 front to rear lanes requiring calisthenics across 2 other passengers while battling a 31-32" pitch would be hell in the air for everyone, both the guy with the full bladder, and both of his neighbors. At least the guy sitting in the F seat gets to alternate between which two sets of passengers he gets to disturb. As bad as the initial 2-5-2 layout of the DC-10/L-1011/777 was, in retrospect, it was a hell of a lot more comfortable than today's 3-3-3. As much as I love looking out the window, I go center row aisle on those rare times I'm forced to fly 777 in economy. Give me a slow, inefficient, hairdryer equipped, underpowered, outdated 4-holer, made in France, Airbus 340 across the Atlantic any day. Or a grimy, dilapidated Delta 767 even. 2-3-2 is still a great widebody passenger layout.


"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 7):

And here I thought that the VLA market was dead. At least that's what is repeatedly hammered into our brains on a.net.

1.) I did said it's possible Boeing might not build a VLA Y3 at all.

2.) Only sith lords and John Leahy deal in absolutes.

If Boeing felt that the VLA market was non-existent, why the 747-8? I suppose it bears repeating: Boeing have consistently stated that VLA market is considerable, but still too weak to support an all-new product. Hence, derivative project rather than an all-new A380 competitor.

3.) Current market forecast by Airbus and Boeing only extend to 2030. It's entirely plausable that by 2030 the VLA market could begin growing. That doesn't mean Airbus is correct in building the A380 today, in fact, it could prove a major burden if the A380 is ahead of its time.

By 2020, Boeing will have a much more accurate vision of the airline market beyond 2030 than we do today. With that in mind, its possible that we could see Boeing begin research into VLA concepts around 2020.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 7):
To slot comfortably above an eventual 787-10, I imagine a possible Y3 would have to seat at least 350 passengers, probably more.

The 787 fuselage is perfectly adequate for an additional stretch past the 787-10. A hypothetical 787-11 could seat 350-380 passengers like the 773ER and A346 today, without unique tooling and infrastructure that Y3 will require.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 7):
Any larger, and you need to increase the number of decks (so as not to make the aircraft too long or the fuselage too wide) and increase the number of engines. Let's see... two decks, four engines, where does this lead, hmmm...

Multiple passenger decks is a poor configuration, and you will never see Boeing build something of A380 geometry.

What is possible is more liberal utilization of the "crown" area above the passenger ceiling. Boeing already uses this area for crew rest, and it appears LH may place a galley in the crown of their 747-8I. It's possible Boeing could move everything from crew rest, gallies, lavs, sleeping cabins, and the cockpit itself into the crown without creating a "hump" or second deck.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
A hypothetical 787-11 could seat 350-380 passengers



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Multiple passenger decks is a poor configuration, and you will never see Boeing build something of A380 geometry.

My point is, if you're going to place the smallest Y3 at 15 to 20% more seating capacity than the largest 787, you will quickly run into the limitations I described if you build it as a single-deck twin.

If the 787-11 is built, Y3 would start at around 450 passengers and already be close to the 80 meter length limit, if a 3-5-3 Y config is used. If you can't stretch it, what else do you do?

Putting all this stuff in the crown is not a magic bullet, because you need stairs to get to it, and stairs take up at least some token amount of valuable cabin floor space. You still need the door areas kept free, and the number of doors is given by evacuation requirements.

What I'm driving at is that for an airliner significantly larger than ~450 passengers, two decks is almost the only possible configuration, even if it is a poor configuration due to the large structural penalty and lack of cargo capacity. Another one is two side-by-side round-ish cross sections, something Airbus did consider while developing the A380 concept. The single-deck twin configuration, even with a bunch of stuff moved into the crown, will probably be limited to ~500 passengers.

If a single-deck Y3 design is being squeezed from below by a future 787-11, and squeezed from above by the design constraints I outlined, I doubt it would be viable.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
3.) Current market forecast by Airbus and Boeing only extend to 2030. It's entirely plausable that by 2030 the VLA market could begin growing.

The CMO only projects out 20 years (2025). Is there some other public Boeing pub that goes out to 2030? Anyhow, I think that the VLA market will be very small by 2030 and will not increase in the interim.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
Another one is two side-by-side round-ish cross sections, something Airbus did consider while developing the A380 concept. The single-deck twin configuration, even with a bunch of stuff moved into the crown, will probably be limited to ~500 passengers.

The discarded side-by-side cross section concept that you brought up might perhaps have a possible future.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
If a single-deck Y3 design is being squeezed from below by a future 787-11, and squeezed from above by the design constraints I outlined, I doubt it would be viable.

So much depends on what air travel industry will look like by a Y3 EIS. However, I agree that there will not be a hypothetical 787-11 as it would "eat" into the Y3 market segment too much making a launch less viable.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
Another one is two side-by-side round-ish cross sections, something Airbus did consider while developing the A380 concept.

If you do that right you can probably get some lift out of the body as well...



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3116 times:

I was at one level hoping the 748I would not be launched. If it wasn't, it would have pushed B into Y3 sooner rather then later.

I would have rather seen (as a PAX), skipped the 787-10, move that into "Y3-1", a 3 frame Y-3 lineup, "Y3-2" replacing the 777 and the "Y3-3" at the 748Is capacity/range. I'm not sure if that was practical or not.

Maybe it would have been better if when B bought out MD, they invested in the company keeping the engineering talent and upgraded the production facilities. Selling two 2 branded jets, with each seperate company in different size capacity slots. Dougloid had a decent post about writing on the wall at MD.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

I've often read here the terms "Y1" and "Y3". Are these Boeing terms for new, unyet designed aircraft?

C.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3057 times:

As for the Y1......being that this family of airplanes will offer seating options from 125-210 passengers and offer range options from 2000-4500 miles (per some reports), werent there suggestions that Boeing would could offer two different fuselage width options as well: the first a traditional 3+3 narrowbody (although wider than the current 737 fuselage) and the second being a 2+3+2 or 2+4+2 widebody?

The the Y1 could offer:

-4 passenger capacities (125/150/180/210)
-2 fuselage widths - narrow (125/150/180) and wide (180/210)
-2 wing designs - one optimized for shorter haul services and the other optimized for longer haul missions.
-various range options (2000/3000/3500/4500 nms) with most options available for each variant in the family.

Something for everyone, as they say.

As for the Y3, its too soon to tell, although from a practical point of view going beyond 3-4-3 Y class seating is probably not likely due to operational reasons.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Width Of Premium Economy And Business Class posted Sun May 15 2005 02:59:59 by Eastern727200
And The Cabin Staff Of 2001 IS...... posted Sun Oct 21 2001 15:23:10 by Trans element
Future Of CFM And IAE posted Sat Oct 28 2006 21:03:02 by 1337Delta764
Logic Of CO And DL In Same Alliance? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 19:29:58 by PanAm747
Any Chance Of KLM And BA To Order B777-300ER? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 23:52:46 by AirCanada014
History Of AA And The MD80 posted Wed Oct 11 2006 03:32:12 by TUSaadvantage
Efficiency Of BA And CX - OneWorld Alliance posted Mon Oct 9 2006 16:58:33 by DernierVirage
Tu-154 Loses 2.5m Of Wing And Gets Airborne posted Thu Sep 28 2006 21:46:40 by Remcor
Virgin Restricts Use Of Dell And Apple Notebooks posted Fri Sep 22 2006 10:03:12 by Brenintw
Cabin Classes On FlyGlobespan And Its Name! posted Fri Sep 8 2006 14:04:51 by 8herveg