Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Width, A Miss?  
User currently offlineAndhen From Norway, joined Dec 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13732 times:

When one study different aircraft categories like regional airliner, continental airliner, transcontinential jets and long haul jets, we se that each class has its optimum of passengers abreast capability.

In the regional jetliner segment we se 4-5 abreast. continental (a320 and 737) airliners have 6 abreast, transcontinentals have 8 abreast and longhaulers have 9-10 abreast.

In the continental airliner has 6 abreast and a single aisle as the most efficient design. Here both airbus and boeing got it right.

In the trancontinental jets, the 6 abreast of the 757 is far outdated. The 7 abreast in 767 was for some time a favourable design, but it was beaten by the eight abreast on the a330.

In the long haul segment the a340's eight abreast was not efficient enough, the planes became to long and to heavy compaired to the 777. The four engines didn't help airbus either, but I dont want to take this into this tread.

Airbus was forced to widen the a350 when they understood that customers wanted to seat 9 abreast in economy. They saw that customers wanted to do this in the 787. So they designed a plane that would basically have 9 abreast in economy as standard, I think all a350 customers will have 9 abreast in economy, because the plane is optimised for 9 abreast.

Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats.. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became..

The reason I started to talk about widhts and abreastnumbers of airliners was because I wanted to point out that Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before. 767 got beaten because it couldnt seat 8 abreast, 757 was obviously to thin.. I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)
And now it seems they do the mistake again, the 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

I dont want to start a flamewar again, so please stick to the issue, I had my two first threads on the forum closed, so I would like to get this going.

And I am not all airbus, I think what airbus should have done isstead of making the a380, was to make a twin which was about 4-8 inches wider than the 777. This plane could have seated 10 abreast nicely, and it would be a real winner..

Well, I hope to se some good posts here Smile

andhen


a332/3, 773-ER
77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13716 times:

This is exactly what I was saying in another thread in reference to the 777 and the 787-10. I feel the same way. I look forward to hearing other responses.


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13669 times:

It's not nearly as simple as that. Optimal cross-sections have little to do with range. They are dependant on overall seating capacity (due to the demands of structural efficiency) and on the proportion of cabin floor area wasted on aisles, rather than seats.

User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13639 times:

I think that your right about the 787 not being the right width for what the costomers want. However from a passengers stand point boeing has it right. Passengers atleast the ones I know are all about the window or the aisle seat. 6 abreast is probably the best at this with a decent efficiency. Now the 767 though it may not be the most efficient it is by far the best for the window and aisle seating for a widebody airliner. I personally think that boeing had it right and the airlines need to stop trying to make their planes into sardine cans. If boeing can make an airliner with the efficency of the 787 it can do it very well with any width. one last thing about the 757. I would hardly say that the 757 is outdated. it is about the maximum length for 6 abreast and it performs its role like no other airliner ever will. if you look at it making the 75 longer and it is too long make it wider and it is too short look at the 767-200. I would say that the 757 fits its place quite nicely. the 757 is in its last years sure but it has a fair amount of life left in it.


One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13608 times:

I would prefer the airlines put 8 abreast in economy and give me an 18.75" seat vs. a 17.2" seat by a long shot!

It's why I always prefer to fly the A320 vs. the B737 any day of the week. I'm a passenger and prefer more room when I can get it. If I'm upgraded to first like I am many times then it really doesn't matter to me.

[Edited 2007-01-12 00:03:37]

User currently offlineAndhen From Norway, joined Dec 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13589 times:

Nice to hear aa777223!

I hope we can get some focus on this, it hasnt been much debated, in contrast to other issues here.

zcezda, I think sometimes that we, the usual guys can point out faults, even though we havent built the planes ourselves.

Andhen



a332/3, 773-ER
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4703 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13587 times:

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
In the regional jetliner segment we se 4-5 abreast.

would make that 3-4 (ERJ-145 is 3 abreast), 5 isn't used except in the Fokkers I believe



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineTUSaadvantage From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13532 times:

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)

I disagree that the 777 is too wide for 9 abreast. I don't know if you've ever been in a 777 in this configuration, but the seats aren't exactly wide at 18" (it is a pretty standard width in the U.S.). Anyone who thinks they should be narrower has either never sat in economy, or is way too concerned with efficiency. I also seriously doubt that the 777 lost any customers for this reason, considering they are still flying off the shelf 13 years into production.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
In the long haul segment the a340's eight abreast was not efficient enough, the planes became to long and to heavy compaired to the 777. The four engines didn't help airbus either, but I dont want to take this into this tread.

I don't think that the seating configuration of the A340 had anything to do with the plane's relative failure. I think it was the 4 engines that made it far less efficient than the 777.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31106 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

One needs to remember that Boeing has a comfortable 9-abreast product already - the 777. Boeing's decision to go 8-abreast on the 787 was as much (if not more) driven by the desire to not infringe on the 777 as it was wanting to offer an extra inch or so over the A330/A340 (and many A330/A340 customers are using seats themselves less then 18" wide).

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became.

Again "tiny" seats is a misnomer. The DC-10, the L-1011 and the 747 all had/have 17.2" wide seats and people are not refusing to fly those planes because of it. Also, many A330 and A340 operators, as well as 767 and 777 operators, use seats with sub-18" width and, again, customers are not revolting.

All that being said, I appreciate the wider seats of the A319, A320, 767, and 777 on UA and specifically seek out those four models when flying them, but I will not refuse to board a 737, 747 or 757 because of the slightly less seat bottom width.

Honestly, legroom is more important. I fit better in a 17.2" wide 757 seat in an Exit Row then an 18" wide A320 seat in Economy Minus because the extra legroom lets me run my legs straight out, which helps "shrink" my hips a bit compared to having my legs crossed.

Folks offered 19" wide seats with 32" pitch or 17.2" wide seats with 38" pitch will probably take the latter every time.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
The reason I started to talk about widths and abreast numbers of airliners was because I wanted to point out that Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before. 767 got beaten because it couldn't seat 8 abreast, 757 was obviously to thin.

The 767 pre-dated the A330 family by a decade. Airbus had plenty of time to determine where airlines had an issue with the 767's dimensions and work to address them. And the 767 still sold hundreds of planes even after the A330 entered service so it obviously was not a critical "mistake".

I don't see how you can accuse the 757 of being too "thin" since it was designed in parallel with the 767. Since the 767 was a 7-abreast widebody, Boeing gained nothing from making the 757 a 6-abreast widebody in 2+2+2 configuration since the 767 would have been the better platform and nobody would have bought the 757. Therefore, the only logical configuration for the 757 was as a 3+3 narrowbody like the 707, 727 and 737 before it.

Looking back with 20-20 hindsight, Boeing probably should have aimed for 2+4+2 seating on the 767, but not doing so certainly didn't hurt the plane against larger 2+4+2 and 3+3+3 DC-10s and L-1011s.

Quote:
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much.)

You say the 787 is not wide enough because it is uncomfortable in 9-abreast, but then say the 777 is too wide because it is comfortable in 9-abreast? Color me confused.

Quote:
And now it seems they do the mistake again, the 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

The 787 in 9-abreast is "standard" in that it uses the same seat found on the DC-10, the L-1011, the 747, some 767s, some 777s, some A330s, some A340s and probably even some A380s. All of those planes can fit wider seats in a lower abreast configuration if they wish, but the 18" or 19" wide seats some of them use are not really "standard", they are an option.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13522 times:

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

Boeing has designed at least three aircraft models to support two seat widths: the 747, 777 and 787.

Quote:
Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats.. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became..

I can assure you that passengers didn't ask for, airlines did. But what makes you think long haul flights will necessarily be equipped in 9Y?

Quote:
The reason I started to talk about widhts and abreastnumbers of airliners was because I wanted to point out that Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before. 767 got beaten because it couldnt seat 8 abreast,

The 767 did not get beaten because it couldn't seat 8 abreast. The only width concern applied to the cargo ability, as the 767 could not hold LD3's side by side. But it beat the A300 soundly anyway. And then the stretch 764 model got beaten by the newer A332, partly because of insufficient range-payload and partly because of the LD3 issue.

Quote:
757 was obviously to thin.

Not obvious to me.

Quote:
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)
And now it seems they do the mistake again, the 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

What makes you think the width that Airbus has chosen is optimum? The 777's wider 9Y seats have likely helped sales over the competing Airbus frames for airlines wanting to offer a more comfortable product.

Boeing has chosen a width that allows the same aircraft model to be used with two reasonable economy seat widths, which allows flexibility. The same aircraft design can be used for higher density short and medium haul flights as well as in lower density long haul flights. Airlines with more affluent passengers can offer the wider 8Y seats, while airlines from poorer regions of the world can offer the 9Y seats.

IMO, the 787 is the most optimal design. The 777 as you say is too narrow for my tastes in 10Y. The 747 9Y configuration was too wide. The 787's 8Y config is some what less wide than the 747's 9Y, but offers the same 9Y width as the 747 10Y.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTrojanAE From Lithuania, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13494 times:

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
In the trancontinental jets, the 6 abreast of the 757 is far outdated.The 7 abreast in 767 was for some time a favourable design, but it was beaten by the eight abreast on the a330.

You are grouping the 757 with the 767 and A330. Hardly a fair comparison. The 767 and A330 are widebodies and were from the outset made to be intercontinental, the 757 was only recently delegated to this task. The 757 is basically a 737 with higher capacity and slightly longer range, primarily intended for longer transcontinental routes.
Anyway, you state that you do not want a flame-war, yet in your now infamous topic you questioned whether the 787 even exists and were convinced it is a ghost plane. Why are you concerned about the passenger comfort and cabin width of a plane that doesn't exist?  Yeah sure



"My soul is in the sky." -William Shakespeare
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1576 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13442 times:

I suppoose it depends what is the imperative at the time.

Whatever has gone on before, we are heading into an era where efficiency is the imperative, and no matter how efficient the 350 is, it will have a small penalty because of the weight needed to make the fuselage that little bit wider.

One could argue that Airbus has got it wrong because they have put extra width into the craft but not enough to go out to 10 abreast. Boeing put just enough extra width in to go out to 9 abreast with 747 width seats. This was no accident. They always new there would be some airlines who want 9 abreast. Unfortunately the comfort of passengers is not the first priority for the bean counters in the airline even if comfort/safety is foremost in the minds of crew.

Another point is that a lot depends upon the position of the floor. For example the position of the floor in the 320 means it's width advantage is not as profound as it could be at the critical shoulder height. I believe a similar situation exists with the proposed 350, in that the extra width of the fuselage only translates into a very minor improvement in seat width.

Finally, the sales of 320 and 737 show that for most carriers the width difference is not the most important factor in sales when the products are so close to-gether. It's price and availability.

Ruscoe


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13414 times:

Lets see the 757 was to thin and Boeing sold 1000 of them, the 767 not wide enough and they sold 950 of them. The 777 is the wrong size and they have sold 800 and the 787 has already sold almost 500 aircraft before production has even started and its the wrong size. I guess its true that Boeing just knows nothing about building the right sized airliners.

User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13410 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The 787 in 9-abreast is "standard" in that it uses the same seat found on the DC-10, the L-1011, the 747, some 767s, some 777s, some A330s, some A340s and probably even some A380s.

Thought 9Y gives you a "standard" 17.2" seat on the 787... the STANDARD default configuration on a 787 is 8Y with 18" seats. The 9Y is the option... Northwest and Continental have both opted for the default 8Y/18" seats.  Smile I'm ecstatic!!!



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13408 times:

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

I've never been completely convinced that the 9Y capability of the 787 is an accident. The aircraft was first proposed as very generously sized 8Y, as you noted. Only later was it revealed as being able to fit 9Y quite exactly, with no wasted space and hence no extra weight.

IIRC there was a discovery that the insulation blanket could be made thinner due to the CFRP having a low thermal conductivity. The few inches added to the interior cross-section made 9Y possible. That came as a surprise to Airbus, as the 9Y 787 suddenly had a CASM so low that they couldn't compete with a revamped A330.

But...is that really what happened? I have wondered if the designers had 9Y in mind all along, even if only as an option they didn't expect to see used. It is conceivable that Boeing kept the 9Y capability in their back pocket to delay an Airbus response.

The real question: is Boeing really that clever, or just that lucky? scratchchin 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13391 times:

I think Boeing wishes, at this point, the 787 were 3 inches wider in the coach section. But that would lead to wasted space in the front sections. The 787 can do 1-2-1 F pods and 2-3-2 business seats just like the 777, which makes it more space efficient up front even if they have to be less space efficient with 8Y in the back. It's hardly a miss.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9):
Not obvious to me.

Me neither.

The 707 727 737 757 have sold nearly 10,000 frames since this too thin design was introduced in the late 50s. I don't think it's obvious to anyone that this was a bad design.

Doesn't mean it won't get wider next time around...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20730 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13349 times:

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
The 7 abreast in 767 was for some time a favourable design, but it was beaten by the eight abreast on the a330.

I believe that the 767 far outsold its 8-abreast contemporary, the A300/310 series.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):
I've never been completely convinced that the 9Y capability of the 787 is an accident. The aircraft was first proposed as very generously sized 8Y, as you noted. Only later was it revealed as being able to fit 9Y quite exactly, with no wasted space and hence no extra weight.

It's hard to imagine they chose the particular shape of the fuselage cross section without taking into the account of 9Y, not to mention taking advantage of the A300 cross sections inability to provide a seat row as wide as the fuselage. Boeing designed the upper fuselage to be perfectly circular and positioned so that the seat row width could be maximized. They designed the lower fuselage so the cross sectional area under the floor would be basically the same as that for the A300's, while still carrying two LD3s side by side.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):
It is conceivable that Boeing kept the 9Y capability in their back pocket to delay an Airbus response.



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):
The real question: is Boeing really that clever, or just that lucky?  

The one thing that they never publicly released early was the cross section shape. They only gave width numbers. Without the shape one could not assess what 4" more of width actually brought. Hence Airbus was confounded by Air India's selection of the 787 due to 9Y capability.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31106 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13260 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing has touted the extra Business Class and Economy Class seat they can put into the 777 - seats with identical width to those found in the A330/A340, mind you - as one of the reasons carriers chose the 777 over the A330/A340 as it offered more revenue without affecting in-seat comfort.

And if the airlines view 2+1+2 / 2+2+2 / 2+4+2 as "perfect" for each class of service, Airbus would not have been pressured to make the A350 wider to fit 2+1+2 / 2+3+2 / 3+3+3 nor would Boeing have had to offer the same config to help make the 787 more appealing to some of them.

[Edited 2007-01-12 00:49:43]

User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13080 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
Lets see the 757 was to thin and Boeing sold 1000 of them, the 767 not wide enough and they sold 950 of them. The 777 is the wrong size and they have sold 800 and the 787 has already sold almost 500 aircraft before production has even started and its the wrong size. I guess its true that Boeing just knows nothing about building the right sized airliners.

Exactly.

Andhen, can you please define "miss" in the context of the thread title? How can selling 500 planes before the first one even flies be classified as a "miss"????


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3922 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13017 times:

Quoting TrojanAE (Reply 10):
The 757 is basically a 737 with higher capacity and slightly longer range, primarily intended for longer transcontinental routes.

The 757 was a totally new aircraft from the ground up. It has the same fuslage diameter as the 707/727/737 before it, but not the same systems. New nose, tail, doors, gear, wings, tailplane, avionics, flight deck. It is not a 737 basically, or in any other way. The range gap between the 737-300/400/500 is much larger than the NG series. Even the aircraft Boeing and Aribus have designed to replace the 757 (737-900ER/A321) come nowhere near the 757 in terms of payload and range.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)

Have people actually flown on a 777 in a ten abrest config? If not, I politely suggest you keep unfounded and ficticious opinions to yourself. When your fly an EK 777-300ER(or any of their 777s) come back to me and tell me you were squashed. Their 777 aircraft are exceptionally comfortable even for a 14 hour journey. If your about 400 pounds no one around you will have a plesent flight, but hey they wouldn't in an A330 either.

Honestly I could not feel a difference comfort wise between a 777 with ten abrest and a 330 with 8. I transferred from one to another btw. I think the 787 with 9 abrest wil be fine for anybody who is a sensible size. If you're very large you have four options...

1) Buy another seat
2) Pay for Business Class
3) Go on a diet...you add a few years to your life in the process.
4) Shut up, put up with it and use someone else next time!

I realise that may soud a bit harsh, but the reality is that airlines are there to get us from A to B safely. Your comfort is not their primary concern, their shareholders and profits are.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13017 times:

Who cares about 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 and extra 0.25" width? In this day and age, with online check in, us airplane geeks will always get the best seats long before the average Joes wait in line for 3 hours at the airport to get the middle seat in the 2-5-2 777 for the 12 hour flight...


I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12894 times:

Perhaps it is Boeing desire to eventually have the 787 with comfortable 8 abreast and standard 9 abreast, and the 777 replacement Y3 to be comfortable 10 abreast and standard 11 abreast.
An aircraft at either 10 or 11 abreast between 65 and 80m long would make the 747 redundant.



What?
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12847 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
The 787 can do 1-2-1 F pods and 2-3-2 business seats just like the 777

I would be surprised to see a scheduled carrier fit 2-3-2 business class in a 787. Charters, yes. It seems that SQ will be fitting 1-2-1 business class in their 787s.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 19):
Andhen, can you please define "miss" in the context of the thread title? How can selling 500 planes before the first one even flies be classified as a "miss"????

Someone please pass Travelin man the kool-aid. He doesn't get it.  Smile


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12806 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 21):
In this day and age, with online check in, us airplane geeks will always get the best seats long before the average Joes wait in line for 3 hours at the airport to get the middle seat in the 2-5-2 777 for the 12 hour flight...

And as we stroll down the aisle we make momentary eye contact with that poor schlub in the middle seat, and he wonders why we have that slight smirk...  silly 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
25 JayinKitsap : Actually with the 787 airlines can offer in economy 9 across with standard pitch, 9 across x larger pitch, 8 across with standard pitch, and 8 across
26 Zvezda : Airlines signed for 2010/2011 deliveries. All airliner contracts have liquidated damages clauses for late delivery. Airbus are now saying they won't
27 TrojanAE : Agreed. Poor and imprecise choice of wording on my part. Thank you for the clarification.
28 Areopagus : Boeing talked of the Sonic Cruiser being either 7 or 8 across, with dual-LD3 capability. Then they set it at 8 across, which gave dual LD3s below and,
29 EvilForce : I haven't seen any published reports of this and just did a Google search and turned up nothing for the 350. Granted the 350 program has been handled
30 Zvezda : It's now a standard part of all airliner contracts.
31 Stitch : This is probably because I believe Pegasus Aviation is the only confirmed customer for the A350XWB at this time. SQ has an LoI and everyone else orde
32 Khobar : I have to ask - what prompted you to say "makes it more space efficient up front even if they have to be less space efficient with 8Y in the back" in
33 DfwRevolution : I don't believe Boeing ever "set" any specifications of the Sonic Cruiser. As an interesting side note: the 7E7 began life as a 7-abreast aircraft wi
34 Stitch : My tenure with Boeing covered the "Sonic Cruiser era" and I do not recall any discussions, internal or external, about the Sonic Cruiser's payload, b
35 Post contains images Glideslope : Finally an accurate post.
36 Post contains images Stirling : MISTAKE? I don't understand....so in your estimation, the 787 is a failure? Were your other posts just like this one? Or more irrelevant? And I love
37 Post contains images Lightsaber : How would Boeing have gotten an engine for 2+4+2 in the time frame the 767 was developed?!? It was 7 across for a good reason: that's the largest wid
38 Ha763 : You do realize that Boeing didn't just come up with a width and say this is it. Boeing came up with several sets of specifications and then went aroun
39 FlyDreamliner : There is the rub, half the airlines out there put the same width seats in their A320s as they do 737s/757s. NW puts the same exact seats in 757 as th
40 777ATech : Boeing has from onset involved the airlines in the optimization of the design of 787 to a degree unheard in this industry. The result is what we are b
41 TPASXM787 : since the 787 is a ghost plane is this topic relevant? Obviously the 787 doesn't exist and won't (according to you) so why does any of this matter?
42 Post contains images Stitch : Air Transat flies A330s with 3+3+3.
43 Ikramerica : I should be happy you read the whole thing, but you didn't read closely. I said i bet Boeing wishes they had 3" more in the ECONOMY section. But that
44 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Boeing has chosen to 'optimize' for 8.5 abreast... leaving airlines the choice of sub-optimizing down to 8, or up to 9. While you point out this sub-
45 AA777223 : Andhen Here is a post that I made in reference to the launch of the 787-10. I was writing in reference to the paradigm shift in moving from over-engin
46 Boeing7E7 : They were forced to widen it so they could compete with the 777 because they were not competing with the 787 in any way, shape, or form. People asked
47 Post contains links GBan : That's what I was asking myself ! see http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3143158
48 TGV : And how do you do if it is your neighbour who is too large and invade your space ? You are right. Sadly few airlines give you the option of having a
49 Andhen : Many nice posts here, thanks for the answers. I will not go into my earlier posts, because the threads tend to be closed down when I do, so please let
50 Post contains images SEPilot : That actually goes for the design of anything. I doubt that there is a company on the planet that does a more intensive survey of what its customers
51 Stitch : Well the 787 is more efficient then the 777, and the 787-9 in 9-abreast encroaches on the capacity of the 772 with better range. Yes, the 772 will ca
52 BN727 : Are you talking favorable for the Airlines profit margin or favorable to the comfort of the customer? As a consumer, I favor the 767 overall because m
53 Tockeyhockey : so the fastest selling widebody in history is "not the right width", eh? funniest post i've read in a while...
54 Zvezda : I don't think Boeing were ever afraid of the 787 taking sales from the 777. Because the 787 production costs are so much lower, a 787 sale is probabl
55 Poitin : @Evilforce and others because I know that Zvezda already knows this: There are liquidated damage and cancellation clauses in almost all contracts in
56 JayinKitsap : I still think that offering the 787-10 with a maximum MTOW at 560,000 (or slightly less) would be an excellent workhorse that would prove to be popul
57 Khobar : Why do you bet Boeing wishes they had 3" more in the ECONOMY section? It doesn't seem like it would serve any purpose at all given the plane can alre
58 DAYflyer : I think the market has spoken quite favorably and loudly about the 787, with 400+ orders on the books before the first one is even assembled. That bei
59 Highflier92660 : I think Boeing was right on-target when designing the fuselage width of the 787. What inevitably occurs in the evolution of the design process is that
60 AADC10 : I think the 787 width was a mistake. When it was designed, I suspect that they really thought it would be sold at 8 abreast in Y, with enough space fo
61 Post contains images Stitch : Makes sense to me. I expect it will be extremely popular, though it will spell the functional end of the 777-200ER program and probably take away a g
62 Post contains images Zvezda : Three suppositions there. Exterior fuselage width, yes. Internal cabin width, no, about half that. The 787's better cabin pressure and humidity and t
63 BoomBoom : So Improving profits for the airlines and giving them a choice of 8 or 9 across seating was a mistake. It's the airlines that buy planes, the passeng
64 Beech19 : Not to mention the much larger windows, natural lighting and quieter engines will all improve the passenger comfort. The new windows will be much eas
65 Works4boeing : After 90+ years of building airplanes, it amazes me how little we know about it when compared to the people on this board. Maybe you all should come
66 Post contains images Beech19 : You would think we would get it right by now... i guess not. I'm sure we will screw up the 737RS too...
67 Post contains images Zvezda : I would agree if there were a good number of 777-200LR sales to take away. I expect Stitch meant Le Bourget, which is LBG.
68 SSTsomeday : Maybe this will be the 350's ace in the hole, that it can provide 9-abreast more comfortably, and I suspect many airlines will want 9 abreast. Because
69 BoomBoom : It's only 5 inches wider inside than the 787. Five inches spread across 9 seats and two aisles is insignificant, less than a cm per seat. However, th
70 TeamAmerica : No doubt Airbus will tout this as an advantage. The reality is that economics almost always trumps comfort, as witnessed by the sales of 787's in 8Y
71 Grantcv : I seriously doubt that passengers started asking for nine abreast seating when fuel economy became more important. Actually, I don't know why any pas
72 SSTsomeday : Interesting. Thanks for that clarification, BoomBoom. It's always great to hear both sides of an argument. For example, people in this thread are aga
73 Post contains images Jacobin777 : LCC's (and legacies) of the world have proven that both types of planes are more than capable to deliver the product their customers want....
74 Boeing7E7 : Doubtful. Had more to do with the vision of the future aircraft line then anything else. The issue now is do they do a -10 (likely) or is that anothe
75 Ckfred : I'll take legroom over seat width any day. If 9 across means an extra inch of legroom, I'll take the extra legroom. It seems to me that a carrier deci
76 Areopagus : AW&ST ran an article in which Walt Gillette said that the Sonic Cruiser would be a great freight hauler, including the ability to fit pallets crosswi
77 Zvezda : Randy Baseler and Mike Bair have both made public statements that the 787-10 will be built. The issues are how much thrust can they get and how much
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...
747LCF Arrives In NGO! (Pics) 787 Deliveries Begin posted Wed Jan 10 2007 14:18:24 by Aaron747
PBS Report On Virtual Rollout Of The 787 posted Wed Jan 10 2007 07:25:47 by BoomBoom
When Will The 787-10 Be Launched posted Tue Jan 9 2007 22:47:32 by T773ER
Northwest 787 In Service Date posted Mon Jan 8 2007 18:57:18 by DTW757
Lufthansa 350 Or 787 posted Sun Jan 7 2007 13:03:46 by LHStarAlliance
Doesn't The A350 Look The 787? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 01:06:57 by FL370
Shocking Differences In Seat Width Among Airlines posted Sat Jan 6 2007 07:27:19 by JAAlbert
Near Miss At DIA! posted Sat Jan 6 2007 06:09:31 by LoveASE
Avianca Selects The B-787 posted Sat Jan 6 2007 02:41:27 by RICARIZA
F9 - Near Miss At DIA posted Fri Jan 5 2007 23:20:55 by Mariner
787 Leaving DFW May 14th 2012 posted Mon May 14 2012 04:59:25 by N160LH
UA 787 Status posted Sat May 12 2012 20:57:57 by TWA772LR
787-100 787-200 Etc posted Sat May 12 2012 14:52:23 by okobjorn
Boeing 787-9 Developments! posted Tue May 8 2012 20:21:02 by rotating14
SK Eyeing The 787-10 posted Tue May 8 2012 13:05:15 by NDiesel
787 Inbound To IAD And DCA posted Sun May 6 2012 20:54:47 by working2gether
B 787 Dreamliner In Flight At OSL (must See Video) posted Sat May 5 2012 04:21:10 by Mortyman