Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737 Cabin Preference Study  
User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

For those of you who are local to Seattle or the Puget Sound, or those visiting the area, the Future of Flight Center in Everett, where Boeing tours begin (not the Museum of Flight in Seattle) is performing a 737 cabin preference study. I did it yesterday, it's interesting and takes about 20 minutes, but you quickly get what they're getting at. One cabin was a dual aisle configuration (2x2x2) with 777/787 style interior and the other was 3x3. It was completely obvious which config people preferred, but if you're in the area, come by and participate!

Oh, and you get a free parting gift  Smile

http://www.futureofflight.org


That's why we're here.
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

I'd the mood lighting to in the 737's since airbus is gonna put them in their new A320 interiors. Will give a soft touch.


Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Well no fair! For those of us who will not likely be able to take this survey, tell us everything. What did the 2x2x2 look like? How bout the 3x3? Did it feature larger seats, more interesting cabin architecture, wider isles?

come on, spill the beans!


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Hey thanks for the info.....will be arriving SEA on Thursday evening and this sure seems like a visit to Everett to us!  Smile


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCessnalady From Mexico, joined May 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

2-2-2? Just how narrow are those seats?

Marie


User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 15 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

I am guessing that a 2+2+2 configuration will necessitate smaller overhead bins, making it more difficult for passengers to load all their stuff before taking their seats. Plus, the overhead bin will be right over the aisle seat, discouraging passengers from stepping into their row before attempting to settle in. These two problems will negate any benefit from having two aisles when it comes to loading the plane. Bigger bins or forcing luggage manufacturers to not build bags that can be expanded beyond the size of the bins will be of more help.

User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting Cessnalady (Reply 4):
2-2-2? Just how narrow are those seats?

I don't have the exact figures on me, but IIRC Boeing would need about 12" more width than a A320 to do a 2-2-2 with full widebody size aisles this assumes standard 17.2 seating and 18" aisles. Which to me makes the most sense as the widest offered version, since they can go 18 or 18.5 seats with narrower aisles if they desire a more Y feel or commonality with existing seats, or the 17.2 since that is going to end up IMO as the cattle class standard seat for domestic use, and "less premium" international. If you want to get real nifty with it, do a 3-3 in a plane for 2-2-2 to keep 100% commonality with your 787 and legacy 737NG frames, and enjoy the HUGE aisle in the middle.

This is why I think Boeing will go with the moderately wider than a A320 airframe designed around 17.2 seats and wide aisles as it gives the CUSTOMERS huge flexibility to do whatever they want, from international premium only configs to super quick loading high density cattleclass configs.

Even better, I am guessing the smallest 737RS (fatboy anyway) will be the size of a 737-800 or just a bit shorter. So if you like flying WN, you will get HUGE legroom in a 149Y configuration so their staffing is the same between the current fleet and the 737RS as far as the flight attendants. Thus with the length of a 737-800 you will get something like 34-35" pitch depending on the space burned by exit rows. I'm guessing 34" will be more common as they would burn a foot or two in the entrance


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4630 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 5):
I am guessing that a 2+2+2 configuration will necessitate smaller overhead bins,

Well if 2+2+2 is the same capacity as 3+3 then why do you need huge overhead bins in the middle? heck since its the same amount of passengers, you may not even need any middle bins at all. Smaller bins for breifcases, jackets and large purses would probably be plenty for the mid-section.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3964 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Isn't this kind of a dumb survey? Of course passengers prefer 2+2+2 over 3+3. The crux is in how 2+2+2 competes in economics and fare levels with 3+3.

User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting Cessnalady (Reply 4):
2-2-2? Just how narrow are those seats?

Actually, the configuration had larger seats (well, wider) in the 2x2x2 than the 3x3.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 8):
Isn't this kind of a dumb survey? Of course passengers prefer 2+2+2 over 3+3. The crux is in how 2+2+2 competes in economics and fare levels with 3+3.

I didn't understand the point, either. It was clear that everyone preferred the 2x2x2 overwhelmingly over the 3x3. I couldn't get enough information on what exactly the study is being used for.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 2):
Well no fair! For those of us who will not likely be able to take this survey, tell us everything. What did the 2x2x2 look like? How bout the 3x3? Did it feature larger seats, more interesting cabin architecture, wider isles?

2x2x2 was a blueish interior "theme". Seats were wider and more comfortable and more legroom. Overhead bins were 777/787 style. 3x3 had a brownish/tan theme and overhead bins were like current 737NG. Lightning was slightly brighter in the 3x3 but not terribly noticeable. Not much more to say beyond that. I think they were using a 787 mockup cabin because the windows were 787 size.



That's why we're here.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

I think that large overhead bins are a must on the 737RS. If the 737RS is offered in a 2-2-2 configuration, the outer bins should be 787-style pivot bins. Center bins are not necessary, but they could be offered as an option.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineFlying_727 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 432 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):
Even better, I am guessing the smallest 737RS (fatboy anyway) will be the size of a 737-800 or just a bit shorter. So if you like flying WN, you will get HUGE legroom in a 149Y configuration so their staffing is the same between the current fleet and the 737RS as far as the flight attendants. Thus with the length of a 737-800 you will get something like 34-35" pitch depending on the space burned by exit rows. I'm guessing 34" will be more common as they would burn a foot or two in the entrance

I Disagree, with the popularity of the 737-700 particularly with Southwest (who will be buying I'm guessing a few hundred of the 737RS) as well as other airlines who will need to replace older DC-9 & MD80 aircraft (American, Northwest, Midwest) I think Boeing will produce a jet smaller then the 737-800. Southwest may want a plane to hold 149 pax however they will still want a 31-32" pitch. I doubt Southwest of all airlines wants to pay for fuel to carry around the extra 2-4" of extra legroom. All that metal uses alot of fuel.

On a side note, I think Boeing is seriously considering an aircraft in the 100-120 pax market. Not sure if it will be part of the 737 replacement or if it will be designed concurrently as with the 757 & 767.

Flying_727


User currently offlineFlyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Did the preference study have a first class section? How would they do that one 1-1-1, 2-1-2? Or are they giving up on first class all together on this model if it has twin aisles?

Mike


User currently offlineThepilot From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

I did this study a month or two ago. I think that there was a 2-3-2 configuration and a 2-2-2 configuration. One had more legroom and the seat was thinner, and the other had less legroom and a wider seat. I believe the 2-2-2 was the one with the wider seat. They were called the oak cabin and the other was another tree or nature name. It was quite fun, and I was glad to help. By the way, the survey is based on a six hour flight.


From YVR
User currently offlineAdriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1117 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):
Quoting Cessnalady (Reply 4):
2-2-2? Just how narrow are those seats?

I don't have the exact figures on me, but IIRC Boeing would need about 12" more width than a A320 to do a 2-2-2 with full widebody size aisles this assumes standard 17.2 seating and 18" aisles.

So is Boeing planning on actually enlargening the width of the fuselage of the B737? Why would they do that? Sounds like an awful expense of money for virtually nothing...

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 9):
Quoting Cessnalady (Reply 4):
2-2-2? Just how narrow are those seats?

Actually, the configuration had larger seats (well, wider) in the 2x2x2 than the 3x3.

Unless the fuselage has a larger diameter than the current, it makes no sense... The seats MUST shrink to accomodate a 2_2_2 configuration... Its simple logic... Are you sure this was a standard B737 fuselage ?

__Ad.



A300/18/19/20/21 B721/2 B732/3/G/8 B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 DC8/9/10 MD11 TU134/154 IL62/86 An24 SA340/2000 E45/90
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting Flying_727 (Reply 11):
I Disagree, with the popularity of the 737-700 particularly with Southwest (who will be buying I'm guessing a few hundred of the 737RS) as well as other airlines who will need to replace older DC-9 & MD80 aircraft (American, Northwest, Midwest) I think Boeing will produce a jet smaller then the 737-800. Southwest may want a plane to hold 149 pax however they will still want a 31-32" pitch. I doubt Southwest of all airlines wants to pay for fuel to carry around the extra 2-4" of extra legroom. All that metal uses alot of fuel.

The problem is that the 737RS in the large "fatboy" will need at least 3 models and the SMALLEST the largest version can be is the size of a 757-200. There is no possible way to make a 737-700 sized aircraft that will be economical that will stretch that far even with the magic of carbon barrel construction. Note that a 737RS in a 737-800 size will be CHEAPER than any other aircraft in the "737-700" size not only in CASM, but in TRIP COST. By a good margin. So its very certain that something as small as a 737-700 would be AT BEST the next 737-600, IE a worthless dog of a airplane compared to its larger siblings. I also ran the numbers, but the time you get a plane that can hold 149Y in WN configuration, you might as well make it 737-800 sized anyway since its close enough to not make a meaningful difference.

The airlines that really need something smaller and not willing to fly a better airplane with a higher % of empty seats is why Boeing is looking into a 5 abreast "thinman" variant of the 737RS of which the biggest will likely be the size of a 737-700, but WN would never take thanks to slower loading than the fatboy version.

Quoting Adriaticus (Reply 14):
So is Boeing planning on actually enlarging the width of the fuselage of the B737? Why would they do that? Sounds like an awful expense of money for virtually nothing...

The 737RS is the name for the detailed study for a replacement for the 737, and will have near 0 parts commonality with the current 737NG. The Fuselage, cockpit, landing gear, etc will be all new clean sheet designs that have no basis on the 737 other than the conceptual ideas of what works. Basicly its going to do for the 737 what the 787 did for the 767, Y1 is also a name used to indicate the 737RS, but in more technical terms it was/is a program for investigating and developing the technologies needed to be a class leader in the 100-200 seat class.


Oh and note that there is NOTHING that says Boeing must use traditional cross-sections for the 737RS, its very possible they will lump a flattened oval on top of a lower hull section just a bit narrower than the A320's lower lobe. Look a bit weird, but would minimize frontal area while maximizing the interior width. hmm, would look a bit like the post WWII Boeing prop-liner though.


User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

Quoting Adriaticus (Reply 14):
Are you sure this was a standard B737 fuselage

I never said anything, nor did the people doing the survey, say anything about it being a "standard" 737 fuselage. They just said "737 study".



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Take that 2-2-2 cabin and replace the seats with 3-3. How wide would the seats be, what would passengers prefer?

User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1721 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):
I don't have the exact figures on me, but IIRC Boeing would need about 12" more width than a A320 to do a 2-2-2 with full widebody size aisles this assumes standard 17.2 seating and 18" aisles. Which to me makes the most sense as the widest offered version, since they can go 18 or 18.5 seats with narrower aisles if they desire a more Y feel or commonality with existing seats, or the 17.2 since that is going to end up IMO as the cattle class standard seat for domestic use, and "less premium" international. If you want to get real nifty with it, do a 3-3 in a plane for 2-2-2 to keep 100% commonality with your 787 and legacy 737NG frames, and enjoy the HUGE aisle in the middle.

Minimum aisle width for this size of aircraft is 15 inches below 25 inches above the floor and 20 inches wide above that.

Tod


User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 17):
Take that 2-2-2 cabin and replace the seats with 3-3. How wide would the seats be, what would passengers prefer?

hahahahahaha

I'm far from the skinniest dude around and I fit fine in a 17.2" seat other than my shoulders are a good bit wider than the seat. I'd rather have 2-2-2 with 17.2 than 3-3 with 18.5 even. This way you don't end up with a middle seat that has shoulder room limited to just a bit more than the seat width.

AKA why me and alot of other people taller than oh say 5'10" don't care if they fly a 737 or A320 since they equaly bad shoulder room for taller people.

Anyhoo the whole point is to increase the loading and unloading speed, so even with a 3-3 layout they would use far far more of the width for aisle space than normal.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

Quoting Flying_727 (Reply 11):
All that metal uses alot of fuel.

You mean "all that composite material" uses a lot of fuel dontcha?


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...
777 Engine Compared With 737 Cabin posted Fri Jun 13 2003 10:57:04 by Megatop
Qantas 737 Cabin Refit posted Fri Jan 17 2003 05:01:36 by Beno
Coach Cabin In CO 737-500 posted Sat Oct 8 2005 20:11:21 by Rampart
US 737 Returns To FLL After Cabin Pressure Problem posted Sat Aug 20 2005 03:27:53 by Hawk44
737 Takes Off Without Cabin Pressure! posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:57:36 by Bmacleod
Cabin Size 737 V. 757 posted Sun Nov 14 2004 18:55:43 by Ultrapig
737/320 Replacement Cabin Width posted Sun Feb 16 2003 08:16:43 by Ruscoe
Is The 757 Cabin The Same Width As The 737? posted Wed Jul 31 2002 07:15:38 by ChautauquaFA
737-200 Cabin Size? posted Fri May 10 2002 05:12:33 by Airlineguy
Is A321 Cabin Quieter Than Later Model 737's? posted Sat Jul 7 2001 14:29:37 by Sbbre44