1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5759 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2901 times:
It seems that for widebody aircraft, Boeing and Airbus are moving towards pivot bins for the overhead bins. Pivot bins allow for greater overhead capacity allowing for more headroom in the cabin. The 777 started Boeing's big move towards pivot bins, and they soon became standard on te 747, 767, and 787. Airbus is using pivot bins on the upper deck of the A380, and is using BMW-designed pivot bins for the A350.
However, most narrowbody aircraft still use shelf bins. With the Boeing 737RS and Airbus NSR supposedly being wider than existing narrowbody aircraft, is there a chance we can see (rather than shelf bins) on them? It would make sense if Boeing decides to go with a 2-2-2 layout, but if Boeing does a 3-3 layout with a wider aisle than the A320, than maybe pivot bins may still be preferrable over shelf bins.
Does anyone have any thought on this?
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
They only work if you have room in the crown to pivot into. Neither the A320 nor the 737 nor the 757, etc. have room to make them worthwhile.
Further, a single aisle plane has less need for this. The pivot bins are more important on planes where the seat combinations are more varied (1-2-1, 2-3-2, 3-3-3, 2-4-2, etc.) because the places where customers heads might be while walking will vary from cabin to cabin and carrier to carrier. This means getting them "up and away" when not in use is key. When a 777 bin is down, it can really get in the way sometimes...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5759 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2866 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): They only work if you have room in the crown to pivot into. Neither the A320 nor the 737 nor the 757, etc. have room to make them worthwhile.
Further, a single aisle plane has less need for this. The pivot bins are more important on planes where the seat combinations are more varied (1-2-1, 2-3-2, 3-3-3, 2-4-2, etc.) because the places where customers heads might be while walking will vary from cabin to cabin and carrier to carrier. This means getting them "up and away" when not in use is key. When a 777 bin is down, it can really get in the way sometimes...
Well, the 737RS and NSR are expected to feature a wider fuselage than existing narrowbody aircraft. If a 2-2-2 layout is used, then pivot bins would definately be preferrable over shelf bins. Center bins are not as important and may be optional, but if they are used, they will have to be smaller than most current aircraft, similar to those on the 767s with the "Classic" interior. If a 3-3 layout with a wider aisle is used, then passengers can more easily get past open overhead bins as well as get past FAs with carts.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2841 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 2): Well, the 737RS and NSR are expected to feature a wider fuselage than existing narrowbody aircraft. If a 2-2-2 layout is used
don't count on 2-2-2. and the added width even with 2-2-2 and 18.5" seats is only about 24".
But even then, you could do E170 style bins on the sides, and "drop" bins in the middle/staggered right/left opening. In fact, the overhead bin situation is one likely reason that you won't see 2-2-2.
As for the larger fuselage, it won't be that much larger. Just "a bit" and not nearly enough to create any real crown space.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2806 times:
Why not? Boeing did a study having people in a 2-2-2 layout then moving them to a 3-3 layout to see which one passengers liked more, its possible a 2-2-2 layout could happen
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 4): Why not? Boeing did a study having people in a 2-2-2 layout then moving them to a 3-3 layout to see which one passengers liked more, its possible a 2-2-2 layout could happen
Of course "people" will prefer 2-2-2, having either window or aisle seat - guaranteed - with no dreaded middle seats is a pretty obvious choice.
The real question is: what will the number crunchers and bean counters prefer? That, in the end, will make the decision.
Or do you think that, for example, "people" would have chosen the B787 to go from 8 abreast to 9 abreast as the, effectively, standard configuration?
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2647 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): Can't argue with "why not?" I mean, that's pretty much all you have to say
did you just not read the rest of my post? it says right after "why not?" why i think it is possible.
Quoting Leskova (Reply 6): Of course "people" will prefer 2-2-2, having either window or aisle seat - guaranteed - with no dreaded middle seats is a pretty obvious choice.
The real question is: what will the number crunchers and bean counters prefer? That, in the end, will make the decision.
Or do you think that, for example, "people" would have chosen the B787 to go from 8 abreast to 9 abreast as the, effectively, standard configuration?
by people i mean passengers, and yes the passengers don't get to decide but if most of the passengers like it maybe airlines and Boeing will considder it more because Boeing seems to want to please passengers, and while a 2-2-2 config might not be possible or cost effective im sure if enough people like that config boeing and the airlines will considder it.
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5759 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2626 times:
Could we please stay on the discussion on using pivot bins vs. shelf bins, rather than about the seating layout on the 737RS/NSR?
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5484 posts, RR: 34 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2616 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): But even then, you could do E170 style bins on the sides, and "drop" bins in the middle/staggered right/left opening. In fact, the overhead bin situation is one likely reason that you won't see 2-2-2.
I think that a center shelf bin that is opened on both R/L would be more convenient to pax. It would allow three 25" roll-aboard bags standing on edge per seat row... or 2 flat.
And why would the center bin be such an issue that it precludes a 2-2-2?
Quoting Leskova (Reply 6): The real question is: what will the number crunchers and bean counters prefer? That, in the end, will make the decision.
Not really... the E-jets are wider than they need to be for number cruchers... but pax like them!!!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5759 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2591 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 9): I think that a center shelf bin that is opened on both R/L would be more convenient to pax. It would allow three 25" roll-aboard bags standing on edge per seat row... or 2 flat.
Maybe center shelf bins may work, along with outer pivot bins. Airbus has traditionally used center shelf bins on their widebody aircraft. The pre-Signautre Interior 767s use "translating" bins in the center that slide down. And perhaps the center bins can be in pairs of two like the outer bins on pre-Signature Interior 767s and like on the 737NG.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2591 times:
Do you really think that the style of overhead bins is a ""critical design element"" that is being analyzed at this early point in both the Airbus and Boeing programs? It seems that neither Boeing or Airbus have settled on a fuselage diameter(s) for the new types, the exact pax capacity of the variants of each airplane family to be offered has not been finalized (nor has the number of variants to be developed been set), and the exact performance capabilities for the variants is still undetermined.....and you are talking about the shape and operation of the overhead bins?
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2575 times:
Shelf-style bins are the way to go on narrowbodies like the 737RS, even with the rumored 2-2-2 seating: Wider, wheels-in bins for the outboard pax, narrower, side-loaded bins mounted back-to-back for the pax in the center seats.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5759 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2559 times:
Quoting TSS (Reply 12): Shelf-style bins are the way to go on narrowbodies like the 737RS, even with the rumored 2-2-2 seating: Wider, wheels-in bins for the outboard pax, narrower, side-loaded bins mounted back-to-back for the pax in the center seats.
Remember though, the reason why Boeing abandoned shelf bins on the 777 is to give the passengers a more open feeling. While shelf bins are okay on a single-aisle aircraft, they somewhat make widebody aircraft feel quite cramped and cluttered. In the past month, I flown on a Delta domestic 767-300 and two American Airlines Airbus A300s. While both aircraft featured shelf bins outboard, the 767 featured the slide-down type in the center. The cabin of the 767 felt much more open, despite the narrower fuselage. Airbus is now also moving away from shelf bins on the A350 with its BMW-designed interior.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 9): I think that a center shelf bin that is opened on both R/L would be more convenient to pax. It would allow three 25" roll-aboard bags standing on edge per seat row... or 2 flat.
Quoting TSS (Reply 12): Shelf-style bins are the way to go on narrowbodies like the 737RS, even with the rumored 2-2-2 seating: Wider, wheels-in bins for the outboard pax, narrower, side-loaded bins mounted back-to-back for the pax in the center seats.
Look, I love the idea of 2-2-2. I've talked about how it "could" work, but I highly doubt it will ever fly, mainly because there isn't a need, and also because of issues such as this.
You can't fit rollerboards longways into a bin that has the clearance to only cover 2 seats in a 2-2-2. Bags often have to be turned on a 767 with the new interior, despite the much taller fuselage and articulating bins. Nor can you put a long bin over the middle with doors on both sides with only 2 middle seats. There won't be enough shoulder/head room to operate, again unless you can put the bins way into the room in the crown, which a 737 replacement won't have.
So you'd need shallower bins like the E170. But they should work, in theory.
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): did you just not read the rest of my post? it says right after "why not?" why i think it is possible.
No. You gave a passenger preference preceded by why not? I already read your opinion earlier, it's a fine opinion, but obviously you think it is the only valid one, so if someone says something else, you counter with "why not?" You can't debate with someone when they do that. It's sort of like "can too" and "does so" and "nuh uh". i respect your opinion, but it doesn't mean it's going to be reality.
If you showed a coach passenger 1-2-1 seating with 18.5" seats on a current 737, they'd even like it more than 2-2-2 on a new plane. If you showed them 1-1 F suite seating on a 757, and then sat them in a 3-3 seat, you'd hear everyone prefer the 1-1 because it's obviously better. Same holds for 2-2-2 over 3-3. but it's not the only factor that goes into a decision, and despite my support for the 2-2-2 seating in the past and despite the fact I think the bin thing could be worked out if it had to be (but would be a compromise), I am also of the opinion that it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
With over 10000 3-3 (and 2-3) planes flying right now, obviously passengers aren't revolting, so why sacrifice weight and design to give pax a "preference" when if that product never gets launched, nobody will ever know what they are missing? If the 3-3 with wider seats and a "double" aisle is offered instead, passengers will still prefer that to the current configurations...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8740 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
All I am going to say is that everyone that has posted so far is wrong about the possibility of the addition of pivot bins on the 737. Open up your minds. If pivot bins would help improve the 737 experience, then people are working on bringing them to the plane, but if they do not improve the overall experience, then they won't ever be used. Boeing is an innovative company that will work to produce the best possible product.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5484 posts, RR: 34 Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14): You can't fit rollerboards longways into a bin that has the clearance to only cover 2 seats in a 2-2-2.
The standard roll-aboards are 25"x16"x10"... so they should be able to fit wing-to-wing in a single shelf bin (with R/L access) over the 2 center seats since even with a 17" seat the center seating unit will be at least 36" wide at a minimum.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14): Nor can you put a long bin over the middle with doors on both sides with only 2 middle seats. There won't be enough shoulder/head room to operate, again unless you can put the bins way into the room in the crown, which a 737 replacement won't have.
It is only my opinion... but I believe it is feasible. The aisle height of the 737 is 86" (7' 2" - and there is ducting above the ceiling panel, so there is more height to the crown) so you could put bins over center seats... and more so with a wider fuse with an even higher crown. Therefore, there is enough shoulder/heaad room to operate with center bins... it would be even more so than in the E-jets (see pic) which have a crown a foot lower than the 737 (actual aisle diff is only 9.5").
In fact, depending on bag orientation, the center bin design can have several options to suit client cabin look and roll-aboard stowage capacity.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14): So you'd need shallower bins like the E170. But they should work, in theory.
When looking at the E-jet cabin and visually extrapolating up to a future narrowbody, it would certainly appear that a 2-2-2 is a feasible customer option to a 3-3 config Y1/737RS with wider seats and aisles. The outboard bins could even be larger than the E-jet design... and a single 26" wide center bin with a wing-to-wing layout for roll-aboards open to both aisles would take up less space than two side-by-side nose-to-tail center bins (17" wide x 2). At the moment I do not see any show stoppers.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Pacifica From Canada, joined May 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 16):
The standard roll-aboards are 25"x16"x10"... so they should be able to fit wing-to-wing in a single shelf bin (with R/L access) over the 2 center seats since even with a 17" seat the center seating unit will be at least 36" wide at a minimum.
One thing to think about though...if you've got a single shelf bin that runs across the entire center seat section, where do the doors to that shelf bin open into? Wouldn't that block the aisles and prevent passenger movement?
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5484 posts, RR: 34 Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
Quoting Pacifica (Reply 17): One thing to think about though...if you've got a single shelf bin that runs across the entire center seat section, where do the doors to that shelf bin open into? Wouldn't that block the aisles and prevent passenger movement?
No, they wouldn't block aisles because the bins are not as wide as the seat unit below.
With a center seating unit of at least 38" wide and a single run-through shelf bin unit above that is no more than 27" wide... 11" narrower than the seat unit below, it really wouldn't be an issue.Furthermore, not only do the bins not reach the aisle, the doors open up and above any pax... look at the E-jet picture. Additionally, the center bins could be mounted a few inches higher than the side bins, thus even less in the way of any pax.
If the pivot style bins would be adopted, then the bin height could be even higher... around 20" higher. Of course, roll-aboard bag capacity would be reduced but the cabin would look and feel roomier than a cabin with center shelf bins (and there would still be more carry-on capacity than a 3-3).
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14): No. You gave a passenger preference preceded by why not? I already read your opinion earlier, it's a fine opinion, but obviously you think it is the only valid one, so if someone says something else, you counter with "why not?" You can't debate with someone when they do that. It's sort of like "can too" and "does so" and "nuh uh". i respect your opinion, but it doesn't mean it's going to be reality.
Why not is a valid question, im not being smart when i say it, i really want to know, someone out there probably knows why it might or might not work so i wanted to know, maybe i didn't phrase it in the best possible way.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14): With over 10000 3-3 (and 2-3) planes flying right now, obviously passengers aren't revolting, so why sacrifice weight and design to give pax a "preference" when if that product never gets launched, nobody will ever know what they are missing? If the 3-3 with wider seats and a "double" aisle is offered instead, passengers will still prefer that to the current configurations...
yes there are plenty of 3-3 planes flying now and there is no problem with that, passenger preference does make a difference, it may not be the only decision maker but it still has some impact, for the weight they are going to use composites so it might help some but i'm sure if the weight was too high then they would not consider it and it would be too bad for the passenger, that is fine to. What i'm saying is i'm sure Boeing and the airlines are looking at the possibility, a 3-3 with wider seats and aisles could be just as appealing as a 2-2-2
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5484 posts, RR: 34 Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19): yes there are plenty of 3-3 planes flying now and there is no problem with that, passenger preference does make a difference, it may not be the only decision maker but it still has some impact, for the weight they are going to use composites so it might help some but i'm sure if the weight was too high then they would not consider it and it would be too bad for the passenger, that is fine to. What i'm saying is i'm sure Boeing and the airlines are looking at the possibility, a 3-3 with wider seats and aisles could be just as appealing as a 2-2-2
I agree with you, though many don't. Many that don't agree are stuck on the 3-3 paradigm and can't see beyond the present even though the 737RS won't EIS for another 8 years. For others that don't agree it is because they have a basic misunderstanding of the relative impact of widening the fuselage diameter of the 737NG or A320. There is little doubt that the 737RS and A320NSR will have wider cabins... at least the upper end of the replacement models... that in addition to the basic 3-3 layout could have a 2-2-2 option. Of course, pivot bins would fit in the wider fuselage.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Wsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 444 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 11): Do you really think that the style of overhead bins is a ""critical design element"" that is being analyzed at this early point in both the Airbus and Boeing programs?
One would hope so. Less overhead space means more passengers running around (and against the stream of boarding passengers) trying to find a place to stow away their hand luggage. This affects the boarding times and thus the profitability of the aircraft.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5484 posts, RR: 34 Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1956 times:
Quoting Wsp (Reply 22): Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 11):
Do you really think that the style of overhead bins is a ""critical design element"" that is being analyzed at this early point in both the Airbus and Boeing programs?
One would hope so. Less overhead space means more passengers running around (and against the stream of boarding passengers) trying to find a place to stow away their hand luggage. This affects the boarding times and thus the profitability of the aircraft.
It certainly is part of one of the "critical design elements" - cabin layout.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 4): Why not? Boeing did a study having people in a 2-2-2 layout then moving them to a 3-3 layout to see which one passengers liked more, its possible a 2-2-2 layout could happen
In any given fuselage width, the airlines prefer 3-3 over 2-2-2 for Y because they can embark and disembark much faster with one very wide aisle than with two narrow aisles.
25 Grantcv: Overhead bins will most certainly be one of the critical elements in determining the fuselage diamter of the next generation of narrowbodies. More th
26 Planemaker: I don't think so. With a twin aisle, 4 out of 6 pax are on the aisle and the 2 window pax are only one seat from the aisle. With a 3-3, it is the opp
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5759 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5484 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 149 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2006, 127 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
