Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787  
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17537 times:

Boeing is pitching a 3-2-3 layout for premium economy in the 787, although they have gotten mixed reactions so far. The reason for the 3-2-3 layout:

"In economy, if you get an empty seat next to you, it feels like you've won the lottery. With a triple, for every empty seat two passengers benefit, whereas with doubles and quads it only makes one passenger more comfortable."

Boeing have also patented the 3-2-3 layout (didn't know that was possible), so I guess Airbus can't use it on the a350.

Funny how 8 abreast is now suddenly "premium economy" in the 787. The 787 used to be marketed with 8 abreast as standard for Y. Guess we'll have a lot of    aircraft in Y.  

[Edited 2008-02-06 10:50:56]


L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3964 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17454 times:

According to Flight Global, Boeing has this '3-2-3' layout patented - now *thats* a wtf?! Seriously, how did that get past either of the 'non-obvious' or 'novel' checks at the Patent office?!

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17459 times:



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Funny how 8 abreast is now suddenly "premium economy" in the 787. The 787 used to be marketed with 8 abreast as standard for Y. Guess we'll have a lot of    aircraft in Y.

Blame the airlines. They don't want to offer 18.5" seats, as passengers won't pay extra for it in Y. Considering some airlines have F seats that are 18.5" wide, a premium Y 18.5" with 38" pitch would match the F domestic product in the USA (albeit with narrower armrests).

3-2-3 is ideal if you have empty seats, but the way Y+ is put into aircraft, the airline knows how many they can sell, and will upgrade customers to the rest, so the odds of having an empty seat are slim to none. So the point is not valid. Sorry Boeing. It is a valid argument for standard Y (with higher odds of empties), but not Y+...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9053 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17388 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Guess we'll have a lot of aircraft in Y.

As I always say: Fly more Business or First class! then you have enough space Big grin Big grin

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17342 times:

Sorry but 3-2-3 sucks. It means you have two people to crawl over if you have a window seat to use the bathroom or get up. 2-4-2 you only have to disturb one other to get up. Given the long flight segments this plane is built for, no thanks.

User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17307 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 4):
2-4-2 you only have to disturb one other to get up.

2-4-2 rules, only one person's head to stomp before you reach the freedom of the aisles Big grin



Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17261 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 3):
As I always say: Fly more Business or First class! then you have enough space

Sure, we'd all love to be able to fly nothing but C or F. But not everybody's a millionaire..  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
3-2-3 is ideal if you have empty seats, but the way Y+ is put into aircraft, the airline knows how many they can sell, and will upgrade customers to the rest, so the odds of having an empty seat are slim to none. So the point is not valid. Sorry Boeing. It is a valid argument for standard Y (with higher odds of empties), but not Y+...

Agreed. I don't like this layout at all. Sure, it's great to have an empty seat next to you, but what are the chances for that? Anyway, no wonder Boeing got "mixed reactions" from the airlines.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17208 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):

Sure, we'd all love to be able to fly nothing but C or F. But not everybody's a millionaire..

Or any airline pilot, in Phil's case  Wink



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineEYKD From Russia, joined Dec 2006, 200 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17109 times:

Yes, Boeing somehow patented this layout. I've heard of this a couple of years ago (probably it was yet pending at that time).

I just read an article in 10 years jubilee issue of Aircraft Interiors International magazine. It was actually an interview with Boeing's Klaus Bauer. He said that Boeing designed 787's fuselage to accomodate both 9-abreast as regular Y and 8-abreast as Y+.

As reported, a huge passenger survey had been put into the basement of that configuration. It turned out that there were generally 2 large groups of Y-class flying public. The first one was travelling foe leisure, primarily with their families and friends and did not mind to fly in more condensed layout.

The other group was business travellers flying alone. They appreciate more personal space a lot. So Boeing targeted to have them in 8-abreast Y+ cabin.

As a side note: It is well known that not only seat pitch affects your feel of comfort. Distance between you and your neighbour at shoulder level plays a very significant role.


User currently offlineEYKD From Russia, joined Dec 2006, 200 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17086 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
Sure, it's great to have an empty seat next to you, but what are the chances for that?

Boeing also considered average cabin load factor to come up to that layout.

Just for fun I would also suggest 2-3-3 layout, how do you like that?

[Edited 2008-02-06 11:23:51]

User currently offlineChrisI1024 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16857 times:

Better than Finnair's 2-5-2 in the back, 2-4-3 in the front.

User currently offlineMultimark From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16783 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 5):
2-4-2 rules, only one person's head to stomp before you reach the freedom of the aisles

Yes 2-4-2 is far better, but maybe Airbus has patented that!


User currently offlineKilljoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16738 times:



Quoting ChrisI1024 (Reply 10):
Better than Finnair's 2-5-2 in the back, 2-4-3 in the front.

That's 3-4-2 and 3-4-3. The A340 is 2-4-2 throughout. 3-4-2 is the best nine abreast layout imho.


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16665 times:

At least it increases the chances of getting a window seat for us aviation nuts  cloudnine 

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4568 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16640 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
According to Flight Global, Boeing has this '3-2-3' layout patented - now *thats* a wtf?! Seriously, how did that get past either of the 'non-obvious' or 'novel' checks at the Patent office?!

The U.S. Patent office has no shame or credibility. There are times I wonder if they even check the submissions. I believe it was Microsoft that accidentally got a patent or trademark on a tree. The idea of a patent, trademark or copyright is to protect intellectual property. I think 3-2-3 would be a HUGE stretch.



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16621 times:



Quoting Kappel (Thread starter):
Funny how 8 abreast is now suddenly "premium economy" in the 787. The 787 used to be marketed with 8 abreast as standard for Y. Guess we'll have a lot of aircraft in Y.

I've sat in the 8 abreast and 9 abreast layouts on the 787, and 9 abreast is still reasonably comfortable. It's a bit difficult when sharing armrests, but I think airlines can get away with 9 abreast on that plane. The 3-2-3 seats though are very nice. Very spacious and if you get a seat free next to you, it is very comfortable. Boeing is telling the airlines that with 80% load factor, 3-2-3 is way better than 2-4-2 and I agree.

Quoting Multimark (Reply 11):

Yes 2-4-2 is far better, but maybe Airbus has patented that!

Believe it or not, but there have been 767s flying in that configuration.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8572 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting A350 (Reply 13):
At least it increases the chances of getting a window seat for us aviation nuts

huh ? there are still only two window seats per row regardless of whether you have 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 , so how does it improve the odds ? unless you mean that 'normal' people will stop requesting window seats - and dont forget that the cabin crew will be able to switch off your window at any time



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Of course, each airline will decide on the setting, but if costs rise and leisure traffic falls, it may yet be that 3+2+3 becomes the more preferred layout.

Now that UA ruthlessly enforces access to Economy Plus to only those directly eligible for it, on narrowbodies and the center row of the 767 I find the middle seat empty the significant majority of the time and much more then when I am in the outer set of two on the 777 (I will not be caught dead in Economy on a UA 744, even from SFO to OAK). Even the 777 is usually 1+0+1+0+1 in the center set of five, so I might start looking at the C seat instead of B during check-in.


User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16366 times:

G´day

Quoting EYKD (Reply 9):
Just for fun I would also suggest 2-3-3 layout, how do you like that?

A 3-3-2 layout would definitely be the preferred option! Being a Socialist you do not want to have an overly rightist layout, having less weight to the right should equally suit the majority of the US Democrats.  Embarrassment

Politics do have to be considered in whatever you want to sell, be it airliners to airlines or airline seats to the travelling public. The Boeing 3-2-3 proposal did not consider either, the arrangement is too heavily left or right oriented while simply ignoring the neutral and less politically active majority.  Angry

With the Bus´ traditional 2-4-2 layout you are politically correct, neutral so to say with no preference for either right or left (or should I say left or right), so why change?  Wink

So much for politics today  old 


Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16363 times:



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
and dont forget that the cabin crew will be able to switch off your window at any time

What are you talking about?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
and dont forget that the cabin crew will be able to switch off your window at any time



Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
What are you talking about?

Kiwiandrew is operating under the mistaken assumption, shared by many, that the FAs can make the electronic window shades of the 787 go completely opaque.

In fact, the polarization even at it's most aggressive setting will still allow people to see out in daylight. It will be more resemblant of looking through a pair of highly-tinted lenses or car windows. It will certainly not be like the solid pull-down shades of today.


User currently offlineTCT From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16249 times:

I was wondering do the airlines have to do this type of 3-2-3 layout, or are they allowed to arange seats in wich ever way they want??

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting TCT (Reply 21):
I was wondering do the airlines have to do this type of 3-2-3 layout, or are they allowed to arange seats in wich ever way they want?

They have full freedom to arrange the seats anyway they want, within the physical constraints of the floor and walls.


User currently offlineSimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16184 times:



Quoting EYKD (Reply 9):
Boeing also considered average cabin load factor to come up to that layout.

Average load factor (ex. 80%) isn't the right way to approach this, since it's entirely possible that the average load factor never happens. I hope they looked at the average outcome of all of the possibilities (i.e., some airlines with 75%, some airlines with 85%) when considering this option.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 16185 times:

Completely illogical for many reasons and probably just there incase anyone suggests they are copying Airbus' typical seating cross section.

25 N1120A : I don't see how they could claim that, because the 787's cross section is significantly larger.
26 Post contains links FDH : For those interested, I think the US Patent number for this invention is: 5,611,503 You can get the patent details at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml
27 Indio66 : I agree. 3-2-3 is a stupid idea, and the rationale is even dumber. I can't imagine a Boeing sales person going into an airline for a pitch and justif
28 RJ111 : The fact that the seating arrangements would be identical would probably be the basis of the claims. However, only rather sad people would bleat abou
29 Viscount724 : Quite a high chance. With 3-2-3 you need a 75% load factor before any middle seats have to be used. Even today, the average load factor on most longh
30 Tdscanuck : Well, nobody is doing it today so "novel" is easy. How they got over "non-obvious" I'm not so sure. 80% isn't a low load factor. As a fleet average,
31 AlexInWa : Why aren't there any seating diagrams on the boeing website for the 787 like all the rest???
32 Joni : Does someone know the patent number?
33 Stitch : The 787 Airport Compatibility Guide available under "Technical Information" has seating diagrams for the 787.
34 Ytib : There is quite a mathematical formula to determine the optimal seating configuration. It was filed in 1993, and is " Optimal airplane passenger seati
35 KochamLOT : Just make it 2-4-2! The 767 is great because its not to crammed with so many seats abreast each other. Heres an idea; make a long range a/c similar to
36 PanAm747LHR : I would go out of my way to avoid flying on an aircraft with this seating arrangement - I don't know what Boeing is thinking. Being on an aircraft wit
37 RedChili : So, if an outbound flight goes with 60 percent load factor, and the inbound flight goes with 100 percent, Boeing says that the "average" load factor o
38 Post contains images Kieron747 : Kieron
39 MotorHussy : What's best for an airline that aims at filling its seats?
40 787KQ : This thread cannot be serious.
41 Ikramerica : But even on 75% load factor, Y+ is going to be all but full. It's a small cabin, and there's no reason for the seats to remain free. Most airlines pu
42 Tdscanuck : Provided it meets the criteria for a patent, which is notoriously low in the US, you can patent pretty much anything. It's not just objects...methods
43 Indy : I should patent the concept of arranging seats with an aisle. Yeah I didn't come up with the idea but I doubt someone at Boeing just now thought up 3
44 ThegreatRDU : man that is some weird stuff
45 MotorHussy : The answer's "What's most attractive to its customers." and that is 2-4-2. As for patenting the layout, the airline (customer) specifies their desire
46 Post contains links MotorHussy : Flight International reports reactions to be "mixed" with regard to the novel layout idea: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-configuration-on-b
47 YYZA330 : The point of an airline is to fly passenger, not empty seats.
48 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Here's why I think it'll never work:
49 1337Delta764 : I wonder, is it possible to have a 2-5-2 layout on the 787? I know that the 787 is capable of featuring 3-2-3, 2-4-2, or 3-3-3. Most airlines are goin
50 RedChili : It's not only a question of aisle proximity, it's also a question of not having to get up for people who don't have aisle proximity. If the seating i
51 Post contains images Lightsaber : No wonder Airbus didn't contest the patent. Ok... now I know you can patent everything! Yea... I can't take this thread seriously either. But who the
52 Odwyerpw : 2-4-2 requires 4 IFE units per seat row. 3-2-3 requires only 3 IFE units per seat row. even 3-3-3 only requires 3 IFE units per seat row. 2-4-2 is exp
53 RedChili : The seat box for the Thales i-5000 used on the A380 can serve four seats. I don't know whether the 787 will revert to the technology of the 1990s.
54 Post contains links HawkerCamm : 3-2-3 is not novel. It's used in the rear of a Ilyushin Il-96-300. There must be other claims otherwise this patent is worthless on prior art grounds.
55 Kappel : Indeed, my experience too. I doubt we'll see many airlines adopting this configuration. I suppose if 3-3-3 is possible, they could also fit 2-5-2. Bu
56 Post contains images Scbriml : Depends on a number of factors - how long the flight is, and the size of the other passengers' bladders. I have no problem with 3 seats next to a win
57 Kappel : Depends on the length of the flight. On long flights (more than 6 hours) I like to get up and walk around a bit, just to stretch my legs.
58 Post contains links and images Kieron747 : Check this then... (And remember all patents are in the public domain) - check out: http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/free/espacenet.html
59 Post contains images Kieron747 : As a side note, take a look at this design!
60 BrianDromey : I think the load factor thing is just faffe. Perhaps the IFE boxes is more the issue. I tend to agree about the IFE boxes, but as another poster siad
61 Mir : It'd be the same with 2-4-2, just swap the two middle seats into the center section instead of having them on each side. -Mir
62 RJ111 : Another thing that's probably a bit off-putting about 3-2-3 is that the two centre seats might feels somewhat exposed, a little like the centre seat o
63 Baroque : That should have been the end of the thread except we would never have had: - what DO they say about one picture?!! Priceless as it would be true. On
64 Post contains images AutoThrust : Then i can patent in the US coughing or sneezing? $$$$$ Back to topic, personally the best configuration is 2-4-2 and nothing else. So no thanks, 3-2
65 Ravel : What's your source?
66 Post contains images CPH757 : But again, the 80% average load could easily reflect 100% load in the summer, and 60% load in the winter. At 60% the 3-2-3 would be great, but so is
67 Post contains images RussianJet : Aaaaaaaagggghhhhhh! Nooooo! I hate asymmetrical layouts - I JUST HATE THEM! They look so annoying!
68 Baroque : Those suggest WMs pic is spot on - TDC for the forehead by the look of it. I cannot see a solution where the lockers could open and not get most folk
69 Chautauquasaab : Perhaps the ultimate solution is the Thompson staggered seat arrangement for economy-class travel. You would have a greater sense of personal space, r
70 Post contains links Kappel : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-configuration-on-boeing-787.html At the end of the article:
71 Post contains images Kieron747 : Another patent...
72 YXD172 : Is it just me, or has Boeing completely ignored families/couples flying together? Other than the quote above, I found no mention of families wanting
73 Post contains images RJ111 : That's a no then.
74 YULWinterSkies : Dare I say this is why there seems to be more IFE problems on the 777s than other aircraft?
75 ATLflyer : 3-2-3 seating is ridiculous. Airlines are filling their planes to their max so the chance of having an empty seat next to you these days is essentiall
76 Post contains images BlueSky1976 : Boeing simply will not publicly admit, that 2-4-2 layout, often associated with Airbus, works better. Instead, they will try to push their alternative
77 Tdscanuck : Apparently this can't be repeated enough...Boeing doesn't set the layout. Boeing offers options. Airlines pick their layout. Some airlines do not cat
78 Mrocktor : In a reasonable system, it would be laughed at. Or it has an agenda. I expect such subtle trade barriers to increase continuously, since lately the W
79 AirlineEcon : The Benefit of 3-2-3 only comes when there are 2 or 3 empty seats per row See below assuming all that matters to passengers is an empty seat next to t
80 Ramzi : certainly agree. they hurt my eyes =/ even the 3-2-3 looks somewhat uneven to me. just my way of seeing it.
81 SEPilot : I much prefer 2-4-2, as I usually travel with my wife and absolutely require a window seat. That way my wife and I will sit together and not have anyo
82 Bwphoto : As a patent attorney, allow me to shed a little light on the patent matter. The scope of protection afforded by a patent is defined by the claims, whi
83 Viscount724 : That's why I've never liked CO's 2-1-2 business class layout on 767s as that middle seat is very exposed with traffic in the aisle on both sides of y
84 Post contains images Kieron747 : Wouldn't this come under the 'process' or at least 'generic' claim type though?.. They claimed a system of fitting seats as far as we are told and no
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...
Boeing Ends Plan For 787 Wireless IFE posted Sat Jan 20 2007 11:54:12 by Rheinbote
Boeing Goes Outside For 787 Parts Delivery posted Fri Feb 24 2006 17:25:25 by N60659
Boeing's 747 Freighters For 787 Program posted Tue Apr 19 2005 01:32:36 by Dimsum
Boeing CEO Blames Industry For 787 Bolt Shortage posted Tue Sep 11 2007 22:28:19 by Keesje
EK Seeks Guarantee From Boeing For 787-10 posted Thu Jul 19 2007 06:08:09 by UAEflyer
Boeing BBJ Reveals Interior Concepts For 787 VIP posted Wed Jan 31 2007 19:27:51 by 777ER
Boeing Sees US Legacy 787 Campaigns For 07/08 posted Wed Dec 6 2006 16:13:44 by NYC777
Boeing Will Begin Shipping Wings, Fuselage For 787 posted Mon Sep 18 2006 03:06:56 by NYC777
Boeing Looks At Larger 787 For EK, BA posted Mon Sep 26 2005 06:41:59 by Sq212
Boeing Hopes For 700 New Orders For 787 posted Fri Jun 3 2005 13:01:51 by Keesje