Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Cabin Layout, Why Not 2-5-2?  
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13949 times:

Hello a.netters,

why did Boeing with its mock-up choose 3-3-3 and why are doing the airlines the same? AFAIK i didn't hear from one airline which plans to install the seats in 2-5-2 config.


I think in 2-5-2 eight out of nine people would have direct aisle access or would only have to step over one seat. In a lot of flights the empty seats could be the middle seats, which would make it even better.

What's the point in 3-3-3?

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17081 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13939 times:

Think if the flight is packed, and your assigned seat is the one in the middle of that 5 seat row!!


Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13898 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 1):
Think if the flight is packed, and your assigned seat is the one in the middle of that 5 seat row!!

And what is better in sitting in seats B, E or H if the flight is packed? That are 3 middle seats.


BTW that is the Boeing mockup of economy class:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EsUMTvRYkkk/SB...AGq4/FNUh3YCMaeg/2008Tulips-36.jpg

[Edited 2008-12-10 16:05:48]

User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13889 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting CARST (Reply 2):
And what is better in sitting in seats B, E or H if the flight is packed? That are 3 middle seats.

You only have to bother one guy next to you to get up if you want to get up. With 5 in the middle there are 2 each side of you  Wink
But it doesn't make too much of a difference.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently onlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17081 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13873 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 3):
You only have to bother one guy next to you to get up if you want to get up. With 5 in the middle there are 2 each side of you

that is what I mean. ON the 2-5-2 arrangement you have to bother two other passengers, while on 3-3-3 it is only 1.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineLoveTheSkies From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13873 times:

I remember when we first took delivery of the 777 and the seating was 2-5-2. Nobody understood why you would want to cramp 5 people together when you can make it 3 instead. It gives the cabin a whole different feeling. Then they were changed to 3-3-3 and pax would come on saying how much they prefered that setup.

User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13849 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 3):
You only have to bother one guy next to you to get up if you want to get up. With 5 in the middle there are 2 each side of you
But it doesn't make too much of a difference.



Quoting B747forever (Reply 4):
that is what I mean. ON the 2-5-2 arrangement you have to bother two other passengers, while on 3-3-3 it is only 1.

Okay there COULD be one passenger who would have to climb over two seats, but in 3-3-3 there are two pax in seats A and I who would have to do the same.

Quoting LoveTheSkies (Reply 5):
I remember when we first took delivery of the 777 and the seating was 2-5-2. Nobody understood why you would want to cramp 5 people together when you can make it 3 instead. It gives the cabin a whole different feeling. Then they were changed to 3-3-3 and pax would come on saying how much they prefered that setup.

That could be a logical solution, marketing just found out what people liked more. Perhaps it is that easy. I still think 2-5-2 isn't that bad, 767-like when the airplane isn't packed...


User currently offlineAfterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1213 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13849 times:



Quoting CARST (Reply 2):
And what is better in sitting in seats B, E or H if the flight is packed? That are 3 middle seats.

Any seat that is not a window seat nor aisle seat is a middle seat. So, both 3-3-3 and 2-5-2 configurations have three middle seats.  Smile


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13838 times:



Quoting CARST (Thread starter):
why did Boeing with its mock-up choose 3-3-3 and why are doing the airlines the same? AFAIK i didn't hear from one airline which plans to install the seats in 2-5-2 config.

You've probably never sat in the middle of the 5-abreast section on a full DC-10 or L1011. I have and it's terrible. In my opinion, 3-3-3 is the best option for 9-abreast. On flights that aren't full, 3-3-3 gives you the highest probability of having an empty seat next to you.

On some aircraft I believe it can also reduce the requirement for underseat boxes containing the inflight entertainment equipment. I recall reading that one airline that converted from 2-5-2 (or possibly 2-4-3 which some MD-11s had) to 3-3-3, required 4 IFE boxes for the old seats but only 3 for the new layout.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31125 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am sure nothing is stopping airlines from doing a 2+5+2 configuration if they wish...

User currently offlineClipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13817 times:



Quoting B747forever (Reply 4):
that is what I mean. ON the 2-5-2 arrangement you have to bother two other passengers, while on 3-3-3 it is only 1.

Actually.. on the 3 - 3 - 3 you have 2 people that have to disturb 4 other people to get to the isle (window seats) as opposed to the 2 - 5 - 2 where 1 person has to disturb 2 people.

I think one advantage of the 3 - 3 - 3 is being able to use the same seat sets from their narrow body fleet. I sure there will be a savings with having one type of seat set that is interchangeable.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13792 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
You've probably never sat in the middle of the 5-abreast section on a full DC-10 or L1011

I have, despite that is now 20 years ago, i was 4 and the seat seemed very laaaarge to me. Big grin

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
I have and it's terrible. In my opinion, 3-3-3 is the best option for 9-abreast. On flights that aren't full, 3-3-3 gives you the highest probability of having an empty seat next to you.

Okay that might explain it...

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
On some aircraft I believe it can also reduce the requirement for underseat boxes containing the inflight entertainment equipment. I recall reading that one airline that converted from 2-5-2 (or possibly 2-4-3 which some MD-11s had) to 3-3-3, required 4 IFE boxes for the old seats but only 3 for the new layout.

... and that, too. I think i heard that once, too, wasn't remembering it tough when i thought about the topic.


User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13784 times:

also the IFE boxes power up to 3 screens, so in a 3.3.3 config only 3 are required but in a 2.5.2 config, 4 are needed, making the row of 5 even more uncomfortable as 2 of the seats have an IFE box under them

User currently offlineLoveTheSkies From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13761 times:



Quote:
quoting CARST (reply 11)
I have, despite that is now 20 years ago, i was 4 and the seat seemed very laaaarge to me.

... and you were probably seated between your parents or siblings which means you felt very comfortable and safe in either direction.  Wink


User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1546 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13720 times:



Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 10):
Actually.. on the 3 - 3 - 3 you have 2 people that have to disturb 4 other people to get to the isle (window seats) as opposed to the 2 - 5 - 2 where 1 person has to disturb 2 people.

Yes but IMO the two seats to the aisle is more than made up for by the window and the wall to sleep against



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2670 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13470 times:

OK, I did a little analysis. With the three different layouts, 3-3-3, 2-5-2 and 2-4-3, if the load is above 67% (6 of 9 seats occupied), we have to assume that all layouts have both windows and all four aisle seats occupied. Additionally, the same number of middle seats are occupied assuming middle seats are left vacant. The discussion then revolves around how many people have to climb over two people to get to the aisle and how many people have a person on both sides of them. Scroll down for seating challenges with different load factors.

But, before the load factor analysis, other factors include:

Is the design symmetric, allowing F/As to have equal work load from each aisle. 2-3-4 has a larger workload on the three side. Let's assume F/As switch off on the absolute middle seat on other versions.

F/A reach to serve passengers. 3-3-3 requires 2 reaches over two seats. Other layouts require just 1. 3-3-3 (WORSE)

Groups to seat
3-3-3 accommodates 1, 2 or 3 passengers on the same set of seats
2-4-3accommodates 1.2.3 or 4 passengers on the same set of seats
2-5-2 accommodates 1,2,3,4, or 5 passengers on the same set of seats.
I believe the 2-4-3 provides the most reasonable seating arrangement to mix 1, 2, 3 and 4 passengers . However, seat selection is mostly done by computer and an agent can't engineer the best fit based on load.

Overhead bins
If sharing the bins over their seats and they are installed above all three sets of seats, it would appear the 4 or 5 middle seat layouts would share overhead bins most equitably. However, the 5 seat set may make people stretch to use the middle bins.

Aisle arrangement
The stagger of the 2-4-3 may create problems with aisles and lavs and/or galleys. There may be better alignment of the aisles with the 2-5-2 or 3-3-3 layouts, but I don't know which is best.

IFE and seat sets. Unknown if IFE works best with any layout and if seats are cheaper and.or lighter with any layout.

Now, for seat occupancies under different load factors.

100% load

3-3-3
2 people have to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle (WORSE)
3 people have people on both sides of them

2-5-2
1 person has to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle
3 people have people on both sides of them

2-4-3
1 person has to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle
3 people have people on both sides of them

88% load (1 empty seat)

3-3-3 (1 middle seat empty in any of three sets of three)
1 or 2 people have to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle (WORSE)
2 people have people on both sides of them (WORSE)

2-5-2 (assume absolute middle seat empty)
0 people have to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle (BEST)
0 people have people on both sides of them (BEST)

2-4-3 (any middle seat empty)
0 or 1 person has to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle
1 or 2 people have people on both sides of them

78% load (2 empty seats)

3-3-3 (2 middle seats empty in any of three sets of three)
1 person has to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle (WORSE)
1 person has people on both sides of them (WORSE)

2-5-2 (assume absolute middle seat plus another middle seat empty)
0 people have to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle (BEST)
0 people have people on both sides of them (BEST)

2-4-3 (any 2 middle seats empty)
0 or 1 person has to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle
0 or 1 people have people on both sides of them

With 67% or lower load factor, all three middle seats can be empty for all versions.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13399 times:

This has been covered before, but the factor people always forget: 3-3-3 makes your two "double excuse-me" seats PREFERED seats for many fliers. People who want window seats, want them regardless of how many other seats are next to them. You've now taken a negative (two seats away from an asile) and made it into a positive by giving it a window. This means that the two most inconvenient seats on the airplane are ones many fliers WANT.

In a 2-5-2 configuration, absolutely NO ONE wants the middle seat in the 5-seat middle section. You've ensured that on a full or mostly full flight, there are customers who have no easy access to an aisle, and no window. You now have 20-40 very unhappy people who will have negative associations with flying your airline, and might go out of their way to avoid it again in the future. 3-3-3 gives the airlines the best chances of making the most people reasonably happy with their seat, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR PREFERED SEATING LOCATION. That is a huge, huge benefit for the airlines.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13330 times:

Discussed many times, but CALPSA+ leaves a critical part out of his analysis: being forced to sit shoulder to shoulder with a stranger on a non-full flight.

3-3-3 means that on 66% load, in theory, everyone can have a free seat next to them. With 2-5-2 you don't get that at all. People want windows, people want aisles, so in general, all the windows and aisles will be taken, so that 2/3rds of all pax are still shoulder to shoulder.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2670 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13195 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
3-3-3 means that on 66% load, in theory, everyone can have a free seat next to them. With 2-5-2 you don't get that at all. People want windows, people want aisles, so in general, all the windows and aisles will be taken, so that 2/3rds of all pax are still shoulder to shoulder.

You make a good point, but we should be so lucky these days to get on a flight with a 66% load factor. At 88%, 2 people would have an empty seat next to them in all layouts and at 78%, four would have empty seats next to them on the 3-3-3, two with 2-5-2 and four with 2-4-3. Under that criteria, 3-3-3 wins out until you get to load factors of about 85%.

The other issue I thought of was the impression of space that passengers get by just looking at the seating configuration. I really don't know which one would look more spacious. Anyone have an idea?


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12973 times:

wasn't the 787 supposed to be 2-4-2 to begin with? IIRC 3-3-3 on a 787 is somewhat similar to the terrible 3-4-3 layout on a 777, isn't it?


300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12918 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 19):
wasn't the 787 supposed to be 2-4-2 to begin with? IIRC 3-3-3 on a 787 is somewhat similar to the terrible 3-4-3 layout on a 777, isn't it?

I remembered that, too, but then i saw the official Boeing mock-up and thought if Boeing is showing it that most airlines will follow.

But 2-4-2 would definitely be the best option from a pax POV.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12786 times:

Amazing, this is supposed to be an aviation web site of enthusiast, and we sometime miss the simple things, or at least I did and never thought to post in the numerous thread like this one. So far everything in here is the same, the number of "excuse me" seats, empty seats varying by load factors, IFE boxes etc.

Here's what just hit me, service by the F/A, maybe because I have been on a few long hauls recently and requested tea. If you are in the middle row of 5 pax, how does the F/A get a hot cup of tea over to you, lets imagine the possibilities and what could go wrong.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12640 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
If you are in the middle row of 5 pax, how does the F/A get a hot cup of tea over to you

The same way every FA on every A320 or 737 gets a hot cup of tea or coffee to every window-seat pax?  scratchchin 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12713 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 22):
The same way every FA on every A320 or 737 gets a hot cup of tea or coffee to every window-seat pax?

Agree.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
lets imagine the possibilities and what could go wrong.

Place the cup on a tray and either lean over x number of pax, x+?? number of pax or ask someone sitting to pass along. Is 5 in the middle more convenient for something going wrong or 3, lets imagine.


User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12586 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 19):
wasn't the 787 supposed to be 2-4-2 to begin with? IIRC 3-3-3 on a 787 is somewhat similar to the terrible 3-4-3 layout on a 777, isn't it?

BA has announced they were sticking to the 2-4-2 config.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4209384

Obviously between a 2-4-2 787 and a 3-4-3 777 the choice will be easy !



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
25 DavidkunzVIE : Hm... For me it would make the difference between not enjoying a flight and suicide.
26 1337Delta764 : I wonder what layout will AA choose. AA's 777s are 2-5-2. However, there could be the possibility that the seat tracks under the carpet don't support
27 CARST : When AA flies their 777s with a 9-abreast seating and not the cramped 10-abreast i would bet that they will choose the not-cramped 8-abreast for the
28 RedChili : There's no simple answer to this question... This is true, but you would also need to ask: Does everybody want a free seat next to them? If I travel w
29 Steve6666 : Who gives a toss about low yield Y class pax?
30 Odwyerpw : 2+5+2 requires 4 IFE units per row. 3+3+3 requires 3.
31 Zkpilot : Because 2-5-2 sucks... hell being in the middle... sardine. 3-3-3 is much better
32 XT6Wagon : lets see, not only is it cheaper to have ONE seat assemly for Y class (3 wide) instead of 2 (5 and 2), but airlines have found passengers prefer 3-3-3
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...
Why Not The B-787? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 17:37:40 by JayDavis
Double-Decker From Boeing - Why Not 787? posted Thu Oct 14 1999 21:09:37 by Ilyushin96M
Airbus Engine Pylons -why Not Painted? posted Sun Sep 7 2008 10:06:12 by NA
JetBlue And Star Alliance? Why Not? posted Mon Sep 1 2008 04:20:57 by Phileet92
PHX International Air Service: Why Not Much? posted Wed Aug 20 2008 12:36:00 by Af773atmsp
Mainline Pilots Flying Regionals - Why Not? posted Mon Aug 11 2008 16:21:27 by PC12Fan
Southwest: Why Not Bigger Planes? posted Sun Aug 10 2008 19:38:35 by JJ8080
Not A Single 748 Photo....why Not? posted Sat Jul 26 2008 08:56:47 by Manfredj
Why Not? (way For Airlines To Cover Oil Costs) posted Mon Jun 30 2008 16:16:12 by Joelfreak
Why Not Winglets On Every 737? posted Mon May 26 2008 07:10:07 by JayDavis