CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 705 posts, RR: 1 Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12513 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.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16574 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12503 times:
Think if the flight is packed, and your assigned seat is the one in the middle of that 5 seat row!!
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12453 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
But it doesn't make too much of a difference.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16574 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12437 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.
LoveTheSkies From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12437 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.
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 705 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12413 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...
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12402 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26685 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12390 times:
I am sure nothing is stopping airlines from doing a 2+5+2 configuration if they wish...
Clipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12381 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.
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 705 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12356 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.
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.
Antonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 719 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12348 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
LoveTheSkies From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12325 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.
FL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1499 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12284 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
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2201 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 12034 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.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 11963 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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11894 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.
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2201 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11759 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?
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 705 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11482 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.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11350 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.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11277 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.
TGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 868 posts, RR: 23 Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11150 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?
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
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 705 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16574 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1102 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 719 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5897 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2004, 868 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
