Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Did 10 Abreast 777 Become Standard?  
User currently offlineArcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 24
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17778 times:

Hi all

I remember the standard for years in coach for the 777 was 9 abreast in comfortable 3-3-3 configuration. Many times I've flown them, 772, 773 and 77W. Now AC is even changing them!

But now I see more and more airlines going 3-4-3, which was the standard for wider 747s. I know this is obvious for airlines, but what about pax? are the seats or the aisles getting thinner? Any compensation in terms of pitch or we're basically worse than before?

Thanks

Regards )( Arcano


in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17772 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All it takes is one airline making the switch, making money and folks continuing to fly that airline. The move to 10 across on the 77W happened a while ago (EK for example). Other airlines with 77Ws may renovate to add the 10th seat because it will put $$ in their pockets for minimal cost. The average passenger apparently does not care.

Many of us on this board however do care. If I'm flying Y class, I will go out of my way to book an airline with more comfortable seating layouts on long haul flights. I don't have an issue paying a bit more in exchange for a bit more room.

I'll need to look but I don't recall any major airlines flying the 772 at 10 across on long haul flights. They are at nine across.


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4926 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17756 times:

Quoting Arcano (Thread starter):
Now AC is even changing them!

For the record, AC is not changing B777s to 10 abreast. 5 new-build B777s coming in 2013 and early 2014 will be equipped with a 10 abreast Y cabin, as are the majority of B777s being built today. There has been no decision made to alter existing B777s.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9590 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17708 times:

Emirates was the first one to do it on a large scale and has been wildly successful. They have better than industry standard pitch. Aisles and seats are narrower. They are putting the same 17 inch width on the 777s that airlines have always been using on 737s and 757s for decades.

Here is an honest question to those who fear 10 abreast (or 9 on the 787). Could you honestly tell that the seats on wide bodies were bigger than on narrow bodies? Everyone seems to prefer the more open cabin, but can you feel 1 inch?

I have sat in a mockup with 9 and 10 abreast in the same interior. If I had no one next to me, I could not tell the difference. I only noticed it when sitting with someone on both sides. 10 abreast middle seats are tight, but for a window seat, I could not feel any difference since I tend to lean away from the middle seat anyway.

My final comment is that long haul economy is a miserable and uncomfortable experience regardless of your seat. It is the cheapest way to travel and airlines know that people care most about cost. A cheaper ticket would make them happier than 1 inch of width. We all appreciate better, but don't want to pay for it. Premium economy is coming and is a good option if you value a little more comfort or are a person of size.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17678 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
If I'm flying Y class, I will go out of my way to book an airline with more comfortable seating layouts on long haul flights.

I agree with you. The question is, however, whether a seat in a 9-abreast configuration is necessarily more comfortable than one that is in a 10 abreast. For example, I have flown on countless Emirates 10-abreast 777s and do not find the seats any less comfortable than on United's or American's 777s. The aisles however seemed narrower, and may be that's largely what the 10th seat is cutting into.

I think the quality of the seat and seat cushion, shape, legroom, and width all combine to create a comfortable experience.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9590 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17638 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
Many of us on this board however do care. If I'm flying Y class, I will go out of my way to book an airline with more comfortable seating layouts on long haul flights. I don't have an issue paying a bit more in exchange for a bit more room.

I'll need to look but I don't recall any major airlines flying the 772 at 10 across on long haul flights. They are at nine across.

Air France has 10 abreast on long haul 777s. We also know their hard product in all classes lags their competition for comfort. Premium economy at 9 abreast is an interesting concept. Basically you are paying more for the width that was industry standard 15 years ago.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AT (Reply 4):

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
If I'm flying Y class, I will go out of my way to book an airline with more comfortable seating layouts on long haul flights.

I agree with you. The question is, however, whether a seat in a 9-abreast configuration is necessarily more comfortable than one that is in a 10 abreast. For example, I have flown on countless Emirates 10-abreast 777s and do not find the seats any less comfortable than on United's or American's 777s. The aisles however seemed narrower, and may be that's largely what the 10th seat is cutting into.

I think the quality of the seat and seat cushion, shape, legroom, and width all combine to create a comfortable experience.


I agree with your points. Where I think this would impact me most is the fact I'm a bit over 6'2" tall and the narrow seats translate to narrower shoulder width which isn't fun. The narrower seat doesn't matter to me given I can easily fit my bottom in the seat.

Despite the tight confines, a great on-board product can help make the experience a good one. EK for example has an excellent entertainment system, decent food and good service. I might deal with a trip in Y on EK but wouldn't consider the same trip for example on a U.S. based airline given the differences in service and product.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2292 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17552 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):

  

I always wondered if one inch really does make a difference or even if its that noticeable in a 10 vs 9 abreast config on the 777. Truth is, you never really know until you've experienced it yourself... Even so, ive never flown in a 10 abreast config so I cant really same how bad it is compared to the 9, plus im not a large person, so my opinion of might differ to someone else.

But lets look on the bright side, the proposed 777X series is projected to have a 4 inch wider cabin...



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3608 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17287 times:

I'm not sure I'd call 10 abreast the "standard". There are still plenty of airlines that fly 9 abreast, and more of those than fly 10 abreast, I'd imagine.


PHX based
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4745 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Years ago TG had 10 across on their 777. I crawled onto one half asleep one night BKk to Nrt and thought I was on a 747 till I had to go to the bathroom- which weren't where they ought to be on a 747! Never noticed a problem with the seat. Mind you if it had been same plane all the way back to U S it may be different!

User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17033 times:

In the USA, there are four major 777 operators. One is going to 10-abreast across the board, one is likely to stay 9-abreast, and one is currently 9-abreast but has a possibility of 10-abreast in the future. And the fourth-biggest US 777 operator doesn't take passengers.

AA is going to transition their 772ERs to 10-abreast (except in Main Cabin Extra), add AVOD, eliminate the F cabin, and replace the polish with paint starting midyear, which will bring the 772 in line for Y with AA's new 77Ws. AA's 772s are currently 9-abreast in Y.

DL is still 9-abreast, and refurbished all their 777s with new seating in both J and Y and AVOD in both classes not all that long ago. Since DL's 777 fleet is underutilized, I don't see that changing.

UA (both sUA and sCO aircraft) have both always been 9-abreast. The sUA planes were refurbed with AVOD and new seats in Y (3-3-3 instead of the original 2-5-2) not all that long ago, as were the sCO planes. But if UA orders 77Ws instead of converting their A350XWB-900 orders to A350XWB-1000s, I could see UA going for 10-abreast on the 77W to bring seating capacity in line with the 744s that need to be replaced.

And as an all-cargo airline, FX doesn't need seats in their 77L-Fs.



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineArcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16973 times:

Quoting AT (Reply 4):
The question is, however, whether a seat in a 9-abreast configuration is necessarily more comfortable than one that is in a 10 abreast.

I do care after I found that to travel long distance in the aisle of the middle 3 is one of the best way to cross oceans when travelling solo; the more chances to have the central seat empty, and if occupied more chances that the poor guy is a companion of the other central isle, so little chances you'll get disturbed and instant access to the aisle...

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
For the record, AC is not changing B777s to 10 abreast.

I'm afraid just wait and see

Regards!



in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16891 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
My final comment is that long haul economy is a miserable and uncomfortable experience regardless of your seat.

Well, last year I flew in quick succession on a 9-abreast SQ 77W and on a 10-abreast JJ 77W, and one experience was definitely more miserable than the other.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think AA's decision on the 772s makes sense given their 77W config. I'll be interested in the reviews of the revamped 772s in Y class.

User currently offlinemplsjefe From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):

DL is still 9-abreast, and refurbished all their 777s with new seating in both J and Y and AVOD in both classes not all that long ago. Since DL's 777 fleet is underutilized, I don't see that changing.

Thank the gods! We fly DL 77Ls quite a bit and would hate to see a change. We find the Y+ to be very comfortable, even on a 16 hour flight. We've been in Y too, and that was fine as well.

Two years ago we flew CDG-YYZ on an AF 773 in Y+ and couldn't believe the sight in Y. Looked horrid and all the pax on a very full flight looked absolutely miserable. The aisles looked smaller than the armrests. After that, we made a pact to never fly on a 777 3-4-3 configuration in Y ever.


User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15461 times:

I have only flown 777s on CO and LY. I am a big tall guy, though not overweight (well, not much anyway). The 3-3-3 seats on those airlines were perfectly satisfactory. But I think I'd be singing a different tune if I had to endure a 10+ hour flight in a 3-4-3 configuration. I have flown trans-Atlantic on CO's 757s, but there was no one between my daughter (window) and I (aisle), so it was very comfortable. If we'd had a middle-seat companion, I don't think I would have been so happy.

User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15329 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
Many of us on this board however do care. If I'm flying Y class, I will go out of my way to book an airline with more comfortable seating layouts on long haul flights. I don't have an issue paying a bit more in exchange for a bit more room.

It's traveler's like us that have given rise to premium economy. I'll gladly pay a little more for a little more room.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
My final comment is that long haul economy is a miserable and uncomfortable experience regardless of your seat. It is the cheapest way to travel and airlines know that people care most about cost. A cheaper ticket would make them happier than 1 inch of width. We all appreciate better, but don't want to pay for it. Premium economy is coming and is a good option if you value a little more comfort or are a person of size.

I couldn't agree more that flying long haul in econ is a miserable experience. I flew LHR-IAH three years ago on a 777 in econ. We were delayed at the gate for roughly 2 hours, taxied out and held for close to another hour, and then finally had a ten hour flight. I was fortunate there was a young child next to me so I could stretch my legs out under his seat because the equipment box was blocking mine. Lesson learned! No more long haul econ for me! It seems as though some of the Euro carriers premium long haul experience is well worth the price and offers quite a bit on top of just a little more room. Definitely worth the extra cost IMO.



RUSH
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14962 times:

Quoting mplsjefe (Reply 14):
Two years ago we flew CDG-YYZ on an AF 773 in Y+ and couldn't believe the sight in Y. Looked horrid and all the pax on a very full flight looked absolutely miserable. The aisles looked smaller than the armrests. After that, we made a pact to never fly on a 777 3-4-3 configuration in Y ever.

Well, it was AF. They are not the best comparison for this purpose. I suppose that if BA did than that would be a more valid comparison.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14804 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I have sat in a mockup with 9 and 10 abreast in the same interior. If I had no one next to me, I could not tell the difference. I only noticed it when sitting with someone on both sides.

But with today's high load factors you're more likely than not to have someone next to you. And if you're in an aisle seat which I always prefer, the narrow aisles on the 10-abreast 777 also mean you're more likely to be bumped by people passing in the aisle (and by meal/drink trolleys).

I much prefer any other widebody, especially the 767 followed by the 2-4-2 A330/340, to a 10-abreast 777 and fortunately there aren't many routes where you don't have a more comfortable option.


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 13984 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
Since DL's 777 fleet is underutilized, I don't see that changing.

What do you mean they are underutilized?


User currently offlinedeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13645 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
I much prefer any other widebody, especially the 767 followed by the 2-4-2 A330/340, to a 10-abreast 777 and fortunately there aren't many routes where you don't have a more comfortable option.

Agreed. I was disappointed when I learned that the A350 was not going to be built on the AIrbus 330/300 2-4-2 standard. (BTW will the A350 be fitted to 10 abreast in economy? I know 9 for sure). Its mentioned that we on this board notice more than the flying public-that maybe true, BUT that is because was all in the know. I'm sure you quiz any average joe who just got off a 12 hour 10 abreast flight and they'll tell you no matter how good the food, great the staff and wonderful the IFE, something was indeed "off" that they felt overly cramped and uncomfortable.


User currently onlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13505 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
and folks continuing to fly that airline

The #1 reason standards have gone where they have.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
The average passenger apparently does not care.

Same as above.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3054 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13378 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
I'll need to look but I don't recall any major airlines flying the 772 at 10 across on long haul flights. They are at nine across.

EK does.

I have flown EK's 10-abreast configuration, and I have to say that I did not like it very much. The seat itself wasn't all too different, and I would say comfort depends on the seat itself (many 9-abreast carriers have worse seats), as well as other factors. In fact, I would argue the biggest thing affecting comfort on long-haul flights are IFE boxes under the seat.

However, on night flights, I enjoy aisle seats as they let me go stretch my legs without climbing over anyone, but on EK flights I kept on being bumped into, much more than any other airline.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13328 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
Premium economy at 9 abreast is an interesting concept.

FYI, AC's proposed Y+ product for the 5 new-build 77W's is showing 8 abreast in a 2-4-2 arrangement. Only 24 seats, mind you. Perhaps that could be expanded at the cost of a few 'regular' Y seats.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13326 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 22):
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
I'll need to look but I don't recall any major airlines flying the 772 at 10 across on long haul flights. They are at nine across.

EK does.

Also AF which converted their 772s from 9-abreast to 10-abreast at least a couple of years ago. KLM 772s are still 9-abreast while their 77Ws are 10-abreast.


User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13598 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
And the fourth-biggest US 777 operator doesn't take passengers.

Sorry to nit-pick at your post, but FX is the third largest American 777 operator. DL is fourth.

UA: 74
AA: 53
FX: 23
DL:18


User currently offlinetim From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 705 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11778 times:

Living in Perth we have 777 options galore daily from Perth-Asia & the Middle East connecting to the USA/Europe. I go out of my way to fly Qatar on the way to Europe purely for the fact that they have 9 abreast 77L/Winstead of 10 like EK. Feels less cramped to me and seems to be more shoulder space.

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11362 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
I don't have an issue paying a bit more in exchange for a bit more room.

The key lies in the defination of "a bit" for both the squeeze and the moolah. What is the tipping point for how much more to ante up for how many fractions of an inch wider bum space?



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11146 times:

Quoting Arcano (Thread starter):
When Did 10 Abreast 777 Become Standard?

As far as I am aware, it is not standard, it is a customer option.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesailas From Finland, joined Jul 2007, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10163 times:

Back in 2005 i flew AF with the 772ER, and that had 9 abreast. Also i was on the last row with my friend where there are only 2 seats. I am 170cm and average so to me it was more than plenty of space. I did however find AYs a333 with their 242 config to be very uncomfy when full.


Airlines been on: AY, LX, SR, OS, SK, KF, EZY, FR, BA, LH, AF, TG, DC, FC, TK, KL, BT, CX, QR
User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 1):
Many of us on this board however do care. If I'm flying Y class, I will go out of my way to book an airline with more comfortable seating layouts on long haul flights. I don't have an issue paying a bit more in exchange for a bit more room.

  

Quoting longhauler (Reply 2):
I have sat in a mockup with 9 and 10 abreast in the same interior. If I had no one next to me, I could not tell the difference. I only noticed it when sitting with someone on both sides. 10 abreast middle seats are tight, but for a window seat, I could not feel any difference since I tend to lean away from the middle seat anyway.

I have sat twice in a 10 abreast AF 777 in 2008 and vowed never to set foot again in such a cabin. Impossible to sleep since I was stuck both times between the wall (I select window seats as much as possible), the seat having on this side a paper thin armrest preventing me to lean toward the wall, and a pssenger (on this side the paper thin armest means you are in permanent contact with your neighbour, every time he moves you feel it. Woul have I had free seats next to me my opinion could be different, but I don't want to take the risk !
Since then I have used airlines that do not have 10 abreast 777.
Most of my trips were therefore done with CX, SQ, LH, BA and IB, depending on the destinations.And sometimes AF, if the flight was with another plane.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
My final comment is that long haul economy is a miserable and uncomfortable experience regardless of your seat. It is the cheapest way to travel and airlines know that people care most about cost. A cheaper ticket would make them happier than 1 inch of width. We all appreciate better, but don't want to pay for it. Premium economy is coming and is a good option if you value a little more comfort or are a person of size.

Normal eco is still bearable on some airlines. Just flew from France to Vietnam on SQ.

AF was not an option as it is a 777. I nevertheless checked their Premium Eco (which is correct, I flew them already), it was costing more than 2000 euros and it was 3,5 months before the date of my trip ! For me Premium Eco should not be more than 50% of the normal Eco.

So I selected Singapore Airlines (not the cheapest option, but I am not looking at price only) : the CDG-SIN flight is operated with an A 380, very comfortable and spacious, the flight from SIN to Vietnam was with a 777, and 9 abreast, even for the short duration. I did not regret my choice, even if the total travel time is a little longer : when you arrive you don't need 2 days to recuperate !

On this board we may not represent the majority of flyers, but we have a number of flights per year probably higher the "normal" people.



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
User currently offlineenginebird From United States of America, joined May 2007, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9771 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
Air France has 10 abreast on long haul 777s. We also know their hard product in all classes lags their competition for comfort. Premium economy at 9 abreast is an interesting concept. Basically you are paying more for the width that was industry standard 15 years ago.

This could precisely be the reason for making Y seating as uncomfortable and service in Y as minimal as possible: To get people to pay extra for what they used to get for "free".

Those who do not care compare prices with some kind of a search engine anyway and often take the cheapest offer, irrespective of airline, plane type, travel time, number of stops, and qualitiy of seating in Y. -- Hate the 10 across on AF and JJ and do not fly them anymore. But then again, I also find the 9-abreast 777 the most uncomfortable widebody around...

[Edited 2013-02-11 00:43:15]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11211 posts, RR: 33
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9738 times:

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 20):
(BTW will the A350 be fitted to 10 abreast in economy? I know 9 for sure)

Airbus is/was studying a 10 abreast layout for the A350 and I believe AirAsia X is going for it.



It will be a tight cabin!

[Edited 2013-02-11 00:43:19]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9568 times:

I guess competitive advantage and potential revenue and yields will always dictate such decisions. The more airlines that adapt to the new layout, the more that will change. Will price sensitive Y class passengers really fork out hundreds of extra dollars to fly with an airline because they retain nine abreast seating?

It's interesting to note that even when the 747 was first launched it was with a Y configuration of 3x4x2 - 9 abreast. How many operators now use this configuration?

And look at the 787 - touted as the 'dreamliner' with it's spacious Y accommodations - 2 x 4 x 2. How many of the airlines that have so far launched the aircraft actually used that configuration? Most have gone for 3x3x3. Even BA, despite retaining 9 abreast seating on their 777's (for now).


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8932 times:

As I've said here many times, there is an inconsistency where airliners like EK and AF operate the 777 at 10Y, and also operate the much wider A380 at 10Y! The same airline, the same Y class, but significantly different levels of comfort.

For example, looking at Seat Guru for AF
A380 in Y, 19" width
A330 18"
744 17.5"
77W 17"

and comparing with short haul
A320 18"

I've been on an AF 77W, and it wasn't pleasant. You also really notice the difference in aisle width, they use special trolleys to fit...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinerwsea From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3091 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8175 times:

I've never flown 10-abreast economy and never will. I flew this January on AMS-BKK-AMS with KL's 773 in business class. I took a walk back to economy and it looked extremely crowded and tight (load factor of 100% too). No way would I put myself through that, even in "Economy Comfort". There's other options on the same route (BR, CI) that offer standard width. No matter what anyone tries to say, there's no way that 10-abreast is as comfortable as 9-abreast... especially when you consider the extra strain on the restrooms, overhead bins, aisles, etc.

User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 in 10 abreast is fantastic for the airline accountants but not for the passengers. My next trip is on QR in a 77W, EK have better timing but I will go with QR. If EK had operated the 380 or 345 I would have gone with them.


SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlineAAplat4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7922 times:

Does anyone think that AA will have to rethink its 10 abreast seating if UA and DL stay with nine abreast in their 777s? It could be a competitive disadvantage if someone makes a publicity campaign out of it.

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3227 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7816 times:

Quoting AAplat4life (Reply 37):
Does anyone think that AA will have to rethink its 10 abreast seating if UA and DL stay with nine abreast in their 777s? It could be a competitive disadvantage if someone makes a publicity campaign out of it.

Nope.

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 36):
The 777 in 10 abreast is fantastic for the airline accountants

Accountants have no relation to this subject matter, you are mixing accountancy up with airline yield management. They're not the same field at all.

The bottom line is that ten abreast is here to stay for economy and done properly no one need notice, like Emirates. Done badly like Air France, it's a poor experience. Even Air New Zealand bang in ten abreast on the B77W. It's like the upstairs lounge on the B747, if your competitors are monetising the asset, you're an idiot not to. If you want more space then travel down the front and pay the going rate.


User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

I've flown both 9 abreast and 10 abreast and I personally cannot tell a difference. I'm not the slimmest guy around but I found the seat to be perfectly acceptable . This was with Emirates and the lovely 34" seat pitch which could have helped!


Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11211 posts, RR: 33
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7397 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 38):
The bottom line is that ten abreast is here to stay for economy and done properly no one need notice, like Emirates. Done badly like Air France, it's a poor experience. Even Air New Zealand bang in ten abreast on the B77W. It's like the upstairs lounge on the B747, if your competitors are monetising the asset, you're an idiot not to. If you want more space then travel down the front and pay the going rate.

I have no experience with both airlines but I'm interested to know why the Air France cabin is so bad and the EK cabin is better. Wider seats/aisles? Better seat pitch?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
My final comment is that long haul economy is a miserable and uncomfortable experience regardless of your seat.

I personally don't agree with this. It can be so, but I don't find it always to be the case. Perhaps it's because God didn't bless me with great stature, but I'm generally pretty comfortable if it's a half-decent airline. I quite enjoy the time locked away from the world with good entertainment choices and time to relax and think. Of course the major caveat is, as I already intimated, whether the airline is good in terms of service and facilities. It's not that hard to pick a reasonable one though and figure out what the equipment will be. Seating configuration is a factor, but the service and entertainment is far more important to me.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Quoting skipness1E"
"Accountants have no relation to this subject matter, you are mixing accountancy up with airline yield management. They're not the same field at all."

My apologies. I was referring to "accountants" as a general term for employees who are responsible for the financial well being of the business. They by their very nature would be impressed by the economics of 10 abreast. Passengers and the marketing departments might well have a different opinion.

"Quoting skipness1E"

"The bottom line is that ten abreast is here to stay for economy and done properly no one need notice, like Emirates. Done badly like Air France, it's a poor experience. Even Air New Zealand bang in ten abreast on the B77W. It's like the upstairs lounge on the B747, if your competitors are monetising the asset, you're an idiot not to. If you want more space then travel down the front and pay the going rate."

I think infrequent travellers would probably not notice and if they did it wouldn't matter too much. However frequent travellers and those like myself who often travel in higher classes would. The question is would the potential loss of business be offset with the lower operating costs of the more dense configuration? I think the answer depends on the airline, it's yield and it's routes. This is why many airlines still have 9 abreast and are still ordering 777's in 9 abreast i.e BA, SQ, QR and CX .



SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6291 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Arcano (Thread starter):
But now I see more and more airlines going 3-4-3, which was the standard for wider 747s

This phenomenon you speak of is not exclusive to the 777. It's happened before and it will happen again. 747s at launch came "standard" with a 3-4-2 configuration, but as the price of fuel increased, so too did the airlines try to recouperate those extra costs by installing extra seats. Gone were the lounges on board early 747-100s, but were instead replaced by seats. L-1011s and DC-10s had configurations ranging from 8 to 10 across.

Some A350XWBs are reportedly going to be configured with a 3-4-3 configuration. Given that their fuselage is narrower than the 777, it stands to reason that either the seat or the aisle, or both, will be somewhat narrower. I also think it's a matter of time before some A380 operators adopts an 11-across economy configuration on the main deck so that they can fit 800 seats in a three or four class layout.

Quoting bastew (Reply 33):
It's interesting to note that even when the 747 was first launched it was with a Y configuration of 3x4x2 - 9 abreast. How many operators now use this configuration?

And look at the 787 - touted as the 'dreamliner' with it's spacious Y accommodations - 2 x 4 x 2. How many of the airlines that have so far launched the aircraft actually used that configuration? Most have gone for 3x3x3. Even BA, despite retaining 9 abreast seating on their 777's (for now).

  



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 25):
Sorry to nit-pick at your post, but FX is the third largest American 777 operator. DL is fourth.

UA: 74
AA: 53
FX: 23
DL:18

Didn't know that FX was third now. Thanks.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 38):
It's like the upstairs lounge on the B747, if your competitors are monetising the asset, you're an idiot not to. If you want more space then travel down the front and pay the going rate.

With a growing number of airlines offering Y+ sections, I see 10-abreast becoming the de facto Y standard for the 777 in five years. If airlines fly the 777 and want to put more bums on seats (as Eddie Rickenbacker would say) at minimal cost, they will have to at least look into 10-abreast 777s closely.



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineaviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1486 posts, RR: 14
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

I flew on EK's 10-abreast B77W from Bangkok to Dubai and Houston ... and back. And even at a height of just 1.64m, I swear I would not fly this again if I had a choice.

it is not so much about how comfortable the seat is (or not) ... if you have a neighbour sitting next to you who keeps to his space, it might not be too bad. But if your neighbour believes he needs to share his hairy arm with you the whole journey ... or sends his foot across to your side seeking more room to stretch his legs ... it becomes a horrible experience.

And guess what ... I had similarly horrible experiences on all four sectors. And there is one more thing about having the thinnest of aisle ... during meal service, I lost count of the number of times the service trolley hits the seats along the aisle. So those seated along the aisle had better watch their feet, their elbows, their shoulders and their ears.

KC Sim


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5382 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

Yes, 1 inch is very noticeable, especially for those of us with wide shoulders. In a 17.2" seat (737/757/747/10Y 777), if I'm in a center seat, I physically can't help but encroach on at least one of my neighboring seats with my shoulders unless I twist in the seat.

That said, the considerable majority of the people who buy Y tickets have decided they'd rather have less comfort and a lower fare. I agree with them in most cases, although I try my best to get an aisle or window to avoid inconveniencing fellow pax.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4372 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 46):

Yes, 1 inch is very noticeable, especially for those of us with wide shoulders. In a 17.2" seat (737/757/747/10Y 777), if I'm in a center seat, I physically can't help but encroach on at least one of my neighboring seats with my shoulders unless I twist in the seat.

I agree. I have broad shoulders and find that Y class is getting to be uncomfortably small. I believe that the airlines are just trying to keep the fares down until they can develop a way of putting seats in the lower cabin (baggage hold) next they will keep stuffing Y class more and more. BTW, luggage will only be available to those who can fly in F/C/Y+, for those in cattle class you have to stuff your one carry on and that will be the way the airlines increase the revenue while transporting those who want the extra services to pay for the extras like seats with windows, seat belts, boarding by the airbridge, a water service, etc.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 918 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
UA (both sUA and sCO aircraft) have both always been 9-abreast. The sUA planes were refurbed with AVOD and new seats in Y (3-3-3 instead of the original 2-5-2) not all that long ago, as were the sCO planes. But if UA orders 77Ws instead of converting their A350XWB-900 orders to A350XWB-1000s, I could see UA going for 10-abreast on the 77W to bring seating capacity in line with the 744s that need to be replaced.

I think you nailed the answer right there.

Years ago Boeing advertised the 773 as a possible replacement for airlines aging 747 fleet. When you look at most airlines 747 fleet you will see that most airlines have a pretty large business class onboard their 747s anywhere between 50 to 70 seats for most airlines. Most airlines who now operate the 773 in a 3 class setting have anywhere between 40-56 seats in business class and lot of those airlines who operate the 773 in a 3 class or higher setting are now offering most business class passengers direct access to the isle. Offering direct access to the isle takes up a lot of room onboard the plane especially when you have 40 or more seats in business class. So in order for for the 773 in a 3 class or higher setting to get anywhere close to the seating capacity we see on the 747's the airlines have no choice except to go with 10 abreast in coach.

The 2 airlines that comes to mind that does not have 10 abreast seating in coach on their 3 class 773 is SQ and CX. If you look at the number of seats they have in coach it is more on par with the seating capacity we see in coach on a 772 and while this arrangement works for these airlines I think most other airlines are looking to squeeze at least 240 people in coach on their 773 and in order to hit that number while offering direct access to the isle in business means airlines have to go with 10 abreast in coach.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4250 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 43):
This phenomenon you speak of is not exclusive to the 777. It's happened before and it will happen again. 747s at launch came "standard" with a 3-4-2 configuration, but as the price of fuel increased, so too did the airlines try to recouperate those extra costs by installing extra seats. Gone were the lounges on board early 747-100s, but were instead replaced by seats. L-1011s and DC-10s had configurations ranging from 8 to 10 across.

But there is a limit. How narrow can seats get, especially on 12 hour long haul flights, before there may be medical issues with lack of blood flow to the arms say? With (no offence intended) fatter peoples like, ahem, Americans, when will the first lawsuit about this happen? In an emergency, with the narrower aisle, how long will it take to evacuate the plane? What if someone gets stuck?

A lot of the customers on EK will be of Asian build, i.e. smaller so will fit better. My Chinese relatives in Malaysia would probably fit quite well into Air Asia X's 9Y A330 or even a 10Y A350!



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
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...
EK Economy On 777 - 10 Abreast posted Tue Aug 31 2004 14:48:02 by CPT
When Did The 767's Get The New 777-style Interior? posted Wed Aug 21 2002 00:03:18 by QatarAirways
10 Abreast Seating On Lauda 777 posted Sat Feb 2 2002 17:46:32 by Flying-b773
Airbus A320 Enhanced - When Did Production Start? posted Sat Feb 9 2013 19:07:39 by JohnClipper
When Did UA Drop "come Fly The Friendly Skies" posted Mon Oct 15 2012 11:23:09 by g500
When Did LH Font Change In The 1960s? posted Mon Aug 13 2012 16:08:07 by LH707330
When Did Varig Begin Nagoya? posted Mon Aug 6 2012 08:43:02 by 28L28L
When Did Lufthansa Start SYD? posted Sat Aug 4 2012 03:13:11 by Jackbr
When Did JetBlue Serve ATL? posted Tue Jul 17 2012 17:44:24 by doulasc
Question:When Did AS Announce SEA-SAT? posted Tue Jun 26 2012 02:19:39 by RWA380