Leezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
Cos sitting in the middle of the middle is awful. Having to clamber accross everyone to get out to the loo. I had to endure that on UA from LHR-SFO. A 3-3-3 also gives the feeling of more space per pax.
I would also suspect that a 3-3-3 config is also easier to clean on a turnround and also easier for the cabin crew to serve people, as they don't have to lean accross as far.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
Agrodemm From Greece, joined Apr 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3548 times:
I would agree that the only reason is the "feeling" the passengers have on a 3-3-3 config. The 2-5-2 just seems cramped.
At any rate, what I really like is the 2-4-2 config on the A-340's. IMO this is the most fair configuration. Everybody is at most 1 seat away from aisles.
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
>>>Have to agree that 2-4-2 is the best. That is the layout on Air Canada's A330-300's and it is quite roomy for Y. Never been on a 777, but I assume they have similar cabin width?
Nope, the 777 is wider than an Airbus is wider than a 767. That´s why 777s come with 10 or 9 abreats, Airbusses with 9 or 8, and 767s with 8 or 7 - the lowernumber is of course the standard, while the higher number is used mainly by holiday airlines.
I hear there was an airline with 3-5-3 on the 747 - is this true? It would make sense, compared to the 777 which is less wide.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
Agreed that 2-4-3 is a good way to go on a 777/MD-11. KLM thought so when they got their MD's, saying that it provides the most flexibility for groups of various sizes. It's hard to argue with that one, but I'm told the drawback is that the seating is not symmetrical with the cabin centreline, making it tricky to arrange them around lavs, etc.
From a cost standpoint I suppose 3-3-3 is good for the airlines since all they need to inventory are 'triple' units of seats.
Aq737 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3159 times:
I agree with you CD-CPI! The aisles will not be inline. And also the aircraft will be "lopsided" because if you put lavatories on bothside os the cabin, it will look wierd. Although fits passengers needs, it may look a bit cramped!
Bobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3036 times:
The U.S. surgen general recently said that more than 60%
of American adults are overweight. (also 13% of children)
He said the trend it likely to continue and blah, blah, blah...
(myself included, at 12 lbs over the average BMI)
Anyway, the airlines apparently don't think so and they are
squeezing in more passengers... Oh well, look at the
bright side, at least the airlines don't think we're fat...
It seems like a lot of folks prefer the A330s/A340s over the
777s. At least you're never one seat away from the aisle.
2-4-3 in 777s is the best configuration.
2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3008 times:
Bobcat.. if you are refering to the change Delta is doing.. then, actually.. the 777 will be seating LESS then it currently does in a 2x5x2 seating arangement.. It'll actually seat the same # or close to it, as the MD11 currently does. It will be 50 in BizElite and 218 in Y. A loss of 6 seats in the main cabin- most likely due to the crew rest area being installed when they reconfig the aircraft.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
would also suspect that a 3-3-3 config is also easier to clean on a turnround and also easier for the cabin crew to serve people, as they don't have to lean across as far.
Leezyjet, sorry mate but that makes no sense - in 2-5-2, the cabin crew have to pass meals through 2 people to get to the centre seat. In 3-3-3, they have to pass meals through 2 people to get to the window seats.
How about 2-2-2-2 with 3 aisles? That'll be pretty cool, uh huh?
Not really - first think of all the capacity you lose, second think of the evacuation issues of people getting lost in the middle aisle. I doubt it will happen, sorry. I believe you would actually need to get the aircraft recertified to have 3 aisles as opposed to 2.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh