Mah584jr From United States, joined Mar 2006, 373 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12901 times:
Based on those photos, Airbus should stick to their 8 abreast seating configuration for the A350. But perhaps they could use larger seats and still match or exceed the comfort level of the 9 abreast seating option that Boeing offers. All this, of course, is speculation.
-Mah584jr
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9660 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12822 times:
Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 3): Based on those photos, Airbus should stick to their 8 abreast seating configuration for the A350. But perhaps they could use larger seats and still match or exceed the comfort level of the 9 abreast seating option that Boeing offers.
In terms of seat comfort, 8 abreast in an A350 will be more comfortable than 9 abreast in a B787. The seats or aisles or both would be wider in an 8 abreast A350 than in a 9 abreast B787. Further, 25% of 8 abreast seats are middle seats, while 33% of 9 abreast seats are middle seats.
On the other hand, a 9 abreast B787 will still have been cabin pressure than an 8 abreast A350. Comfort is more than just seat spacing. How many lavs each airline fits will also affect passenger comfort.
Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 3421 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12773 times:
Randy certainly makes a compelling argument in this column. I'm sure this is what airline executives all over the world have been briefed. I would like to see the Airbus counter argument for comparison. Note to Mr. Humbert or Leahy: suggest starting a blog guys. Real soon....
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): Is that "Dale" from Australia referenced in Randy's blog Dalecary?
That was my guess, too.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9660 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12725 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
Question: can anybody copy the person, paste him 8 times on the free seats & publish it?
Good catch. The man's arm is occupying all of the 2 inch space between the seats. Typical Economy class spacing. I never have any place to put my arms or shoulders if I'm sitting next to another adult male in Economy class.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4564 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12725 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7): Randy certainly makes a compelling argument in this column. I'm sure this is what airline executives all over the world have been briefed. I would like to see the Airbus counter argument for comparison. Note to Mr. Humbert or Leahy: suggest starting a blog guys. Real soon....
Would there be fight over the language used for the blog?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
XXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 679 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12707 times:
For my $0.02
8 abreast is a much more pleasant layout from a passenger perspective but it must be difficult to compete on CASM against a 9 abreast layout all other thing being equal.
Airbus seem to have hobsons choice.
If they use a new cross section they will face a huge gap in funding as well as long delays, if not they look like they will loose out to Boeing.
Perhaps the new wider fuselage will become the A360.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 3680 posts, RR: 68 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12682 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9): Good catch. The man's arm is occupying all of the 2 inch space between the seats. Typical Economy class spacing. I never have any place to put my arms or shoulders if I'm sitting next to another adult male in Economy class.
And if you have shoulders like the man illustrated, the window seat occupant is crammed on the aircraft wall and the isle seat occupant hangs out into the isle. I've had this issue on 757's and 737's.
I'm not bashing Boeing, but Keesje made a good point here. Oh man, I'm agreeing with him! Hell hath frozen over. But an 8 across 787 would be comfy. E+ on the 787?
On a side note, I would like to see the same "man" and fit him into identically scaled cross sections of the E145, CR2, CR7/9, E170/E190, DC-9, 737, A320, A330, 767, 777, 747, and A380. (All economy.) I'm not asking for much, am I?
SNATH From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2508 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12427 times:
I like Randy and read his blog regularly. And I do tend to lean towards Boeing but...
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12): But an 8 across 787 would be comfy. E+ on the 787?
That would be nice but...
Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 11): 8 abreast is a much more pleasant layout from a passenger perspective
This is totally spot on. Boeing made pompous claims about the B787's comfort levels. But, with the prospect of a large portion of the airlines who will fly it opting for 9-abreast, the B787 seems a huge step backwards in my opinion. We (the passengers) do not need a 9-abreast plane with the same "comfort levels" as the B747 and A330/A340 (which are based on 30-year old designs). We need an 8-abreast plane with the same comfort levels as the B777 and A320. Yes, an 8-abreast B787 will be something to look forward to. But we'll see how often will have the pleasure to fly on one.
Am I the only person here who's getting disappointed with the 9-abreast B787?
Tony
"4 engines for too long!", Randy Baseler on Airbus
Gigneil From United States, joined Nov 2002, 13403 posts, RR: 79 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12420 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8): I have the distinct feeling Randy is reading a.net here...first the 737 and now the 787, following our discussions pretty closely.
Its just you. There is a zero percent chance that Randy Baseler is following anything said here by anyone.
Dale emailed him the question, which Randy then did not answer but did make clear that the 787 was a fine plane for 9-across.
B2707SST From United States, joined Apr 2003, 1302 posts, RR: 58 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12348 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 15): Its just you. There is a zero percent chance that Randy Baseler is following anything said here by anyone.
He may not personally, but at least someone on his staff does. From his March 14 entry:
Now, in one key way, I think this all accomplished something interesting. It got a robust discussion going. Airliners.net has had quite a few posts on the subject.
And some of the people posting to that site caught on to another key point I was trying to make: that schedule reliability can be a much higher decision factor from a passenger point of view than a minor difference in cabin width.
One participant in the Airliners forum, after flying an A319 and then getting on a 737, conceded there may be a slight difference in width, but concurred with the fact that the A320 family has more technical delays:
Our A319 flight was delayed over 1/2hr when we had to shut down the engines and reset the computers because of what the pilot called "a slight computer glitch." Our 733 left right on time. Ok, sure, that's just one time, but in my 100,000 miles a year of flying over the past 2 1/2 years, I've only had one delay on a 737 aircraft based on mechanical problems, and that was a microphone in the pilots emergency oxygen mask was not working properly. It was fixed within 20 minutes. They're a very reliable aircraft.
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2539 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 12301 times:
Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17): Our A319 flight was delayed over 1/2hr when we had to shut down the engines and reset the computers because of what the pilot called "a slight computer glitch." Our 733 left right on time. Ok, sure, that's just one time, but in my 100,000 miles a year of flying over the past 2 1/2 years, I've only had one delay on a 737 aircraft based on mechanical problems, and that was a microphone in the pilots emergency oxygen mask was not working properly. It was fixed within 20 minutes. They're a very reliable aircraft.
hardly a scientific study!! I fly UA all the time and I honestly don't think their A320s are any less reliable than their 737s (except for the 732 20 years ago which left me stuck at DSM and then a March snowstorm struck and I was left there for another 36 hours!)
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 471 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 7817 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2004, 5221 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9660 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 2878 posts, 
I've had this issue on 757's and 737's. 