andhen
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:32 pm

787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:45 am

When one study different aircraft categories like regional airliner, continental airliner, transcontinential jets and long haul jets, we se that each class has its optimum of passengers abreast capability.

In the regional jetliner segment we se 4-5 abreast. continental (a320 and 737) airliners have 6 abreast, transcontinentals have 8 abreast and longhaulers have 9-10 abreast.

In the continental airliner has 6 abreast and a single aisle as the most efficient design. Here both airbus and boeing got it right.

In the trancontinental jets, the 6 abreast of the 757 is far outdated. The 7 abreast in 767 was for some time a favourable design, but it was beaten by the eight abreast on the a330.

In the long haul segment the a340's eight abreast was not efficient enough, the planes became to long and to heavy compaired to the 777. The four engines didn't help airbus either, but I dont want to take this into this tread.

Airbus was forced to widen the a350 when they understood that customers wanted to seat 9 abreast in economy. They saw that customers wanted to do this in the 787. So they designed a plane that would basically have 9 abreast in economy as standard, I think all a350 customers will have 9 abreast in economy, because the plane is optimised for 9 abreast.

Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats.. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became..

The reason I started to talk about widhts and abreastnumbers of airliners was because I wanted to point out that Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before. 767 got beaten because it couldnt seat 8 abreast, 757 was obviously to thin.. I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)
And now it seems they do the mistake again, the 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

I dont want to start a flamewar again, so please stick to the issue, I had my two first threads on the forum closed, so I would like to get this going.

And I am not all airbus, I think what airbus should have done isstead of making the a380, was to make a twin which was about 4-8 inches wider than the 777. This plane could have seated 10 abreast nicely, and it would be a real winner..

Well, I hope to se some good posts here Smile

andhen
a332/3, 773-ER
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 984
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:50 am

This is exactly what I was saying in another thread in reference to the 777 and the 787-10. I feel the same way. I look forward to hearing other responses.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:56 am

It's not nearly as simple as that. Optimal cross-sections have little to do with range. They are dependant on overall seating capacity (due to the demands of structural efficiency) and on the proportion of cabin floor area wasted on aisles, rather than seats.
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:00 am

I think that your right about the 787 not being the right width for what the costomers want. However from a passengers stand point boeing has it right. Passengers atleast the ones I know are all about the window or the aisle seat. 6 abreast is probably the best at this with a decent efficiency. Now the 767 though it may not be the most efficient it is by far the best for the window and aisle seating for a widebody airliner. I personally think that boeing had it right and the airlines need to stop trying to make their planes into sardine cans. If boeing can make an airliner with the efficency of the 787 it can do it very well with any width. one last thing about the 757. I would hardly say that the 757 is outdated. it is about the maximum length for 6 abreast and it performs its role like no other airliner ever will. if you look at it making the 75 longer and it is too long make it wider and it is too short look at the 767-200. I would say that the 757 fits its place quite nicely. the 757 is in its last years sure but it has a fair amount of life left in it.
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
EvilForce
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:12 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:02 am

I would prefer the airlines put 8 abreast in economy and give me an 18.75" seat vs. a 17.2" seat by a long shot!

It's why I always prefer to fly the A320 vs. the B737 any day of the week. I'm a passenger and prefer more room when I can get it. If I'm upgraded to first like I am many times then it really doesn't matter to me.

[Edited 2007-01-12 00:03:37]
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today and was going to name it "Republican" but the fly trap is beneficial to the environment.
 
andhen
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:32 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:04 am

Nice to hear aa777223!

I hope we can get some focus on this, it hasnt been much debated, in contrast to other issues here.

zcezda, I think sometimes that we, the usual guys can point out faults, even though we havent built the planes ourselves.

Andhen
a332/3, 773-ER
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:05 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
In the regional jetliner segment we se 4-5 abreast.

would make that 3-4 (ERJ-145 is 3 abreast), 5 isn't used except in the Fokkers I believe
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
TusAadvantage
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:13 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)

I disagree that the 777 is too wide for 9 abreast. I don't know if you've ever been in a 777 in this configuration, but the seats aren't exactly wide at 18" (it is a pretty standard width in the U.S.). Anyone who thinks they should be narrower has either never sat in economy, or is way too concerned with efficiency. I also seriously doubt that the 777 lost any customers for this reason, considering they are still flying off the shelf 13 years into production.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
In the long haul segment the a340's eight abreast was not efficient enough, the planes became to long and to heavy compaired to the 777. The four engines didn't help airbus either, but I dont want to take this into this tread.

I don't think that the seating configuration of the A340 had anything to do with the plane's relative failure. I think it was the 4 engines that made it far less efficient than the 777.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:15 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

One needs to remember that Boeing has a comfortable 9-abreast product already - the 777. Boeing's decision to go 8-abreast on the 787 was as much (if not more) driven by the desire to not infringe on the 777 as it was wanting to offer an extra inch or so over the A330/A340 (and many A330/A340 customers are using seats themselves less then 18" wide).

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became.

Again "tiny" seats is a misnomer. The DC-10, the L-1011 and the 747 all had/have 17.2" wide seats and people are not refusing to fly those planes because of it. Also, many A330 and A340 operators, as well as 767 and 777 operators, use seats with sub-18" width and, again, customers are not revolting.

All that being said, I appreciate the wider seats of the A319, A320, 767, and 777 on UA and specifically seek out those four models when flying them, but I will not refuse to board a 737, 747 or 757 because of the slightly less seat bottom width.

Honestly, legroom is more important. I fit better in a 17.2" wide 757 seat in an Exit Row then an 18" wide A320 seat in Economy Minus because the extra legroom lets me run my legs straight out, which helps "shrink" my hips a bit compared to having my legs crossed.

Folks offered 19" wide seats with 32" pitch or 17.2" wide seats with 38" pitch will probably take the latter every time.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
The reason I started to talk about widths and abreast numbers of airliners was because I wanted to point out that Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before. 767 got beaten because it couldn't seat 8 abreast, 757 was obviously to thin.

The 767 pre-dated the A330 family by a decade. Airbus had plenty of time to determine where airlines had an issue with the 767's dimensions and work to address them. And the 767 still sold hundreds of planes even after the A330 entered service so it obviously was not a critical "mistake".

I don't see how you can accuse the 757 of being too "thin" since it was designed in parallel with the 767. Since the 767 was a 7-abreast widebody, Boeing gained nothing from making the 757 a 6-abreast widebody in 2+2+2 configuration since the 767 would have been the better platform and nobody would have bought the 757. Therefore, the only logical configuration for the 757 was as a 3+3 narrowbody like the 707, 727 and 737 before it.

Looking back with 20-20 hindsight, Boeing probably should have aimed for 2+4+2 seating on the 767, but not doing so certainly didn't hurt the plane against larger 2+4+2 and 3+3+3 DC-10s and L-1011s.

Quote:
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much.)

You say the 787 is not wide enough because it is uncomfortable in 9-abreast, but then say the 777 is too wide because it is comfortable in 9-abreast? Color me confused.

Quote:
And now it seems they do the mistake again, the 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

The 787 in 9-abreast is "standard" in that it uses the same seat found on the DC-10, the L-1011, the 747, some 767s, some 777s, some A330s, some A340s and probably even some A380s. All of those planes can fit wider seats in a lower abreast configuration if they wish, but the 18" or 19" wide seats some of them use are not really "standard", they are an option.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:15 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

Boeing has designed at least three aircraft models to support two seat widths: the 747, 777 and 787.

Quote:
Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats.. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became..

I can assure you that passengers didn't ask for, airlines did. But what makes you think long haul flights will necessarily be equipped in 9Y?

Quote:
The reason I started to talk about widhts and abreastnumbers of airliners was because I wanted to point out that Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before. 767 got beaten because it couldnt seat 8 abreast,

The 767 did not get beaten because it couldn't seat 8 abreast. The only width concern applied to the cargo ability, as the 767 could not hold LD3's side by side. But it beat the A300 soundly anyway. And then the stretch 764 model got beaten by the newer A332, partly because of insufficient range-payload and partly because of the LD3 issue.

Quote:
757 was obviously to thin.

Not obvious to me.

Quote:
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)
And now it seems they do the mistake again, the 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

What makes you think the width that Airbus has chosen is optimum? The 777's wider 9Y seats have likely helped sales over the competing Airbus frames for airlines wanting to offer a more comfortable product.

Boeing has chosen a width that allows the same aircraft model to be used with two reasonable economy seat widths, which allows flexibility. The same aircraft design can be used for higher density short and medium haul flights as well as in lower density long haul flights. Airlines with more affluent passengers can offer the wider 8Y seats, while airlines from poorer regions of the world can offer the 9Y seats.

IMO, the 787 is the most optimal design. The 777 as you say is too narrow for my tastes in 10Y. The 747 9Y configuration was too wide. The 787's 8Y config is some what less wide than the 747's 9Y, but offers the same 9Y width as the 747 10Y.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
trojanAE
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 4:41 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:19 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
In the trancontinental jets, the 6 abreast of the 757 is far outdated.The 7 abreast in 767 was for some time a favourable design, but it was beaten by the eight abreast on the a330.

You are grouping the 757 with the 767 and A330. Hardly a fair comparison. The 767 and A330 are widebodies and were from the outset made to be intercontinental, the 757 was only recently delegated to this task. The 757 is basically a 737 with higher capacity and slightly longer range, primarily intended for longer transcontinental routes.
Anyway, you state that you do not want a flame-war, yet in your now infamous topic you questioned whether the 787 even exists and were convinced it is a ghost plane. Why are you concerned about the passenger comfort and cabin width of a plane that doesn't exist?  Yeah sure
"My soul is in the sky." -William Shakespeare
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:24 am

I suppoose it depends what is the imperative at the time.

Whatever has gone on before, we are heading into an era where efficiency is the imperative, and no matter how efficient the 350 is, it will have a small penalty because of the weight needed to make the fuselage that little bit wider.

One could argue that Airbus has got it wrong because they have put extra width into the craft but not enough to go out to 10 abreast. Boeing put just enough extra width in to go out to 9 abreast with 747 width seats. This was no accident. They always new there would be some airlines who want 9 abreast. Unfortunately the comfort of passengers is not the first priority for the bean counters in the airline even if comfort/safety is foremost in the minds of crew.

Another point is that a lot depends upon the position of the floor. For example the position of the floor in the 320 means it's width advantage is not as profound as it could be at the critical shoulder height. I believe a similar situation exists with the proposed 350, in that the extra width of the fuselage only translates into a very minor improvement in seat width.

Finally, the sales of 320 and 737 show that for most carriers the width difference is not the most important factor in sales when the products are so close to-gether. It's price and availability.

Ruscoe
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:28 am

Lets see the 757 was to thin and Boeing sold 1000 of them, the 767 not wide enough and they sold 950 of them. The 777 is the wrong size and they have sold 800 and the 787 has already sold almost 500 aircraft before production has even started and its the wrong size. I guess its true that Boeing just knows nothing about building the right sized airliners.
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:28 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The 787 in 9-abreast is "standard" in that it uses the same seat found on the DC-10, the L-1011, the 747, some 767s, some 777s, some A330s, some A340s and probably even some A380s.

Thought 9Y gives you a "standard" 17.2" seat on the 787... the STANDARD default configuration on a 787 is 8Y with 18" seats. The 9Y is the option... Northwest and Continental have both opted for the default 8Y/18" seats.  Smile I'm ecstatic!!!
KPAE via KBVY
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:29 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

I've never been completely convinced that the 9Y capability of the 787 is an accident. The aircraft was first proposed as very generously sized 8Y, as you noted. Only later was it revealed as being able to fit 9Y quite exactly, with no wasted space and hence no extra weight.

IIRC there was a discovery that the insulation blanket could be made thinner due to the CFRP having a low thermal conductivity. The few inches added to the interior cross-section made 9Y possible. That came as a surprise to Airbus, as the 9Y 787 suddenly had a CASM so low that they couldn't compete with a revamped A330.

But...is that really what happened? I have wondered if the designers had 9Y in mind all along, even if only as an option they didn't expect to see used. It is conceivable that Boeing kept the 9Y capability in their back pocket to delay an Airbus response.

The real question: is Boeing really that clever, or just that lucky? scratchchin 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:31 am

I think Boeing wishes, at this point, the 787 were 3 inches wider in the coach section. But that would lead to wasted space in the front sections. The 787 can do 1-2-1 F pods and 2-3-2 business seats just like the 777, which makes it more space efficient up front even if they have to be less space efficient with 8Y in the back. It's hardly a miss.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9):
Not obvious to me.

Me neither.

The 707 727 737 757 have sold nearly 10,000 frames since this too thin design was introduced in the late 50s. I don't think it's obvious to anyone that this was a bad design.

Doesn't mean it won't get wider next time around...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:34 am

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
The 7 abreast in 767 was for some time a favourable design, but it was beaten by the eight abreast on the a330.

I believe that the 767 far outsold its 8-abreast contemporary, the A300/310 series.
International Homo of Mystery
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):
I've never been completely convinced that the 9Y capability of the 787 is an accident. The aircraft was first proposed as very generously sized 8Y, as you noted. Only later was it revealed as being able to fit 9Y quite exactly, with no wasted space and hence no extra weight.

It's hard to imagine they chose the particular shape of the fuselage cross section without taking into the account of 9Y, not to mention taking advantage of the A300 cross sections inability to provide a seat row as wide as the fuselage. Boeing designed the upper fuselage to be perfectly circular and positioned so that the seat row width could be maximized. They designed the lower fuselage so the cross sectional area under the floor would be basically the same as that for the A300's, while still carrying two LD3s side by side.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):
It is conceivable that Boeing kept the 9Y capability in their back pocket to delay an Airbus response.



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):
The real question: is Boeing really that clever, or just that lucky?  

The one thing that they never publicly released early was the cross section shape. They only gave width numbers. Without the shape one could not assess what 4" more of width actually brought. Hence Airbus was confounded by Air India's selection of the 787 due to 9Y capability.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:47 am

Boeing has touted the extra Business Class and Economy Class seat they can put into the 777 - seats with identical width to those found in the A330/A340, mind you - as one of the reasons carriers chose the 777 over the A330/A340 as it offered more revenue without affecting in-seat comfort.

And if the airlines view 2+1+2 / 2+2+2 / 2+4+2 as "perfect" for each class of service, Airbus would not have been pressured to make the A350 wider to fit 2+1+2 / 2+3+2 / 3+3+3 nor would Boeing have had to offer the same config to help make the 787 more appealing to some of them.

[Edited 2007-01-12 00:49:43]
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:13 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
Lets see the 757 was to thin and Boeing sold 1000 of them, the 767 not wide enough and they sold 950 of them. The 777 is the wrong size and they have sold 800 and the 787 has already sold almost 500 aircraft before production has even started and its the wrong size. I guess its true that Boeing just knows nothing about building the right sized airliners.

Exactly.

Andhen, can you please define "miss" in the context of the thread title? How can selling 500 planes before the first one even flies be classified as a "miss"????
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:27 am

Quoting TrojanAE (Reply 10):
The 757 is basically a 737 with higher capacity and slightly longer range, primarily intended for longer transcontinental routes.

The 757 was a totally new aircraft from the ground up. It has the same fuslage diameter as the 707/727/737 before it, but not the same systems. New nose, tail, doors, gear, wings, tailplane, avionics, flight deck. It is not a 737 basically, or in any other way. The range gap between the 737-300/400/500 is much larger than the NG series. Even the aircraft Boeing and Aribus have designed to replace the 757 (737-900ER/A321) come nowhere near the 757 in terms of payload and range.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I dont want to attack the 777 to hard for obvious reasons, but I think it could be a bit thinner (to be optimised for 9 abreast, 10 abreast in this plane is just to much..)

Have people actually flown on a 777 in a ten abrest config? If not, I politely suggest you keep unfounded and ficticious opinions to yourself. When your fly an EK 777-300ER(or any of their 777s) come back to me and tell me you were squashed. Their 777 aircraft are exceptionally comfortable even for a 14 hour journey. If your about 400 pounds no one around you will have a plesent flight, but hey they wouldn't in an A330 either.

Honestly I could not feel a difference comfort wise between a 777 with ten abrest and a 330 with 8. I transferred from one to another btw. I think the 787 with 9 abrest wil be fine for anybody who is a sensible size. If you're very large you have four options...

1) Buy another seat
2) Pay for Business Class
3) Go on a diet...you add a few years to your life in the process.
4) Shut up, put up with it and use someone else next time!

I realise that may soud a bit harsh, but the reality is that airlines are there to get us from A to B safely. Your comfort is not their primary concern, their shareholders and profits are.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:29 am

Who cares about 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 and extra 0.25" width? In this day and age, with online check in, us airplane geeks will always get the best seats long before the average Joes wait in line for 3 hours at the airport to get the middle seat in the 2-5-2 777 for the 12 hour flight...
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
aerohottie
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:50 am

Perhaps it is Boeing desire to eventually have the 787 with comfortable 8 abreast and standard 9 abreast, and the 777 replacement Y3 to be comfortable 10 abreast and standard 11 abreast.
An aircraft at either 10 or 11 abreast between 65 and 80m long would make the 747 redundant.
What?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:56 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
The 787 can do 1-2-1 F pods and 2-3-2 business seats just like the 777

I would be surprised to see a scheduled carrier fit 2-3-2 business class in a 787. Charters, yes. It seems that SQ will be fitting 1-2-1 business class in their 787s.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 19):
Andhen, can you please define "miss" in the context of the thread title? How can selling 500 planes before the first one even flies be classified as a "miss"????

Someone please pass Travelin man the kool-aid. He doesn't get it.  Smile
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:01 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 21):
In this day and age, with online check in, us airplane geeks will always get the best seats long before the average Joes wait in line for 3 hours at the airport to get the middle seat in the 2-5-2 777 for the 12 hour flight...

And as we stroll down the aisle we make momentary eye contact with that poor schlub in the middle seat, and he wonders why we have that slight smirk...  silly 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:11 am

Actually with the 787 airlines can offer in economy 9 across with standard pitch, 9 across x larger pitch, 8 across with standard pitch, and 8 across with larger pitch. The marketing guys can sort thru all kinds of things like:

a) Do all the mileage awards and advertised discount seats into 9Wx std.
b) Offer either different pricing or upgrades to get either 9W x p+ or 8W x std.
c) Offer an economy plus (or more expensive upgrades) to get the 8W x p+.

even if priced on the internet as the base price, when you get to the seating do the "Would you like to upgrade for $ 20 per segment for 'x' " well that is $ 40 RT or 5% extra on a $ 800 ticket for the same weight carried. Then you can also carry added cargo. The double upgrade would the $40 per segment or a 10% markup that doesn't show up in the pricing programs.

Anyway, the width must not work very well on the 787 because no one is buying it. LOL.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:20 am

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 27):
I haven't seen that published before. Do you have a link per chance?

Airlines signed for 2010/2011 deliveries. All airliner contracts have liquidated damages clauses for late delivery. Airbus are now saying they won't deliver before 2013 at the earliest. It's early to predict how much the damages will be because no one really knows when the A350 will be delivered. Will there be one more revision to switch to monolithic fuselage barrels?
 
trojanAE
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 4:41 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:23 am

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 20):
The 757 was a totally new aircraft from the ground up. It has the same fuslage diameter as the 707/727/737 before it, but not the same systems. New nose, tail, doors, gear, wings, tailplane, avionics, flight deck. It is not a 737 basically, or in any other way. The range gap between the 737-300/400/500 is much larger than the NG series. Even the aircraft Boeing and Aribus have designed to replace the 757 (737-900ER/A321) come nowhere near the 757 in terms of payload and range.

Agreed. Poor and imprecise choice of wording on my part. Thank you for the clarification.
"My soul is in the sky." -William Shakespeare
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:30 am

Boeing talked of the Sonic Cruiser being either 7 or 8 across, with dual-LD3 capability. Then they set it at 8 across, which gave dual LD3s below and, with ovoid (smoothed-over double bubble) shape, allowing freighter models to accommodate pallets crosswise on the main deck. The 787's ability to accommodate 9 passengers across stems from this decision. The crosswise pallets are another 787F threat to the 330F.
 
EvilForce
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:12 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:41 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 26):
Airlines signed for 2010/2011 deliveries. All airliner contracts have liquidated damages clauses for late delivery. Airbus are now saying they won't deliver before 2013 at the earliest. It's early to predict how much the damages will be because no one really knows when the A350 will be delivered. Will there be one more revision to switch to monolithic fuselage barrels?

I haven't seen any published reports of this and just did a Google search and turned up nothing for the 350.

Granted the 350 program has been handled rather poorly but I haven't seen any confirmation of them actually having a financial penalty for being "late". Hence why I asked if there were any links or sources.

I would imagine both sides have enough legalese written into their contracts that would make anyone's head spin.
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today and was going to name it "Republican" but the fly trap is beneficial to the environment.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:45 am

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 29):
Granted the 350 program has been handled rather poorly but I haven't seen any confirmation of them actually having a financial penalty for being "late". Hence why I asked if there were any links or sources.

It's now a standard part of all airliner contracts.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:49 am

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 29):
I haven't seen any published reports of this and just did a Google search and turned up nothing for the 350. Granted the 350 program has been handled rather poorly but I haven't seen any confirmation of them actually having a financial penalty for being "late". Hence why I asked if there were any links or sources.

This is probably because I believe Pegasus Aviation is the only confirmed customer for the A350XWB at this time. SQ has an LoI and everyone else ordered the A350, which is no longer available. As those customers who ordered the A350 convert their orders to the A350XWB, we will probably start to learn what penalties and concessions Airbus has had to pay/make to get those carriers to convert.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:55 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
I think Boeing wishes, at this point, the 787 were 3 inches wider in the coach section. But that would lead to wasted space in the front sections. The 787 can do 1-2-1 F pods and 2-3-2 business seats just like the 777, which makes it more space efficient up front even if they have to be less space efficient with 8Y in the back. It's hardly a miss.

I have to ask - what prompted you to say "makes it more space efficient up front even if they have to be less space efficient with 8Y in the back" in conjunction with your comment regarding the extra 3"?

If it were 3" wider then it would be less space efficient up front and even less space efficient with 8Y in back.

As it is now, it is space efficient up front, space efficient with 8Y in back, and even more space efficient with 9Y in back.

Or am I misunderstanding "space efficient"?

And why did I not see the point that the A330 eclipsed the 767 not because it was 8-abreast in the pax. compartment but because it could carry containers side by side and thus boost revenue? Or did I miss that?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:06 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 28):
Boeing talked of the Sonic Cruiser being either 7 or 8 across, with dual-LD3 capability. Then they set it at 8 across, which gave dual LD3s below and, with ovoid (smoothed-over double bubble) shape, allowing freighter models to accommodate pallets crosswise on the main deck.

I don't believe Boeing ever "set" any specifications of the Sonic Cruiser.

As an interesting side note: the 7E7 began life as a 7-abreast aircraft with dual LD3 capability, but customer demand and long-term growth considerations grew it to an 8/9-abreast aircraft.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:37 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 33):
I don't believe Boeing ever "set" any specifications of the Sonic Cruiser.

My tenure with Boeing covered the "Sonic Cruiser era" and I do not recall any discussions, internal or external, about the Sonic Cruiser's payload, be it passenger or freight. Boeing was asking customers what they would like to see, but I don't believe plans really evolved to the point of beginning to firm dimensions before the program was cancelled.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:45 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 25):
Anyway, the width must not work very well on the 787 because no one is buying it. LOL.

Finally an accurate post.  rotfl 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Boeing has done the mistake of 787 before

MISTAKE?

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
This plane could have seated 10 abreast nicely, and it would be a real winner..

I don't understand....so in your estimation, the 787 is a failure?

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 19):
Andhen, can you please define "miss" in the context of the thread title? How can selling 500 planes before the first one even flies be classified as a "miss"????

 checkmark 

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
I had my two first threads on the forum closed, so I would like to get this going.

Were your other posts just like this one? Or more irrelevant?

And I love how 30+ replies later, there are people actually nodding along in agreement, or taking the time to debate this (non)issue.
For a company that has no idea what it is doing; failing with the 757, 767, and now 787, it is a wonder they are still in business!

I think the Boeing order book more than speaks for itself as to whether or not the 787 is a mistake.

More Kool-aid please.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast.

On what PLANET do passengers ask for 9-abreast over 8-abreast?
Delete this User
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11864
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

Looking back with 20-20 hindsight, Boeing probably should have aimed for 2+4+2 seating on the 767, but not doing so certainly didn't hurt the plane against larger 2+4+2 and 3+3+3 DC-10s and L-1011s.

How would Boeing have gotten an engine for 2+4+2 in the time frame the 767 was developed?!? It was 7 across for a good reason: that's the largest widebody the available 747 engines could drive (in a twin). A 2+4+2 could have been done... breaking 747/767 core commonality. That would have slowed market acceptance. Boeing went for a low risk design and delivered.  spin 

The 757 was highly optimized for the transcon fuel economy. It was the dominant concern. Thus the narrow seats in 3+3 in a long but aerodynamic tube.

Do we know better today? Sure! But think of how many airframe designs are compromized to take advantage of an available engine rather than the ideal engine. Engine development is the longest lead time item for an airframe and sometimes being first to market is worth more than a perfectly optimized engine. On the 757 I wouldn't call the RB211 a well optimized engine. (Its overweight due to being a quick 'shrink' of a higher thrust design.) But it works very well. The Pratt burns a lot less fuel (but also spends a lot more time in the shop... too much time in the shop.)  Sad

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 14):

IIRC there was a discovery that the insulation blanket could be made thinner due to the CFRP having a low thermal conductivity. The few inches added to the interior cross-section made 9Y possible. That came as a surprise to Airbus, as the 9Y 787 suddenly had a CASM so low that they couldn't compete with a revamped A330

 checkmark  17.2" isn't optimal... but who really pays for 18"? There is a weight and aerodynamic cost for floor area. Its not free. Boeing optimized a product for 8Y/9Y based on the airlines model. For the people who will pay, airlines can offer Y, Y+, J, F etc.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 30):
It's now a standard part of all airliner contracts.

I wouldn't want to debate contracts with you.  Wink

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
My tenure with Boeing covered the "Sonic Cruiser era" and I do not recall any discussions, internal or external, about the Sonic Cruiser's payload, be it passenger or freight. Boeing was asking customers what they would like to see, but I don't believe plans really evolved to the point of beginning to firm dimensions before the program was cancelled.

I would disagree. Boeing wanted a certain performance and wasn't shy about trying to force vendors to deliver. The specifications for the engines were too tight not to have known payload within 5%.  spin  Let's put it this way, from the data being supplied to the engine companies, system engineers were back calculating payload. Its not that they had a reason to back calculate... but numbers guys will determine the numbers they're not being told...  bigthumbsup  The project was too far along for rough payload not to be known.  Wink

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:24 pm

You do realize that Boeing didn't just come up with a width and say this is it. Boeing came up with several sets of specifications and then went around to many different carriers asking for their input. Only after that did they release the preliminary specifications publicly.

I wouldn't be surprised that the airlines already knew from the begining that the fuselage width chosen for the 787 was capable of fitting 9 abreast. It was just that Boeing was promoting the increased comforts of the 787 over the current aircraft it is competing with (quieter, pressurized to 6000ft iso 8000ft, higher humidity, cleaner air, etc) that they also concentrated on the increased width of the seats in an 8 abreast configuration.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 4):
It's why I always prefer to fly the A320 vs. the B737 any day of the week. I'm a passenger and prefer more room when I can get it. If I'm upgraded to first like I am many times then it really doesn't matter to me.

There is the rub, half the airlines out there put the same width seats in their A320s as they do 737s/757s. NW puts the same exact seats in 757 as they do A320.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Here comes what bothers me about the 787 design, I dont think they had 9 abreast in their minds when they designed the plane, I think that they were thinking at beating the comfort of eight abreast that airbus has boasted so much about.

One needs to remember that Boeing has a comfortable 9-abreast product already - the 777. Boeing's decision to go 8-abreast on the 787 was as much (if not more) driven by the desire to not infringe on the 777 as it was wanting to offer an extra inch or so over the A330/A340 (and many A330/A340 customers are using seats themselves less then 18" wide).

Boeing wasn't thinking 10 abreast in 777, but Emirates fits 10 abreast into 777 using the same width seats that many airlines fit in going 9 abreast, at 17.2" ANA's 9 abreast is 16.5" width even. 17.5" is about the widest seat you'll find in A330/340, so you're giving up .3" at worst at 10 abreast on 777, and at 9 abreast you've got more or less nearly another inch, AA offers 18.2" width.

The real question is, the A350 is not wide enough for 10 abreast, so it might offer a little more room in Y, but does a little more room in Y, or an extra seat in each row sell aircraft, especially to like, ANA or Emirates?

The problem with A330/340 is you couldn't get 9 seats in if you wanted, A350 won't fit 10, and is just stupid with 8.

Please also consider there is more than just fuselage diameter. A330/340 and 777 are round. 787 is not, I'm not certain what shape they are using for the fuselage on A350, but 787 is roomier, per its diameter for not being square, which works to its favor.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
777atech
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:58 pm

Boeing has from onset involved the airlines in the optimization of the design of 787 to a degree unheard in this industry. The result is what we are basically see now. I don't know exactly how many they have sold so far, 450+ I believe, and that to me means the customers are pleased with what 787 has to offer.
Aircraft design is always a compromise and one can always argue that a certain model could have been more of this and less of that and we all know some would never be quite pleased. The bottom line; 787 is precisely what most airliners wanted - at least those who were involved initially.
787 has set the benchmark everything that flies from now on measures against. It forced Airbus to eat their words and go for a composite fuselage.
Airbus has to do something that set their A350 apart so they made it wider.
From the technical numbers I have seen, the two designs compare well and soon we will see which of them will in the end prevail.
 
TPASXM787
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:31 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):

since the 787 is a ghost plane is this topic relevant? Obviously the 787 doesn't exist and won't (according to you) so why does any of this matter?
This is the Last Stop.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:18 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 39):
The problem with A330/340 is you couldn't get 9 seats in if you wanted...

Air Transat flies A330s with 3+3+3.

 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:19 pm

Quoting Khobar (Reply 32):
I have to ask - what prompted you to say "makes it more space efficient up front even if they have to be less space efficient with 8Y in the back" in conjunction with your comment regarding the extra 3"?

I should be happy you read the whole thing, but you didn't read closely.

I said i bet Boeing wishes they had 3" more in the ECONOMY section. But that would lead to less efficiency in the premium cabins. And for airlines, wasting space in the premium cabin area so they can add 0.3" per seat in economy when the economy pax isn't paying for the extra space, it doesn't make sense.

Though Zvezda disagrees, 2-3-2 can fit in J in a 787 at 19.5" seat width (ask DL and AA about that), though most will do 2-2-2, as they do on the 777, and 1-2-1 is more efficient in F than on the 777, and not as tight as it is on the A340 series.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:22 pm

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
he 787 should seat 9 abreast standard, now either you have an unoptimized 8 abreast class or a crowded 9 abreast class, a pity really.

Boeing has chosen to 'optimize' for 8.5 abreast... leaving airlines the choice of sub-optimizing down to 8, or up to 9. While you point out this sub-optimization may be a disadvantage, it comes with the considerable advantage that airlines now have choice.

Not a bad choice in my opinion. When you have more than 8 or 9 abreast, the impact of adding one more seat is spread over enough seats that either configuration can work equally well. As an airframe inevitably has a long enough lifetime to go through several industry boom and bust cycles, having that flexibility is nice.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Boeing's decision to go 8-abreast on the 787 was as much (if not more) driven by the desire to not infringe on the 777

That seems like a strange decision, especially now that the Boeing documents show 9 abreast configs and the 787-10 question is when, not if.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Honestly, legroom is more important.

That totally depends on your build. I'll bet $10 you're tall. Some people are bothered by the armrests, and some by the seat pocket, and some by both  Smile

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 20):
I realise that may soud a bit harsh, but the reality is that airlines are there to get us from A to B safely. Your comfort is not their primary concern, their shareholders and profits are.

But uncomfortable passengers vote with their wallets, which are the wellspring of shareholder wealth.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 37):
How would Boeing have gotten an engine for 2+4+2 in the time frame the 767 was developed?!? It was 7 across for a good reason: that's the largest widebody the available 747 engines could drive (in a twin).

I think the A350 and A380 will enjoy much the same relationship in years to come, and also suspect this is why the A350 engines will use bleed air  Smile
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 984
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:42 pm

Andhen

Here is a post that I made in reference to the launch of the 787-10. I was writing in reference to the paradigm shift in moving from over-engineered, shortened versions of larger aircraft, versus the newer focus on stretched versions of smaller aircraft, performing activities for which the airframe was never intended.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 110):
B787-8: 223.3 sq meters
B787-9: 256.6 sq meters
B787-10: 291.0 sq meters

B777-200: 279.0 sq meters
B777-300: 330.4 sq meters

A330-200: ~213.3 sq meters
A330-300: 259.1 sq meters

A340-300: 259.1 sq meters
A340-500: ~283 sq meters
A340-600: 314.2 sq meters



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 115):
I believe AA777223 was asking for cross sectional area, not cabin floor area.

You said it! I know I sound like an oaf with all these questions, however I am just trying to justify in my mind how this aircraft is going to fill the range from 763 to 772 with a narrower fuselage. I think one of the reasons the 772 is such a comfortable aircraft is it was (much like the A380) over engineered with the plan of a 773 in mind. The fact that the 773 was going to replace 747 classics meant it was going to be a twin of unprecedented size and strength. The idea of the 777 is almost a romantic one to me, with the worlds most powerful turbofans, the largest fuselage cross section in a twin, etc. I am just afraid the 777 will be a one-of-a-kind aircraft as newer materials, and the airlines desires for efficiency override the desire for shortened aircraft of larger size, in favor of stretched aircraft of a smaller size.

I just think of aircraft like the 764, 753, and 739 with their diminished range, and long narrow fuselages and can't help but think they were less comfortable and capable than their larger counterparts like the 772, 762, and 752 respectively. I just would hate to see, what in my mind is the most comfortable, spacious plane in the sky, which can handle 9 abreast with ease, replaced with a stretched aircraft, that was not designed to fill that role in the first place. I know Boeing engineers have it all figured out and know what they are doing, and I appreciate those who have furnished figures like Zvezda and Stitch. I will just feel better when I actually fly and one, and know that this is truly a capable aircraft, and not an overstretched charter type aircraft. Needless to say the idea of a 773ER killing 787-11 really unnerves me.

I am just a student of business and am unfamiliar with the technically expertise required to design a cross section like that of the 772 or 787-10, but I am a person who flies widebodies often, and I know what I like. While there is no doubt the 787 will be a marvel of technical engineering and efficiency, I, as a member of the flying public, am primarily interested in knowing the livability of the plane. I want to know that from a dimensional standpoint, I will find myself as comfortable in the 787 as I would in other Boeing (or airbus for that matter) widebodies. Thank you for your help.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:42 pm

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Airbus was forced to widen the a350 when they understood that customers wanted to seat 9 abreast in economy. They saw that customers wanted to do this in the 787. So they designed a plane that would basically have 9 abreast in economy as standard, I think all a350 customers will have 9 abreast in economy, because the plane is optimised for 9 abreast.

They were forced to widen it so they could compete with the 777 because they were not competing with the 787 in any way, shape, or form.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
Later when fuel economy became more important, passengers started asking for nine abreast. It could be done, but at a compromise, tiny seats.. For flight that will last for 12 hours and upwards I guess you will feel the difference of the comfortable eight abreast and the compromise 9 abreast became..

People asked for 9 abreast because the standard 10 abreast was 3-5-2 with a bunch of people getting squeezed.

Quoting Andhen (Thread starter):
And I am not all airbus, I think what airbus should have done isstead of making the a380, was to make a twin which was about 4-8 inches wider than the 777. This plane could have seated 10 abreast nicely, and it would be a real winner..

With 10 abreast, someone gets screwed comfort wise. The config is more capacity based.

200-250 seats is best with 2-3-2, 2-4-2 or 3-2-3.
250-350 seats is best with 2-4-2 or 3-3-3.

Its an issue of aircraft length to meet the capacity. The 787 does not need to seat 3-3-3 so it can carry more pax. It's an option, but the aircraft design economic operating envelope (787-8) is for 187 to 230 passengers to travel 6000-8000 miles, not 240-260 traveling 4500.

Your assumptions are flat out wrong, and Boeing got it right.
 
GBan
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:10 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:34 pm

Quoting TPASXM787 (Reply 41):
since the 787 is a ghost plane is this topic relevant? Obviously the 787 doesn't exist and won't (according to you) so why does any of this matter?

That's what I was asking myself !


see http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3143158
 
TGV
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:37 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:50 pm

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 20):
If you're very large you have four options...

1) Buy another seat
2) Pay for Business Class
3) Go on a diet...you add a few years to your life in the process.
4) Shut up, put up with it and use someone else next time!

And how do you do if it is your neighbour who is too large and invade your space ?

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 20):

I realise that may soud a bit harsh, but the reality is that airlines are there to get us from A to B safely. Your comfort is not their primary concern, their shareholders and profits are.

You are right.
Sadly few airlines give you the option of having a slightly better comfort for a reasonable price increase (namely Y+). The comfort (and price) gap is too wide between normal Y and J.
Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans
 
andhen
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:32 pm

RE: 787 Width, A Miss?

Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:11 pm

Many nice posts here, thanks for the answers. I will not go into my earlier posts, because the threads tend to be closed down when I do, so please let it be.

Thanks for the good replies!

Andhen
a332/3, 773-ER

Who is online