As uncomfortable as it is for 12+ hours in economy, the 2-5-2 seating in the KE 772 made it somewhat bearable to sit at one of the window seats.

Why are airlines now opting for 3-3-3? Wouldn't that make 2 entire window seat aisles basically unusable compared to the single bad aisle in the 2-5-2 arrangement?

From what I understand, the IFE controller boxes are generally designed to provision three seats. In a 3-3-3 configuration there are three boxes per row. A 2-5-2 configuration requires four boxes. That additional controller box and the associated wiring adds extra weight, and multiplied over 30 to 40 rows, it adds up quite quickly.

Furthermore, the general travelling public has shown quite conclusively that they don't really care about the seating layout, as long as they get the cheapest flight possible. Those that do care (and I am one of them) generally are willing to pay for Y+ seating.

While we're on the subject, had United reconfigured all their international 777s with 3-3-3 in Y? I'll be flying on one in a few weeks and it's in that config. At first I assumed it was an ex-CO bird since those were always 3-3-3, but then I looked at SeatGuru and it looks like they're all that way now. It looks like the domestic ones are the only ones still 2-5-2. Forgive me if this has been already been discussed, but I don't usually follow the various aircraft refurbishment threads.

Back in the 90s, I used to fly TW (TriStar) or NW (DC-10) between Paris and the US on weekdays. Flights were rarely full and it was possible to find an empty 5-seat row to use as a (uncomfortable) berth.

Regardless of all the un-proven maths logic behind the 2-5-2 layout (ratio of pax with easier access to aisles, etc...) it is more or less proven that the dreadful middle of seat in the block of 5 made it an unpopular choice when given the option of 3-3-3. The central block of 5 also poses some 'minor' issues during meal times for FAs (at least this is what some airlines have stated in the past), and the IFE boxes is another explanation why this configuration is dying. From an eye perspective an interior designer once told me that when entering the Y-section of a wide body airliner, the central block of 5 gives a sense/feeling of a "very dense", almost claustrophobic, layout; hence why the 2-5-2 type was particularly appealing back in the day when the "no central lockers" was a feasible option. 3-3-3 is optically easier on the eye, and possibly even 3-4-3.
Ultimately, with the 777 (which is what we are referring to here anyway, given that the DC-10 and L-1011 all extinct), when airlines have been given the option of 10-abreast, there was no looking back.
As far as I am concerned, if legroom is adequate, being a short/small/narrow-shouldered man, I see no issues with 10 abreast, and don't find it particularly worse than on the 747 (although I DO SEE the difference there! ).
The one area where the 2-5-2 was winning in terms of pax comfort, is that a higher ratio of seats were further from the side panels, and thus enjoyed more the "central cabin" quietness bubble.

I'm probably one of the exceptions to the rule, but I prefer 2-5-2 over 3-3-3 any day of the week. For the people that know aviation / aircraft seating plans and actually care where they sit, it's very easy to make accommodations and reservations ahead of time ensuring you have a seat you want. For the rest of the traveling public, it doesn't matter as they are seeking the cheapest flight possible. The fact that some 30-40 odd people will be stuck with two people on each side of them isn't an issue.

I used to fly SU's 777-200ERs regularly back in the day when those birds worked the SFO and Asia flights and the 2-5-2 layout was a sincere pleasure. In the off-season when the planes didn't fly full, one could easily score a 5 seat row to himself, basically providing a bed for a 12 hour polar flight. Those were the good ole days.

I used to fly SU's 777-200ERs regularly back in the day when those birds worked the SFO and Asia flights and the 2-5-2 layout was a sincere pleasure. In the off-season when the planes didn't fly full, one could easily score a 5 seat row to himself, basically providing a bed for a 12 hour polar flight. Those were the good ole days.[/quote]

..same can be said about any empty aircraft, and a block of 4 empty seats is probably just as good.. It's just more difficult to find empty flights these days...

The trend that customers bring their own devices such as Ipads to see content can this become a game changer where the current entertainment in for example coach dissapears?

ro1960 wrote:

Back in the 90s, I used to fly TW (TriStar) or NW (DC-10) between Paris and the US on weekdays. Flights were rarely full and it was possible to find an empty 5-seat row to use as a (uncomfortable) berth.

Uncomfortable? In the 'good old days' of Olympic Airlines in the mid 2000's, I flew ATH-LHR on an old school 2-4-2 Olympic A300-600R and as it was a morning flight outside of peak season, I found a row at the back with 4 seats and had a very nice sleep! Slept the whole flight, basically woke up when the pilot used a crazy amount of rudder near landing, which woke me up as I never felt anything like it, the whole plane turned a lot!

oldannyboy wrote:

I used to fly SU's 777-200ERs regularly back in the day when those birds worked the SFO and Asia flights and the 2-5-2 layout was a sincere pleasure. In the off-season when the planes didn't fly full, one could easily score a 5 seat row to himself, basically providing a bed for a 12 hour polar flight. Those were the good ole days.

..same can be said about any empty aircraft, and a block of 4 empty seats is probably just as good.. It's just more difficult to find empty flights these days...[/quote]

Yeah try telling that to me who used to fly A340's and A300's on the 4 hour ATH-LHR legs! Now I have to make do with A320's with their 3-3 packed EU configuration!
With BA pulling out the 767's slowly slowly, I might as well save money and fly FR on their 738's as A320's of BA and A3 are no more comfortable than FR!

At least on the old school widebodys the seats were actually comfortable!

2-5-2 config is really terrible. 3x3x3 is better, but I think i'm used to it by now. Whenever I'm in a 767 or an A330, I kinda feel naked without the other two seats next to me.

olle wrote:

The trend that customers bring their own devices such as Ipads to see content can this become a game changer where the current entertainment in for example coach dissapears?

I think all you really need to do is sort of wean people off of seat-back IFEs or provide alternatives. I think it'd be easier for the likes of easyJET or Spirit (ones that do not have seat-back IFEs or charge for one) and so-easy for those where the IFE is embedded in the product. One solution could be to offer easily replaceable IFEs (light-weight, no control box), so it doesn't take the tearing up of the inside to perform maintenance or overhaul to update outdated equipment.

A few problems arise, I think: one sees a problem when one considers that the iPad fad is kind if leveling off. iPads did not replace laptops in many cases and laptop/tablet combinations may have something to do with it. Then, the technology and support behind it is just not all there yet. Airlines tend to be consistently at least 10 years behind in IT innovation or implementation. Wifi technology can assist airlines in lightening the weight and application development can solve some IT headaches, such as multi-platform compatibility. I'm glad at least United is doing this, although I don't know how much of an impact this had on their bottom line.

Yflyer wrote:

While we're on the subject, had United reconfigured all their international 777s with 3-3-3 in Y? I'll be flying on one in a few weeks and it's in that config. At first I assumed it was an ex-CO bird since those were always 3-3-3, but then I looked at SeatGuru and it looks like they're all that way now. It looks like the domestic ones are the only ones still 2-5-2. Forgive me if this has been already been discussed, but I don't usually follow the various aircraft refurbishment threads.

Yes. Even before the merger during the IPTE project when UA was upgrading all its first and business cabins, it started converting the international 772s from 2-5-2 to 3-3-3. The original plan was to keep the 2-5-2 configuration but still have the improved seat, but that plan was ultimately scrapped, mostly for reasons already mentioned.

The 6 domestic 772s and 3 pre-IPTE 772s were converted into a domestic/Hawaiian configuration shortly after the merger, and 2-5-2 was kept in that configuration (mostly because they were the same seats). But UA is now introducing 3-4-3 for the domestic birds, and the domestic 772 fleet will soon rise to 19 aircraft. The international 772s and the oncoming 773s will be 3-4-3 in the future as well.

It just became uncompetitive. With the good ol' days dying for coach (aka coach bars etc.) I assume the 2-5-2 became just too much. Passengers needed to be able to move easily. And 5 seats are too much. Also I assume with even longer flights (10+ hours) there would be something in relation to a possible evacuation. Of course I know that it just died out. Once airlines started using it others had to follow. Most of it is just assumptions. But I know that passengers favoured the 3-3-3 to the 2-5-2.

By one comparison, 2-5-2 means only one seat has two seats between it and the aisle, whereas 3-3-3 means two seats now have two seats between them and the aisle. By another comparison, in 3-3-3 every seat is no more than one seat away from an aisle or window, whereas in 2-5-2 one seat is more than one seat away from an aisle or window. So depending on how much value is placed on windows compared to aisle access, you could justify either one over the other. Personally I liked 2-4-3 (offered on some MD-11s, but I don't think ever on a 777 though I stand to be corrected). It gives you only one seat having more than one seat between it and the aisle (2-5-2's advantage), and no seat being more than one seat from an aisle or window (3-3-3's advantage), with the added bonus that it can better cope with groups of different sizes compared to other options. The only downside is the aesthetics of an asymmetrical layout (plus the above-mentioned issue around IFE boxes).

V/F

2-5-2 is only good for the people in the "2"

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

3-3-3 is more in line with Coach on narrow bodys and other airliners, and can provide a more consistent product

Keith2004 wrote:

2-5-2 is only good for the people in the "2"

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

3-3-3 is more in line with Coach on narrow bodys and other airliners, and can provide a more consistent product

Thing is, 3-3-3 has two seats with same problem. Sitting in C, you still have 2 people locked behind you (as opposed to 1.5 in 5-seat section, where poor soul in center seat may choose which side is more awake), and 2 seats for FA to struggle.
Overall, I am surprised 2-4-3 is not an alternative (non-interchangeable seat sets, sure) - combines disadvantages of both configurations

At this stage, I wouldn't even mind 2-5-2. With most airlines moving to 3-4-3, nine seats instead of ten seems better in any configuration.
Since I always select seats when booking or checking-in, getting the dreaded middle isn't a worry (heck I've never had to worry about that in 3-4-3 either).

I got the opportunity to fly SV 3-3-3 the other day and it was wonderful. I couldn't pinpoint why it felt so spacious and then I noticed that there was only one passenger in between me & the guy on the other side.

Ro

ahmetdouas wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

I used to fly SU's 777-200ERs regularly back in the day when those birds worked the SFO and Asia flights and the 2-5-2 layout was a sincere pleasure. In the off-season when the planes didn't fly full, one could easily score a 5 seat row to himself, basically providing a bed for a 12 hour polar flight. Those were the good ole days.

..same can be said about any empty aircraft, and a block of 4 empty seats is probably just as good.. It's just more difficult to find empty flights these days...

Yeah try telling that to me who used to fly A340's and A300's on the 4 hour ATH-LHR legs! Now I have to make do with A320's with their 3-3 packed EU configuration!
With BA pulling out the 767's slowly slowly, I might as well save money and fly FR on their 738's as A320's of BA and A3 are no more comfortable than FR!

At least on the old school widebodys the seats were actually comfortable![/quote]

Ha ha.. someone else is fondly remembering OA's lovely old widebodies??..the A300B4, then the A300, then the A340...

Agree on BA, "sans the 767". If the option is between BA on the boooring A32x and FR, I go for FR: same or better legroom, same crap hard seat. maybe some crews can occasionally be better on BA??..mmmmaybeeee.... At least the price is most always better. And by a good margin. BA shorthaul (and narrow-body) is really rather charmless quite frankly..

VirginFlyer wrote:

By one comparison, 2-5-2 means only one seat has two seats between it and the aisle, whereas 3-3-3 means two seats now have two seats between them and the aisle. By another comparison, in 3-3-3 every seat is no more than one seat away from an aisle or window, whereas in 2-5-2 one seat is more than one seat away from an aisle or window. So depending on how much value is placed on windows compared to aisle access, you could justify either one over the other. Personally I liked 2-4-3 (offered on some MD-11s, but I don't think ever on a 777 though I stand to be corrected). It gives you only one seat having more than one seat between it and the aisle (2-5-2's advantage), and no seat being more than one seat from an aisle or window (3-3-3's advantage), with the added bonus that it can better cope with groups of different sizes compared to other options. The only downside is the aesthetics of an asymmetrical layout (plus the above-mentioned issue around IFE boxes).

V/F

Agree, I too prefer the MD-11 3-4-2 vs the dreaded 2-5-2. A good compromise to accommodate both families and couples together, and having a "less crowded' side of the aircraft too.. I think that the 777 has been operated too in this configuration, but I don't remember by who..?

I have once been stuck in that dreadful "very middle" seat in a block of 5, during a stormy N-Atlantic night crossing, with two very plump ladies on either side of poor old lil' me... That pretty much did it for me, as far as 2-5-2 is concerned.

My first flight was on a DL L-1011 with 2-5-2 seating. That was almost 20 years ago, and remains my only flight with that configuration. I think it is the ideal layout (at least the person stuck in the middle has a second way out if somebody is sleeping!), but I understand why it has lost favor.

olle wrote:

The trend that customers bring their own devices such as Ipads to see content can this become a game changer where the current entertainment in for example coach dissapears?

I don't think that we will see seatback IFE systems disappear any time soon, but the systems can definitely be improved. The 3-device controller boxes that are cited as a reason for 3-3-3 seating are made obsolete by the same technology that enables streaming content on passenger devices. The airlines could save a lot of complexity by replacing the hard-wired IFE units with WiFi enabled devices that only need a simple power supply. That means fewer cables, fewer underseat boxes, less weight, etc. Maybe they already have this?
I like to use my own device, but it's not a perfect system--I've had compatibility issues with different Android versions, I've had low-battery situations when there wasn't power available at the seat, etc. It's nice to be able to sit down and use the screen in front of me.

oldannyboy wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

By one comparison, 2-5-2 means only one seat has two seats between it and the aisle, whereas 3-3-3 means two seats now have two seats between them and the aisle. By another comparison, in 3-3-3 every seat is no more than one seat away from an aisle or window, whereas in 2-5-2 one seat is more than one seat away from an aisle or window. So depending on how much value is placed on windows compared to aisle access, you could justify either one over the other. Personally I liked 2-4-3 (offered on some MD-11s, but I don't think ever on a 777 though I stand to be corrected). It gives you only one seat having more than one seat between it and the aisle (2-5-2's advantage), and no seat being more than one seat from an aisle or window (3-3-3's advantage), with the added bonus that it can better cope with groups of different sizes compared to other options. The only downside is the aesthetics of an asymmetrical layout (plus the above-mentioned issue around IFE boxes).

V/F

Agree, I too prefer the MD-11 3-4-2 vs the dreaded 2-5-2. A good compromise to accommodate both families and couples together, and having a "less crowded' side of the aircraft too.. I think that the 777 has been operated too in this configuration, but I don't remember by who..?

I think ANA is the only airline to do it on the 777. I've been on it, and it was wonderful having two seats (both aisle and window) to yourself.

Keith2004 wrote:

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

Why potentially 3? The person in the middle of the '5-block' can choose which direction to go depending on the situation with his neighboring pax (sleeping, eating, child's play...). He is the one inconvenienced the most in this "dreadful-for-everyone" setup. With the 3-3-3 config, you have two passengers that mandatorily have to let out two people that are seated closer to the window. Every other passenger on 2-5-2 is, comfort-wise, in the same boat they would be on 3-3-3. But making things even better, on 2-5-2 you at least have a good chance of booking early and getting a great seat in the '2-block', which is completely missing in the new versions.

From most of the flights I've been on though, the middle seat is generally occupied by family or friends of people to the side and the aisle, so it doesn't even cause much problems anyway.

... In any case, I guess I'm just a sucker for a good 2-seater place on a long-haul flight, regardless whether it's window or aisle. Which is the reason why my Trans-Atlantic flights are almost always on LH's 340-600s these days.

If I had to fly 9 flights, once in each seat, I would rather have the seats be 2-5-2 than 3-3-3.
This is especially true if a few seats were empty.
But I admit the middle group of 5 would look intimidating for many people.
With 2-5-2 I would only 2 people to climb over on 1 of the 9 flights, not 2.
And even when I was in the middle seat, I would have a choice which aisle to go to, depending on whether people on one side were already awake, etc.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

Why potentially 3? The person in the middle of the '5-block' can choose which direction to go depending on the situation with his neighboring pax (sleeping, eating, child's play...). He is the one inconvenienced the most in this "dreadful-for-everyone" setup. With the 3-3-3 config, you have two passengers that mandatorily have to let out two people that are seated closer to the window. Every other passenger on 2-5-2 is, comfort-wise, in the same boat they would be on 3-3-3. But making things even better, on 2-5-2 you at least have a good chance of booking early and getting a great seat in the '2-block', which is completely missing in the new versions.

From most of the flights I've been on though, the middle seat is generally occupied by family or friends of people to the side and the aisle, so it doesn't even cause much problems anyway.

... In any case, I guess I'm just a sucker for a good 2-seater place on a long-haul flight, regardless whether it's window or aisle. Which is the reason why my Trans-Atlantic flights are almost always on LH's 340-600s these days.

With that I was referring to a situation where a person on one side was sleeping or for some other reason a mid section passenger was unable to get to the aisle from one side.

Personally I always select my seat early (except with maybe BA and the like) but even then Checking in early I can still get a good seat, Just thinking in broader terms how the less seasoned traveler may see 2-5-2.

Almost all travelers have experienced 3-3 at minimum. Going to 2-5-2 or 3-4-3 is probably more noticeable than 3-3-3.
In ant case Airlines have clearly chosen on what they think works best 3-3-3 or 3-4-3

I once (MH17) moved from an aisle seat to the dreaded 5 seater middle seat to get some night sleep. It was a good move, Nobody needs to pass you there

The 3-3-3 arrangement is superior to 2-5-2 when it comes to overhead storage space. With the increased amount carry on luggage all carriers are opting for the 3-3-3.

The best 777 seating configuration in my opinion is NH's 2-4-3 layout.

Aeroflot777 wrote:

I'm probably one of the exceptions to the rule, but I prefer 2-5-2 over 3-3-3 any day of the week. For the people that know aviation / aircraft seating plans and actually care where they sit, it's very easy to make accommodations and reservations ahead of time ensuring you have a seat you want. For the rest of the traveling public, it doesn't matter as they are seeking the cheapest flight possible. The fact that some 30-40 odd people will be stuck with two people on each side of them isn't an issue.

You've never flown short notice on business, have you?

That, and now that airlines keep half the seats in coach as additional cost, "premium" seats, yeah, no.

I've had very bad luck with 2-5-2 configurations in 777s and DC-10s for some reason, ending up in the middle middle seat far more than 1/9 of the time. It's much worse than the window in 3-3-3, where at least you have some extra shoulder room thanks to the sidewall.

I'm not sorry to see 2-5-2 go away.

I am one who is very unhappy with anything other than a window seat. I flew to London and back in 2006 with my late wife in an AA 777 with 2-5-2, and we loved it. My current situation is that I have a Philippine wife (who is tiny) and a baby. We flew from the Philippines to JFK last year in an EVA 77W, which was 3-3-3. Would have preferred 2-5-2, but it was not bad. Next trip will be with a baby; we are not sure when. We'll see what is available-I am severely tempted to try Air China to fly on the 748.

So far all the 777s I've flown on have been 2-5-2 (UA years ago and AA last year). I didn't think I would like it. Someone mentioned earlier that 2-5-2 "looks dense" when you board; you get the same impression looking at the seat map, too. But I actually liked it. Both times was able to get a seat in one of the groups of 2. Those seats are great. I'm sure the middle middle seat must completely suck though. My upcoming trip will be my first time experiencing 3-3-3. I'll have to see how it compares.

Enjoy 9 across seating while you can, because I'm sure most 777s will have 3-4-3 seating sooner than later. I thought 10-across would be worse than it turned out to be, and would prefer it to being in the middle of a 2-5-2 layout. The thing about 2-5-2 is that its great for some people while absolutely terrible for others. 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 is okay for everyone.

VirginFlyer wrote:

By one comparison, 2-5-2 means only one seat has two seats between it and the aisle, whereas 3-3-3 means two seats now have two seats between them and the aisle. By another comparison, in 3-3-3 every seat is no more than one seat away from an aisle or window, whereas in 2-5-2 one seat is more than one seat away from an aisle or window. So depending on how much value is placed on windows compared to aisle access, you could justify either one over the other. Personally I liked 2-4-3 (offered on some MD-11s, but I don't think ever on a 777 though I stand to be corrected). It gives you only one seat having more than one seat between it and the aisle (2-5-2's advantage), and no seat being more than one seat from an aisle or window (3-3-3's advantage), with the added bonus that it can better cope with groups of different sizes compared to other options. The only downside is the aesthetics of an asymmetrical layout (plus the above-mentioned issue around IFE boxes).

Yes, some 777s had and still have 2-4-3 seating. Two of ANA's 4 77W configurations are 2-4-3. One is 3-3-3 and one is 3-4-3 (not shown below). I expect they're in the process of moving to 3-4-3 like many 777 operators.
http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/us/e/asw_commo ... #anchor003

SeatGuru also shows the new 10-abreast 3-4-3 ANA 77W configuration.
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/ANA/information.php

Egyptair's early 777-200ERs were also 2-4-3. There were a few others but forget who.

I always had trouble reaching the overhead bins in the UA 2-5-2 aircraft as they were just that much further from the aisle.. I had to step up on the seat frame to gain an several inches to open them,

Keith2004 wrote:

2-5-2 is only good for the people in the "2"

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

3-3-3 is more in line with Coach on narrow bodys and other airliners, and can provide a more consistent product

That makes no sense. How can you have 3 people trying to get past you in 2-5-2? when the third person only need to get past 1 on the other side.

Also, FA only need to do it once for 252 but twice for 333.

PP PPPPP PP

vs.

PPP PPP PPP

OA940 wrote:

It just became uncompetitive. With the good ol' days dying for coach (aka coach bars etc.) I assume the 2-5-2 became just too much. Passengers needed to be able to move easily. And 5 seats are too much. Also I assume with even longer flights (10+ hours) there would be something in relation to a possible evacuation. Of course I know that it just died out. Once airlines started using it others had to follow. Most of it is just assumptions. But I know that passengers favoured the 3-3-3 to the 2-5-2.

People move a lot less freely on a 3-3-3, with the two window seats stuck behind two people before they can get to an aisle.

downdata wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

2-5-2 is only good for the people in the "2"

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

3-3-3 is more in line with Coach on narrow bodys and other airliners, and can provide a more consistent product

That makes no sense. How can you have 3 people trying to get past you in 2-5-2? when the third person only need to get past 1 on the other side.

Also, FA only need to do it once for 252 but twice for 333.

PP PPPPP PP

vs.

PPP PPP PPP

What the poster meant was a situation whereby in the '5' section, person 1 is asleep or something and person 2 therefore chooses to exit via the right hand side, thus climbing across person 3, 4 and 5... Or vice Versa!

downdata wrote:

OA940 wrote:

It just became uncompetitive. With the good ol' days dying for coach (aka coach bars etc.) I assume the 2-5-2 became just too much. Passengers needed to be able to move easily. And 5 seats are too much. Also I assume with even longer flights (10+ hours) there would be something in relation to a possible evacuation. Of course I know that it just died out. Once airlines started using it others had to follow. Most of it is just assumptions. But I know that passengers favoured the 3-3-3 to the 2-5-2.

People move a lot less freely on a 3-3-3, with the two window seats stuck behind two people before they can get to an aisle.

Anyway, there was a reason. I said I didn't know. Just guessing. Maybe even FA inconvenience. Plus the IFE boxes, as somebody already mentioned. And 5 seats is too much for today anyway. It could be just for aesthetics.

downdata wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

2-5-2 is only good for the people in the "2"

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

3-3-3 is more in line with Coach on narrow bodys and other airliners, and can provide a more consistent product

That makes no sense. How can you have 3 people trying to get past you in 2-5-2? when the third person only need to get past 1 on the other side.

Also, FA only need to do it once for 252 but twice for 333.

PP PPPPP PP

vs.

PPP PPP PPP

I was only saying it was Possible if the Bolded "P" didn't want to move or was asleep

PP PPPPP PP

777PHX wrote:

You've never flown short notice on business, have you?

Most of my business travel is last minute, as that is the nature of my job. Also, with all the options out there for carriers and routes, surely a business individual can pick and choose his travels to fit his/her favorite configuration.

Vasu wrote:

What the poster meant was a situation whereby in the '5' section, person 1 is asleep or something and person 2 therefore chooses to exit via the right hand side, thus climbing across person 3, 4 and 5... Or vice Versa!

That's exactly what happened to me flying AMS-ATL on the L15 .... I had the D seat .... the guy in the C seat slept the whole flight .... when the person in the G seat finally got up, those of us in the D, E, and F seats immediately pushed our way out to the right hand aisle

downdata wrote:

As uncomfortable as it is for 12+ hours in economy, the 2-5-2 seating in the KE 772 made it somewhat bearable to sit at one of the window seats.

Why are airlines now opting for 3-3-3? Wouldn't that make 2 entire window seat aisles basically unusable compared to the single bad aisle in the 2-5-2 arrangement?

Let's see here.

2-5-2:
3 middle seats
2 windows
2 aisles.
33% Chance of having to climb over one person
11% Chance of having to climb over two people.
22% Chance of aisle
22% Chance of Window

3-3-3:
3 middle seats
2 windows
2 aisles
33% Chance of having to climb over one person
22% Chance of having to climb over two people.
22% Chance of aisle
22% Chance of Window

Pretty minor difference.

BreninTW wrote:

From what I understand, the IFE controller boxes are generally designed to provision three seats. In a 3-3-3 configuration there are three boxes per row. A 2-5-2 configuration requires four boxes. That additional controller box and the associated wiring adds extra weight, and multiplied over 30 to 40 rows, it adds up quite quickly.

Furthermore, the general travelling public has shown quite conclusively that they don't really care about the seating layout, as long as they get the cheapest flight possible. Those that do care (and I am one of them) generally are willing to pay for Y+ seating.

That reason died as they are now doing 3-4-3 and have to have 4 boxes again.

Who in the $&@/ wants 2-5-2. No one. 1-1-1 is best. 2-2-2 good and the 767s 2-3-2 should be the airline standard. All the rest you are sandwiched between people who you hope have bathed in the last day. Yes, I am a bigot if you can't bathe. The 747 should have an isle in the center for 2-2-2-2.

Great topic....

For me (and probably a sizable population of others), a window seat is actually plus. The way I see a 3-3-3 is "3 bad middle seats, 1 seat away from the aisle", compared to 2-5-2, which is "3 bad middle seats, 2 are 1-seat away from aisle, and 1 that is 2-seats away".

Airlines, especially the US ones, have well trained their customer base to accept 3-3 as the standard configuration for domestic mainline, so there's nothing new or awkward of a set of 3 next to each window. The airlines have already overwhelmingly voted against 2-5-2. Even if IFE were no longer a concern in the future, I really don't see 2-5-2 coming back in any meaningful volume on either the 787 or A350 platforms.

You have to remember why 2-5-2 seating came in to being. In the early days of the DC-10 and L-1011, the seating was 2-4-2 on many airlines with a divider in the middle of the 4 seat section. That allowed wider coach seats with essentially two single aisle sections. It reduced noise across the row and provided more privacy with everybody being at most one seat from the aisle. When the move to tighter cabins came in, the divider was removed and the seats and/or aisles were narrowed. For airplanes already in inventory, 2-5-2 was logical and easily implemented - as you merely replaced the divider with a seat (or so it seemed to the passengers.) When designing cabins for new equipment, there was a choice between 2-5-2 and 3-3-3. For types that had 2-5-2 already in inventory, it was simpler to continue that pattern. For new types entering service, 3-3-3 may have made more sense.

I believe the answer for your topic is already at the title of the topic.

Please tell me who on earth would like to have the middle seat at the 5 row. Even for a short leg...

I like 2-5-2 more as well. Anyway, I recently flew on both 777 and A330 several times in a row and experienced the difference between 3-3-3 and 2-4-2 again and again. Now I try to search for A330 flights over 777, A350, or 787 to avoid the super-narrowed 3-3-3 if price and timing are similar. By the way, I am shocked to learn that some airlines offer 3-4-3 on their 777s!!! Can't imagine how cramp it could be. I think only some Japanese domestic 787 flights are 2-4-2. Lucky for them...

Keith2004 wrote:

2-5-2 is only good for the people in the "2"

Even if your not in that awful Middle seat it can suck, I wouldn't want to be at the Aisle seats in the 5 section either with potentially 3 people wanting to get past me several times in a flight, and having FAs have to reach over you several times to serve middle seats.

3-3-3 is more in line with Coach on narrow bodys and other airliners, and can provide a more consistent product

Why would 3 people go through your side to get out? I would think the one in the middle has the option of going either to the left or to the right to access the aisle.