Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
tommyarias
Topic Author
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:49 pm

787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:51 am

Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?
"Insert Generic Signature or Quote" - Generic Name
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13078
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:56 am

tommyarias wrote:
is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?

Obviously not, else the overwhelming majority of airlines would go for that instead.

What garners the most money for a give airline at a given time, relative to the alternative(s), is what gets done.
Plain and simple.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2013
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:00 am

The big question is - can the other airlines make money off the 2-4-2 arrangement compared to the average 3-3-3 layout? Don't forget, the seatcount for the JL configuration is less than the comparable 787 in 3-3-3 layout (say QR). In fact, the QR economy cabin alone seats more passengers than the entire JL aircraft.

Unless the other airlines can command the yields that JL commands using those 787, forget it.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:48 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
The big question is - can the other airlines make money off the 2-4-2 arrangement compared to the average 3-3-3 layout? Don't forget, the seatcount for the JL configuration is less than the comparable 787 in 3-3-3 layout (say QR). In fact, the QR economy cabin alone seats more passengers than the entire JL aircraft.

Unless the other airlines can command the yields that JL commands using those 787, forget it.


JL's (and NH's) long haul 787 are very premium heavy, which means that their yield are very high so that it can support a lower seat count then other airlines.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12790
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:55 am

It's surprising that out of all airlines it's a japanese one doing this. On the other hand in Japan you have (or used to have) 747s with thousands of seats (kidding).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:12 am

hongkongflyer wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
The big question is - can the other airlines make money off the 2-4-2 arrangement compared to the average 3-3-3 layout? Don't forget, the seatcount for the JL configuration is less than the comparable 787 in 3-3-3 layout (say QR). In fact, the QR economy cabin alone seats more passengers than the entire JL aircraft.

Unless the other airlines can command the yields that JL commands using those 787, forget it.


JL's (and NH's) long haul 787 are very premium heavy, which means that their yield are very high so that it can support a lower seat count then other airlines.


Still I am a little surprised no else believes they can command the premium to make this seating configuration work.
I intend taking advantage of it later this year.
I guess the verdict is those who can and care will pay for J and W, and for those who can't, or don't care, that lower fares override comfort. :crowded:
 
PDX88
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:44 am

tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?


What media attention? Who's running stories on JL's seating configuration?

An airline removing 30 seats for no financial benefit isn't going to happen. 99% of economy passengers don't take the seating configuration into account when buying a ticket. Heck, I bet if your average economy passenger connected from a JL 787 to a QR 787 they wouldn't even pick up on the difference.
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:06 am

The answer to this query is the very same one to a parallel question on why certain carriers offer 3-4-3 in Y on the 777 when some others have a more spacious 3-3-3.
Vahroone
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4313
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:20 am

JAL did not 'come up' with this... it was the original standard configuration. It was extremely nice. Too nice. This is why we can't have nice things.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
N809FR
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:10 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:23 am

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
JAL did not 'come up' with this... it was the original standard configuration. It was extremely nice. Too nice. This is why we can't have nice things.


Such a promising layout too. Sadly it wasn't meant to be. I doubt the 787 would have been viewed as the game changer it is today if they had kept it at 2-4-2 though.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13078
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:24 am

LionelHutz wrote:
Still I am a little surprised no else believes they can command the premium to make this seating configuration work.

They probably could, the question is: why bother?

...since the market has shown that it will accept that configuration; as an airline, why work so hard, for no real additional benefit?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Adipocere
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:35 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:53 am

Airlines aren't in the business of customer comfort. If they could embed 2" nails into every seat along with an electric handcuff to entice a passenger to splurge on a "peace of mind" package, they would..
 
anrec80
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:21 am

tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?

I am actually sort of surprised this "sardine-canning" into 17 inch seats isn't out-regulated, and I think it should be. I like the idea of Airbus to standardize 18 inch seats. Both 787 and 77W are modern, ecological and efficient aircraft, and IMHO it won't be much of an issue for the industry to carry 20-30 pax less per flight.
 
anrec80
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:24 am

PDX88 wrote:
tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?


What media attention? Who's running stories on JL's seating configuration?

An airline removing 30 seats for no financial benefit isn't going to happen. 99% of economy passengers don't take the seating configuration into account when buying a ticket. Heck, I bet if your average economy passenger connected from a JL 787 to a QR 787 they wouldn't even pick up on the difference.


Well, if you read the reviews - they do notice, but only after they fly. I guess it may take time for majority of flying public to learn these seat width thingies, and after a few years we might even see the reverse trend, when airlines see that they have harder time selling tickets into 3-4-3 77Ws than their competitors into 3-3-3 77W, or A-350.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2152
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:54 am

Require the seat width and pitch to be published on the ticket. When I buy a soda they must tell me how large the bottle is, why not an airline ticket?
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:59 am

PDX88 wrote:
tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?


What media attention? Who's running stories on JL's seating configuration?

An airline removing 30 seats for no financial benefit isn't going to happen. 99% of economy passengers don't take the seating configuration into account when buying a ticket. Heck, I bet if your average economy passenger connected from a JL 787 to a QR 787 they wouldn't even pick up on the difference.


It's not for financial disadvantage if they can command a premium for doing so. Some carriers can, or could, command the premium, but it comes with constant pressure, so most don't seem to bother to try and make slightly better Y cabin configurations work.
I think a lot of passengers do actually notice, most just seem to accept economy as being crap and continue to buy their tickets solely on the basis of price.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
JAL did not 'come up' with this... it was the original standard configuration. It was extremely nice. Too nice. This is why we can't have nice things.


So we get 10 across 777's and 9 across 787's and the economics put tremendous pressure on all carriers to race to the bottom in Y :banghead:
Thank god for the increasing prevalence of W and staying on the lookout for cheap J fares.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9553
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:03 am

Around or over 80% of all tickets are sold based on price alone.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:12 am

LionelHutz wrote:
hongkongflyer wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
The big question is - can the other airlines make money off the 2-4-2 arrangement compared to the average 3-3-3 layout? Don't forget, the seatcount for the JL configuration is less than the comparable 787 in 3-3-3 layout (say QR). In fact, the QR economy cabin alone seats more passengers than the entire JL aircraft.

Unless the other airlines can command the yields that JL commands using those 787, forget it.


JL's (and NH's) long haul 787 are very premium heavy, which means that their yield are very high so that it can support a lower seat count then other airlines.


Still I am a little surprised no else believes they can command the premium to make this seating configuration work.
I intend taking advantage of it later this year.
I guess the verdict is those who can and care will pay for J and W, and for those who can't, or don't care, that lower fares override comfort. :crowded:


Many older generation Japanese insitie to fly Japanese airlines only when they are travelling and they are relatively wealthy thanks to the economy bomb ages when they were young.
 
sierra3tango
Posts: 587
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:35 am

anrec80 wrote:
PDX88 wrote:
tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?


What media attention? Who's running stories on JL's seating configuration?

An airline removing 30 seats for no financial benefit isn't going to happen. 99% of economy passengers don't take the seating configuration into account when buying a ticket. Heck, I bet if your average economy passenger connected from a JL 787 to a QR 787 they wouldn't even pick up on the difference.


Well, if you read the reviews - they do notice, but only after they fly. I guess it may take time for majority of flying public to learn these seat width thingies, and after a few years we might even see the reverse trend, when airlines see that they have harder time selling tickets into 3-4-3 77Ws than their competitors into 3-3-3 77W, or A-350.


Truly hope you're right in saying this, but somehow doubt it as the 3-4-3 77Ws have been around for over a decade without any improvement (or appreciable pax backlash).

There is a financial benefit for airlines in giving pax enough shoulder room, in as far as any regular pax who suffers such a layout once for 10 to 12 hours won't
do it again. Here I'm talking about regular LH flyers who, whilst not premium, often are more valuable than vacationers to the airline; doing things like LH in the slack winter months & not paying bargain basement prices.

Personally (flying maybe 12 - 14 LH sectors pa) I just won't fly Y in a 3-4-3 777 or a 3-3-3 787 full stop; whether its business or pleasure. Just take another airline (if I'm paying) or insist on a higher class if its business. Have talked to enough fellow travelers in various airports around the world to establish that I'm not alone in voting with my feet, however it appears there aren't enough of us to make a difference in airline thinking.

As for the airlines noticing/ caring, suppose some comfort should be taken in Boeing 'sculpting' some few inches from the walls of the 77X & BA fiddling an inch or two on the layouts of their 789's; they obviously are aware.

Quite what Boeing were thinking when they designed the 787 mystifies me, fuselage barrel maybe 6 inches too narrow & then design in 'mood lighting' and higher pressure - the benefits are counteracted by the detriment (seat width).
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:30 am

seahawk wrote:
Around or over 80% of all tickets are sold based on price alone.


Your opinion, or evidence-based fact? I would be very interested in reading the evidence for this statement, if you would please provide links?
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:39 am

Yes, 787 with 9-across is noticeably bad and carriers are not increasing pitch as a consolation either. Also, ten across 777, sucks too...but Thank-you KAL for 9-across 77W on my last trip across the Pacific; you and others like JAL 787 8-across will earn my business even if I pay a bit more...and I try for A380 when I can find it -- very comfortable (until it goes 11-across :( ) - though A380 typically means at least a few hours in Dubai.

sierra3tango wrote:
...Have talked to enough fellow travelers in various airports around the world to establish that I'm not alone in voting with my feet, however it appears there aren't enough of us to make a difference in airline thinking.

As for the airlines noticing/ caring, suppose some comfort should be taken in Boeing 'sculpting' some few inches from the walls of the 77X & BA fiddling an inch or two on the layouts of their 789's; they obviously are aware.

Quite what Boeing were thinking when they designed the 787 mystifies me, fuselage barrel maybe 6 inches too narrow & then design in 'mood lighting' and higher pressure - the benefits are counteracted by the detriment (seat width).


This is where I am hoping long-haul passengers eventually get some leverage, sadly I doubt it will happen soon, Y-class is viewed by carriers as steerage. Airbus sized the cabin of A330 and A350 to limit airlines ability to stick another seat in Y-class each row...although ideally A350 would be 8-across too. Boeing should learn from that, but airlines get most the blame. Yes, smack me if you like for not upgrading to Econ+ or J-class...not easy in my case, and in many other traveler's situations.

A-netters need to shout about this..maybe it will go viral !! As Marx said, "All we have to lose is our Y-class middle seat and free Wi-Fi".
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13078
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:03 am

anrec80 wrote:
I am actually sort of surprised this "sardine-canning" into 17 inch seats isn't out-regulated

Ridiculous. Seating densities are regulated based on evacuation minima, not penny-pinching people's desire to get more for less.


anrec80 wrote:
it won't be much of an issue for the industry to carry 20-30 pax less per flight.

For carriers with sizable fleets, that could equate to well over 1000 seats that they're now governmentally restricted from offering or garnering revenue; per operation, per year--- for no regulatory reason other than someone's (completely arbitrary) personal preference.

....if you think that would be taken as not "much of an issue," then you've just made a very unrealistic conclusion. :-P
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9553
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:14 am

vhtje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Around or over 80% of all tickets are sold based on price alone.


Your opinion, or evidence-based fact? I would be very interested in reading the evidence for this statement, if you would please provide links?


http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121212005548/en

"Nearly all respondents (94 percent) state that the price of tickets is important to critical when choosing an airline this season."

http://survey.airlines.org/#section3

"Most Americans (81%) and 86% of those who flew last year, told us that the total travel price is the most important factor when deciding to fly."

https://viewfinder.expedia.com/features ... -for-2016/
https://viewfinder.expedia.com/img/HLG- ... =social.vf

"If we have learned anything about our customers over the
years, we know most travelers base air travel plans primarily
on the price of tickets, and will stop at nothing to find the best
deal. Expedia research indicates travelers search an average
of 48 times on eight different sites before booking a flight."
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:23 am

It's not that carriers could not, in principle, command a premium on 2-4-2 economy vs 3-3-3 economy... it's that today, it is not possible for them to do so, because booking systems do not allow for product differentiation. The generalization of 3-3-3 787s and 3-4-3 777s is a consequence of lack of information in the market. A 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 will appear exactly the same upon booking, and thus the customer will most times decide on price... which will tend to be lower on a 3-3-3.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3559
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:50 am

anrec80 wrote:
tommyarias wrote:

I am actually sort of surprised this "sardine-canning" into 17 inch seats isn't out-regulated, and I think it should be. I like the idea of Airbus to standardize 18 inch seats.

The problem with using those numbers as a minimum standard is that it can be easily manipulated. The A350 seat and the proposed 11 abreast A380 seat are some examples.
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
User avatar
christao17
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:16 am

r2rho wrote:
It's not that carriers could not, in principle, command a premium on 2-4-2 economy vs 3-3-3 economy... it's that today, it is not possible for them to do so, because booking systems do not allow for product differentiation. The generalization of 3-3-3 787s and 3-4-3 777s is a consequence of lack of information in the market. A 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 will appear exactly the same upon booking, and thus the customer will most times decide on price... which will tend to be lower on a 3-3-3.


I guess you could argue that they do command a premium on 2-4-2- economy versus 3-3-3: it's called "premium economy" and some carriers offer it, usually with more legroom.
More than a dozen years flying in and around Asia...
 
Travelmanager
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:22 am

hongkongflyer wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
The big question is - can the other airlines make money off the 2-4-2 arrangement compared to the average 3-3-3 layout? Don't forget, the seatcount for the JL configuration is less than the comparable 787 in 3-3-3 layout (say QR). In fact, the QR economy cabin alone seats more passengers than the entire JL aircraft.

Unless the other airlines can command the yields that JL commands using those 787, forget it.


JL's (and NH's) long haul 787 are very premium heavy, which means that their yield are very high so that it can support a lower seat count then other airlines.


I think that JAL made the decision based on their overall brand, not the premium density of the their 787 cabin. I expect we will see even more award winning premium seating and more condensed economy options on the same planes in the future. Just because JAL is able to get a good yield in the premium cabin doesn't mean that they don't want to maximize revenue in the economy cabin.

With airlines like WOW going after the transatlantic segment, the network carriers need to offer a product to match that while still keeping their corporate road warriors happy. As bad as it sounds, I think 'basic economy' is coming to the 4 cabin 5 star airlines any month now. It allows them to profitably go after every segment of traveler.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:43 am

AC333 with old style seats 2-4-2 and a little screen was much much nicer than AC788 with new style seats at 3-3-3.

Fred
Image
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:05 pm

If you look at their offerings, JL's prices aren't higher than other major carriers, with the exception of sell-offs from the ME3, TK and SU.

A return from a European city is much cheaper than the same return booked in reverse from Japan. That's not only with JAL but with the other carriers as well. Yet, JAL is flying full on many of its flights and they are still holding back on expanding internationally (because of the pact with NH for the state-aid received during the bankruptcy), otherwise they could give carriers a very had time on Eurasian and Transpac.

JAL is doing everything perfect as a long haul carrier. They are reporting a 10 million USD per aircraft profit. That's exceptional and probably the highest profit rate of any airline worldwide.
The premium cabins are full of non-Japanese travellers and the Y cabin is attracting more and more non-Japanese too.
Their mileage program offers true benefits, unlike the competing programs that offer overpriced gadgets or the awards ticket scam that are barely cheaper than a full-priced ticket in exchange for a huge amount of miles.

Last year, I've had the luck of being upgraded to Business Class on JL as have I on TK.
The guy sitting behind me on the TK flight was bragging about choosing TK for its cheap J fare.
While the TK business class service is very resource-intensive for the crew, focussing on the presentation and superficial gestures to give the impression of being pampered (an artificial candle, many bread varieties that all look rather similar) , what you get on the dish is the poor man's food, ie Caesar salad (poultry), some pasta, lentil soup, etc...
I mean come on, lentil soup in business class?
JL serves you the same food in economy class, in the same quantity, and it's tastier.
No, JL won't waste efforts on self-marketing presentations to simulate luxury, they will efficiently serve you amaaaaazing foods one after the other. I was served kuroge wagyu beef at 35000 feet and it was simply unbelievable.

While many here say that customers book based on price only, JAL is booking record profits and is flying full plane loads of people, which is not what I saw on the same routes with TK or QR. I remembered thinking that QR was carrying less people on its 254 seats B788 than JAL was on its 161 seat B788.
So there is a clear disconnect between the above theories and the realities of the market.
I have an explanation for this:
Most one-time travellers still don't use flight search engines to book flights and the frequent flyers who do use them, book carriers based on personal experience and reputation. JAL is gaining an excellent reputation both in Japan and abroad.

Their biggest competitor NH is charging the same or higher fares for a 9-abreast configuration and are losing market share rather quickly.
It doesn't look like there is any evidence that airlines offering 9-abreast B787's are offering lower fares than competitors with more comfortable seating.

As for WOW Air being mentionned above, they are just a Norwegian clone, ie, bar some promotional fares, they are not that much cheaper than promotional fares offered by major carriers right and left. They lure you in with ultra-cheap fares that are on date sets convenient only to a handful of people who have no life and thus no money, fully expecting that you'll settle for the higher fare on the dates that you wish to travel on.

WOW Air is not what airlines should strive for.
JAL is.
 
User avatar
Keith2004
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:59 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:43 pm

3-3-3 787 and 3-4-3 777 will remain pariahs on the likes of Airliners.net and Flyertalk.com (up to 2 threads a day now LOL), but as cited earlier in this thread 80%+ of the booking public (Y class Bookers) book based on price, and booking search engines don't mention seat width. Average Y passenger is not paying $$$$ even if it is listed at 17.3" vs 18"

These are passengers that consistently don't read about fees and are surprised at the gate on the ULC airlines
Behavior of 80% or more of the market will continue to dictate the layout, basic capitalism, Airlines are not non-profit organizations taking people around the world in comfort out of the goodness of their heart$ they are here for profit$ just like any other business.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23525
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:30 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
This is where I am hoping long-haul passengers eventually get some leverage, sadly I doubt it will happen soon, Y-class is viewed by carriers as steerage. Airbus sized the cabin of A330 and A350 to limit airlines ability to stick another seat in Y-class each row...although ideally A350 would be 8-across too. Boeing should learn from that, but airlines get most the blame. Yes, smack me if you like for not upgrading to Econ+ or J-class...not easy in my case, and in many other traveler's situations.

A-netters need to shout about this..maybe it will go viral !! As Marx said, "All we have to lose is our Y-class middle seat and free Wi-Fi".


Yep, there is an echo chamber here on a.net that says airlines determine the seating configuration, but clearly the airlines can't widen or narrow the cabin, only the airplane manufacturers can do that. Boeing has gone for ultra efficiency on 747, 777 and 787 whereas Airbus has gone for Y comfort on A330, A350 and A380. I can see it burning Boeing in the long term. Some people as above say that people only look at price, but that's just the current state of play. As more and more realize there are better options at similar prices they will book towards those better options. If you don't believe this, you don't believe in market forces.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
airbazar
Posts: 10048
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:35 pm

tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?

Uh? JAL did not come up with it and was not praised for it. This was the original layout in all of Boeing's marketing until airlines realized that they could squeeze 1 more seat per row. And in my opinion it's due to a combination of factors. At 8-abreast the 787 is just not competitive enough against the A350 and on short missions it would have a hard time against even the 30 year old A330. JAL can do this because as someone said, they operate the plane on premium heavy routes (https://www.jal.co.jp/en/787/), with less competition. Note that Japan is still relatively insulated from the ME3 carriers due to both congestion at their airports, and geographic positioning. However I think the main reason is because as usual they were slow to adapt to the changing trends, So what on the surface appears to be a good thing, is actually yet another sign of good old Japanese business conservatism and their inherent inability to change quickly. Notice that ANA also has some 2-4-2 787's but they've already started the change to 3-3-3, and I expect JAL to follow suit eventually.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
This is where I am hoping long-haul passengers eventually get some leverage, sadly I doubt it will happen soon, Y-class is viewed by carriers as steerage. Airbus sized the cabin of A330 and A350 to limit airlines ability to stick another seat in Y-class each row...although ideally A350 would be 8-across too. Boeing should learn from that, but airlines get most the blame. Yes, smack me if you like for not upgrading to Econ+ or J-class...not easy in my case, and in many other traveler's situations.

A-netters need to shout about this..maybe it will go viral !! As Marx said, "All we have to lose is our Y-class middle seat and free Wi-Fi".


Yep, there is an echo chamber here on a.net that says airlines determine the seating configuration, but clearly the airlines can't widen or narrow the cabin, only the airplane manufacturers can do that. Boeing has gone for ultra efficiency on 747, 777 and 787 whereas Airbus has gone for Y comfort on A330, A350 and A380. I can see it burning Boeing in the long term. Some people as above say that people only look at price, but that's just the current state of play. As more and more realize there are better options at similar prices they will book towards those better options. If you don't believe this, you don't believe in market forces.

I believe in market forces, but I don't believe this. Just look at the growth of EK who was an early adopter of 10 across 777 with a huge fleet.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:43 pm

isn't the 9 across 787 width the same as we have been seeing on 747's for decades? Is there some difference I am not seeing or are airlines also squeezing pitch at the same time, thus making it less comfortable?
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:28 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
isn't the 9 across 787 width the same as we have been seeing on 747's for decades? Is there some difference I am not seeing or are airlines also squeezing pitch at the same time, thus making it less comfortable?



The 777 cabin width is 5.84m and the 747 main deck is around 6.08m wide. There is about 9 inches more room in the 747 main deck than the 777. I guess the only reason airlines installed the same seats in the 747 as the other Boeing aircraft is to have one seat width but we can clearly see there is more room in the 747 where in the Boeing ACAPs they have a double armrest in middle of the 4 seats and the aisles are wider.

I am comparing the 777 with the 747 when they are both 10-abreast. The 787 is at the same level of comfort as the 777 in 10-abreast so that should give you an idea whether it is the same as the 747.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10048
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:38 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
isn't the 9 across 787 width the same as we have been seeing on 747's for decades? Is there some difference I am not seeing or are airlines also squeezing pitch at the same time, thus making it less comfortable?

I think it's a combination of factors. Yes the 747 had 17" seats but it was the first widebody airplane ever made. That more than made up for the narrow seat, in the Whoa! department. Another factor, few airlines operated 747's in the last decade or 2 so that memory is gone for most consumers. That is especially true in the TATL market which has been dominated by 767/777/A330/A340, most of which are configured with 18" wide seats. Even today's BA's 747's have 17.5" seats. So while the 747 was indeed 17" that was a long, long time ago and we have since "evolved" to the 18" wide seat, and now are "regressing" back to the 17" wide seat. Another factor is like you said, seat pitch has also shrunk. And yet another factor is the fact that people are larger now than they ever were.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:45 pm

enzo011 wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
isn't the 9 across 787 width the same as we have been seeing on 747's for decades? Is there some difference I am not seeing or are airlines also squeezing pitch at the same time, thus making it less comfortable?



The 777 cabin width is 5.84m and the 747 main deck is around 6.08m wide. There is about 9 inches more room in the 747 main deck than the 777. I guess the only reason airlines installed the same seats in the 747 as the other Boeing aircraft is to have one seat width but we can clearly see there is more room in the 747 where in the Boeing ACAPs they have a double armrest in middle of the 4 seats and the aisles are wider.

I am comparing the 777 with the 747 when they are both 10-abreast. The 787 is at the same level of comfort as the 777 in 10-abreast so that should give you an idea whether it is the same as the 747.


Since you spend about 98% of a flight in your seat, (and asleep), the aisle width and the distance to the other wall, really don't make too much of a difference.

I doesn't matter what size the room is in comparison to seat width, when you're sitting down. For some, 17" width will be a deal breaker, but for most, it won't. I have flown with terrible 18" seats and great 17" seats...and visa versa. Seat width is only one factor when it comes to passenger comfort...(Pitch and cushion design are much bigger deals), but width is certainly an A.net obsession.

I think if we can get a single thread about seat width, the benefits of side sticks v. yokes, 787/380 break even and the EK bubble, we'd have the perfect storm A.net thread...though it would probably wreak havoc with the space/time continuum.
What the...?
 
OMAAbound
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:43 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:50 pm

Because not every person who flies knows much about the airline/seat/IFE etc, they are more bothered about the price and how cheap and quick they can get to their destination.

As an example- Etihad used to have 3-3-3 on their 77Ws, all of the BKK, KUL, MNL flights were full. Now they've reconfigured their 77Ws with 3-4-3 and surprisingly all of their flights are still full.

Arguably everyone will still complain about their seat at some point, but if it's cheaper they won't care a dot!

OMAA
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:14 pm

817Dreamliiner wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
tommyarias wrote:

I am actually sort of surprised this "sardine-canning" into 17 inch seats isn't out-regulated, and I think it should be. I like the idea of Airbus to standardize 18 inch seats.

The problem with using those numbers as a minimum standard is that it can be easily manipulated. The A350 seat and the proposed 11 abreast A380 seat are some examples.

The A350 started with the moniker "XWB" meaning "Extra Wide Body". In reality, it's not as wide as most people think.
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:16 pm

christao17 wrote:
r2rho wrote:
It's not that carriers could not, in principle, command a premium on 2-4-2 economy vs 3-3-3 economy... it's that today, it is not possible for them to do so, because booking systems do not allow for product differentiation. The generalization of 3-3-3 787s and 3-4-3 777s is a consequence of lack of information in the market. A 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 will appear exactly the same upon booking, and thus the customer will most times decide on price... which will tend to be lower on a 3-3-3.


I guess you could argue that they do command a premium on 2-4-2- economy versus 3-3-3: it's called "premium economy" and some carriers offer it, usually with more legroom.

On US Carriers, at least, "Premium Economy" is the opposite. More about the legroom, and not about the width.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10048
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:27 pm

Freshside3 wrote:
The A350 started with the moniker "XWB" meaning "Extra Wide Body". In reality, it's not as wide as most people think.

It's still called the A350XWB.
http://www.a350xwb.com/
"Not as wide" but still wider. The "XWB" was added to differentiate it from the original A350, which was narrower.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:29 pm

I'm thinking the competitive landscape between A330 operators and 787 operators forces the latter to squeeze in another seat abreast in order to better match cost per seat. I find it strange that an older aircraft model is able to offer better seating comfort, and still sell more aircraft over the last decade.

Here is a overview of net order that I made this summer (very little changes since then).

Image
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:36 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
Require the seat width and pitch to be published on the ticket. When I buy a soda they must tell me how large the bottle is, why not an airline ticket?


You know, that's a good idea! Except it should be in your purchasing summary *before* you validate your payment details.

And before anyone chimes in about equipment changes - they should also display a clear compensation policy for the event your final seat is narrower or has less pitch than promised (even if that's just "the airline accepts no liability for the event of equipment change").
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:45 pm

reidar76 wrote:
I'm thinking the competitive landscape between A330 operators and 787 operators forces the latter to squeeze in another seat abreast in order to match cost per seat. I find it strange that an older aircraft model is able to offer better seating comfort, and still sell more aircraft over the last decade.

Here is a overview of net order that I made this summer (very little changes since then).

Image


That chart doesn't take into consideration the 787 delays, backlog, availability, price, fleet commonality and a myriad of other factors, including the fact that the 330 is a very good aircraft, ceo or neo.
What the...?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1836
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:48 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
penny-pinching people's desire to get more for less


Sorry, I have to object to that.

I'm not exactly poor, but I would have to be a good deal wealthier before I start thinking about using anything but economy when flying - and as suggested earlier I would expect the same is true for the vast majority of travelers.

Flying simply is expensive - even though it's relatively cheaper than it was in the past, it is still expensive. Flight tickets must be the largest cost in the average long-haul holiday, so of course that's where people select on price. That's not penny-pinching, that's just a basic necessity!
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:49 pm

airbazar wrote:
Freshside3 wrote:
The A350 started with the moniker "XWB" meaning "Extra Wide Body". In reality, it's not as wide as most people think.

It's still called the A350XWB.
http://www.a350xwb.com/
"Not as wide" but still wider. The "XWB" was added to differentiate it from the original A350, which was narrower.

Comparative Cabin widths:
A350 5.61 Meters
B777 5.84 Meters
B747 6.1 Meters
A380 6.5 Meters

OK, wider than the "original" A350. Not "Extra Wide" compared to even the 777!
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2181
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:08 pm

Interestingly, when they first ordered the 787, BA/CO/NW all announced that their Y cabins would be 2-4-2.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 753, 762, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13078
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:57 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
penny-pinching people's desire to get more for less


Sorry, I have to object to that.

I'm not exactly poor, but I would have to be a good deal wealthier before I start thinking about using anything but economy when flying - and as suggested earlier I would expect the same is true for the vast majority of travelers.

Flying simply is expensive - even though it's relatively cheaper than it was in the past, it is still expensive. Flight tickets must be the largest cost in the average long-haul holiday, so of course that's where people select on price. That's not penny-pinching, that's just a basic necessity!

No one called you poor, I called you penny-pinching... and I stand by that, because whether or not you CAN spend the money for more, the fact remains (if you're sitting in steerage) that you haven't.

And that's all that the airline is going to generally care about.



SomebodyInTLS wrote:
And before anyone chimes in about equipment changes - they should also display a clear compensation policy for the event your final seat is narrower or has less pitch than promised (even if that's just "the airline accepts no liability for the event of equipment change").

Of course, the easy way around that, is to not "promise" you anything, beyond regulatory minima.

Beware unintended consequences.


Freshside3 wrote:
On US Carriers, at least, "Premium Economy" is the opposite. More about the legroom, and not about the width.

That's not true at all. You're confusing it with Economy Plus.

One of the biggest differences between the two, is that a true Premium Economy DOES focus on width.
(e.g. Delta Premium, which launches this year, and will be on planes in addition to Economy Comfort, which is just extended legroom)
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:06 pm

tommyarias wrote:
Most 787 deliveries have a standard 3-3-3 layout with an average of 31" pitch and 17.2" width, even though is has been tagged as a "plane to avoid" because of how uncomfortable the seats can be for long flights. JAL came up with the 2-4-2 layout offering 33" pitch and 18.9" width, and was praised for being pioneers by focusing on customers rather than pockets. Why no other airline has followed JAL's steps and offered this 2-4-2 layout, is the positive feedback and media attention not worth it?


NH also has that configuration on some of their earliest frames, which due to their higher empty weight, are a bit payload restricted.

As for JAL, they went bankrupt in no small part due to overcapacity, so operating their 787s in a less-dense configuration is probably more a reflection of the amount of traffic they can reasonably believe they can get and using that scarcity to increase average fares to compensate for the higher operating costs.


Revelation wrote:
Yep, there is an echo chamber here on a.net that says airlines determine the seating configuration, but clearly the airlines can't widen or narrow the cabin, only the airplane manufacturers can do that. Boeing has gone for ultra efficiency on 747, 777 and 787 whereas Airbus has gone for Y comfort on A330, A350 and A380. I can see it burning Boeing in the long term. Some people as above say that people only look at price, but that's just the current state of play. As more and more realize there are better options at similar prices they will book towards those better options. If you don't believe this, you don't believe in market forces.


Airbus has offered a consistently more comfortable product their entire existence, and yet the market has not overwhelmingly shifted to their product and rejected Boeing.

Airlines switched from the 777-200 to the A330-300 not because the latter was 6% more comfortable (at 9 and 10-abreast, respectively), but because the latter was over 12% more economic on a block fuel burn basis. And the greater comfort of the A340-600 couldn't help it against the lower operating costs of the 777-300ER.

As comments up-thread noted, Americans (and, by extension, clearly a fair bit more of the world) shop based on price. Even if they were informed that the more expensive ticket offered wider seats with the possibility of more comfort, how many would pay more for it? Seat pitch seems to rank higher than seat width with American customers based on the launch of "Enhanced Economy" cabins and Exit Row seating that offer 3-5 inches more pitch for a fee.

Europeans seem to care more about shoulder room based on domestic Business Class product that has the same pitch as Economy, but a blocked middle seat so perhaps that is where the disconnect on A.net happens. For Europeans, that extra 1 to 2 cm in width matters where for Americans, it's that extra 6-10cm of legroom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787's 2-4-2 layout vs. 3-3-3 layout. Why no one follows JAL's idea?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:33 pm

vhtje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Around or over 80% of all tickets are sold based on price alone.


Your opinion, or evidence-based fact? I would be very interested in reading the evidence for this statement, if you would please provide links?


Almost every booking engine I have seen only gives the customer to choose between airline, connections, total trip time, and price. Most sort by lowest price first.

Lowest price seems to be the default setting for most websites, if that is the not the most popular, why would it be the default ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos