In another thread, folks were discussing whether the 787 seat width at 9-abreast is a big drawback for the 787. The discussion was deemed off topic and closed down, the moderators helpfully suggested starting a separate thread for the discussion.

I've never actually flown on the 787 myself - specifically for this reason. I recently had an opportunity to do so on long haul but picked a 9ab 777 operator instead. I've heard it's a barely noticeable difference but I'm a bit wider than average and didn't want to risk 13 hours of rubbing shoulders with a stranger.

None of our go-to industry publications have, AFAIK, published an apples-apples comparison of the A350 and 787.
I'm inclined to believe, however, that the A359 has a decent CASM edge over the 787-9. Why? Well why else would EK consider a decision between the 787-10 and A359 close for a "regional" competition? If the A359 can compete with the 787-10 on regional routes, then it probably has a good edge on the 787-9. The A359 is slightly bigger of course, and therefore the simple fact of a CASM edge doesn't mean it's a better product. Lacking any hard numbers, however, my intuition is A359's ability to compete with 781 implies some significant edge.

Why the diversion on CASM? Well if the A359 already has a some efficiency edge, however slight, then the risk factor of consumers eventually rejecting 17in seats seems quite threatening. If even 30% of Y pax, for example, were sufficiently tech/air-literate to look up the equipment being offered and seat maps, and if these pax chose against the 787 or demanded a 15% percent discount for their discomfort, that would be sufficient to erase a lot of airlines' profit margins. Big risk. Maybe it's better to take on the risk of slightly more capacity with the A359 even if the initial route optimum would be 787-9, absent consumer rejection risk. Were I an airline CEO considering 787-9 or A359 on these assumptions, I'd have to go with A359.

Of course I still haven't seen any independent analysis of the two planes' trip costs. Maybe the 787's narrower cabin pays off on fuel burn, and Tim Clark is just posturing for bargaining leverage with the regional order (i.e. he knows he'll go with 787-10 as most expect - if that order isn't scrapped/delayed).

Matt6461 wrote:

I've never actually flown on the 787 myself - specifically for this reason. I recently had an opportunity to do so on long haul but picked a 9ab 777 operator instead. I've heard it's a barely noticeable difference but I'm a bit wider than average and didn't want to risk 13 hours of rubbing shoulders with a stranger.

Its definitly noticeable, just like 9 v 10 abreast on a 777 is noticeable, people who tell you its not are talking from where the sun don't shine.

Well, If you consider 0.55 inches per seat "significant" in terms of shoulder width then sure. The seats in both ACAPS are only 0.51 inches different in total (59.6 for the 787 and 60.11 for the A350).

Matt6461 wrote:

I've never actually flown on the 787 myself - specifically for this reason. I recently had an opportunity to do so on long haul but picked a 9ab 777 operator instead. I've heard it's a barely noticeable difference but I'm a bit wider than average and didn't want to risk 13 hours of rubbing shoulders with a stranger.

I've had multiple 787 flights and all at 9-across in economy. It feels tight and slightly claustrophobic despite the other advantages of the 787 (it's very quiet and I love the bigger windows). On one trip with Ethiopian, we got off the 787 and straight on to a 9-across 777 which felt much nicer despite the 'small' windows and worn-out seating.

I haven't flown on the A350, but was able to tour the fully-fitted demo aircraft at Farnborough last year. At 9-across it seems very comfortable and 'airy' and obviously falls between the 787 and 777 all at 9-across. These days it's sadly getting harder and harder to find 777 operators that still fly 9-across in economy, so IMHO the A350 at 9-across may well become the preferred option over 9-across 787s and 10-across 777s.

People do not care if its cheap enough.

Having travelled on the 787 more than a dozen times on multiple carriers in Y, the worst thing I find is not the seat width, but seat pitch and especially the actual seat design that looks good for promos, but the head rest cushion makes you feel as though you're being pushed forward. Poor ergonomics. The seats have the 'comfort' of setting concrete and they are murderous on a red eye flight no matter the flight time. No matter how much you wiggle, you just can't sit in any comfortable position.

zeke wrote:

People do not care if its cheap enough.

Maybe. I think we will soon see an economy basic class being introduced that will define the bottom line. Making standard economy worse is reaching a point where it is damaging the reputation for legacy carriers. If this happens it might be a chance for Airbus to gain a small advantage.
You can not make it worth than 3-3-3 on a 787 and 3-4-3 on a 777, while you could do 3-3-3 on an A330 and maybe even 3-4-3 on an A350 for the basic economy rows. The other options is that airlines are forced to remove some seats in the Boeings so that they have more rows of 2-4-2 / 3-3-3 for the basic economy product. In both cases the difference in seats changes in Airbus favour.

I do not believe it is a genuine realistic drawback as much as it is a perceived and assumed one.

Airbus claims 18" wide Y seats on the A350. Reasonable and realistic.

To get that seat width:
* 220.9" cabin width
* 12 x 1.5" armrests = 18"
* 9 x 18" seats = 162"
* 220.9 - (162 + 18) = 40.9" or 2 x 20.45" aisles

For a 787:
* 216.1" cabin width
* 12 x 1.5" armrests = 18"
* 2 x 20.45" aisles = 40.9"
* 216.1 - (40.9 + 18) = 157.2" for 9-abreast with 17.47" seats.

Not quite the controversial 17" vs 18" debate. The difference in seat width is actually +-50% less than is argued about all the time.

Reducing aisles to 18" on the 787 would allow for 18" wide seats.

I fail to see how this is such a controversial sticking point. 0.5" less seat width is not ideal but it is not as bad as many would lead others to believe.

NB: I did not account for distance between sidewall and the seats at the end or spacing between seats. However, spacing would likely affect both the A350 and 787 equally so the changes in seat width between the 2 would still be proportional to what I have rudimentarily calculated.

I've flown in both 3-3-3 787 and 3-3-3 A350, in both cases in aisle seats with a pax (in both cases I didn't know them and they were normal sized) seating next to me in the middle seat, so it was very much an apples-apples comparison, and I would take the A350 every day over the 787.
I avoid BA (and VS and UA) 787s but I'm looking forward to their A350s.

I just flew my first 787, with VS on BOS-LHR-BOS and I have to say that at first I was very skeptical about the 9 abreast and 31" pitch. I had heard lots of complains about it but I wanted to try a 787. Immediately upon getting to my seat all my worries vanished. The new slim seats combined with the recline that pivots/slides makes the seating area feel more spacious that the old standard 32"-33" seats. Of course, these same seats with 32"-33" pitch would be fantastic but we can't have it all can we? I'm a slim, 160lbs 5'11" person so seat width is not an issue for me. I have yet to fly on an A350 so I can't compare but all I can say is, with the proper hard product the 9 abreast 787 is not bad at all.

To add to Matt's point, EK has to be in the best position in the business to understand how seat width and pitch can affect the bottom line. They fly 777s at 10 abreast right up against the most comfortable plane in the sky. And in many cases they fly both planes on the same routes. I find it hard to believe they'd have ordered so many 777ERs and 777Xs if the planes were going out empty where their 380 was an option. This whole debate over a half inch, as it relates at least to aircraft financial performance, should and could end right there. Passenger comfort is a different beast, but if the masses keep saying one thing and then pulling a different lever in the voting booth, what you gonna do?

What solution did BA implement to make their 787 seat wider?

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

I've flown on an AI and BA's 787s. I have also tried an AI 77W (9 ab), BA 747, and BA 777 (new seating and old seating).

I really like AI's 787. The seats were narrow, but not bad at all. I'll take a narrow, modern seat over an older, wider seat any day. The more modern seats tend to give you better legroom because they're slimline and have less stuff under them so it's a lot easier to stretch your legs. I'd say it was more comfortable than their 77W, which had an IFE box in the middle of the seat in front.

BA's 787 in the window seat is honestly awful. Again, the narrow seats are fine, but the IFE box by your feet really gets in the way and makes the experience uncomfortable after around 5-6 hours. The 747 I flew on my return was preferred, despite the worse AVOD system and older seats.

The narrow seat issue really is overblown, especially on A.net. It's only something that bothers you when you don't have anything else to preoccupy your mind (like good AVOD). I'll happily fly on a 787 long haul again as long as it's with a carrier with good AVOD and that doesn't put the IFE box by the foot.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

That would only be a valid comparison if all bar one A350 operator were fitting 10-across. They're not - 10-across A350s will be as rare as 8-across 787s. The vast majority of 787s are 9-across in standard economy, just as the vast majority of A350s will be 9-across in standard economy.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

The A350 at 10 abreast is more than an inch narrower per seat than the 787 at 9 abreast. How is that a fairer comparison when the seats at 9 abreast for both aircraft are 0.51 inches different in total (59.6 for 787 vs 60.11 for the A350)?

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

Who is going to operate a 10 x abreast A350?

zeke wrote:

People do not care if its cheap enough.

Agreed.

Also didn't think we needed this topic covered in a new thread for the 58th time.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

Who is going to operate a 10 x abreast A350?

Air Caraibes

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/11/0 ... rbus-a350/

DUBAI: Airline adoption of ultra high-density economy class cabins shows no sign of abating with Airbus confirming to RGN that a European carrier has become the first operator to select a 10-abreast configuration for the Airbus A350 XWB.

......

He declined to name the airline, but there was some speculation at the show that perhaps French holiday carrier Air Caraibes has potentially gone in this direction; its first A350-900s are scheduled for delivery next year and it already operates high-density A330s with seat width that is sub 17

Air Asia X is also interested in 10 abreast but they are one of those airlines that people are unsure will actually take the A350, although with reports of them not believing that the A339 will make it to Europe with their configuration signs are pointing to yes.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

The A350 at 10 abreast is more than an inch narrower per seat than the 787 at 9 abreast. How is that a fairer comparison when the seats at 9 abreast for both aircraft are 0.51 inches different in total (59.6 for 787 vs 60.11 for the A350)?

It is fair as we are comparing the lowest quality offerings from both manufacturers, furthermore, as we have seen from the 77W and 787 examples, all it takes is for a major international carrier to implement a denser configuration (ie a new standard eg 17" seats) for it to become commonplace, and when that comes, what is fair becomes a lot more difficult to compare under your metric, but becomes easier under mine.

scbriml wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

That would only be a valid comparison if all bar one A350 operator were fitting 10-across. They're not - 10-across A350s will be as rare as 8-across 787s. The vast majority of 787s are 9-across in standard economy, just as the vast majority of A350s will be 9-across in standard economy.

That is because no major international carrier has implemented the "tighter squeeze" standard set out by Airbus, if however the industry economics changes for the worse, and a major international carrier decides to do so, it will be another race to the bottom between airlines to beat each other's CASM. Would anyone who designed the 777 foresaw it being used in a 10 abreast config? I would think no, but 10 abreast 777 is now the new norm despite largely being a 9 abreast plane for the first 10 years of service (approx), and who knows, the 350 will be a similar story, albeit they went 10 abreast pretty early on with a small handful of carriers.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Would anyone who designed the 777 foresaw it being used in a 10 abreast config? I would think no, but 10 abreast 777 is now the new norm despite largely being a 9 abreast plane for the first 10 years of service (approx), and who knows, the 350 will be a similar story, albeit they went 10 abreast pretty early on with a small handful of carriers.

The 777 is not relevant to the comparison of the 787 and A350 at 9-across (which is the subject of this thread). What may or may not happen in the future is not relevant either. Today, AFAIK, all airlines except for one are flying the 787 at 9-across in standard economy. One or two airlines may fly the A350 at 10-across in standard economy but the rest are at 9-across. So the comparison at 9-across is fair and totally relevant.

scbriml wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Would anyone who designed the 777 foresaw it being used in a 10 abreast config? I would think no, but 10 abreast 777 is now the new norm despite largely being a 9 abreast plane for the first 10 years of service (approx), and who knows, the 350 will be a similar story, albeit they went 10 abreast pretty early on with a small handful of carriers.

The 777 is not relevant to the comparison of the 787 and A350 at 9-across (which is the subject of this thread). What may or may not happen in the future is not relevant either. Today, AFAIK, all airlines except for one are flying the 787 at 9-across in standard economy. One or two airlines may fly the A350 at 10-across in standard economy but the rest are at 9-across. So the comparison at 9-across is fair and totally relevant.

The plane itself may not be relevant, but the trends are likely to be.

May we agree to disagree.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Well, If you consider 0.55 inches per seat "significant" in terms of shoulder width then sure. The seats in both ACAPS are only 0.51 inches different in total (59.6 for the 787 and 60.11 for the A350).

I recently flew an A380, A330 and 787 in quick succession. To my surprise, despite the apparently marginal statistics, the only seat I felt was narrow was the 787. definitely noticeable.

seahawk wrote:

zeke wrote:

People do not care if its cheap enough.

Maybe. I think we will soon see an economy basic class being introduced that will define the bottom line. Making standard economy worse is reaching a point where it is damaging the reputation for legacy carriers. If this happens it might be a chance for Airbus to gain a small advantage.
You can not make it worth than 3-3-3 on a 787 and 3-4-3 on a 777, while you could do 3-3-3 on an A330 and maybe even 3-4-3 on an A350 for the basic economy rows. The other options is that airlines are forced to remove some seats in the Boeings so that they have more rows of 2-4-2 / 3-3-3 for the basic economy product. In both cases the difference in seats changes in Airbus favour.

Oh my lord....17" isn't "making it worse". It's the same seat width that's been around forever. It's the standard seat width of the 747, which has been around since the 60's, so when people clamor on about how the 9 abreast 787 has introduced an all new level of torture to the traveling public, they are blowing it out of their nether regions. It's the same width that has always been used on the 737 and the 757.

EK's entire 777 fleet uses 17ish" seats, and it worked out so well, that 10 abreast is the Y standard across the board, with very few exceptions. Remember...this occurred when there were plenty of long haul 18" seats on 330's and 340's, and people still flocked to EK, which goes to show there is a lot more to airline comfort than seat width.

EK would love to fill a bunch more 380's so if the 777's seat width sucked so bad, they would sell their whole lot of the fleet and not bother ordering any more.

Sure, every bit of extra seat room is good, but some are obsessed with the difference in seat width, even though the marketplace continuously shows that it is nowhere near one of the main determining factors of Y class purchasing decisions. Pitch is a much bigger deal...as is ticket price, AVOD, service, schedule, FF benefits. Seat design definitely makes more of a difference for comfort than the, usually, less than one inch difference in seat width.

scbriml wrote:

The 777 is not relevant to the comparison of the 787 and A350 at 9-across (which is the subject of this thread). What may or may not happen in the future is not relevant either. Today, AFAIK, all airlines except for one are flying the 787 at 9-across in standard economy. One or two airlines may fly the A350 at 10-across in standard economy but the rest are at 9-across. So the comparison at 9-across is fair and totally relevant.

Of course the 777 is relevant...as is any other long haul aircraft with seats the same width as those on the 787 and 350, since they serve as real life examples from which we can draw data, since the question at hand is about seat width.

We're obviously not going to settle the topic of whether the ~.5 inches really matters. It's personal preference - de gustibus non disputadem.

What's interesting to me is the fact that there is a variety of preferences.
Crucial point:

If only 20% of pax develop a strong preference for the A350, that would really challenge 787 operators.

If, as I laid out, the A350 looks like a good or even neutral capacity/efficiency tradeoff versus the 787-9 when both are at 9ab, then the added market risk of the 787's seats would seem to tip the balance towards the A350.

This could all change mid-2020's when I expect a 787NEO (to which Airbus will respond). Then the A350's slight advantage in engine tech will disappear, and maybe the arithmetic starts to tip back towards the 787.(Of course re-engine will also negate the 777x's engine tech advantage. I just want to raise that preemptively against making this an A v. B thing, don't want to discuss it further).

jeffrey0032j wrote:

How about the 10 abreast A350 that is entering service soon, that is a much fairer comparison as the 787 was designed as an 8 abreast plane, so we should be comparing the "tight squeeze" version of the 787 with the "tight squeeze" version of the A350.

I think you will find that while opinions may differ the 787 wasn't designed with 8-abreast in Y in mind. I think that was just a nice way to obfuscate their way to claim that the 787 is the most comfortable design ever. The 9-abreast was always in the minds of the designers as this is the only way they could claim the most economic design moniker as well and as we know economics rule the roost so 9-abreast was the design of the 787.

Airbus mind you went for probably the smallest cabin width to fit 18" seats into for the A350. That is why when you look at the numbers it is only 6" wider than the 787. But the design that was on the minds were always the 18" seat width in Y. Boeing has claimed the better economics (less drag for the fuselage) but they have not won the comfort stakes, no matter how much posters will try to tell you its fine. It really isn't.

...to add another meta-ish thought...

Boeing's product strategy has seemed more aggressive in pursuing efficiency against the limits of minimal Y pax standards. 787 and 777 typically offer less space in Y than A330/350/380. The decision to build from the legacy 777 fuselage rather than do a clean sheet implicitly and necessarily continues this strategy, though of course it is probably not sufficient to explain the 777x launch.

When fuel was dear, this looked like the right approach versus a more conservative Airbus strategy of foregoing some possible efficiency margin to avoid alienating Y pax.
The more aggressive strategy carried more risk of course. Cheaper fuel and more efficient airline practices might make more comfort/efficiency tradeoffs feasible for more Y pax. The back of the plane is still, after all, populated by a highly privileged and wealthy demographic by global standards.

Each OEM made its choices against imperfect information and were making making, basically, multi-billion dollar bets. I'm simply raising the prospect that Boeing may end up losing this bet, perhaps very badly.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord....17" isn't "making it worse". It's the same seat width that's been around forever. It's the standard seat width of the 747, which has been around since the 60's, so when people clamor on about how the 9 abreast 787 has introduced an all new level of torture to the traveling public, they are blowing it out of their nether regions. It's the same width that has always been used on the 737 and the 757.

I meant you can not squeeze in another seat in the 3-3-3 787 or 3-4-3 777, you can squeeze in another seat in the 2-4-2 A330 and the 3-3-3 A350, although the seats that result from this are worse than the seats in the 787. I personally find the 3-3-3 787 just fine and due to the windows and better and clean air, I prefer it over any other aircraft.

Seat width is irrelevant compared to desired plane capacity ( from the airlines POV).There is (obviously) no point whatsoever in adding a whole row of additional seats if you did not think you could fill (most of) them regularly.So the airlines are choosing to fly the 787 at a higher capacity as they believe they can fill these seats (whether they be 17 or 18 inch).
In terms of offering Y pax comfort no one has tried harder over the years than Boeing.The 747 was initially marketed with one fewer seats across at 18 plus ins (oh and a piano bar!).The 777 was marketed at X9 at 18.5 ins and the same was true of the 787.But in every case the airlines chose to go for higher capacity and reduced width seats.
My favourite Y seat was Air Canada 773's at X9 but now sadly gone.The last (IMHO) aircraft that still offers real old style comfort for Y is of course the 380.Since the plane is too big already I can't see this changing which is a relief.
It will be interesting to see the 777x seats when they are revealed.

seahawk wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord....17" isn't "making it worse". It's the same seat width that's been around forever. It's the standard seat width of the 747, which has been around since the 60's, so when people clamor on about how the 9 abreast 787 has introduced an all new level of torture to the traveling public, they are blowing it out of their nether regions. It's the same width that has always been used on the 737 and the 757.

I meant you can not squeeze in another seat in the 3-3-3 787 or 3-4-3 777, you can squeeze in another seat in the 2-4-2 A330 and the 3-3-3 A350, although the seats that result from this are worse than the seats in the 787. I personally find the 3-3-3 787 just fine and due to the windows and better and clean air, I prefer it over any other aircraft.

Ah....I get it. Still, I think it's worth pointing out that 17" long haul seats aren't a new phenomena...they have been the standard for a very long time...long enough for passengers to have been able to choose between 17 and 18" long haul...and they still seem to be choosing with their wallets.

This same conversation was running rampant when EK went 10 abreast in their 777's more than a decade ago. It was going to ring their death knell. Instead, it turns out they read the tea leaves correctly and popularized what turned out to be the new 777 standard.

JoeCanuck wrote:

17" long haul seats aren't a new phenomena...they have been the standard for a very long time...long enough for passengers to have been able to choose between 17 and 18" long haul...and they still seem to be choosing with their wallets.

This same conversation was running rampant when EK went 10 abreast in their 777's more than a decade ago. It was going to ring their death knell. Instead, it turns out they read the tea leaves correctly and popularized what turned out to be the new 777 standard.

I don't think we have sufficient data to make this judgment. You're sort of assuming that EK's decision to go 10ab was "free" from a RASM perspective. Likewise with any 10ab operator. That simply can't be true - otherwise airlines like SQ and KE are leaving money on the table. Maybe they don't notice that they could fit another seat?

CX's decision to go 10ab on 777 was made pursuant to a long market study. Surely that market evaluated the impact on RASM versus CASM or revenue versus cost - however you want to phrase it. Surely JAL made the same evaluation in its decision to stay 8ab with its 787's.

That passengers vote with their wallets doesn't tell us everything we need to know. What entices those votes? And if it's lower fares, is it worth it? Regarding the 10ab 777, most airlines find the tradeoff "worth it." Ok, so a 10ab 777 is generally more profitable than a 9ab 777.

What we don't yet know is whether a 9ab A350 is generally more profitable than a 9ab 787, or vice versa. It took a decade for the industry to figure out the 777 question; a similar process may unfold for the 787/A350. Pretending there's no potential tradeoff, no issue here, just won't do.

Group51 wrote:

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Well, If you consider 0.55 inches per seat "significant" in terms of shoulder width then sure. The seats in both ACAPS are only 0.51 inches different in total (59.6 for the 787 and 60.11 for the A350).

I recently flew an A380, A330 and 787 in quick succession. To my surprise, despite the apparently marginal statistics, the only seat I felt was narrow was the 787. definitely noticeable.

The 18 inch seats on the A330 and A380 are different to the 18 inch seats on the A350. The A350 seats uses a thinner armrests whereas the 787,A330 and A380 uses the same width armrest hence the narrower seat on the 787.

enzo011 wrote:

Airbus mind you went for probably the smallest cabin width to fit 18" seats into for the A350. That is why when you look at the numbers it is only 6" wider than the 787. But the design that was on the minds were always the 18" seat width in Y. Boeing has claimed the better economics (less drag for the fuselage) but they have not won the comfort stakes, no matter how much posters will try to tell you its fine. It really isn't.

Actually it was designed for 17.5 inch seats at 9 abreast, which was supposed to be their high efficiency(or in other words, high density) configuration.
See here

Airplanes with narrow seats:

Boeing 737 - 17"
Boeing 747 - 17"
Boeing 757 - 17"
Boeing 777 10x - 17"
Boeing 787 8x - 17"

Anyone see a pattern here? The cramped planes seem to come from one manufacturer...

I've flown on the 787 in Y on several different airlines and found that some are worse than others. The seats are definitely narrower, so if you're sitting with fat or broad shouldered people, it's not going to be pretty. One thing is that some airlines insist on using archaic entertainment boxes above the floor (BA/QR, for example) which restrict your space even further.

Boeing really should have made the plane either a bit narrower, so that 9 abreast wasn't possible, or a bit wider, giving it wide enough seats. It's a great plane to fly if you're not in Y.

Matt6461 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

17" long haul seats aren't a new phenomena...they have been the standard for a very long time...long enough for passengers to have been able to choose between 17 and 18" long haul...and they still seem to be choosing with their wallets.

This same conversation was running rampant when EK went 10 abreast in their 777's more than a decade ago. It was going to ring their death knell. Instead, it turns out they read the tea leaves correctly and popularized what turned out to be the new 777 standard.

I don't think we have sufficient data to make this judgment. You're sort of assuming that EK's decision to go 10ab was "free" from a RASM perspective. Likewise with any 10ab operator. That simply can't be true - otherwise airlines like SQ and KE are leaving money on the table. Maybe they don't notice that they could fit another seat?

CX's decision to go 10ab on 777 was made pursuant to a long market study. Surely that market evaluated the impact on RASM versus CASM or revenue versus cost - however you want to phrase it. Surely JAL made the same evaluation in its decision to stay 8ab with its 787's.

That passengers vote with their wallets doesn't tell us everything we need to know. What entices those votes? And if it's lower fares, is it worth it? Regarding the 10ab 777, most airlines find the tradeoff "worth it." Ok, so a 10ab 777 is generally more profitable than a 9ab 777.

What we don't yet know is whether a 9ab A350 is generally more profitable than a 9ab 787, or vice versa. It took a decade for the industry to figure out the 777 question; a similar process may unfold for the 787/A350. Pretending there's no potential tradeoff, no issue here, just won't do.

We have lots of data on seat width...decades worth. Most people couldn't tell a 350 from a forklift from the seat. There is nothing particularly unique about the 350 v. 787 comparison that hasn't already been made in the marketplace. As mentioned, we have the 777 as the best example of all. Basically, in making a comparison about a single variable, it's best to have the fewest variables as possible. Well....with the 777, we have 9 abreast and 10 abreast, and both happening at the same time.

Now, airlines aren't charities. They operate on profit, so they are inclined to go with whatever configuration works best for them. EK took a chance on 10 abreast, and they packed their planes. The exact same argument we're having now between 787/350 9 abreast, took place, (and is still going on), between 777 9 and 10 abreast.

Passengers were going to stay away in hordes because of the much more comfortable 330's, 340's, and 9 abreast 777's. Well...it turns out that putting those extra seats in, allowed them to charge a little less for a ticket and still fill their now, higher capacity, aircraft. After a few years of this, the rest of the airlines, (with a few exceptions), followed suit.

There were lots of 18 Y seats to be had, but EK never had any problem filling their planes. In fact, they did so well, they pretty much forced their neighbor, EY to go 10 abreast in their 777 fleet. EY had been charging more for more room, but found they were losing out, and went to the dark side...as did most of the 777 world.

What this did, is create a need for those who just won't, at any price, fly on a 10 abreast 777....and so, Y+ came into being. Now, airlines and passengers get the best of both worlds; they can have cheapo 10 abreast tickets, or they can pay a bit more, (but still less than J), for a bit more room.

People seem to forget that 9 abreast in a 787 is strictly for Y passengers...the ones who are far and away the most 'price first' buyers of airline tickets. Any penny saved on an airline ticket, can be spent on the vacation. Maybe the price difference between 18" and 17" is $50. That's a couple of scuba lessons, or a few buckets of beer, or a gondola ride. 50 bucks is 50 bucks.

Regardless...there is plenty of data available, if one is willing to extrapolate a bit. The difference in cabin width between the 787 and 350 is 4 whole inches...spread across 9 seats. With the 777, it should have been even more clear cut, and there, at least, the smaller seats won. Hell, I have yet to find a non av geek who could tell the difference in cabin width between a 737 and 320, (7 inches across 6 seats), and yes...as a curious guy and an A.net geek, I've asked.

One thing to consider is that if 350 seats are so much more super duper than 787 Y seats, they won't have a need for a Y+ section, right? I'll be curious how that works out.

bgm wrote:

Anyone see a pattern here? The cramped planes seem to come from one manufacturer...

I know....it's amazing they managed to survive this long. It's almost as if it's not a huge issue with most Y passengers.

JoeCanuck wrote:

18" seats on 330's and 340's, and people still flocked to EK, which goes to show there is a lot more to airline comfort than seat width.

At the start starting new markets low price, dump capacity, low yield, high volume. And now they have pulled the 77W off a lot of their long haul routes and replaced them with A380s.

Matt6461 wrote:

CX's decision to go 10ab on 777 was made pursuant to a long market study. Surely that market evaluated the impact on RASM versus CASM or revenue versus cost - however you want to phrase it.

I am not aware of any decision to go 10 across in the 77W long haul, I am aware of 10 across on the short/medium haul RR powered aircraft, and 10 across on the long haul 777X. The RR powered 777-300 need the additional capacity since the 744 was retired from passenger service. They are already around 400 seats with a regional business class 7 across which is very different from the long haul fleet.

zeke wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

18" seats on 330's and 340's, and people still flocked to EK, which goes to show there is a lot more to airline comfort than seat width.

At the start starting new markets low price, dump capacity, low yield, high volume. And now they have pulled the 77W off a lot of their long haul routes and replaced them with A380s.

Matt6461 wrote:

CX's decision to go 10ab on 777 was made pursuant to a long market study. Surely that market evaluated the impact on RASM versus CASM or revenue versus cost - however you want to phrase it.

I am not aware of any decision to go 10 across in the 77W long haul, I am aware of 10 across on the short/medium haul RR powered aircraft, and 10 across on the long haul 777X. The RR powered 777-300 need the additional capacity since the 744 was retired from passenger service. They are already around 400 seats with a regional business class 7 across which is very different from the long haul fleet.

True...but I imagine there is quite a bit more to their decision than seat width in Y.

Matt6461 wrote:

Crucial point: If only 20% of pax develop a strong preference for the A350, that would really challenge 787 operators.

Yes it could, but we've had seat maps posted on the Internet for a decade and airline booking sites show you the plane you are on and it's comfort levels, yet we have not seen a massive shift (if it's 2% I'll be floored).

Of course, that is likely because the significant majority of customers book on airfare consolidation sites for the lowest price. which doesn't show that information. So you see where the priorities lay with the traveling public.

Those who do book on the airline website are more likely Frequent Flyer program members and while they may book specific frames where they can (I used to book the A320 over the 757 where I could on pmUnited), if that meant a worse block time, or less service or less convenience (connection via non-stop), I'd hold my nose and fly the 757.

bgm wrote:

Airplanes with narrow seats:

Boeing 737 - 17"
Boeing 747 - 17"
Boeing 757 - 17"
Boeing 777 10x - 17"
Boeing 787 8x - 17"

Anyone see a pattern here? The cramped planes seem to come from one manufacturer...

Boeing really should have made the plane either a bit narrower, so that 9 abreast wasn't possible, or a bit wider, giving it wide enough seats. It's a great plane to fly if you're not in Y.

But by not doing that, they offered flexibility to their customers. And that might have in the end won them orders because it improved CASM and CASM is a major influencer in airframe purchases. It also probably helped them keep customers by allowing them to go to denser configurations.

When it was launched, the 787 was an 8-abreast airframe and it was highlighted as being more comfortable than the A330/A340/777. And airlines like NW, CO and BA all announced they would have 8-abreast seating when they ordered. But costs rose and revenues didn't, so they all reversed themselves and went 9-abreast. If they didn't have that option, and taking into account the delays on the 787 program, how many would have cancelled and jumped ship to the A350, choosing a less-comfortable 9-abreast configuration for more revenue generation?

Lord another 787 vs a350 is better thread....
Please... who cares.

People don't care, people most of the time don't know whit which airline they fly, so they don't care a lot about the manufacturer or the plane itself. They fly to destination, they don't fly on planes like we folks do.

777 abreast ?
I take the seats in the bumpy tail any day, ek loves the 777 so much because it's a people mover.

Stitch wrote:

But by not doing that, they offered flexibility to their customers. And that might have in the end won them orders because it improved CASM and CASM is a major influencer in airframe purchases. It also probably helped them keep customers by allowing them to go to denser configurations.

When it was launched, the 787 was an 8-abreast airframe and it was highlighted as being more comfortable than the A330/A340/777. And airlines like NW, CO and BA all announced they would have 8-abreast seating when they ordered. But costs rose and revenues didn't, so they all reversed themselves and went 9-abreast. If they didn't have that option, and taking into account the delays on the 787 program, how many would have cancelled and jumped ship to the A350, choosing a less-comfortable 9-abreast configuration for more revenue generation?

Ah, yes the blame the airline point of view again. So what we have is airlines that decided Boeing should design the airframe that it fits seats at exactly the same width as all their previous designs. We also have the airlines that wanted the most comfortable aircraft with the option of making it uncomfortable. Its the airlines that are putting in the extra seats. Boeing are only the party that give airlines what they want, right?

If anything its Airbus that is actually listening to their customers. They are providing the airframe that is comfortable in Y for passengers. They are also giving the choice of adding an extra seat but that choice comes with the knowledge that you are then really squeezing in the seats into LCC territory. The choice that Boeing gave the airlines was to have seats that are extremely comfortable or "LCC" seating that is the company standard seat widths since the 60's. But its the airlines boys and girls, remember its the airlines fault! Repeat enough times and it will become the truth!

bgm wrote:

Airplanes with narrow seats:

Boeing 737 - 17"
Boeing 747 - 17"
Boeing 757 - 17"
Boeing 777 10x - 17"
Boeing 787 8x - 17"

Anyone see a pattern here? The cramped planes seem to come from one manufacturer...

To be fair, the 777 and 787 seats are the airline's choice, not the plane manufacturer. Until recently the vast majority of 777's operated with 9 abreast 18" wide seats. And 787's were originally designed and markets as 8 abreast with 18+" seats as well. JAL and ANA have a few of those. And there are enough 744 operators with 17.5" and 18" wide seats in Y. Only the narrowbody 737 and 757 can you blame Boeing for the narrow design.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Most people

JoeCanuck wrote:

the rest of the airlines, (with a few exceptions)

JoeCanuck wrote:

50 bucks is 50 bucks.

Ok... And "few people" paying "a little less" can have a big impact on profit margin.

Here's the nub of the issue: We don't know the quantity of people with seat width awareness and preferences, we don't know the strength (in dollar terms) of these preferences, we don't know the fine-grained tradeoffs airlines made in the 77W decision.
You haven't addressed the obvious point that 10ab isn't "free" regarding RASM - else you'd have to argue that SQ and KE, inter alia, are just stupid.

The decision seems clear when we're talking about 10ab 777 versus a 9ab 777: the 10ab is a significantly more efficient plane so in the judgment of most airlines you use 10ab.

Now switch to A350 vs. 787. It's not true here - as with intra-777 comparison - that the tighter plane is clearly more efficient.
Suppose that, setting seat width aside, these planes are basically fungible and equal. I.e. they're not the exact same size, but the A359's marginal capacity can be filled with marginal transfer pax at basically break even. This is a hypothetical, but appears to be the view of lessors.
Now, imagine you're an airline CEO who worries that word will get about the 787's seat width.
Or imagine that Airbus offers you a $1 discount on the A350.
That $1, or a small risk risk, can be the tiebreaker in our hypothetical. Most worrisome for Boeing, it would be the tiebreaker in every such scenario.

The hypothetical doesn't seem far off from reality. It's a reason for concern for Boeing.

enzo011 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

But by not doing that, they offered flexibility to their customers. And that might have in the end won them orders because it improved CASM and CASM is a major influencer in airframe purchases. It also probably helped them keep customers by allowing them to go to denser configurations.

When it was launched, the 787 was an 8-abreast airframe and it was highlighted as being more comfortable than the A330/A340/777. And airlines like NW, CO and BA all announced they would have 8-abreast seating when they ordered. But costs rose and revenues didn't, so they all reversed themselves and went 9-abreast. If they didn't have that option, and taking into account the delays on the 787 program, how many would have cancelled and jumped ship to the A350, choosing a less-comfortable 9-abreast configuration for more revenue generation?

Ah, yes the blame the airline point of view again. So what we have is airlines that decided Boeing should design the airframe that it fits seats at exactly the same width as all their previous designs. We also have the airlines that wanted the most comfortable aircraft with the option of making it uncomfortable. Its the airlines that are putting in the extra seats. Boeing are only the party that give airlines what they want, right?

If anything its Airbus that is actually listening to their customers. They are providing the airframe that is comfortable in Y for passengers. They are also giving the choice of adding an extra seat but that choice comes with the knowledge that you are then really squeezing in the seats into LCC territory. The choice that Boeing gave the airlines was to have seats that are extremely comfortable or "LCC" seating that is the company standard seat widths since the 60's. But its the airlines boys and girls, remember its the airlines fault! Repeat enough times and it will become the truth!

Do you really think that Boeing built the 787, (or any aircraft for that matter), without significant consultation with airlines? They would have long gone under if they decided that it's their way or the highway. Boeing has always had a competitor who was more than willing to step right in if they didn't deliver what the airlines wanted.

Besides, their customers ARE the airlines...not passengers. It's the airlines who have passengers as customers so it's up to them to decided how comfortable they want to make it for the flying public. Boeing didn't put a gun to anyone's head to fit a 787 with 9 abreast and they certainly don't force any passenger to fly on them if they really rather wouldn't.

Passengers have a simple choice; if 17" seats aren't good enough, don't buy tickets that force you to sit in them. Lots of choices out there....knock yourself out.

Matt6461 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Most people

JoeCanuck wrote:

the rest of the airlines, (with a few exceptions)

JoeCanuck wrote:

50 bucks is 50 bucks.

Ok... And "few people" paying "a little less" can have a big impact on profit margin.

Here's the nub of the issue: We don't know the quantity of people with seat width awareness and preferences, we don't know the strength (in dollar terms) of these preferences, we don't know the fine-grained tradeoffs airlines made in the 77W decision.
You haven't addressed the obvious point that 10ab isn't "free" regarding RASM - else you'd have to argue that SQ and KE, inter alia, are just stupid.

The decision seems clear when we're talking about 10ab 777 versus a 9ab 777: the 10ab is a significantly more efficient plane so in the judgment of most airlines you use 10ab.

Now switch to A350 vs. 787. It's not true here - as with intra-777 comparison - that the tighter plane is clearly more efficient.
Suppose that, setting seat width aside, these planes are basically fungible and equal. I.e. they're not the exact same size, but the A359's marginal capacity can be filled with marginal transfer pax at basically break even. This is a hypothetical, but appears to be the view of lessors.
Now, imagine you're an airline CEO who worries that word will get about the 787's seat width.
Or imagine that Airbus offers you a $1 discount on the A350.
That $1, or a small risk risk, can be the tiebreaker in our hypothetical. Most worrisome for Boeing, it would be the tiebreaker in every such scenario.

The hypothetical doesn't seem far off from reality. It's a reason for concern for Boeing.

....and yet, Boeing doesn't seem all that concerned and neither do airlines flying 787's. You're talking in circles. Look...if 9 abreast in a 787 turns out to be just too much for Y passengers to handle, and they all flock to 9 abreast 350's, then I'll grant you that Boeing had reason to fret after all.

So far, the imaginary CEO is buying whatever plane he thinks is best for his airline. You really should be making your points to him because, so far, neither he nor his passengers are buying it. Maybe they are all idiots...who knows?

The formula is simple; airlines spend many billions of dollars buying aircraft they have to live with for decades. Presumably, they do their research, including market data from passengers, before they sign the checks for, not just the aircraft, but to configure them. Sure....sometimes they make bad decisions...but so far, the consensus is that 9 abreast 787's are the way to go...and it seems to be paying off.

As for the quantity of people without seat width awareness...well...if they aren't aware of it by now, they may never be. Long haul 17 inch seats have been around since the late 60's, we're talking almost half a century...so it's not exactly top secret. Airbus has been crowing about wider long haul Y seats since the 330/340....how long has that been?

For some reason, people are getting stuck in the concept that 17 inch seats on a 787 are intolerable torture and 18 inch seats on a 350 are luxury incarnate. Guess what...? They both suck. I've been in plenty of 17 inch seats that were more comfortable than 18 inch seats. Picking the seat width as the prime motivator for Y passenger purchasing motives, is, in my opinion, really, really, really missing the point.

zeke wrote:

People do not care if its cheap enough.

To degree. There is the problem for the airlines of how cheap do they have to go and lose profits. If a trip from Sydney to London costs an extra $100 or or $200 for an A380 vs 10 across 777 I would pick the A380 every time. If the 777 was half the price I would pick the 777 but that's not going to happen.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord....17" isn't "making it worse". It's the same seat width that's been around forever. It's the standard seat width of the 747, which has been around since the 60's, so when people clamor on about how the 9 abreast 787 has introduced an all new level of torture to the traveling public, they are blowing it out of their nether regions. It's the same width that has always been used on the 737 and the 757.

And yet Boeing is spending $millions to add an extra 4 inches cabin width to their 777x, which means they must think it's an issue, otherwise they'd just roll with the current 777 design.

Matt6461 wrote:

CX's decision to go 10ab on 777 was made pursuant to a long market study. Surely that market evaluated the impact on RASM versus CASM or revenue versus cost - however you want to phrase it. Surely JAL made the same evaluation in its decision to stay 8ab with its 787's.

Or perhaps another factor is at play: When first introduced, there were no 10 ab compatible seats which would be accepted by customers on a premium carrier such as CX, but with the advent of slimline seats and IFE solutions which are smaller, giving passengers more space, 10 ab is now seen as acceptable. Although, as Zeke points out, CX isn't implementing 10 ab on long haul 777s.

scbriml wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

I've never actually flown on the 787 myself - specifically for this reason. I recently had an opportunity to do so on long haul but picked a 9ab 777 operator instead. I've heard it's a barely noticeable difference but I'm a bit wider than average and didn't want to risk 13 hours of rubbing shoulders with a stranger.

I've had multiple 787 flights and all at 9-across in economy. It feels tight and slightly claustrophobic despite the other advantages of the 787 (it's very quiet and I love the bigger windows). On one trip with Ethiopian, we got off the 787 and straight on to a 9-across 777 which felt much nicer despite the 'small' windows and worn-out seating.

I haven't flown on the A350, but was able to tour the fully-fitted demo aircraft at Farnborough last year. At 9-across it seems very comfortable and 'airy' and obviously falls between the 787 and 777 all at 9-across. These days it's sadly getting harder and harder to find 777 operators that still fly 9-across in economy, so IMHO the A350 at 9-across may well become the preferred option over 9-across 787s and 10-across 777s.

Isn't it mostly perception due to the aircraft being narrower? I feel slightly claustrophobic when going from a 777 to a 767

Economy is extreemly price sensitieve, so most people don't care if they are in a B787 or A350.

Revelation wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord....17" isn't "making it worse". It's the same seat width that's been around forever. It's the standard seat width of the 747, which has been around since the 60's, so when people clamor on about how the 9 abreast 787 has introduced an all new level of torture to the traveling public, they are blowing it out of their nether regions. It's the same width that has always been used on the 737 and the 757.

And yet Boeing is spending $millions to add an extra 4 inches cabin width to their 777x, which means they must think it's an issue, otherwise they'd just roll with the current 777 design.

At no point did I ever say more space wasn't better, but of all the mods they are doing to the 77X, thinner walls for a few feet off of the deck isn't the toughest to do. Basically, they could, so why not? Besides, maybe that space is going to the aisle, not the seats. Airlines seem to care more for turnarounds than comfort in Y.

My point is that most evidence so far is that 17 inch wide seat equipped aircraft have been just as full as 18 inch wide seats...and there has been lots of both to choose from for quite a long time. Every airline has had a chance to buy and fly either, (and for some, both). AC, for example is going from all Airbus to all Boeing, and they are cramming even more people into their 777's than EK. Their long haul has transitioned from 330's and 340's to 787's and 777's...18" to 17.3"...and they seem to be doing better than ever.

Maybe Boeing and the airlines that fly Boeings are nuts and they are just setting themselves up for a huge crash when the Y public finally wakes up and realizes they can fly like kings with a massive 18 inch seat, instead of being tortured like they have been for the past half a century.

18" wide seats aren't going to make the crappy pitch or AVOD box or the recliner in front of you any easier to deal with...and what do people complain about more; wiggle room for their butt or their knees getting crushed?

I put my faith that the traveling public will mostly get the best ticket deal they can, deal with the crappy flight and spend the money they save on tequila.