JoeCanuck wrote:

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

You're forgetting your own "50 bucks is 50 bucks" maxim. At what yields are these seats full? AFAIK no airline flies A380's at lower load factors, for instance, the deleterious impact is on yield.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Boeing doesn't seem all that concerned and neither do airlines flying 787's

Nearly all 787/A350 occurred before A350 EIS - i.e. before the fine-grained characteristics of both A/C were clear. If there will be or has been a shift in market evaluation of the two types based on fine-grained analysis of post-EIS stats and relative consumer preference, it is far too early to tell.

I'm making a hypothetical argument about what could happen on the margins. I'm not auguring doom for the 787 or announcing the A350's triumph.
You're spending a lot of time to say there is NO issue, not even a potential one.
That's the typical dynamic here on a.net - we want a bombastic, black/white conclusion.
If you want to have this kind of black/white argument, if you want to think that everything has to be big and dramatic, there are plenty of people here who will take you. I ain't your guy.

enzo011 wrote:

...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.

We have to remember that B could not realistically make the 787 cabin width closer to the 777's (231 inch) 15 years ago when it was conceived, otherwise they would be telling customers that the 787 versions beyond 788 were a replacement of at least the 772ER which was still selling well...777 only in service for 7 or 8 years at the time and B still had high hopes for the 77L. The 787 always had to be one less seat across in Y than 777 -- to be a more efficient 767/A330 with "game changing" longer-range. They should have made it a inch or two narrower to avoid 9-across except for crazy charter cattle class, but...

...I believe I heard at the time (on A.net ?) that the launch customers (primarily ANA) got dibs on the seating design...long haul 787 would be 8-across and Japanese domestic 9-across. Somehow we fools believed that 9-across would not become the standard.

I wonder how the 77X "sculpted" cabin will make 10-across feel (235 inch ??)...also I don't believe 17 inch seats are the de-facto B standard, maybe for a few hours on a 737/757...but wasn't 747 initially 9-across in Y ? ...Nobody has to admit how old they are if they remember

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.

I travelled on the 787-10 on AirNZ 2 years ago straight after a Lufthansa A380. The 787 had some nice touches, big windows, electronic shades etc but overall was disappointed. It was quite cramped and as opposed to others I found it to be very noisy. I was sat rear of the engines, similar position to the A380, and was astonished that I could hardly hear the entertainment system.

JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

But what's changed since the late 60's? More people travelling on longer distance flights. More people flying on multiple long haul flights each year. Passenger health issues identified in respect to longer duration flights, with increased risk in smaller seats. Increased average size of the human body. Social media.

QuarkFly wrote:

We have to remember that B could not realistically make the 787 cabin width closer to the 777's (231 inch) 15 years ago when it was conceived, otherwise they would be telling customers that the 787 versions beyond 788 were a replacement of at least the 772ER which was still selling well...777 only in service for 7 or 8 years at the time and B still had high hopes for the 77L. The 787 always had to be one less seat across in Y than 777 -- to be a more efficient 767/A330 with "game changing" longer-range. They should have made it a inch or two narrower to avoid 9-across except for crazy charter cattle class, but...

...I believe I heard at the time (on A.net ?) that the launch customers (primarily ANA) got dibs on the seating design...long haul 787 would be 8-across and Japanese domestic 9-across. Somehow we fools believed that 9-across would not become the standard.

I wonder how the 77X "sculpted" cabin will make 10-across feel (235 inch ??)...also I don't believe 17 inch seats are the de-facto B standard, maybe for a few hours on a 737/757...but wasn't 747 initially 9-across in Y ? ...Nobody has to admit how old they are if they remember

If Boeing wanted to design a true 8-abreast Y cabin with LCC 9-abreast they could have gone slightly wider than the A330. Then as you post the capacities would have been no threat to the 777 and only the true LCCs would have gone 9-abreast in Y. So maybe I have it all wrong, it is Boeing that is the most concerned about Y passengers as they were looking at the most comfortable Y in LCC configuration. They were looking after the little guy after all I guess. Those few LCC long haul operators surely have lots more clout than the legacy airlines.

JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

I have asked this before, do airlines ask for a 17" Y seat or do they ask for an aircraft in a segment of the market? We have in this case either Boeing or Airbus that will be "going under" as you post, because either Airbus isn't listening to their customers when they offer 18" wide seats in Y or Boeing isn't listening. Which one is it in this case?

I find your reasoning about 17" seats being fine because aircraft are full a little simple. If the only choice is a 17" seat it doesn't mean people are approving of the seat choices. Or if you want to look at it this way, the less comfortable 737 has been losing market share since the A320 has been on sale. Is this a rejection of the 17" wide seats?

Revelation wrote:

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.

I guess they are just wasting money on adding the extra space because 18" Y seats is all just marketing from Airbus and obviously airlines haven't asked for more space.

Revelation wrote:
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.



I guess they are just wasting money on adding the extra space because 18" Y seats is all just marketing from Airbus and obviously airlines haven't asked for more space.

I don't believe that Boeing deciding to offer a slightly wider cabin on the 77X is necessarily an admission on their part that Airbus is right about "18 inch seats or bust". I also don't believe it is because passengers are refusing to accept the 777 in its current "cramped" form.

Boeing are doing a significant overhaul, upgrade and update of one of their products.

A Mercedes Benz S-Class or BMW 7 Series is larger than most people need as it is but guess what? When a new version of these cars is designed, it is designed to be longer, taller, wider and have more of the space that people weren't even using the first time around.

Same with all of our smartphones. Galaxy S8 and iPhone 8 will have new and better features than the current S7 and iPhone 7 just because...

It is all about progressing and moving forward. About offering something more, something different from what has come before in order to justify and validate the existence of the thing that supersedes what came before.

I believe Airbus at some point was also interested in contouring the interior of the A330neo to offer a wider cabin. I do not have any source but I did read it once. If anyone has a link regarding this, please share it with us.

And besides, the difference in seat width between the 787 and A350 is really not as large as people claim.
1.5 inch armrests:
787 offers 17.47 inch seats and 20 inch aisles
A350 offers 18 inch seats and 20 inch aisles

2 inch armrests:
787 offers 17 inch seats and 19 inch aisles
A350 offers 17.53 inches and 19 inch aisles

Also, Airbus is always championed for looking out for Y pax and offering luxuriously wide seats on a.net. However, compared to the A330, the cabin of the A350 is only +-12 inches wider. That 12 inches is used to add 19.5-20 inches of extra seat and armrest. That equates to Airbus depriving each pax of +-1 inch - more than the difference sacrificed between 787 and A350.

Boeing is always accused of subjecting pax to 1960's era seat width on their aircraft. One of the most iconic and important long haul Boeing aircraft from that era is the 747 with its circa-17 inch seats. Cabin width on the 747 is 239.5 inches.

At 10-abreast, seat width with 1.5 armrests and 20 inch aisles I get 17.9 inches.
At 10-abreast, seat width with 2 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles I get 17.45 inches.

The point? The A350 offers almost the same per Y seat comfort level as Boeing's ancient 1960's designed 747 and only 3% more width per seat than Boeing's modern torture machine - the 787.

grbauc wrote:

Isn't it mostly perception due to the aircraft being narrower?

It's not "mostly perception", it's reality.

My clearest experience was moving from an ET 787 at 9-across to an ET 777 also at 9-across. ET even had exactly the same seats on the 787 as the 777. The 787 was noticeably more cramped and the bigger windows couldn't overcome that. If the 777 had been 10-across, it would probably have felt about the same as the 787.

zeke wrote:

People do not care if its cheap enough.

I can confirm it mattered on 5 long haul flights (2 to go), because I decided my self . To be honest they were not only 787s but also 10 abreast 777s I avoided. The aircraft I moved to were A380, 9 abreast 777 and 8 abreast A330. Lets hope for the airlines using "efficient" 9 abreast 787 / 10 abreast 10, I am and remain the only one..

The issue with narrow seats I experience is the guy(s) next to me have one too & lean over and the aisle are so narrow I avoid them when I have no choice. The shoulder issue is where it bothers the most for me. Except when reduced knee room / "slim" seats are in the mix too.



The sad part is the airlines have little alternatives. Going back to 8 abreast on the 787 or 9 abreast on the 777 is a "no go" financially.
That leaves perception management as the tool to invest in. Boost advantages (new, large window, air pressure, great IFE) to avoid it's a smaller seat.
And fight off pictures of full cabins ("privacy") and any product comparisons ("incorrect" because differ per airline) .

Last year I was on the phone with an airline to ask if the flight I considered already had the new 10 abreast on the 777-200ER. When they confirmed and I told I would select the competitors A380 flight then,the airline guy on the other side told me; but that flight is 10 abreast too!

I've flown both on 17" and 18", and frankly I cannot tell the difference at all. I still have a lot of wiggle room, even on 17" seat. Mind you though, I'm an Asian and here we're slimmer.
The main problem is, people are getting bigger and bigger. 17" seat was there for quite a long time. Back then, 17" wasn't a problem because people aren't big enough to feel extremely uncomfortable with that kind of seat width. Now, the story is different. I don't have average waist size handy, but I figure that people in developed world are getting wider. That makes the seat that should've been enough suddenly becomes too small.
In short, my opinion is the problem underlies in lifestyle most people eat in developed countries, where they eat junk food and becoming lazier and fatter. If people are healthier, achieving more ideal weight, I think 17" seat shouldn't be a problem.

I normally travel in business. So economy seat really does not bother me.

But having just flown A350 twice in last 2 weeks. My impressions are generally more negative.

Things that bothered me

1. The trash can lid in the rest room. Who is the right mind would ask for a electronic sensing trash lid? Especially one that does not work well. The old foot stomp works great on 777 and 787. Why go electronics if the implementation is so bad.

2. I hated the windows on A350 especially right after flying 787-9. I love the electric shades and size of windows. Love the ability to adjust the lights coming in from outside.

3. I also hated the toilet lid design. 787-9 has separate tabs that is easy to grab and lift. The A350 has a dent in the middle that is too shallow and hard to grab. Bad design.

4. I am not sure reason why. But sleeping in A350 caused me to have more gas and feels much drier. I could not sleep well on A350 as compare to 787.

Overall my impression on A350 is largely negative. Kind of sad, i actually flew SQ to experience the A350.

chiawei wrote:

I normally travel in business. So economy seat really does not bother me.

But having just flown A350 twice in last 2 weeks. My impressions are generally more negative.

Things that bothered me

1. The trash can lid in the rest room. Who is the right mind would ask for a electronic sensing trash lid? Especially one that does not work well. The old foot stomp works great on 777 and 787. Why go electronics if the implementation is so bad.

2. I hated the windows on A350 especially right after flying 787-9. I love the electric shades and size of windows. Love the ability to adjust the lights coming in from outside.

3. I also hated the toilet lid design. 787-9 has separate tabs that is easy to grab and lift. The A350 has a dent in the middle that is too shallow and hard to grab. Bad design.

4. I am not sure reason why. But sleeping in A350 caused me to have more gas and feels much drier. I could not sleep well on A350 as compare to 787.

Overall my impression on A350 is largely negative. Kind of sad, i actually flew SQ to experience the A350.

So you hate a lot of stuff on the A350 but didn't fly either the 787 Seat width @9ab or A350 economy?

chiawei wrote:

I normally travel in business. So economy seat really does not bother me.

But having just flown A350 twice in last 2 weeks. My impressions are generally more negative.

Things that bothered me

1. The trash can lid in the rest room. Who is the right mind would ask for a electronic sensing trash lid? Especially one that does not work well. The old foot stomp works great on 777 and 787. Why go electronics if the implementation is so bad.

2. I hated the windows on A350 especially right after flying 787-9. I love the electric shades and size of windows. Love the ability to adjust the lights coming in from outside.

3. I also hated the toilet lid design. 787-9 has separate tabs that is easy to grab and lift. The A350 has a dent in the middle that is too shallow and hard to grab. Bad design.

4. I am not sure reason why. But sleeping in A350 caused me to have more gas and feels much drier. I could not sleep well on A350 as compare to 787.

Overall my impression on A350 is largely negative. Kind of sad, i actually flew SQ to experience the A350.

It is this attention to detail that sets Boeing apart from the rest. And one must never forget the clean air in the Dreamliner. One feels so much fitter after a 787 flight, compared to breathing engine exhaust for hours.

Planesmart wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

But what's changed since the late 60's? More people travelling on longer distance flights. More people flying on multiple long haul flights each year. Passenger health issues identified in respect to longer duration flights, with increased risk in smaller seats. Increased average size of the human body. Social media.

The other thing that has changed is: Choice.

In the 70's and 80's for long haul their was only ever one or two carriers on a route (maybe three or four with additional connections), and they all flew the sameplanes with the same density anyway. Now, with a connection (and often without) you can find almost always find a choice of configurations. To the original question of which passengers actually care... Infrequent travellers/tourists on a budget, indeed do not care. Regular travellers/business travellers who have to follow a travel Policy do care - a lot. I fly a few dozen long hauls a year and whilst I avoid the 777 10x, I will no longer fly the 787 in Eco, tried three times with three different Airlines, Never again, most of my colleagues feel the same (and in my company we are a few hundred with similar travel patterns,- and my company is nowhere near being on the Forbes list).

I suspect that more and more regular/business travel Policy restricted passengeers will be avoiding the 787 at all costs, especially as it is easy to find an alternative. Most importantly, business people in Eco are part of Airlines bread and butter, I probably pay 2-3 times more for a ticket than leisure travellers (last minute, flexibility, etc.), so losing "our" business - that of the regular, slightly more knowledgeable traveller - will hurt Airlines....

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

.[/quote]

So so true, thank you. People are really being carried away with this "one-inch war". Some are really obsessed and fixated over it, especially (or exclusively?) here on A.Net. As if Y was not Y already. As if 10-abreast on a 747 was luxury!
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it: if we really want to go down the way of measuring everything with a tape, how about talking legroom instead? Now that is -for me at least- a much more defining measure for comfort, especially for long-haul. Happy to fly on a 10-across A350 if legroom is adequate. Unhappy about a 7-across 767 with tight legroom and a cumbersome IFE-box parked between my feet.
And then there's service level, IFE, quietness of the cabin, crew attitude...etc. etc. I just don't define an airline/flight/aircraft simply by the amount of abreast seating that it offers. Give me an EK 777 any day over a UA 767.

The main problem is, people are getting bigger and bigger. Now, the story is different. I don't have average waist size handy, but I figure that people in developed world are getting wider

.

Not everywhere....

In short, my opinion is the problem underlies in lifestyle most people eat in developed countries, where they eat junk food and becoming lazier and fatter. If people are healthier, achieving more ideal weight, I think 17" seat shouldn't be a problem

.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with you! Healthy eating and a exercising!

chiawei wrote:

I normally travel in business. So economy seat really does not bother me.

But having just flown A350 twice in last 2 weeks. My impressions are generally more negative.

Things that bothered me

1. The trash can lid in the rest room. Who is the right mind would ask for a electronic sensing trash lid? Especially one that does not work well. The old foot stomp works great on 777 and 787. Why go electronics if the implementation is so bad.

2. I hated the windows on A350 especially right after flying 787-9. I love the electric shades and size of windows. Love the ability to adjust the lights coming in from outside.

3. I also hated the toilet lid design. 787-9 has separate tabs that is easy to grab and lift. The A350 has a dent in the middle that is too shallow and hard to grab. Bad design.

4. I am not sure reason why. But sleeping in A350 caused me to have more gas and feels much drier. I could not sleep well on A350 as compare to 787.

Overall my impression on A350 is largely negative. Kind of sad, i actually flew SQ to experience the A350.

A350 has the same air/humidity management system that 787 has, the level of humidity should be around the same for both airplanes. Perhaps you didn't fall asleep because of something else?

Anyways, it is only natural that some prefer one type over the other, I haven't got the chance to try he A350 yet, so I will save my opinion until then. However, among all the professional and nonprofessional reviews that I have read, yours is the first that I happen to read and find it largely negative. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing is perfect I suppose.

JoeCanuck wrote:

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?

Tall people will complain about pitch. Wide people will complain about seat width. American's will complain about both

Planesmart wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

But what's changed since the late 60's? More people travelling on longer distance flights. More people flying on multiple long haul flights each year. Passenger health issues identified in respect to longer duration flights, with increased risk in smaller seats. Increased average size of the human body. Social media.

The statement of " long haul 17" seats since the 60's" is misleading. Yes, the 707 had 17" wide seats but when was the last time you flew on one?
Most if not all the 747's were originally 2-4-3 in Y. The DC-10's and the L-1011's were delivered with 2-4-2 seating in Y. And get this: the pitch was 36". Today this is called Y+ LOL It was only in the late 70's to early 80's that the density increased and the seats narrowed. But the pitch remained the same and then they were replaced by 767/777/A330/A340's in the 90's. Only the 747 remained with 17.2" wide seats.

So IMO, for long haul the 17" wide seats have long been made obsolete until a certain airline from the ME decided to bring them back And yes, a lot of other things have changed since the 60's like seat pitch and butt sizes

Matt6461 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

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

You're forgetting your own "50 bucks is 50 bucks" maxim. At what yields are these seats full? AFAIK no airline flies A380's at lower load factors, for instance, the deleterious impact is on yield.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Boeing doesn't seem all that concerned and neither do airlines flying 787's

Nearly all 787/A350 occurred before A350 EIS - i.e. before the fine-grained characteristics of both A/C were clear. If there will be or has been a shift in market evaluation of the two types based on fine-grained analysis of post-EIS stats and relative consumer preference, it is far too early to tell.

I'm making a hypothetical argument about what could happen on the margins. I'm not auguring doom for the 787 or announcing the A350's triumph.
You're spending a lot of time to say there is NO issue, not even a potential one.
That's the typical dynamic here on a.net - we want a bombastic, black/white conclusion.
If you want to have this kind of black/white argument, if you want to think that everything has to be big and dramatic, there are plenty of people here who will take you. I ain't your guy.

Actually, it seems that you are the one looking for drama where none exists. 9 abreast seems to bother you a lot more than the traveling public. I mean, you're spending a lot of time pushing really hard at a hypothetical to support your pre conceived notion when there is plenty of real world data to counter your position. You are stuck in the 787 vs. 350 duopoly as if it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't.

By the way..I never said there was no issue....I said that after years of being able to choose 17 or 18 inch long haul seats, the customers seem content, for the most part, to take whatever seat they can get at the best price they can get. That's what airlines, after their market research have found, which is why they choose 9 abreast 787 seating.

Some of those customers may even know how to use google or have flown before and may actually not be complete morons and they actually might know what they are buying. Maybe they are smart enough to make educated decisions about how they spend their money. It's kind of insulting to assume that all of those people are just plain idiots.

Of course, maybe they just aren't as clever as some people.

Sure, the 350 wasn't around at 787 EIS, but the 330 was...and airlines knew they could have the same seating...yet, even though the two planes have both been flying passengers at the same time, they chose 9 abreast and so far, it seems to be working for them.

Adding the 350 to the mix doesn't change that...but you are free to believe whatever you wish.

zeke wrote:

People do not care if its cheap enough.

I think that people care. More like "People tolerate if its cheap enough"

People here seem to conveniently forget that EK has a 33" pitch in Y which makes a world of difference from the 31" used by US/EU carriers nowadays.

The other issue is people are getting bigger (not the "fat Americans" kind of stereotype) and when the average height is approaching 6' in the developed world then we have an unavoidable shoulder problem.

JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

There is no basis to this argument.
To make a definitive conclusion, you would have to make a profitability comparison between airlines flying the same routes on different configurations.
EK is losing load factors right and left, which begs the question: what good is a 10-abreast if you can't fill at low yields? Fortunately they have the A380 fleet to bring the pax's satisfaction back.

More carriers are venturing into 10-abreast B777 and 9 abreast B787 territory, but are they more profitable for it? Are their customers more happy?
AF is one of the pioneers in 10-abreast B777's and they are neither profitable nor reputable.

After all, doesn't adding those 20 additional seats only make sense if 1. you can fill them and 2. it doesn't take you from having 160 happy pax to having 180 unhappy pax?


QR B787 seat reviews: http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... ar-airways

I have always been very happy flying with Qatar Airways and have used them many times now. But it is not what it has been. You sit too close, there is little leg room and I'm not so tall, 175cm.

Boeing 787, avoid flying on the Boeing 787 in economy. The seat width is terrible, the leg room is inadequate due to IFE boxes and once the seat in front is reclined you can't move in your seat.

Very narrow seats, flew out on QR2 and it was full and felt claustrophobic even though I was in the aisle. Came back on the A330 and seats were much wider.

NH B787 seat reviews http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... n-airways/

I had previously been on the same aircraft type on ANA in the 2x4x2 economy arrangement which was really nice. This new arrangement (3x3x3) is poor. There was much less space and the bassinet / wall design was sculpted making it awkward with reduced space since the cot is mounted low. It has much less space in comparison to their 777 cabin design in a similar seat; or A330/A340 cabin design on another airline. I don't think this narrower width of seat is suitable for long haul travel

I was really looking forward to a nice flight with ANA on Economy from Tokyo HND to Vancouver YVR, but there is a lack of space on the aircraft, especially for a gruelling 8.5 hours.

MUC-HND on B787. The tightest seating configuration I have experienced on a long haul flight. 16.5 inch wide seat and 31' pitch - this has to be the worst. The in-seat screen from the seat in front of me was so close that it was hard to focus. ANA has gone from having one of the most comfortable economy classes to the very worst.

I flew SEA-NRT via 787-8 and was a nice ride. I am Asian male but the seat width was a bit too tight. Seat pitch and recline was more than enough.

This is the smallest long-haul seat I've ever seen (and I fly a lot). It was 10 hours of discomfort (SEA to NRT) and I was in an aisle seat. The seat pitch is the same as or smaller than low-cost- carriers flying short-haul and the seat width is bad too.

BA B787 seat reviews http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... h-airways/

Felt like a monkey in a shrunken cage. Shame on BA for this inhumane treatment. I will never fly with BA again. Leg room is non existent, then wait for panic when the forward passenger reclines. Unable to comfortably eat, as there is no elbow room. No control for individual air flow.

Ridiculously restricted footroom in every other seat as they have massive metal boxes in the foot space, presumably for the inflight entertainment system. (...) I wrote to complain primarily about this and received an apology for the delay in departing - my complaint was ignored or not read. They really don't give a damn about people in economy and they have no qualms about showing it. Most uncomfortable flight I've had in recent years and clearly not something they can and want to change anytime soon so once I've flown the rest of my booked flights I'm done with BA

We flew return on BA from LHR to YYZ on a Boeing 787. The seating was very small. My seatmates are all over 6 ft. The seats in front are very close, the inconsiderate person in front of me immediately reclined the seat to its max. I had to put my book away because between the back of the seat and my face was 9 inches. This was 6+ hours that felt like 18 hours. When I turned on the movie the screen it was so close that I couldn't see the screen. I will never fly BA again.

NZ B787 seat reviews http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... w-zealand/

I was looking forward to flying in this Boeing 787 aircraft from Auckland to Honolulu. (...), but for a new aircraft I now know for sure what cattle class means - very poor uncomfortable seats - I do not think I would like to fly this aircraft again.

NZ also has plenty of bad reviews on their 10-abs B777's. What a surprise.


In contrast:

JAL's B787 reviews

The economy seats we had were very comfortable, even for the long journeys we had. The 787 is a wonderful airplane to fly in. Perhaps it may seem like I am gushing here, but compared to the torture of U.S. airlines, it was nirvana. If I return to the Far East again, this is the airline I am going to use.

I've been flying a lot lately (among many others including Lufthansa, Qatar and Emirates) and I've always been switching airlines. I've finally found my favorite. It's Japan Airlines. From ground service to in-flight to after flight. They were not only extremely friendly, quick and punctual, the seats were comfortable the crew had some humor, the entertainment system was easy to use (no annoying pressing 100 times until the movie plays) and the window brightness could be regulated which was an amazing alternative to the blinds in case one wants to sleep but the other wants to enjoy the view. Controllable sunglasses for the window - first time I saw that. Also they served some nice and good food including Milka chocolate, ice cream from Häagen Dasz and a "Bauer" yoghurt. We all know these are great brands. The service couldn't be better - and always a smile on their face, which makes you feel even better while travelling.

Tokyo Narita to Hanoi. Boarding was orderly and efficient. Due to air traffic congestion in Narita, we departed late.However, we managed to land on time. The crew were polite and efficient. The seat was really comfortable and the IFE were really great. Food was really tasty too. However, the aircraft was a little warm throughout the flight. Overall, a great flight with Japan Airlines.

So stop pretending that the 9-abreast B787 or 10-abreast B777 is the new norm.
I think that these configurations are the perfect reflection of what the airline management thinks about its passengers. Some airlines care and are running a humble and proper business, offering what you pay for, others want to charge you high fares while treating you like a worm.
9-abreast B787 and 10-breast B777 airlines are the shame of this industry and coincidentally very often the least profitable.

I'll summarise it with a question and an answer:
Question: Are they putting such dense configurations because they can't be profitable otherwise, or are they not profitable because they don't know what they're doing, including the choice of aircraft or aircraft configurations?
The only answer: a combination of both.

Waterbomber wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

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.

There is no basis to this argument.
To make a definitive conclusion, you would have to make a profitability comparison between airlines flying the same routes on different configurations.
EK is losing load factors right and left, which begs the question: what good is a 10-abreast if you can't fill at low yields? Fortunately they have the A380 fleet to bring the pax's satisfaction back.

More carriers are venturing into 10-abreast B777 and 9 abreast B787 territory, but are they more profitable for it? Are their customers more happy?
AF is one of the pioneers in 10-abreast B777's and they are neither profitable nor reputable.

After all, doesn't adding those 20 additional seats only make sense if 1. you can fill them and 2. it doesn't take you from having 160 happy pax to having 180 unhappy pax?


QR B787 seat reviews: http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... ar-airways

I have always been very happy flying with Qatar Airways and have used them many times now. But it is not what it has been. You sit too close, there is little leg room and I'm not so tall, 175cm.

Boeing 787, avoid flying on the Boeing 787 in economy. The seat width is terrible, the leg room is inadequate due to IFE boxes and once the seat in front is reclined you can't move in your seat.

Very narrow seats, flew out on QR2 and it was full and felt claustrophobic even though I was in the aisle. Came back on the A330 and seats were much wider.

NH B787 seat reviews http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... n-airways/

I had previously been on the same aircraft type on ANA in the 2x4x2 economy arrangement which was really nice. This new arrangement (3x3x3) is poor. There was much less space and the bassinet / wall design was sculpted making it awkward with reduced space since the cot is mounted low. It has much less space in comparison to their 777 cabin design in a similar seat; or A330/A340 cabin design on another airline. I don't think this narrower width of seat is suitable for long haul travel

I was really looking forward to a nice flight with ANA on Economy from Tokyo HND to Vancouver YVR, but there is a lack of space on the aircraft, especially for a gruelling 8.5 hours.

MUC-HND on B787. The tightest seating configuration I have experienced on a long haul flight. 16.5 inch wide seat and 31' pitch - this has to be the worst. The in-seat screen from the seat in front of me was so close that it was hard to focus. ANA has gone from having one of the most comfortable economy classes to the very worst.

I flew SEA-NRT via 787-8 and was a nice ride. I am Asian male but the seat width was a bit too tight. Seat pitch and recline was more than enough.

This is the smallest long-haul seat I've ever seen (and I fly a lot). It was 10 hours of discomfort (SEA to NRT) and I was in an aisle seat. The seat pitch is the same as or smaller than low-cost- carriers flying short-haul and the seat width is bad too.

BA B787 seat reviews http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... h-airways/

Felt like a monkey in a shrunken cage. Shame on BA for this inhumane treatment. I will never fly with BA again. Leg room is non existent, then wait for panic when the forward passenger reclines. Unable to comfortably eat, as there is no elbow room. No control for individual air flow.

Ridiculously restricted footroom in every other seat as they have massive metal boxes in the foot space, presumably for the inflight entertainment system. (...) I wrote to complain primarily about this and received an apology for the delay in departing - my complaint was ignored or not read. They really don't give a damn about people in economy and they have no qualms about showing it. Most uncomfortable flight I've had in recent years and clearly not something they can and want to change anytime soon so once I've flown the rest of my booked flights I'm done with BA

We flew return on BA from LHR to YYZ on a Boeing 787. The seating was very small. My seatmates are all over 6 ft. The seats in front are very close, the inconsiderate person in front of me immediately reclined the seat to its max. I had to put my book away because between the back of the seat and my face was 9 inches. This was 6+ hours that felt like 18 hours. When I turned on the movie the screen it was so close that I couldn't see the screen. I will never fly BA again.

NZ B787 seat reviews http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-revi ... w-zealand/

I was looking forward to flying in this Boeing 787 aircraft from Auckland to Honolulu. (...), but for a new aircraft I now know for sure what cattle class means - very poor uncomfortable seats - I do not think I would like to fly this aircraft again.

NZ also has plenty of bad reviews on their 10-abs B777's. What a surprise.


In contrast:

JAL's B787 reviews

The economy seats we had were very comfortable, even for the long journeys we had. The 787 is a wonderful airplane to fly in. Perhaps it may seem like I am gushing here, but compared to the torture of U.S. airlines, it was nirvana. If I return to the Far East again, this is the airline I am going to use.

I've been flying a lot lately (among many others including Lufthansa, Qatar and Emirates) and I've always been switching airlines. I've finally found my favorite. It's Japan Airlines. From ground service to in-flight to after flight. They were not only extremely friendly, quick and punctual, the seats were comfortable the crew had some humor, the entertainment system was easy to use (no annoying pressing 100 times until the movie plays) and the window brightness could be regulated which was an amazing alternative to the blinds in case one wants to sleep but the other wants to enjoy the view. Controllable sunglasses for the window - first time I saw that. Also they served some nice and good food including Milka chocolate, ice cream from Häagen Dasz and a "Bauer" yoghurt. We all know these are great brands. The service couldn't be better - and always a smile on their face, which makes you feel even better while travelling.

Tokyo Narita to Hanoi. Boarding was orderly and efficient. Due to air traffic congestion in Narita, we departed late.However, we managed to land on time. The crew were polite and efficient. The seat was really comfortable and the IFE were really great. Food was really tasty too. However, the aircraft was a little warm throughout the flight. Overall, a great flight with Japan Airlines.

So stop pretending that the 9-abreast B787 or 10-abreast B777 is the new norm.
I think that these configurations are the perfect reflection of what the airline management thinks about its passengers. Some airlines care and are running a humble and proper business, offering what you pay for, others want to charge you high fares while treating you like a worm.
9-abreast B787 and 10-breast B777 airlines are the shame of this industry and coincidentally very often the least profitable.

I'll summarise it with a question and an answer:
Question: Are they putting such dense configurations because they can't be profitable otherwise, or are they not profitable because they don't know what they're doing, including the choice of aircraft or aircraft configurations?
The only answer: a combination of both.

I agree with you and must add that many Y class passengers, me being one of them, that are starting to choose which airlines/aircrafts to fly on with comfort in mind. I fly longhaul mainly and would choose an airline that doesn't treat it's Y passengers like cattle. I think you will find more and more people doing this, especially as you can get data on the internet about seating.

I always hear on a.net how the customer is voting with their dollars, that they're going for the lowest bidder, and that they don't know whether they're flying on a 777 or a 787. , So, while the last part may be true, regarding knowledge of aircraft type, there is another factor at play. People absolutely DO remember what airline they flew on. Just like they remember that they like Starbucks coffee or Heinz ketchup. People remember. If they have any amount of money to spare, or if prices are similar, they will choose the one they remember liking. My wife refuses to do KLM long haul now, because she found their 777 Y seats to be unbearable. And, believe me, she is price-conscious, and definitely doesn't know anything about what aircraft she's flying on. She will pay more and fly on AC, because she finds their A330 and 767's to be decent. I'll ask her again when she finds herself on an AC 777 or 787.

Here's another factor that comes into play, re the 1960s seat. Even 10 years ago, it seemed to be commonplace for load factors to be sufficiently low that it was often easy to find a seat with no one next to you. So… 17" seat? Who cares? I remember finding entire rows of 4 or 5 seats and laying down for a horizontal sleep! Those days are gone, I think.

Also, another thought regarding pitch versus width. If you're tall, it's only you who is negatively affected by low pitch. Whereas, with narrow seats, a wide person is uncomfortable, and so are any people next to them. So, I think there's a greater number of people likely to be negatively affected by width versus pitch.

People will bitch and then buy the cheapest ticket again. The only advantage of Airbus is that you could more easily put a economy basic cabin section into it, that is even worse than the standard.

I think the difference is quite noticable, but there are other factors that can make things worse.

For instance, when I flew the QR 787, they had large IFE boxes under all the window and aisle seats. Now, it's already cramped, and these things make things even more cramped. I just don't understand the need for such large IFE boxes. EK A380s have less boxes per row and smaller boxes, yet, their IFE is much more comprehensive. In the QR 787 I couldn't sit straight with my legs straight, which just made the narrow seat experience even worse.

Unfortunately, price and schedule has made me book the 787 again in early March, but I'm hoping that due to it being non-peak season, that I'll score an empty seat next to me.

-CXfirst

seahawk wrote:

People will bitch and then buy the cheapest ticket again. The only advantage of Airbus is that you could more easily put a economy basic cabin section into it, that is even worse than the standard.

And who knows, with long haul LCCs starting to gain momentum, it might be only a matter of time before a premium carrier decides to add this Y- product to their aircraft as a low risk, low investment countermeasure.

Of course, this would make Airbus aircraft more flexible and attractive to airlines and leave Boeing in a 'tight' spot. Pun intended...

MoKa777 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

People will bitch and then buy the cheapest ticket again. The only advantage of Airbus is that you could more easily put a economy basic cabin section into it, that is even worse than the standard.

And who knows, with long haul LCCs starting to gain momentum, it might be only a matter of time before a premium carrier decides to add this Y- product to their aircraft as a low risk, low investment countermeasure.

Of course, this would make Airbus aircraft more flexible and attractive to airlines and leave Boeing in a 'tight' spot. Pun intended...

Yeah, I look forward to when keesje starts a thread asking how Boeing will widen the 787 cabin to allow it to fit 10-abreast to "stop the bleeding" from passengers switching to the A350 at 10-abreast for lower fares.

Was it late Stitch?

Unless you are particularly tiny, or lucky enough to have an empty seat next to you, it does make a difference, posts loudly denying anyone can tell the difference are probably best ignored.

The important question is of course, does that difference have any impact on purchasing behaviour? It's an interesting question, and one I'm sure airlines have data on, andit's a shame a potentially interesting discussion about this is impossible because everyone gets sensitive about perceived criticism of their team.

Although it is absolutely a small difference, I think it has a biggger impact that that implies because it is at a critical point where a small amount more space is the difference between rubbing shoulders, and not rubbing shoulders. It doesn't matter if the difference in width is only half a centimetre, if that is enough to give you a slither of space between you and your neighbour, it will make a huge difference to you comfort, especially over longhaul. that's why I find it a big disingenous to claim that it doesn't matter because it's only a small amount. Personally, I do find it makes a material difference, and I'm not a big guy, 5'11" and 155 lbs.

There is also the fact that frankly we cannot say whether passengers truely care because there is a huge market failure in the airline market. Passengers are not given the information to make an informed decision. When you buy a stereo, or a car, or a computer, do you just get a list of brand names, prices and....nothing else? No, you get the specs to compare the value offerings. Unfortunately, with airline prices customers are not given the information, and it is not particularly easy to find, especially comparing multiple operators - airlines don't publish their seat widths. So it's actually impossible for passengers to state their preference. Anyone interested in an efficient market should be pushing for more transparent information at the purchase stage.

Unfortunately, it is in many airline's interest NOT to make this information available, as they don't want passengers to be aware of their inferior offering. The obvious aim of much of the industry is for passengers to assume 'they're all the same', to dive down any premium the superior airlines can charge. Unfortunately there is increasingly little way for the more comfortable airlines to make passengers aware of their offering, and so the industry as a whole is driven down to the lowest common deonominator, but this is NOT because passengers have chosen this. It's because the market is broken and the airlines don't want to allow passengers to make an informed choice.

Of course, passengers do remember a particular airline and some do still manage to charge a premium for their perceived higher quality. My suspicion is that if price websites provided a few bullet points summarising seat pitch/width there would be some impact on behaviour, particularly on longer flights. And it would be better fro everyone, those who don't care could still book the cheapest, and those who do would find it far easier to find the product that best suits them. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any prospect of this happening any time soon...luckily I know enough that I will always be able to avoid 787 9 across and 777 10 across.

Planetalk wrote:

Unfortunately, with airline prices customers are not given the information, and it is not particularly easy to find, especially comparing multiple operators - airlines don't publish their seat widths. So it's actually impossible for passengers to state their preference. Anyone interested in an efficient market should be pushing for more transparent information at the purchase stage.

Unfortunately, it is in many airline's interest NOT to make this information available, as they don't want passengers to be aware of their inferior offering.

Its pretty easy to find on AC's website, it looks like all of the seat width's pitch's, rows, etc. all seem very easy to find. I only looked at Air Canada because they are the only airline that directly serves us for international travel.

https://beta.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/ho ... fleet.html

JoeCanuck wrote:

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?

The A350 XWB is the first jetliner to have integrated in-flight entertainment systems. Gone is bulky under-seat control boxes that many times block the legroom. Data and power cables etc. are accommodated under the cabin floor.

At same seat pitch the A350 has wider seats and more legroom than the 787 (no IFE boxes). These two things combined allows you to slightly change seating position. When it comes to Y-class passengers comfort only a 8 abreast 787 can compete with a A350. Sad, but true.

Let's assume that airlines are obligated to display the width of their seats on their sites next to offered prices. Now, would that affect the decisions of customers? If yes, then airlines do believe that most people are not knowledgeable about such details.

Eyad89 wrote:

Let's assume that airlines are obligated to display the width of their seats on their sites next to offered prices. Now, would that affect the decisions of customers? If yes, then airlines do believe that most people are not knowledgeable about such details.

This would be very difficult to do given how often there are substitutions for aircraft on specific routes. Ticket pricing has to be one of the most complicated pricing structures ever. I often see discounted business class seats offered for less than full fare economy seats on AC's website,....why, who knows? Do customers purchase the full fare economy when there are cheaper seats up front, I would bet money on it. The bottom line is, informed travelers will make informed decisions based on airlines, service, rewards, frequency, seat pitch etc. The posters on these forums that say they will never fly on a 9 abreast 787 won't because they can make that informed purchase to get the seat they want on the plane they want on the route they want, and at the time they want. Most people that want to get the hell out of the snow and cold for a week will grab the cheapest tickets they can as soon as they can, and hope for the best! And, I think the majority of the travelling public fall into the category of "not that well informed".

RickNRoll wrote:

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.

You can tell the difference between a 777 vs an A380, or even know where to look on the airline website to find such information. Most people couldn't tell you if their flight is on a CRJ or a 747 until they show up to the gate.

And then there's this statistic: 75% of travelers travel via air once per year--Thanksgiving or Christmas. For those people, air travel is a commodity that goes to the lowest bidder.

For the HVF, they are buying business/first class fares where 17" seat with isn't a problem. And those are the people that airlines are chasing. Not the person who choose the 6am flight because it was $50 cheaper, regardless of what plane it's on.

Planetalk wrote:

Unless you are particularly tiny, or lucky enough to have an empty seat next to you, it does make a difference, posts loudly denying anyone can tell the difference are probably best ignored.

I'm 5'11" 164lbs, not tiny by any standards, just normal I just flew on a VS 789 with 31" pitch and 17" wide seats. I felt as comfortable as I ever felt in a Y seat. i really liked those new slim design seats. I had no problems with it whatsoever. I felt skeptical at first but I really wanted to fly on a 787. Now I have no problem going back to it. One disclaimer tho: I was traveling with the family, a group of 3, so touching the person next to me wasn't a problem.

When one of my friends asked me about flying to Japan with her man, I immediately suggested her to take JAL.
So she ended up booking JAL and was amazed by the level of service and the product.
That's how it works in this industry too. The aboriginal telephone is still pretty much alive.


In addition, I think that a big part of airliners.net overrates the power of air fare search engines and underestimates the intelligence of travellers. Air fare search engines are most used by frequent flyers and people who know what they're looking for. Not so much by people who are attracted by flashy internet ads.
Many frequent travellers also search with search engines and book directly with the airline, because if they need a date change, they don't know where they're going to end up on fees with those online travel agencies.
Even annual travellers should not be underestimated. When you have 12 hours to be uncomfortable, you have plenty of time to associate the airline logo and the aircraft type to discomfort. Everyone can read nowadays and everybody can find out the aircraft type just by looking at the safety brochure.

There is also one more factor. New aircraft have tidy cabin designs and the recent "Apple" generation tends to fall for that visual minimalism. I don't know how to explain this well, but basically when a choice is given between a Ikea pressed wood setup and a hardwood oak and leather setup, those who choose the Ikea setup.
Because they don't know what they're looking at. Those who wouldn't mind to book another 2000 USD business class ticket again after being served lentil soup and poultry in a narrow C seat. If some people accept to fly such configurations all the time, it's because they don't know the concept of "bon vivant".
Unfortunately, those people have now penetrated into airline managements, aircraft manufacturers and cabin design companies, and are calling the shots.
If people keep accepting that as the new norm, ina few more rounds of downgrading they're going to inject us with an anesthetic and pile us in containers. Many airliners.net members probably won't mind that.




The problem can even be extended into premium classes, regardless of aircraft type. Lately and out of no-where we have seen the appearance of those narrow business class seats.
Remember when Chew Choon Seng took the camera crew aboard the A380 during first delivery and showed the world those wide business class seats? It almost feels like that was half a century ago.


http://webintravel.com/wp-content/uploa ... s-big3.jpg

Nowadays, you are likely to be shoved into something like this (notice the choice of a "petite" model):


https://i0.wp.com/www.runwaygirlnetwork ... C415&ssl=1

I'm guessing the 787 has a slight CASM advantage over the A350 and the A350 has a slight performance advantage. A359/A35K are larger than 788/789. A350 is more 772/773 sized.

JAL deploys 8-abreast Y on all their 787s and they are a profitable airline. There's enough room in the industry for a niche Y product that's better than the competition. JAL has only 88 Y seats on the 788, and they can fill those because there's enough Y passengers in the markets they serve who care about comfort. In most cases, the lowest price wins.

boilerla wrote:

And then there's this statistic: 75% of travelers travel via air once per year--Thanksgiving or Christmas. For those people, air travel is a commodity that goes to the lowest bidder.

What??? And from where did you pull this statistic? What's your source? Unless you can cite some legitimate research, the best you might be able to say is "many traveler fly only once per year." Some of us might agree with you. Regardless, even if you only fly once, if you've had a bad experience with an airline, you'll try and avoid it in the future.

boilerla wrote:

For the HVF, they are buying business/first class fares where 17" seat with isn't a problem. And those are the people that airlines are chasing. Not the person who choose the 6am flight because it was $50 cheaper, regardless of what plane it's on.

You're neglecting a large swath of people who choose to fly economy for work. Or, there company will only pay for economy. Often, those are high value customers too, because they will pay for full-fare, fully refundable tickets. Especially, this is true for people who want to use upgrade passes. To move up from economy, you can't start from the lowest fare buckets. And let's face it, you don't always get the upgrade.

Planetalk makes a very good point about customers being uninformed. It's true. How is one supposed to make an informed choice, when the information is a challenge to even locate?

It's up to the airline to decide what seating and dimensions go on their aircraft, but in general yes the 787 is going to be less comfortable in than an A350. The 77W 9 abreast is more comfortable than a 9 abreast A359 but with most 77W operators moving to 10 abreast, the A359 is going to become the most comfortable ride in Y. I didn't list the A380 on here as it doesn't really compete with the 787 so its comfort is irrelevant in this discussion

airbazar wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Unless you are particularly tiny, or lucky enough to have an empty seat next to you, it does make a difference, posts loudly denying anyone can tell the difference are probably best ignored.

I'm 5'11" 164lbs, not tiny by any standards, just normal I just flew on a VS 789 with 31" pitch and 17" wide seats. I felt as comfortable as I ever felt in a Y seat. i really liked those new slim design seats. I had no problems with it whatsoever. I felt skeptical at first but I really wanted to fly on a 787. Now I have no problem going back to it. One disclaimer tho: I was traveling with the family, a group of 3, so touching the person next to me wasn't a problem.

Quite a significante disclaimer i nearly included travelling with a partner/significant
other in my original post. As someone who travels alone a lot I guess it's more important to me. As I like aisle seats I hate the narrower aisles too, constant bumping from crew/pax walking around. I've heard a lot of crew complaining about working these planes...

airbazar wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Unless you are particularly tiny, or lucky enough to have an empty seat next to you, it does make a difference, posts loudly denying anyone can tell the difference are probably best ignored.

I'm 5'11" 164lbs, not tiny by any standards, just normal I just flew on a VS 789 with 31" pitch and 17" wide seats. I felt as comfortable as I ever felt in a Y seat. i really liked those new slim design seats. I had no problems with it whatsoever. I felt skeptical at first but I really wanted to fly on a 787. Now I have no problem going back to it. One disclaimer tho: I was traveling with the family, a group of 3, so touching the person next to me wasn't a problem.

I don't often find it a problem to touch the person next to me, its normally them who have the issue... #Locker room talk

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Unless you are particularly tiny, or lucky enough to have an empty seat next to you, it does make a difference, posts loudly denying anyone can tell the difference are probably best ignored.

I'm 5'11" 164lbs, not tiny by any standards, just normal I just flew on a VS 789 with 31" pitch and 17" wide seats. I felt as comfortable as I ever felt in a Y seat. i really liked those new slim design seats. I had no problems with it whatsoever. I felt skeptical at first but I really wanted to fly on a 787. Now I have no problem going back to it. One disclaimer tho: I was traveling with the family, a group of 3, so touching the person next to me wasn't a problem.

I don't often find it a problem to touch the person next to me, its normally them who have the issue... #Locker room talk

Fred

Ah, you're that 200lbs guys that puts his arms on both armrest immediately, put his seat in full recline, plugs in earpods and acts if he's unconscious until catering arrives?

Don't we need to define "seat width" before asking for published "standards"? If there is close to no arm rest and a wide cushion, is that any better than a wider arm rest with a narrower cushion??
In my youth I used to carry a tape measure on planes to measure pitch and seat width. I gave up on the latter very quickly due to the arm rest issue as its more elbow space per se than back end on cushion that IMHO affects comfort most. The two obviously do go together usually but when one is griping about 1/2 to 1 in differences, I still think its the elbow room which is more important.

keesje wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I'm 5'11" 164lbs, not tiny by any standards, just normal I just flew on a VS 789 with 31" pitch and 17" wide seats. I felt as comfortable as I ever felt in a Y seat. i really liked those new slim design seats. I had no problems with it whatsoever. I felt skeptical at first but I really wanted to fly on a 787. Now I have no problem going back to it. One disclaimer tho: I was traveling with the family, a group of 3, so touching the person next to me wasn't a problem.

I don't often find it a problem to touch the person next to me, its normally them who have the issue... #Locker room talk

Fred

Ah, you're that 200lbs guys that puts his arms on both armrest immediately, put his seat in full recline, plugs in earpods and acts if he's unconscious until catering arrives?

Yep! Unless I'm in a window seat where I will immediately pull the blind down and go to sleep .But only after I have got out and gone to the bathroom 5 times and laid out all my duty free in the overhead locker before everyone else arrives. Lol.

I'm only small (5'8" and 145lb) so I generally don't spill over. Te best trick I have seen done in the middle seat is a "large" gentleman take two wrong ends of seatbelt before falling asleep, i.e. the buckle from the seat to his left and the clip from the seat to his right, leaving the poor pax either side of him half a seat belt each.

Fred

Not disagreeing with your point, but:

boilerla wrote:

And then there's this statistic: 75% of travelers travel via air once per year--Thanksgiving or Christmas. For those people, air travel is a commodity that goes to the lowest bidder.

Please don't forget you're on the internet - I very much doubt that that statistic is true outside of the US.

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...

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.

737/757 17.2"
747 17.5"
787 9x 17.2"

777 was not designed to fly at 10x, but there was a way to do so and over time carriers moved to it. The 777x will go back to 17.2-17.5"

Not all carriers offer wider seats on Airbus anyway. They choose not to. BA would put the same 17" seats on all planes for commonality, for example.

Aircraft that offer wide comfortable seats:
767 7x
787 8x
777 9x
747 9x

See a pattern? That's what each aircraft was originally designed to have...

It's the airlines that pushed for lack of comfort, and because the 767 couldn't be used humanely at 8x, it fell out of favor this century more quickly than it might have otherwise.

Well, I think the best solution is to conduct worldwide survey about standard body measurement. That way, we can cram as much people as possible without sacrificing comforts.

BA have the entertainment box at your feet on the window seats which cripples any degree of comfort. Coupled with cabin crew delighting in taking away ability to look out of the window, it was the most painful flight I had flown thus far. The B787 looks amazing from the outside but it feels as tight as a short haul Iberia A320 which was the tightest I have been on inter European flying!

When as an infrequent flyer you buy a Y ticket, from airline or Orbitz et alia, the comfort you are going to get is a crap shoot. If I knew that spending 10-15% more would get me more comfort I would do it. Never happens! In my case, short a little overweight it is not the seat width, it is what I do with my legs and especially when the person in front puts their seat full back. Pitch, or at least room in front of my knees makes a big difference. And as I have before mentioned, getting a motel is easy, the 5 star system tells me what I am going to get. I would like having a similar choice in flying. I would rate WN as 3 star reliably. JetBlue is similar. The rest??