Oh yay another thread for people to complain about the perfectly comfortable 10-abreast 777's.
Then by those measures, SQ's 777's don't even have a normal economy section, just premium economy. I need Boeing to have made every single one of their planes about a foot wider than they are right now.
Well by today's standards SQ does offer a pretty damn good Y seat. But that's not the point. 10-abreast 777's are acceptable for normal people (likewise 9-abreast 787's). And you can barely feel the difference between those and the 18'' A330/A350's. What's not acceptable is a 10-abreast A350 for a 12-hour flight.
The only 10-abreast A350s belong to Air Caraïbes. The difference is that the most common configuration of the 777 and 787 is narrower than the most common configuration of the A330, A350, and A380. It is annoying that it's divided by manufacturer because I do not have a preference for either aircraft as a brand and don't want it to appear that I do, but Airbus's standard configurations are more comfortable than Boeing's. The 777X wall thinning will help, and the only route I have preferred the 777 over the A350 was on SQ (LAX-ICN-SIN, SIN-SFO open jaw) where the 777 exists in it's original intended configuration before Boeing bastardized their long haul aircraft to improve economics. It's funny, because as originally intended, Airbus aircraft sans-A320 should be less comfortable than Boeing aircraft had Boeing stuck to the 8 and 9 abreast scheme. And yes, I have spent 16 hours in an SQ A380, and 12 hours in an AF 10 abreast 777, and the A350 had a more comfortable seat by my evaluation. I am a skinny runner's build (125 lbs, 5'11"), but I can't sleep upright, and my head falls out of the adjustable headrests. Each additional inch is an inch I can move my hips out to sleep sideways rather than sitting upright.