Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Topic Author
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:17 am

It's an inch wider than the rest of the seats. I find it odd that Bombardier chose to add some comfort to passengers by doing this as opposed to doing whatever it takes to minimize costs at the expense of said comfort. Reminds me of the 767 and its comfy, popular 2-3-2 arrangement. Alternatively the CS could be an inch less wide and there wouldn't be a wider middle seat included in its design. Is this something that is here to stay or is it possible that airlines may opt to do something with that extra inch? I don't believe 6-abreast is possible in the CS, redesigning the fuselage seems rigorous and expensive. Charge more for the middle seat? Perhaps, but maybe people will get the middle seat anyways just by luck if they choose not to select a seat on say a Basic Economy ticket, and those on old economy select the window/aisle seats.
 
User avatar
MichielOnTour
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:43 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:49 am

CarlosSi wrote:
It's an inch wider than the rest of the seats. I find it odd that Bombardier chose to add some comfort to passengers by doing this as opposed to doing whatever it takes to minimize costs at the expense of said comfort. Reminds me of the 767 and its comfy, popular 2-3-2 arrangement. Alternatively the CS could be an inch less wide and there wouldn't be a wider middle seat included in its design. Is this something that is here to stay or is it possible that airlines may opt to do something with that extra inch? I don't believe 6-abreast is possible in the CS, redesigning the fuselage seems rigorous and expensive. Charge more for the middle seat? Perhaps, but maybe people will get the middle seat anyways just by luck if they choose not to select a seat on say a Basic Economy ticket, and those on old economy select the window/aisle seats.
Charge more for the middle seat? The extra inch is to try and compensate the discomfort of being in the middle seat, i would be surprised if anyone would prefer this seat over window or aisle seats, even at the same price.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn PLK-L01 met Tapatalk
 
Jomar777
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:09 am

I would believe that Airlines would opt to reconfiguring the seats so that the extra inch is "shared" between all seats in that row rather than have a middle extra wide seat. I can see the point of an wider middle seat when, paradoxically, it is not sold (i.e. giving extra space for people seating on either side - for example when on Business Class middle seats are unsold).

Question though (I apologize for my ignorance) - Why a 3-2 configuration at all? If there's really a good reason for it, why other airliners (the B717 for example, the MD11 which some airlines used to configure as 2-4-3, etc...) have not kept their market? Why don't Boeing and Airbus consider themselves a project with a 3-2 config?
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:13 am

I thought it was only 0.5" wider than the rest of the seats (i.e. 19" as opposed to the other seats' 18.5")?
 
User avatar
MD80
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:14 am

I think, that a 3+3-seating allows a higher number of passengers wihtin a given fuselage-length. Generally, you need a longer cabin to accomodate the same number of passengers with 2+3-seating instead of 3+3.
Dedicated to the MD-80, MD-90, MD-95, and DC-9: www.MD-80.com
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5456
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:27 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Question though (I apologize for my ignorance) - Why a 3-2 configuration at all? If there's really a good reason for it, why other airliners (the B717 for example, the MD11 which some airlines used to configure as 2-4-3, etc...) have not kept their market? Why don't Boeing and Airbus consider themselves a project with a 3-2 config?

There are some 777 and other air rafts in 2-4-3 config too. I was told that 3-3-3 is jist easier to maintain and also not going to 4 middle seat also save out on things like ptv hubs and such?
And 717 is part of the family with MD80 and MD90 which actually sell quite a bit using standard back then? And a market of aircraft around that size is also the market that Bombardier is entering instead of a market with size similar to A320~A321?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:08 am

c933103 wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Question though (I apologize for my ignorance) - Why a 3-2 configuration at all? If there's really a good reason for it, why other airliners (the B717 for example, the MD11 which some airlines used to configure as 2-4-3, etc...) have not kept their market? Why don't Boeing and Airbus consider themselves a project with a 3-2 config?

There are some 777 and other air rafts in 2-4-3 config too. I was told that 3-3-3 is jist easier to maintain and also not going to 4 middle seat also save out on things like ptv hubs and such?
And 717 is part of the family with MD80 and MD90 which actually sell quite a bit using standard back then? And a market of aircraft around that size is also the market that Bombardier is entering instead of a market with size similar to A320~A321?


Interesting to know that some B777s were on a 2-4-3 configuration. My point was the fact that the C-Series is now the only aircraft proposing this style of seating. Why no other maker is coming to the same idea?
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2972
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:40 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Interesting to know that some B777s were on a 2-4-3 configuration. My point was the fact that the C-Series is now the only aircraft proposing this style of seating. Why no other maker is coming to the same idea?


The reason is that the C-Series is they only aircraft in its class, built from the ground up to carry 100-160 passengers. For this number of passengers the E-Jets have had to be stretched, like the A345/346 which has compromises in adding structural weight to prevent fuselage flex and the 6 abreast aircraft are heavy shrinks, with too much structure to accommodate the same number of passengers, think A319/319.

Because bombardier were building the C-Series from a blank sheet, they were able to pick exactly the most efficient fuselage diameter, just like Douglas did all those years ago. Ultimately that hindered the growth of the DC-9/MD-80, but as the 737/A320 grow larger it makes a nice new market around 130 seats.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5498
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:44 am

Jomar777 wrote:
My point was the fact that the C-Series is now the only aircraft proposing this style of seating. Why no other maker is coming to the same idea?


It's just a matter of the optimal fuselage width compared to the capacity. 2+3 seating in an 180-240 seater would result in a fuselage that is way too long and heavy compared to a 3+3 fuselage. 2+3 seating for a 76-seater is going to result in a heavy and overbuilt little jet.
2+3 seating has its primary strength in the 100-160 seat segment, and for the past few decades nobody felt that the market wanted a dedicated aircraft of that size. Airbus and Boeing felt it was better to focus on aircraft optimised for 180-240 seats with secondary and less efficient variants (737-600/700, A318/A19) covering the smaller segment, while Embraer and Bombardier felt that they could cover it satisfactorily with overgrown variants of the CRJ and E-jets.

BTW, the Sukhoi Superjet and An-148/158 have 2+3 seating as well, as does the ARJ-21 with its MD-80 derived fuselage. The Dornier 728 would also have featured 2+3 seating, so other makers are indeed coming to the same idea.
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:58 am

I noticed that Air France had some aircraft with a slightly wider middle seat. Although the seats ahead of the overwing exits converted to business class seats (the middle arms retracted, and the back cushion folded down to make a table between the window and aisle seats). I am pretty sure that even the non convertible seats further back had wider middle seats too.

It is not that way with the new leather seats, however.
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
trex8
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:48 pm

I read somewhere that not all customers have opted for the wider middle seat. Its available but optional. Seems it would be nice though. Usually I avoid middle seats unless im with my family but in this situation it may be ok.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:37 pm

The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle. It is only 6inchs narrower than the 737 at shoulder height.

Max payloads
737-700 - 16505kg
737-800 - 20540kg
737-900 - 20240kg
CS100 - 15127kg
CS300 - 18711kg

You can see Bombardier has payload rated it for 6ab like a 737.

Bombardiers premium product has advertised with comfortable 5ab just like Boeings 787 was advertised with comfortable 8ab.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:13 pm

That extra inch for the middle seat may make the other two seats a little more comfortable - less likely for the middle passenger to crowd the window and aisle seat passengers.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle. It is only 6inchs narrower than the 737 at shoulder height.

Max payloads
737-700 - 16505kg
737-800 - 20540kg
737-900 - 20240kg
CS100 - 15127kg
CS300 - 18711kg

You can see Bombardier has payload rated it for 6ab like a 737.

Bombardiers premium product has advertised with comfortable 5ab just like Boeings 787 was advertised with comfortable 8ab.


No, it’s not like Boeing was. It’s like Airbus was. You just said it was designed to the A300 size at 9ab and 18” aisles. A 9 abreast version is essentially getting into charter/tour operator territory and is seldom used. The 787 at 9 abreast is essentially the Boeing standard seat width. If that were true for the CSeries, we’d see discussion about six abreast long before we’d see discussion about a CS500

Maybe with those staggered Thompson seats, but even then it’d be tight.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2127
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:35 pm

Is the C-series maximum fuselage diameter than slightly wider than the DC-9 & variants?
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:32 pm

The standard seats in the C Series come with the 19" middle seat and 18.5" wide aisle and window seats. Nothing stopping an airline installing a narrower BFE seat in order to widen the aisle a little, but someone would have to eat the certification costs. There is really no way to get a 6 abreast 3-3 config in the C Series. It's been looked at with things like staggered or stepped economy seats but so far no one's been able to come up with an acceptable solution.
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:43 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3....


That's not true, quote needed (or blueprint as you seem to have been part of the design team)
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:22 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
A 9 abreast version is essentially getting into charter/tour operator territory and is seldom used. The 787 at 9 abreast is essentially the Boeing standard seat width. If that were true for the CSeries, we’d see discussion about six abreast long before we’d see discussion about a CS500

Maybe with those staggered Thompson seats, but even then it’d be tight.

The acceptance of smaller seats tend to increase as the flights become shorter. Q400 and ATR all have 17inch standard seats.

There's a big comfort difference between 17inch seats on a 8 hour flight and 17inch seat on a 1 hour flight. The same seats on a short flight will get wider acceptance by airlines and passengers.

AsiaX has 16.5inch seats on their entire A330 fleet. They do run increased pitch to compensate. They are not tour/charter operators. These seats fit in C series perfectly in 6ab and still leaves a couple inches above the minimum aisle width. AsiaX was in discussion back in 2012 and 6ab was floated but they went with the A320 as there was no confidence with Bombardiers ability to deliver.

Obviously it would take a low cost carrier like asiaX to first introduce 3-3 in the C series. It would probably be too tight for the fat American market :rotfl:

AsiaX was in discussion with Bombardier again 6 months ago.

The A320, 737 and C series cabin widths are misleading on Wikipedia as the widest point is progressively higher up the cabin wall. The A320's widest point is at knee level, the 737 at waist level and C series at shoulder level. So the width at shoulder level for all three is closer together.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:42 am

RJMAZ wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
A 9 abreast version is essentially getting into charter/tour operator territory and is seldom used. The 787 at 9 abreast is essentially the Boeing standard seat width. If that were true for the CSeries, we’d see discussion about six abreast long before we’d see discussion about a CS500

Maybe with those staggered Thompson seats, but even then it’d be tight.

The acceptance of smaller seats tend to increase as the flights become shorter. Q400 and ATR all have 17inch standard seats.

There's a big comfort difference between 17inch seats on a 8 hour flight and 17inch seat on a 1 hour flight. The same seats on a short flight will get wider acceptance by airlines and passengers.

AsiaX has 16.5inch seats on their entire A330 fleet. They do run increased pitch to compensate. They are not tour/charter operators. These seats fit in C series perfectly in 6ab and still leaves a couple inches above the minimum aisle width. AsiaX was in discussion back in 2012 and 6ab was floated but they went with the A320 as there was no confidence with Bombardiers ability to deliver.

Obviously it would take a low cost carrier like asiaX to first introduce 3-3 in the C series. It would probably be too tight for the fat American market :rotfl:

AsiaX was in discussion with Bombardier again 6 months ago.

The A320, 737 and C series cabin widths are misleading on Wikipedia as the widest point is progressively higher up the cabin wall. The A320's widest point is at knee level, the 737 at waist level and C series at shoulder level. So the width at shoulder level for all three is closer together.


AirAsia is clearly an outlier in going 9 abreast in the A330ceo and they would look to be an outlier in going 6 abreast in the CSeries.

But that wasn’t why I replied. I replied because you equated the CSeries marketed as five abreast to the 787 marketed as 8 abreast. There is no such correlation, which makes sense since you pointed to the A300 cabin as the one most similar. The A300 cabin - I believe - was flown primarily 8 abreast. The A330/A340 are flown primarily 8 abreast. The 787 is flown primarily 9 abreast.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
VV
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:32 am

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have all seats at the same width? After all if the load factor is low the middle seat would be empty because nobody wants to be in the middle seat except for some special situation (partner, kid, dog).

Or give that extra inch to the aisle.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:45 pm

VV wrote:
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have all seats at the same width? After all if the load factor is low the middle seat would be empty because nobody wants to be in the middle seat except for some special situation (partner, kid, dog).

Or give that extra inch to the aisle.


I guess that's true but what operator is flying around with consistently sub-80 load factors anymore? They way, the airline has the ability to at least say "middle seat is technically the widest" to the unfortunate customer in that seat.

5 abreast is great for the 120 seat plane. Plus it means 80% of the passengers on the plane are going to be in either a window or aisle seat. Way better than the A320 or B737's 66%
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:03 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle. It is only 6inchs narrower than the 737 at shoulder height.

Max payloads
737-700 - 16505kg
737-800 - 20540kg
737-900 - 20240kg
CS100 - 15127kg
CS300 - 18711kg

You can see Bombardier has payload rated it for 6ab like a 737.

Bombardiers premium product has advertised with comfortable 5ab just like Boeings 787 was advertised with comfortable 8ab.


RJMAZ,

It seems that in some moments you confuse reality with fantasy. Please indicate a reliable source for your recent statements:

"The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle."

"During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to."
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5300
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:32 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle. It is only 6inchs narrower than the 737 at shoulder height.

Max payloads
737-700 - 16505kg
737-800 - 20540kg
737-900 - 20240kg
CS100 - 15127kg
CS300 - 18711kg

You can see Bombardier has payload rated it for 6ab like a 737.

Bombardiers premium product has advertised with comfortable 5ab just like Boeings 787 was advertised with comfortable 8ab.


That's not what Bombardier has been telling people. They didn't certify it for 6 abreast and something in that configuration would be a very tight seat width.

The middle seat is up to the carrier. Yes, the stock Bombardier seat as is , is wider. These seats are already quite wide 18.5 minimum. Each carrier when they do their spec design can make them the same across all three seats. I believe Swiss already does that since they went with the non-Zodiac seat.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:44 pm

burnsie28 wrote:
That's not what Bombardier has been telling people. They didn't certify it for 6 abreast and something in that configuration would be a very tight seat width.

The airlines pick the seat size not Bombardier.

Bombardier has certified the C series for a certain payload weight limit and max seating exit limit. Both Bombardier limits allow 6 abreast.

Boeings 787 for the first 5 years was marketed and sold as 8ab only. Yet it's payload and exit limit was clearly set for 9ab. If the 787 was marketed from the start as 3-3-3 it would have been a PR disaster as it would have used the narrowest widebody seat at the time. Boeing instead marketed it as 8ab and the words comfort was mentioned 100 times in every press release. This is exactly what Bombardier has done.

Nean1 wrote:
"During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to."

http://www.c-130hercules.net/reference- ... ietnam-r9/

"The aircraft, designed to hold less than 100 people was crowded with 452 passengers, 32 in the cockpit alone."

"the aircraft, overloaded by a conservative estimate of nearly 10,000 pounds"


flyboy80 wrote:
Is the C-series maximum fuselage diameter than slightly wider than the DC-9 & variants?

Yes it is wider. At shoulder height the C Series cabin width is half way between the DC-9 and 737.

The C series is also 2inchs wider than the BAe146/ avro RJ. Here is a pic of that at 6ab. This is roughly the comfort level that would get used.

Image
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22108
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:04 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle. It is only 6inchs narrower than the 737 at shoulder height.

Max payloads
737-700 - 16505kg
737-800 - 20540kg
737-900 - 20240kg
CS100 - 15127kg
CS300 - 18711kg

You can see Bombardier has payload rated it for 6ab like a 737.

Bombardiers premium product has advertised with comfortable 5ab just like Boeings 787 was advertised with comfortable 8ab.


No, it’s not like Boeing was. It’s like Airbus was. You just said it was designed to the A300 size at 9ab and 18” aisles. A 9 abreast version is essentially getting into charter/tour operator territory and is seldom used. The 787 at 9 abreast is essentially the Boeing standard seat width. If that were true for the CSeries, we’d see discussion about six abreast long before we’d see discussion about a CS500

Maybe with those staggered Thompson seats, but even then it’d be tight.

Translation:. There could be a very high density future ULCC market. But for now 5ab.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8908
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:05 am

Don’t give them any ideas !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
burnsie28 wrote:
That's not what Bombardier has been telling people. They didn't certify it for 6 abreast and something in that configuration would be a very tight seat width.

The airlines pick the seat size not Bombardier.

Bombardier has certified the C series for a certain payload weight limit and max seating exit limit. Both Bombardier limits allow 6 abreast.

Boeings 787 for the first 5 years was marketed and sold as 8ab only. Yet it's payload and exit limit was clearly set for 9ab. If the 787 was marketed from the start as 3-3-3 it would have been a PR disaster as it would have used the narrowest widebody seat at the time. Boeing instead marketed it as 8ab and the words comfort was mentioned 100 times in every press release. This is exactly what Bombardier has done.

Nean1 wrote:
"During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to."

http://www.c-130hercules.net/reference- ... ietnam-r9/

"The aircraft, designed to hold less than 100 people was crowded with 452 passengers, 32 in the cockpit alone."

"the aircraft, overloaded by a conservative estimate of nearly 10,000 pounds"

flyboy80 wrote:
Is the C-series maximum fuselage diameter than slightly wider than the DC-9 & variants?

Yes it is wider. At shoulder height the C Series cabin width is half way between the DC-9 and 737.

The C series is also 2inchs wider than the BAe146/ avro RJ. Here is a pic of that at 6ab. This is roughly the comfort level that would get used.

Image


RJMAZ,

Nothing is so bad that it can not get worse .. By insisting on the subject you get more complicated.

1) It is the opposite, the BAE has a maximum cabin width 2 inches larger than the CS-100 (131 vs 129 inches):

https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... -WEB-2.pdf
https://commercialaircraft.bombardier.c ... _F_WEB.pdf

Your proposal, besides being bad in comfort, compels a redesign and recertification, recreating a worsened version of the ill-fated BAE 146.

2) Please give me an official link from the manufacturer that defines the 35 ton capacity for C-130. Maybe this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Zu-9Kwnp4
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:48 am

Nean1 wrote:
1) It is the opposite, the BAE has a maximum cabin width 2 inches larger than the CS-100 (131 vs 129 inches):

Actually you are wrong.

At shoulder height it is 129inch for the C series and 127inch for the BAe 146.

Common mistake though on your part. Some aircraft have max width down at floor level, some at head height. So going off the Wikipedia data isn't that accurate.

That PDF shows 6 abreast in the BAe 146. So an extra 2inchs in width would allow for slightly wider seats or a wider aisle. The C series is definitely wide enough.

Of course its not going to be as common as 9ab in a 787 but it won't be as rare as 9ab in a A330 either.

It will be like the 777. It started as 9ab only but gradually 10ab has taken over.
 
Nean1
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
1) It is the opposite, the BAE has a maximum cabin width 2 inches larger than the CS-100 (131 vs 129 inches):

Actually you are wrong.

At shoulder height it is 129inch for the C series and 127inch for the BAe 146.

Common mistake though on your part. Some aircraft have max width down at floor level, some at head height. So going off the Wikipedia data isn't that accurate.

That PDF shows 6 abreast in the BAe 146. So an extra 2inchs in width would allow for slightly wider seats or a wider aisle. The C series is definitely wide enough.

Of course its not going to be as common as 9ab in a 787 but it won't be as rare as 9ab in a A330 either.

It will be like the 777. It started as 9ab only but gradually 10ab has taken over.


It may seem strange but comparing the addition of 1 seat to an aircraft with 1 aisle and 5 seats (129 inches) is something other than adding 1 seat when there are 2 aisles and 8 seats (216 inches).

I give up, I think I'm going to teach German to my dog Fiona. You have free playground to play with.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:30 am

It's not strange fitting an extra seat in a 5ab versus an extra seat in a 8ab. It's simple math and what size seats you start with.

A330 has 8 18inch seats as standard.
C series has 5 18.7inch seats as standard.

If you drop the seats down to 17inch wide you are gaining 1inch per seat on the A330. That's 8inchs total.

If you drop the seat width down to 17inch of the C series you gain 1.7inch per seat. That's 8.5inch total.

The C series also has a wider standard aisle than the A330. So you can take more off the C series aisle before hitting minimum aisle width.

The Avro using 6ab and the C series being 2inchs wider is more than enough evidence that 6ab will fit.
 
User avatar
Qantas94Heavy
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:37 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:43 am

Any suggestion of 6 abreast in a CSeries is highly misleading. Any such ideas are complete fantasy.

Specifications:

* BAe146: https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... e-2015.pdf
* CSeries: https://commercialaircraft.bombardier.c ... en.pdf.pdf

BAe146 internal max widh is 11' 3" = 135", while at floor height it is 10' 8" = 128".
CSeries max width is 10' 9" = 129", floor width of 10' 2" = 122".

The CSeries is a full 6 inches narrower, and you also need at least an inch or two to leave space between the seat and the sidewall.

In other words: forget it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:29 am

RJMAZ wrote:
It's not strange fitting an extra seat in a 5ab versus an extra seat in a 8ab. It's simple math and what size seats you start with.

A330 has 8 18inch seats as standard.
C series has 5 18.7inch seats as standard.

If you drop the seats down to 17inch wide you are gaining 1inch per seat on the A330. That's 8inchs total.

If you drop the seat width down to 17inch of the C series you gain 1.7inch per seat. That's 8.5inch total.

The C series also has a wider standard aisle than the A330. So you can take more off the C series aisle before hitting minimum aisle width.

The Avro using 6ab and the C series being 2inchs wider is more than enough evidence that 6ab will fit.


What is the aisle width of the CSeries with 6 abreast 17” seats? You’ve come this far, let’s bring it on home.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:21 am

With A330 AsiaX 9ab seats there would be a 16inch aisle.

With A350 Air Caraibes 10ab seats there would be a 17inch aisle. These A350 seats are wider but have smaller armrests.

In the C series the armrests can be hard up against the sidewall without the fuselage touching the top of the seat.

BAe146 or A330 would need approx 2inch space per side between the armrest and sidewall to give the same shoulder clearance.

The C series cross section actually has four radii blended together and is the first non circular pressurised passenger cabin. It provides straighter sidewalls so the advantage is quite large once you get to head level.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
With A330 AsiaX 9ab seats there would be a 16inch aisle.

With A350 Air Caraibes 10ab seats there would be a 17inch aisle. These A350 seats are wider but have smaller armrests.

In the C series the armrests can be hard up against the sidewall without the fuselage touching the top of the seat.

BAe146 or A330 would need approx 2inch space per side between the armrest and sidewall to give the same shoulder clearance.

The C series cross section actually has four radii blended together and is the first non circular pressurised passenger cabin. It provides straighter sidewalls so the advantage is quite large once you get to head level.


Im feel bad - my apologies, but what would the aisle width be at 6 abreast, 17” seats on the CSeries? I’m bad at math.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:44 am

Armrests can vary. You would need 1.5inch armrests to get a 15inch wide aisle. That's the minimum aisle width you can go.

Airlines that use aircraft for 1 hour flights often go with smaller seats to get a couple inches of aisle back. The 2-4-2 767's with their 15inch aisles take a very long time to board.

So I would expect a LCC to use 16.5inch wide seats to get a couple inches of aisle back. Going from 15inch to 17inch aisle might appear small but it could allow an extra short flight per day due to the planes turning around faster.

It is worth noting that AsiaX give a respectable 32inch pitch with their 9abreast A330's. Pitch is also very important. People here are happy to compare the A321 using 28-29inch pitch seats but these actually have less area per passenger than the AsiaX's narrower A330 seats.

So you'd increase seat pitch in the C series when going 6ab. You'd loose 2 or 3 rows (10-15 seats) but gain 25-30 seats.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:00 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Armrests can vary. You would need 1.5inch armrests to get a 15inch wide aisle. That's the minimum aisle width you can go.

Airlines that use aircraft for 1 hour flights often go with smaller seats to get a couple inches of aisle back. The 2-4-2 767's with their 15inch aisles take a very long time to board.

So I would expect a LCC to use 16.5inch wide seats to get a couple inches of aisle back. Going from 15inch to 17inch aisle might appear small but it could allow an extra short flight per day due to the planes turning around faster.

It is worth noting that AsiaX give a respectable 32inch pitch with their 9abreast A330's. Pitch is also very important. People here are happy to compare the A321 using 28-29inch pitch seats but these actually have less area per passenger than the AsiaX's narrower A330 seats.

So you'd increase seat pitch in the C series when going 6ab. You'd loose 2 or 3 rows (10-15 seats) but gain 25-30 seats.


Ok, so 16.5” seats, 1.5” armrests, and 17” aisle. Is that correct?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:29 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ok, so 16.5” seats, 1.5” armrests, and 17” aisle. Is that correct?

That will fit no problems.

Most low cost carriers would consider that acceptable and would add an inch or two of extra pitch to compensate. Or even add a few rows on premium 5 abreast at the front.

With 5ab in the C series the aisle has reached a point where turnaround time is already super quick. Customers won't pay a premium for 19inch wide economy seats. 6ab solves the aisle problem and suits the current market trend of lowest fare wins.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:43 am

To add, the quote earlier was “The C series cross section was actually designed for 3-3 using standard A300 9ab seats and an 18inch aisle.”

However, the CSeries max width is 129”. The A300 9-abreast cabin used a 57.1” block for 3 seats, along with a 16.9” aisle. That totals 132.1” for two 3-seat sections plus an aisle. Add another 1.1” to get to an 18” aisle, so 133.2” vs the 129” available in the CSeries. Air Transat operates the A310 in a 9 abreast configuration and they use 16.5” seats. I believe the standard 9-abreast seats include 2” armrests.

I’m just trying to jive it all.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:10 am

I think what it’d come down to is 16.5” seats, 1.5” armrests, and an 18” aisle. To get to the current mainline minimum (generally speaking) of 17”, you’d need to drop the aisle to 15”. So:

16.5” seats
1.5” armrests
18” aisle

Or

17” seats
1.5” armrests
15” aisle

As lightsaber said, potential ULCC territory, but would those be mainline numbers?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:26 am

Its simple - 3-3 can be done. Get rid of the armrests, and shave off a couple of inches from each seat section. Any airline who would put serious consideration to this concept doesn't care about passenger comfort, so why not? As long as there are 3 seat belts, meets flammability requirements, and holds a 16g rating, it should be fine.

A new class below economy...General Admission Class

Serious question- are there any authorities who have set a minimum seat width?

Tom
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:46 pm

The airplane manufacturers want passengers to like their planes - enough to prefer them and thus drive airlines to purchase their products. Airline son teh other hand are simply looking to maximize revenue and want passengers to be as plane model agnostic as they can, so they can use whatever fits best and can sub without negative feelings from the passengers.

I think Bombardier is/was trying to push that comfort thing to build brand equity. I don't expect it to last, though. Airlines will see not only that they can get more seats in, but they also will have lower maintenance costs - instead of having to deal with half a plane of two-wide seats and half a plane of three-wide seats, they can just go with twice as many three wide and not have to worry about which one goes on which side.

I am wondering if this will prompt a change in how economy plus products are offered?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
xxcr
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:44 pm

c933103 wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Question though (I apologize for my ignorance) - Why a 3-2 configuration at all? If there's really a good reason for it, why other airliners (the B717 for example, the MD11 which some airlines used to configure as 2-4-3, etc...) have not kept their market? Why don't Boeing and Airbus consider themselves a project with a 3-2 config?

There are some 777 and other air rafts in 2-4-3 config too. I was told that 3-3-3 is jist easier to maintain and also not going to 4 middle seat also save out on things like ptv hubs and such?
And 717 is part of the family with MD80 and MD90 which actually sell quite a bit using standard back then? And a market of aircraft around that size is also the market that Bombardier is entering instead of a market with size similar to A320~A321?



Also having a 2-4-3 seating configuration on the 777 adds more weight from the extra entertainment box, but it also minimizes one middle seat per row.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:29 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think what it’d come down to is 16.5” seats, 1.5” armrests, and an 18” aisle. To get to the current mainline minimum (generally speaking) of 17”, you’d need to drop the aisle to 15”. So:

16.5” seats
1.5” armrests
18” aisle

Or

17” seats
1.5” armrests
15” aisle

As lightsaber said, potential ULCC territory, but would those be mainline numbers?

I still don't think you get how the sidewall curve counts towards comfort.

Take a standard seat and put it's armrest hard up against the side of a 777. Sit in the seat and your head might have 8inchs between it and the sidewall and your shoulder might have 1inch gap between it and the sidewall. That would be comfortable.

Take that same seat and place it against the side of an A330 and you would have only 4inchs of space between your head and the sidewall. Your shoulder would be fully touching the side and you would have to lean a couple inches. That would not be comfortable yet it is the same size seat as the 777.

To do a fair comparison of comfort you would need to space the seat approximately 3inchs out from the side wall on the A330. Or remove the armrest on the 777 and push the seat closer. Shoulder room is more important than elbow room.

In the C series it's max cabin width is higher up from floor level than any other narrowbody. You could in theory remove the window armrest and push the seat closer and still have more room than an A320 window seat. This all counts to if a cabin is "mainline" or not

Also aisle width has a lot to do with the length of an aircraft. An 18inch aisle would be a restriction on a 757-300 but it would not be a restriction on a CS100. As the CS100 is half the cabin length it would board in roughly half the time. So C series aisle could be narrower than a 737/A321 yet still be mainline standsrd in terms of boarding speed.

Image
 
gensys
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:34 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:00 am

RJMAZ stated: "Shoulder room is more important than elbow room."

And why would this be the case?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:52 am

Your arms are free to move. You can easily place your elbows on the top of your thighs while sitting. This is actually quite normal. With two passengers and one armrest between them usually only one person can rest their elbow on the armrest. So the person not using the armrest will have to bring their elbows in.

Your shoulder width is fixed. So if your shoulder touch's the side of the plane you have no choice but to lean.

The Asia X A330 windows seats are terrible in this regard. Anyone over 5 foot 9 would not be able to sit upright. It's probably the worst seat on any aircraft flying. That same seat on a C series however would be fine.
 
VV
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:01 am

N717TW wrote:
VV wrote:
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have all seats at the same width? After all if the load factor is low the middle seat would be empty because nobody wants to be in the middle seat except for some special situation (partner, kid, dog).

Or give that extra inch to the aisle.


I guess that's true but what operator is flying around with consistently sub-80 load factors anymore? They way, the airline has the ability to at least say "middle seat is technically the widest" to the unfortunate customer in that seat.

5 abreast is great for the 120 seat plane. Plus it means 80% of the passengers on the plane are going to be in either a window or aisle seat. Way better than the A320 or B737's 66%


I don't understand your comment, especially when associated with the wider middle seat.

When the aircraft is more than 80% full, you take whatever seat is offered or available. There is absolutely no point offering wider middle seats.

If the aircraft is below 80% load then you don't want to sit in the middle seat anyway unless you're with your partner.

The rationale about wider middle seats is not very clear for me. It doesn't make much sense.

Was it a marketing blunder?
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:00 am

VV wrote:
N717TW wrote:
VV wrote:
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have all seats at the same width? After all if the load factor is low the middle seat would be empty because nobody wants to be in the middle seat except for some special situation (partner, kid, dog).

Or give that extra inch to the aisle.


I guess that's true but what operator is flying around with consistently sub-80 load factors anymore? They way, the airline has the ability to at least say "middle seat is technically the widest" to the unfortunate customer in that seat.

5 abreast is great for the 120 seat plane. Plus it means 80% of the passengers on the plane are going to be in either a window or aisle seat. Way better than the A320 or B737's 66%


I don't understand your comment, especially when associated with the wider middle seat.
When the aircraft is more than 80% full, you take whatever seat is offered or available. There is absolutely no point offering wider middle seats.
If the aircraft is below 80% load then you don't want to sit in the middle seat anyway unless you're with your partner.
The rationale about wider middle seats is not very clear for me. It doesn't make much sense.
Was it a marketing blunder?


I was responding to your direct comment about how the middle seat would be empty on a lower load flight. While I agree that statement is correct, my point is that sub-80% load factors are less common these days (at least in North America and Western Europe, can't speak to other places). Therefore its not a silly exercise but an attempt to react to the reality of coach flying and the reality of wider passengers in the western world.

The larger middle seat actually benefits all passengers in the row, not only the person in the middle. Not only does the middle seat person get room to fit but that person is less likely to crowd out the person next to them. As someone who spent a long flight in a window seat being crowded out by a person who barely fit into the middle seat (and its not like the guy was obese) I would have welcomed the extra inch.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1991
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:07 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
I would believe that Airlines would opt to reconfiguring the seats so that the extra inch is "shared" between all seats in that row rather than have a middle extra wide seat. I can see the point of an wider middle seat when, paradoxically, it is not sold (i.e. giving extra space for people seating on either side - for example when on Business Class middle seats are unsold).

Question though (I apologize for my ignorance) - Why a 3-2 configuration at all? If there's really a good reason for it, why other airliners (the B717 for example, the MD11 which some airlines used to configure as 2-4-3, etc...) have not kept their market? Why don't Boeing and Airbus consider themselves a project with a 3-2 config?


Initially the CS was gonna be more for regional flights, so maybe that has to do with it. But think about it. 3-2 is significantly better than 3-3, since it allows couples and families to sit together without another person. 2 people sit in one 2 row, 3 people in one 3 row, 4 in two 2 rows, 5 across a row, etc.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:29 pm

There is another reason for Bombardier shying away from the 6AB discussion.

BBD would have wanted to avoid:
(i) unreasonably steep rampup (given they cannot deliver the meagre amounts of orders at the minute)
(ii) overly poking the two bears that are A & B.

(ii) didn't quite work out, but BBD got away without tarriffs because they could argue the CS100 didn't threaten the 737-7. But, if it were at 6AB....
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: The CSeries' middle seat

Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:40 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
(i) unreasonably steep rampup (given they cannot deliver the meagre amounts of orders at the minute)

Bombardier designed the plane and seat distributing to sell as few planes as possible because they knew there will be delays with the engines from a vendor side. God save us from selling our product, they said.

Amiga500 wrote:
(ii) overly poking the two bears that are A & B.

Bombardier designed the plane and seat distributing thinking in not bothering other manufacturers that actually have no planes competing in that segment.

Amiga500 wrote:
(ii) didn't quite work out, but BBD got away without tarriffs because they could argue the CS100 didn't threaten the 737-7. But, if it were at 6AB....

Bombardier designed the plane and seat distributing to avoid a baseless sue from another manufacturer.

Tell us more.....

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos