RJMAZ wrote:bigjku wrote:But for the love of god we should be able to agree that 2 meters or so extra length means another 2-3 rows and that the taper at the end cost you a few seats making things overall pretty close.
We should, but the Airbus guys want to still think it magically can fit 40 extra seats.
Pointing out something so obvious will just get you called a "Boeing salesman who just passed the Boeing academy with the best graduation results a candidate ever had."TheFlyingRaven wrote:I notice that your A333 has two extra toilets than your 787-9 - 7 versus 5. That's two extra seats right there. . But clearly one toilet takes up 6 seats in rows 15 and 16.
I made this just for you.
Identical layouts, toilets, meals area. Shock horror the 787-9 still wins.TheFlyingRaven wrote:You just happen to invent a graph showing that the B787 seat width is the perfect width. What's that based on, except your own fantasy? You're going to argue that if an airline did 9 abreast on a A330 for $50 less, almost no one would take it as that's 'too' narrow? Well AirAsia are already doing that and cheaper.
And as you said, any product can have a similar curve. The 330 could have one showing that it is the 'optimum' width and no one will pay extra to fly on a slightly wider B787.
You've missed the point of the graph.
The average standard economy seat is very close to 17.5inch. If we assume a 50/50 Boeing Airbus market we can develop a nice average. Nearly all Airbus products have an 18" seat. Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"
Now If we look at the extreme seat widths out there I would estimate there are more small 16.5inch wide seats than larger 18.5inch wide economy seats. This would lower the average very close to 17.5inch.
If the average is 17.4" 17.5" or 17.6" it is irrelevant as that is not the point of the graph.
You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable. The price would have to be significantly lower and with only 10% extra seats the profit would be less. I would definitely fly a 10ab 787 if the tickets were half price. Simply buy two tickets and out the armrest up.rheinwaldner wrote:We have to concede, that in the ultimate race to the bottom the A339 can offer a significantly higher seat count than the 789. The difference is real. The seatcount gap between existing low-cost configs is 60 seats. And by the regulator this gap will never shrink to less than 20 seats..
Or we could agree that at 420 seats the 787-9 beats the A330-900 convincingly?
We could also agree that squeezing in an additional 20 seats into the A330 requires the ticket price to drop at a greater percentage than the percentage of extra seats. That means overall less profit.
How do you know that extra point, do you have access to AirAsia’s yield data? We’ve seen plenty of 777 operators go from 9 to 10ab, with no ill effects. Your graph about the sead width is awfully, awfully convenient. For what it’s worth 9ab A330s are not unheard of but the airlines still use them, and there are even 10ab A350s. The airlines using them seem happy enough. I think your ideas require passengers to have a far greater understanding of aircraft type and layout than they actually do.