Hi All,

I was reading a trip report and saw this photo of an Air China 777's economy cabin, and as you can see, it's in a 2 - 5 - 2 configuration:



Are there any other airlines with this type of configuration? It seems awfully tight.

Greets from Innsbruck,

InnsbruckFlyer

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Hi All,

I was reading a trip report and saw this photo of an Air China 777's economy cabin, and as you can see, it's in a 2 - 5 - 2 configuration:



Are there any other airlines with this type of configuration? It seems awfully tight.

Greets from Innsbruck,

InnsbruckFlyer

Seats the same as a 3-3-3 config. Therefore better than most 777 that have 3-4-3. Also only one seat per row has to step over two people compared with 2 on the 3-3-3 config. So better for everyone except the one in the middle seat.

Another topic with details.

viewtopic.php?t=536121

DL definitely had this configuration on my flight from CDG-ATL in 2004. I believe UA also had this configuration originally on their 777s. It was a holdover from the days of the Trijets, which had the same configuration. The rationale being the rows of 5 made it easier for families traveling together to sit together. Also, the implementation of PTVs encourages 3-3-3 as it's my understanding that one box can supply three screens, and the rows of five required two boxes, resulting in four boxes per row instead of three. It may also be easier to have all of the seats in sets of 3 for purposes of having to swap them out--everything is the same as opposed to a set of 2, and a set of 5.

AA and UA both had that configuration on their 777s until the most recent refurbishment. DL did as well, but they swapped out their seats earlier around 2005 or so.

RG also had this on their UA-origin 777s.

CX had their 772 in 2-5-2 configuration originally as well. It was later changed to 3-3-3. The B777-300s (non-ER) have always been 3-3-3 I believe.

The center seat of that center section of 5, on a route like ORD-FRA. Lovely.

And the person in the center does have two ways to get out, in either case over two other persons.

MH also had this config.

Anyone who thinks that 2-5-2 tight should be aware that the majority of 777 deliveries are now 3-4-3. And look at CX: by the end of 2019, all of its 65 777s will have been converted from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3.

In the 1990s when load factors were usually in the 70s before revenue management systems were sophisticated to get load factors into the upper 80s, 2-5-2 was a popular configuration. The middle seat in the set of 5 was almost never used unless there was a larger family. Usually one of the middle seats per row was empty. This was a very comfortable configuration with an empty seat.

Nowadays revenue management systems can get load factors consistently in the 86-92% range in peak season. When you add the non rev load factor of 1-3% on top of that, 2-5-2 starts to be less desirable. 3-3-3 is more popular when all the seats are sold. In a group of 3, the aisle and window passengers tend to shift away from the middle seat and give up the armrests some. With 2-5-2 those three middle seats are brutal.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

And the person in the center does have two ways to get out, in either case over two other persons.

Which is one of the many ways the orginal configuration was better. Only 1 out of 9 passengers on a full flight with 2x5x2 is two seats from the aisle, and they have two ways to get out, whereas on 3x3x3, twice as many passengers are two seats away from the aisle, with only one way out.

It's 9-abreast, so tight is a completely false idea.

I once flew on an AA 777-200 in a 2-5-2 config, back before the retrofits. Actually, some people prefer the 2-5-2 config over 3-3-3 due to the philosophy that there's only one person per row (middle seat) in 2-5-2 that needs to crawl over two people to get to the aisle, while there's 2 seats (two window seats) in 3-3-3 that require you to crawl over two people.

luckyone wrote:

DL definitely had this configuration on my flight from CDG-ATL in 2004. I believe UA also had this configuration originally on their 777s. It was a holdover from the days of the Trijets, which had the same configuration. The rationale being the rows of 5 made it easier for families traveling together to sit together.

While you're right it does make it easier for families, that is not why the DC10 and L1011 were 2x5x2. They originally were 2x2/2x2 where there was a console between the two pairs of seats in the center section, which they eventually replaced with another seat, beginning with AA I believe in 1978. Since the MD11 closely resembled the DC10, they went with the same configuration.

My very first flight on a 777, in May 2000 from LHR to SFO with United Airlines, was configured 2-5-2 in Economy.

And guess where I was sat....!

First time in 2-5-2 which was definitely the last time with UA back in 2003 ORD-LHR in the most awful seat ever. #neveragain

If you could snag a seat on one of the two sides, 2-5-2 was awesome! As others are saying, it doesn't much matter anyway because most carriers are moving toward 3-4-3 for 10 across

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

It seems awfully tight.

Awfully tight? This is the best seat configuration in existence on the 777. Six out of nine passengers have either an aisle seat or a window seat. Only one out of nine passengers is more than one seat away from the aisle. Much better than today's 3-4-3 seating.

I am glad that the United Airlines 777's had this configuration when I flew them in 2000 and 2002.

Flew UA/DL 777s the config. The 2 side was great. The middle section was not bad either. With the lower load factor, that middle seat was great to stretch out.

I had a post a while ago..

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124061

Yes, the 2-5-2 seating on a 777 is much better than 3-4-3 on a 777 or 3-3-3 on a 787.

GE90man wrote:

I once flew on an AA 777-200 in a 2-5-2 config, back before the retrofits. Actually, some people prefer the 2-5-2 config over 3-3-3 due to the philosophy that there's only one person per row (middle seat) in 2-5-2 that needs to crawl over two people to get to the aisle, while there's 2 seats (two window seats) in 3-3-3 that require you to crawl over two people.

But with 3-3-3 there's a positive tradeoff to the drawback of having to climb over two people: A window. Even outside the "avgeek sphere" many people who sit by the window do so completely voluntarily, window seats are usually the first ones to be taken if you look at seat maps during online check in.

There are many reasons to prefer window seats even if you're not into aviation - a form of entertainment, the feeling of better awareness of the flight progress, less claustrophobia, opportunities for photography (whether those are iPhone pics for a snapchat story or professional images), being able to sleep better by leaning against the wall, etc etc

Since the most prevalent aircraft are 3-3 narrowbodies, most of the flying public doesn't know window seats as anything but being two seats away from the aisle so they will easily make that tradeoff aboard a 3-3-3 / 3-4-3 widebody.

Selling someone a middle seat (already bad in itself) sandwiched between 4 other pax is a considerably harder task.

Tight? Huh?? Practically a premium product by current standards

The biggest issue with 2-5-2 was requiring 2 different replacement seat pairs (a 2 and a 5 set) as well as requiring more underseat IFE boxes.

Then 3-4-3 came along and made the 9 across irrelevant.

I personally liked 2-5-2. Great for families of 4, great for couples and even solo travellers.

KE had 2-5-2 also on their 777s.
They used it on SFO-ICN, definitely in late 2001 / early 2002.
I remember getting (to sleep) on full 5 seats for myself on one such flight.
I was the only assigned seat on those 5, they told me that at checkin, and nobody showed later also.

2-5-2 was pretty standard up until recently. It's kinda a throwback from when L-1011s and DC-10s were popular, as both generally had the same seat config.

MIflyer12 wrote:

The center seat of that center section of 5, on a route like ORD-FRA. Lovely.

ORD-FRA 7 hours? Imagine hmmm ORD-HKG 15 hrs lol. or 3x4x3 seating.

*****

Actually look at that pic and figure out where exactly were they able to cram in an extra seat. Already looked tight, amazingly sad!

It may look tight, but it's probably because the seats aren't slimline but are thickly padded.

Great if you can snag the entire center row for your family or even yourself if traveling alone, serious sleeping room

Otherwise that’s a pretty miserable configuration, especially in the middle seat


One positive is that with this setup the total number of middle seats is the lowest possible

I prefered the 2-5-2 configuration as it opens up for 2-seaters, which is preferable unless you’re a group of 3 travelling together

At least no one got around to doing a 2-6-2 configuration...

I was never a big fan of this configuration...
Personally I have landed a good couple of times the dreaded middle seat on a chock-a-block aircraft on north-Atlantic red-eyes (one time with a particularly BIG lady next to me, who had gigantic arms overflowing the armrest and onto my shoulder..), and that pretty much sealed the deal for me for this configuration... Being a big water drinker (and thus a frequent lav visitor!) being sandwiched between a whole lot of 4 people is a great inconvenience. Just my two cents!

This is far better than 3-3-3.

In 3-3-3, two people (window seats) have to climb over TWO seats to get out to the aisle. In 2-5-2, only one person (middle of 5-bench) has to climb over two others to get out, and can choose which way to go. Everything else balances out between the two. So to me, 2-5-2 has always been more pleasant than 3-3-3.

Whereas the one time I flew on a 777 with this configuration (AA ORD-LHR), I loved it because my wife and I could sit together by ourselves without some random stranger alongside us.

I have always found 3-3-3 to be quite annoying - when there was only two of us, and now that we are a family of 4. In some respects, we're now better off flying a 3-4-3 777 because we can have the center block of 4, and the reduced space isn't an issue because my kids don't take up much room.

The reason was PTV's. I control box does 3 seats. so 3-3-3 was most efficient although that isn't really a factor now most carriers are 3-4-3. 2-5-2 was actually a great configuration unless you ended up in the middle... but as previously mentioned these were usually the last to be assigned and its a hangover from DC-10 and L1011 days. I lucked out on MH once and got the entire 5 seats to myself. Easily enough space to stretch out and sleep. So in short ... there was no revenue advantage between 2-5-2 and 3-3-3 however there was a cost advantage.

Lufthansa wrote:

The reason was PTV's. I control box does 3 seats. so 3-3-3 was most efficient although that isn't really a factor now most carriers are 3-4-3. 2-5-2 was actually a great configuration unless you ended up in the middle... but as previously mentioned these were usually the last to be assigned and its a hangover from DC-10 and L1011 days. I lucked out on MH once and got the entire 5 seats to myself. Easily enough space to stretch out and sleep. So in short ... there was no revenue advantage between 2-5-2 and 3-3-3 however there was a cost advantage.

Curious: Is there some intrinsic reason why a box can only control 3 PTVs? I'd think if 2-5-2 was commonplace (which it seems to have been), people would develop a single box to control 5 PTVs. Computing power is pretty cheap. Or were all the early boxes standardized to a max of 3 screens?

Not bad to me... I used to love Delta's L-1011 coach configuration, which was 2-5-2. There's something nice about the two seats by the window - 2's company, three's a crowd.

All Nippon Airways uses 2-4-3 on some of their 77Ws.

MartijnNL wrote:

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

It seems awfully tight.

Awfully tight? This is the best seat configuration in existence on the 777. Six out of nine passengers have either an aisle seat or a window seat. Only one out of nine passengers is more than one seat away from the aisle. Much better than today's 3-4-3 seating.

I am glad that the United Airlines 777's had this configuration when I flew them in 2000 and 2002.

I'm just sick of this "it seems awfully tight" whenever a discussion comes up about the 777, especially is person making that claim doesn't know how to do math correctly. It's 9-abreast seating, but I guess some people' s bias automatically equates "777" with "horrible flying experience", even though the math doesn't back up that claim.

Tiresome.....I flew on several 2-5-2 777s and it was about as good as it gets, lest you compare it to the 2-3-2 767, which is great.

I personally have never been on a 2-5-2 777 but if you look at SeatGuru it says seat width is 18 inches for 2-5-2 and sometimes for 3-3-3 but for 3-4-3 seat width is reduced to only 17 inches.
On SQ 777-300 which is 3-3-3 the width is 19 inches so 9 seats across is not tight by economy standards.

aca36 wrote:

All Nippon Airways uses 2-4-3 on some of their 77Ws.

That sounds awesome.

keesje wrote:

I had a post a while ago..

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124061

17 years ago. You have been on a.net for a long time.

deltatim wrote:

I used to love Delta's L-1011 coach configuration, which was 2-5-2.

Check out the width of the armrests on this ex-DL L-1011.

Flew on a All Nippon Airlines Boeing 777-300 recently. It had 10 seats pr. row in economy in a 3-4-3 configuration. It was a domestic flight between Tokyo and Osaka

The 2-5-2 history goes way back to the DC-10 and L-1011. The center galley units and partitions were fixed components for a 2-4-2 configuration. When airlines wanted to go 9 across, the 2-5-2 was the easiest way to accommodate the fixed center partition components. In the original 9-across configurations, the center seat of the center 5-bank in the middle would fold down into a table. So, it was like keeping the 2-4-2 when flights were not completely full. As many have said on this post, flights are so full these days that the center seat was almost always used, making things really miserable for the three center seats of the 5-bank in the middle. That and in-seat IFE paved the way for the 3-3-3. Of course, with 3-4-3, we've transitioned into an era equivalent to "charter travel" back in the day.

muralir wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

The reason was PTV's. I control box does 3 seats. so 3-3-3 was most efficient although that isn't really a factor now most carriers are 3-4-3. 2-5-2 was actually a great configuration unless you ended up in the middle... but as previously mentioned these were usually the last to be assigned and its a hangover from DC-10 and L1011 days. I lucked out on MH once and got the entire 5 seats to myself. Easily enough space to stretch out and sleep. So in short ... there was no revenue advantage between 2-5-2 and 3-3-3 however there was a cost advantage.

Curious: Is there some intrinsic reason why a box can only control 3 PTVs? I'd think if 2-5-2 was commonplace (which it seems to have been), people would develop a single box to control 5 PTVs. Computing power is pretty cheap. Or were all the early boxes standardized to a max of 3 screens?

It's probably got less to do with the ability than the inventory management and certification. One of the reasons that the price of everything in aviation is the part number plus two zeroes is that it costs a lot to certify, and those costs then need to be spread over a fleet of (300 seats/plane * 1.5k planes = ~450k units) for the entire market. Figure there's a small handful of suppliers, each is looking at maybe 100k units. I'm sure the beancounters looked at the numbers.

If you get a half-empty plane, I still prefer 3-3-3, because there's more space to sleep. I lucked out recently on UA1 when some connecting pax missed the plane and I had my own 3-pack to myself.