Nicoeddf wrote:

GalebG4 wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

You could fit in a 2-4-2 seats even if you sculpt the interior but it will not be comfortable at all. You would at best get to the same "comfort" as the A330 in 9-abreast and that is in no way comfortable and should be avoided.

5” of additional space is more than enough. 17” seat is extremely comfortable!

Compared to what? Death?

Compared to dc-8, 707, 727, 737, 757, 777, 787. All of them have 17” seat. I think you don’t have problem with seat dimensions generally but something else...

GalebG4 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

GalebG4 wrote:

5” of additional space is more than enough. 17” seat is extremely comfortable!

Compared to what? Death?

Compared to dc-8, 707, 727, 737, 757, 777, 787. All of them have 17” seat. I think you don’t have problem with seat dimensions generally but something else...

I have a problem with people implying any sort of economy class seat would be "extremely comfortable".

Extremely comfortable is my own bed, lying between the tits or any other favoured body part of your partner, or a hammock on a beautiful beach.

A Y seat, no matter if its 17 or 18 units of being too small, can't compete there.
And no, my body size doesn't overfill your typical Y seat.

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

787s are replacing 767 Aircrafts.

Exactly! The 767 is an old-school, also-ran, outdated and antiquated aircraft. It's a 1980s design and not even fly-by-wire. It doesn't stack up against the A350 and is highly uncompetitive in today's global market.

Four years ago, I flew on DL from ATL to ANC on a 763. It was a comfortable flight, but it was OLD!

So no, I don't believe new cabins and seating configurations are the answer. Boeing should focus on 787 production and give the 767 a final farewell and leave it to rest in the past.

morrisond wrote:

I posted this already in the other 767X thread - but here it is again.

It looks like 8W has always been an option - measurements in the document as well.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 01txt.html

Yes and it is noted as "inclusive tour seating". Yikes!

The 38" side seats is 2 @ 16 + 3 @ 2"
The aisle is 16.5"
The center 4 seats is 75" or [email protected]+5 @2 = 74", an extra inch in there somewhere.

I recall this configuration has been termed "Cattle Class"

Varsity1 wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

ostentatious wrote:

Could Boeing use similar upgrades to make 767X spacious enough for a comfortable (i.e. at least 17.5' wide) 2-4-2 seating? That would give 767X a clear advantage over A330neo.

Not in the minds of passengers, it wouldn't. People are not going to choose a tight 2-4-2 767X over a wider 2-4-2 A330neo (or A330ceo, for that matter).

They will if the ticket is $10 cheaper.

harsh reality.

Only if unaware. People do pay for more space, Y+ sells well, people are just not willing to pay 2x+ for PE or 3x+ J. Airlines flying 9-abreats 777 or chosing A330/350 over 787s seem to think people pay for that extra bit of space, and their numbers seem to support that.
Every race to the bottom has its "too much", and while I happily out myself on a 10 AB 777 if the schedule is more convenient or the price difference is big enough to actually have value, I know plenty of people that actively avoid those regardless of price difference.

Best regards
Thomas

I think it all depends on whether Boeing can eke out enough space for 2-4-2 AB that is acceptable by full-service airliners. In terms of other aspects like efficiency, range etc, there's no reason why Boeing cannot improve on the "old" 767, given what Airbus has done on A320/321 so far.

BTW, 3-4-3 on 77W is not comfortable by my standard, but 777X is likely different story.

The demand for pax 767 is no where near enough to cover the cost to sculpt the sidewalls to go to 8ab. There is only a slim chance the 767X will have a passenger variant. Again, this is to continue selling freighters.

VV wrote:

Define 767X.

A concept airplane from mid-1980s that eventually became Boeing 777. End of story.

RJMAZ wrote:

Staggered seating can save many inchs in width. The middle four seats can be in pairs of two. They can then be staggered allowing the middle two seats to move in a couple inchs.

Does any airline do this in economy? It's been touted for years, and AFAIK, there have been zero takers.

scbriml wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Staggered seating can save many inchs in width. The middle four seats can be in pairs of two. They can then be staggered allowing the middle two seats to move in a couple inchs.

Does any airline do this in economy? It's been touted for years, and AFAIK, there have been zero takers.

Customers probably won't like it and you pay for it with pitch.

Best regards
Thomas

ostentatious wrote:

With thinner fuselage walls, 777X has a comfortable 3-4-3 economy class with 18' seats.

Could Boeing use similar upgrades to make 767X spacious enough for a comfortable (i.e. at least 17.5' wide) 2-4-2 seating? That would give 767X a clear advantage over A330neo. And it should have more range than A321XLR and have no problem flying cross-Pacific. With its smaller size than 787s, it might enable smaller airports like CTS(Sapporo)/PUS(Busan) as major hubs between Asia and North America. WDYT?

It's 15' 6" as is. the limit would give a around a 17" isle.

RJMAZ wrote:

Staggered seating can save many inchs in width. The middle four seats can be in pairs of two. They can then be staggered allowing the middle two seats to move in a couple inchs.

That's a good idea - it would make for private areas and not break the evacuation rules.

RJMAZ wrote:

Staggered seating can save many inchs in width. The middle four seats can be in pairs of two. They can then be staggered allowing the middle two seats to move in a couple inchs.

Keep dreaming. Staggered seating idea has been around for years but no airlines use it.

Checklist787 wrote:

Define "Middle Of Market"..

This is the hardest part of any of these discussions. People appear to draw the conclusion as to what this means depending on what they are peddling.

The other issue about the middle of the market is that its unclear whether any gap exists through lack of a product or lack of the market to require a product, there is of course a gap in the middle of a doughnut, I for one think that is the least good bit of the doughnut and do not chase it.

Fred

For those who are really wondering is it possible to fit 8-Ab comfort descent
(2-4-2) in the 767?


... my answer is DEFINITILY, Yes with 17" per seat!!!


Magic can work with little bit creativity and a FEW ***fairy powder!***

Currently the 767 cabin is 188 inch wide.

So,

- aisles width @ 17 "

-The two side/window seats and their 3 armrests @ 38.9 inches
Magic ***

and,

-for the 4 center seats and 5 armrests
@ 73.3" wide

If Boeing does the same job to extend the cabin à la 777-X, 2 inches can winning will be enough to fit the 18 " aisle wide instead of 17" ...

*** Magic can operate ***
Please applause!

Checklist787 wrote:

Currently the 767 cabin is 188 inch wide.

According to Boeing, it's 186 inch.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf
(see page 30)

RJMAZ wrote:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/seating.jpg

No extra pitch required.

Yeah.. if you have 34-36 inch pitch anyways, then you dont need extra pitch.
Of course you don't win much compared to 7AB at 31".

For that to work the space between the front of the seat cushion and the back of the next seat has to be large enough to fit pretty much a whole seat in it.

Best regards
Thomas

Checklist787 wrote:

comfort descent ....
Yes with 17" per seat!!! [/b]

You mean acceptable, not decent.

Good is what you get on a 7AB 767, 8AB 787, 9AB 777 or 10AB A380, decent is what you get on an 8AB A300/310/330/340 or 9 AB A350.

Best regards
Thomas

RJMAZ wrote:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/seating.jpg

No extra pitch required. Custom seats would be much cheaper than sculpting the sidewalls.

The seats at a very slight angle of 6 degrees means the shoulders of the passengers are no longer perfectly lined up. We've seen these seat designs before using more extreme angles.

Even if pitch had to be increased by 2 inchs if that allows an extra seat in the width that fixes the cross section issue. That would mean a loss of one seat row but the gain of one seat over dozens of seat rows. A net gain of approx 30 seats and very little wasted space with two narrow aisles.

You didn't answer my question. But, on the assumption the answer would be "No", if it's such a great idea, why isn't anyone doing it in economy?

This idea is right up there in the parthenon of great ideas, along with Boeing restarting 757 production.

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

787s are replacing 767 Aircrafts.

Well, no ... They just replace a small part of the 767s. For most 767-Missions the 787 is way too heavy, too large and has too much range.

JohnAudiR18 wrote:

i'm sorry, but why on earth would anyone want a 2-4-2 seating, aside from couples on the window sides

You only have to 'climb over' 1 pax at any one instance (unless you are seated in an aisle seat), thus you don't have to bother your neighbour that much on a long haul flight...

That is of course you can afford to pay for business class where most offerings do offer aisle seat for each pax

Iloveboeing wrote:

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

787s are replacing 767 Aircrafts.

Exactly! The 767 is an old-school, also-ran, outdated and antiquated aircraft. It's a 1980s design and not even fly-by-wire. It doesn't stack up against the A350 and is highly uncompetitive in today's global market.

Four years ago, I flew on DL from ATL to ANC on a 763. It was a comfortable flight, but it was OLD!

So no, I don't believe new cabins and seating configurations are the answer. Boeing should focus on 787 production and give the 767 a final farewell and leave it to rest in the past.

.... And the 737MAX, Boeing-FAA being too cozy as well as a fairly Al-Jazerra documentary about the 787

[quote="enzo011"][quote="ostentatious"]With thinner fuselage walls, 777X has a comfortable 3-4-3 economy class with 18' seats.

Could Boeing use similar upgrades to make 767X spacious enough for a comfortable (i.e. at least 17.5' wide) 2-4-2 seating? That would give 767X a clear advantage over A330neo. And it should have more range than A321XLR and have no problem flying cross-Pacific. With its smaller size than 787s, it might enable smaller airports like CTS(Sapporo)/PUS(Busan) as major hubs between Asia and North America. WDYT?[/quote


You could fit in a 2-4-2 seats even if you sculpt the interior but it will not be comfortable at all. You would at best get to the same "comfort" as the A330 in 9-abreast and that is in no way comfortable and should be uote

I agree. I am 6' tall (about 183 cm, and 205 lbs (98 kg). I've flown in Economy on a 787 and it was miserable on a two hour flight; I'd never fly it on a longer one (which means my airfare cost has increased because I need to buy up to Premium Economy or Business for a decent seat). I think that there are a lot of people like me.

I dont think its possible while its still "comfortable". Yes, Boeing made 3-4-3 decent on the 777X, but the fact that 2-4-2 on a 767 is absolutely horrible compared to 3-4-3 on a 777, which is still somewhat accepable for flights not all too long, makes it pretty hard to make a comfortable 2-4-2 on a 767 work IMO. IF Boeing makes it work a 767X would be even more attractive of course.

Rhetorical question.
Nothing with the seating config of 4 is comfortable for the middle seaters, no matter how long the flight is.

Me’s starting to think a safe plan for Boeing might be for a new super efficient wing for a 767-200 freighter and a “767-250” passenger.

Use the same NEW super efficient wing for the new 797 super efficient 7 abreast ovoid light fuselage.

Maximum commonality between the future 797 / 767 types for airlines that are risk adverse about the small 797 wide-body as that aircraft cannot be used as a freighter as effectively or easily resold as a freighter as the 767 can.

Is the 767 NW new wing program the answer?

To continue the 767 Boeing would be wise to market these versions to the airlines.

For US Domestic Runs:

3-3-2 ULCC and Family style seating
* middle mini seats for children under 10 traveling with an adult only
2-3-2 Legacy Economy
2-3-2 Plus Coach
2-2-2 Domestic First Class

International Runs:

3-3-2 Staggered Seating in coach all seats the same but with Embraer 195 style stagger.
2-3-2 Plus Coach
2-1-2 First Class

Not if the reengining program of the 767 is going to be low cost. It would require recontouring the walls of the 767 and redesigning interior fittings. Had a reengined 767 been considered 5 or 10 years ago, perhaps a maximally wide interior width of the 767 could have been engineered as was the case of the 777X. But the changes to the 777 also coincided with design changes to increase automation in construction. Would there even be enough built to justify such an effort? The extra cabin width wouldn't really improve the 767's prospects as a freighter. The 767X trial balloon seems to be for a low hanging fruit project using mostly existing parts from Boeing and suppliers like GE. The larger and higher landing gear need for the larger GEnX engines is already certified for the 767-400 as is the 777 style interior and windows. The only prospect for an 8 abreast 767X would be for the same awful charter jet inspired configuration used by PS.

2x3x2 seething is the best! Of all things great about the 767, if I fly as a passenger, 2x3x2 is the best seating for coach... imaging leaving JFK in the hot summer. You will learn to appreciate not being crammed in a smelly middle seat...