For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

I don’t really know, but my family and I flew on UA from IAD to CDG back in 2000 on their 772 and the 2-5-2 made it feel so cramped. I didn’t enjoy being in the middle section. But the fare was $300 round trip, so you can’t really argue with that!

rjsampson wrote:

For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

2-5-2 makes a lot more sense in the context of 1970s and 1980s load factors than it does today. The middle of the 5 is an awful seat (trust me; I did a TATL in one with a bulkhead behind me, so I do know) but if you're only 85% full, then those seats are empty and every person either has a window, an aisle, or an empty seat next to them.

Besides that one middle seat in the middle section, I actually think 2-5-2 is superior personally because of the twin seats.

DL/UA/AA all had 2-5-2 on their 777s. DL was the first to shift to 3-3-3 around 2003~2005. UA began to switch around 2008 or so with the IPTE retrofit. AA only switched after the merger with US was announced and they immediately switched to 3-4-3.

rjsampson wrote:

For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

It gave the carriers the opportunity to offer individual travelers & couples seating together, as well as being able to accomodate larger parties together like families, not that it's hard now. I am uncertain exactly why that changed, but I bet, as you mention, safety is the likely culprit.

rjsampson wrote:

For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

Probably because back then Y cabin was 2-2-2-2 configured. That is 2 seats, aisle, 2 seats, space, 2 seats, aisle and 2 seats. That middle space was certainly the reason of the 5 middle seats.

rjsampson wrote:

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

Well if in a 2-5-2 you have one passenger per row that has to move two passengers in order to exit, in a 3-3-3 you have doubled the figure, and where you see it as unprecedented, it's been very common in widebodies to have two people between you and the aisle since the early days of the 747 and it's still continuing nowadays on other types.

rjsampson wrote:

...potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

I don't mean to be flippant, but isn't that the case for twice as many people in a 3-3-3 configuration given that most people can't evacuate directly through their windows? The beauty of 2-5-2 was always that only one person in a row of nine had two other people between them and the aisle (and that person had two different routes to take if they so desired). While 3-3-3 may have better balance, that makes it so two people per row of nine have that situation.

rjsampson wrote:

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

Slight problem. 747, A380, and nowadays, even the 777 are 3-4-3, so you would still have this issue regarding evacuation. Also, the 737, 757, and A320 are 3-3, so same problem there. The people at the window seat mostly can't evacuate through the window with the exception of the 2-4 that are sitting at an overwing emergency exit.

Flew UA LaX-HNL years ago on the 2-5-2 and this family of 4 loved having the full row of five together. But 5 individual pax would suck.

For the early 9x configurations, the DC-10s and L1011 went from 2-4-2 to 2-5-2, and the 747s started at 3-4-2, which was nice, but asymmetrical.

I'm not understanding why the OP said it is safer to have 3-3-3? In 3-3-3, two pax per row have to climb over two people, while in 2-5-2, only one climbs, and he has a choice on which way to go.

When I flew on AA from ORD to PVG in 2010, I was in the middle seat of 5. After I got served food on one side, I hit up another flight attendant that was coming down the other side. I appreciated having twice the food and drinks.

If I were configuring an airline, I would put 2-5-2 in the first section of a 777, and 3-3-3 in the second section, that way, we can accommodate various family sizes.

I disliked the L1011 because of the middle 5, and I'm actually amazed in hindsight that airlines carried that configuration over to more modern aircraft.

RWA380 wrote:

rjsampson wrote:

For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

It gave the carriers the opportunity to offer individual travelers & couples seating together, as well as being able to accomodate larger parties together like families, not that it's hard now. I am uncertain exactly why that changed, but I bet, as you mention, safety is the likely culprit.

IFE was a big part of it. IFE underseat modules were designed to service no more than 3 seats. 3-3-3 means one fewer box - less cost, less weight.

tharanga wrote:

I disliked the L1011 because of the middle 5, and I'm actually amazed in hindsight that airlines carried that configuration over to more modern aircraft.

Was 3-3-3 even offered on the 777 to early customers? Anyone know the first airline with it?

DL_Mech wrote:

tharanga wrote:

I disliked the L1011 because of the middle 5, and I'm actually amazed in hindsight that airlines carried that configuration over to more modern aircraft.

Was 3-3-3 even offered on the 777 to early customers? Anyone know the first airline with it?

Weren't Continental's 777 always 3-3-3? I heard that's why Delta switched to 3-3-3 because they were in Skyteam with Continental.

I actually liked the 2-5-2 arrangement, especially if it's an empty flight.

The one time I flew on MH's 777, I managed to score a whole row of 5 to myself. It was a good ride, I tell you.

USAirALB wrote:

Besides that one middle seat in the middle section, I actually think 2-5-2 is superior personally because of the twin seats.

DL/UA/AA all had 2-5-2 on their 777s. DL was the first to shift to 3-3-3 around 2003~2005. UA began to switch around 2008 or so with the IPTE retrofit. AA only switched after the merger with US was announced and they immediately switched to 3-4-3.

Correct. If you're traveling alone, it hardly matters. It you travel with a friend, partner, colleague, etc, the 2 block is significantly more comfortable. Also why the MD-80/90 / 717 / A220 are awesome.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DL_Mech wrote:

tharanga wrote:

I disliked the L1011 because of the middle 5, and I'm actually amazed in hindsight that airlines carried that configuration over to more modern aircraft.

Was 3-3-3 even offered on the 777 to early customers? Anyone know the first airline with it?

Weren't Continental's 777 always 3-3-3? I heard that's why Delta switched to 3-3-3 because they were in Skyteam with Continental.

Correct. As I said above CO was the only US carrier with 3-3-3 from the get-go. New DL 777 deliveries post 2002 had 3-3-3 and other 777s were reconfigured. I don't know if CO was the specific reason, though.

I believe BA was always 3-3-3, and AF initially was 3-3-3- as well.

Not a 777, but when MD-11 flew passengers commercially, they also had 2-5-2 configuration. I remember how god-awful it was to fly in that very central seat on DL's NRT-ATL flight. Back then, there wasn't even an IFE!

But back to 777s, is it just me, or does anyone else thought ANA's 2-4-3 was one of the best seating arrangements?
Ideal for families, groups, single travellers, and couples. I thought it was an everybody-wins configuration.

The only nice thing about the 2-5-2 arrangement was that on the red eye flights it usually had a number of open rows in the center group and you could flip up all the seat arms and actually lay down.

What were really nice were the KLM MD-11s that were 2-4-3. Lots of variety. In the 3 row, you could get a single on one side and a couple on the other with an empty in between.

cschleic wrote:

What were really nice were the KLM MD-11s that were 2-4-3. Lots of variety. In the 3 row, you could get a single on one side and a couple on the other with an empty in between.

2-4-3 was also on early 747’s.

Other than previous IFE requirement and desire for less complexity, I don’t understand why it was not more popular. Now that IFE technology is changing, e.g., DL streaming, why not 2-4-3 on the A350?

2-5-2 used to be pretty common.

Fortunately I flew that DC-10 middle seat only once, and it was a short hop between two cities in Texas.

EgyptAir used to have 3-4-2 on their 772s. Ideal as different group sizes could be accomodated.

Give me 2-5-2 as a single traveler everyday of the week. As a window seat person, that meant only one person to climb over to get to the aisle for those times I was stuck in coach.

Ziyulu wrote:

I'm not understanding why the OP said it is safer to have 3-3-3? In 3-3-3, two pax per row have to climb over two people, while in 2-5-2, only one climbs, and he has a choice on which way to go.

I was *assuming* (perhaps incorrectly, thereby making an @$$ of U + me) that 3-3-3 is safer than 2-5-2 specifically for FAA evacuation requirements, which are based on 100% load factor. I was thinking strictly about the middle seat, needing to evacuate, in either direction (perhaps directly laterally): Two passengers, an aisle, two more passengers, then window/door (i.e. 4 seats in either direction) whereas 3-3-3 would be 3 seats in either direction.

Bad assumption? Thoughts anyone?

deltairlines wrote:

Give me 2-5-2 as a single traveler everyday of the week. As a window seat person, that meant only one person to climb over to get to the aisle for those times I was stuck in coach.

Me too. Also when travelling with spouse/friend or family. It is quite rare to travel with a group of 3. Every single time in a row of 5 seat (with a group smaller than 5) there has been an empty seat.

3-3-3 will need only 1 type of seat and on top of IFE boxes that would probably save some complexities.

However I normally travel solo or with my partner and mostly TPAC, so 2-5-2 would have been ideal. Now it's only down to 3-3-3 (787 / A350) or 3-4-3 (777), which none are particularly attractive when I'm stuck at the back of the bus

Gosh I missed A340s with 2-4-2!

rjsampson wrote:

For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

3-3-3 is the worst long haul configuration in the business today...i hate it ..

Was 2-5-2 ever adopted outside the US?

2-5-2 is far superior, as pointed out above, the middle seat is the only seat that’s two seats from the aisle, and you have a choice of which way out, whereas 3-3-3 has two seats that are two seats away from the aisle, and there’s only one way out. Plus couples are the most usual group, and in 3-3-3 they’re always joined by a stranger.

smi0006 wrote:

Was 2-5-2 ever adopted outside the US?

Yes. Air China, Cathay Pacific and Malaysian are amongst those who used it.

It does minimize the number of middle seats however if you’re in that middle it’s a special kind of claustrophobic hell


On a couple of occasions I had the whole 5 seat row to myself, what a delight, stretched out as far as I wanted with no aisle cart bumping and I slept for hours

I was unfortunate enough to once be stuck in the middle seat of a fully loaded Rich International L1011. MCO-YQX-BFS. Thank goodness for the refueling stop in Gander, where I was able to get off the aircraft and stretch my legs.

smi0006 wrote:

Was 2-5-2 ever adopted outside the US?

Transaero of Russia, used ex-UA airplanes.

DenverTed wrote:

For the early 9x configurations, the DC-10s and L1011 went from 2-4-2 to 2-5-2, and the 747s started at 3-4-2, which was nice, but asymmetrical.

KLM's MD11 has 3-4-2 config till the very end. But I think it's the only carrier going with 3-4-2 on MD11. The others are all 2-5-2 or 3-3-3.

smi0006 wrote:

Was 2-5-2 ever adopted outside the US?

Almost all DC10 worldwide ended up with 2-5-2. Most MD11 started with 2-5-2 too. Some early deliveries 772 also started with 2-5-2. But usually when the 772 and MD11 were retrofitted with the airlines' updated products, they move to 3-3-3.

smi0006 wrote:

Was 2-5-2 ever adopted outside the US?

Finnair had 2-5-2 on their MD-11 too. Not sure if it was modified closed to its retirement, but in the early 2000 it was 2-5-2.

Comparing 2-5-2 and 3-3-3 from a desirability perspective:

• If you take just aisle seats as desirable, then 2-5-2 is superior, since 8/9 passengers in a row are in an aisle seat, or one seat away from the aisle, whereas in 3-3-3 only 7/9 are in an aisle seat or one seat away from the aisle.
• If you take aisle and window seats as equally desirable, then 3-3-3 is superior since all passengers are no more than one seat away from either an aisle or a window, compared to 8/9 passengers being no more than one seat away from an aisle or window in 2-5-2.
• However, 3-4-2 is the best - all seats are no more than one seat from an aisle or window (the advantage of 3-3-3), and 8/9 seats are no more than one seat away from an aisle (the advantage of 2-5-2), plus it allows for different group sizes to be accommodated more easily.

On the downside, 3-3-3 only requires one type of shipset of seats, whereas 2-5-2 requires two types, and 3-4-2 requires three types.

I do hope 3-4-2 makes a comeback however - it seems the best of the bunch.

V/F

In today's world of Economy Plus and Economy Minus, 2-5-2 could make a whole lot of sense.

Put Economy Minus seats into the middle block of 5 with tight pitch and Economy Plus on the sides with bigger pitch. This way, Y+ pax will have either a window or an aisle AND better legroom.

raylee67 wrote:

KLM's MD11 has 3-4-2 config till the very end. But I think it's the only carrier going with 3-4-2 on MD11.

I believe about ten years before their retirement, they were reconfigured to 3-3-3.

Oh routes with many couples and families and not only business travelers thats a great configuration. You have the 2 seats for couples, and the middle section for a family of 3 and a couple, or a family of 4 and a individual, or a family of 5. On 3-3-3 a family of 4, which are not too uncommon, always has to be separated 3-1 or 2-2. Also with couples you always have a single seat left.

rjsampson wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

I'm not understanding why the OP said it is safer to have 3-3-3? In 3-3-3, two pax per row have to climb over two people, while in 2-5-2, only one climbs, and he has a choice on which way to go.

I was *assuming* (perhaps incorrectly, thereby making an @$$ of U + me) that 3-3-3 is safer than 2-5-2 specifically for FAA evacuation requirements, which are based on 100% load factor. I was thinking strictly about the middle seat, needing to evacuate, in either direction (perhaps directly laterally): Two passengers, an aisle, two more passengers, then window/door (i.e. 4 seats in either direction) whereas 3-3-3 would be 3 seats in either direction.

Bad assumption? Thoughts anyone?

Sorry, man. What you’re saying doesn’t make much sense. (Or you’re not conveying it very well.)

For starters, that second set of passengers you’re talking about climbing over aren’t there, as there aren’t are seats in front of the exits on these planes, you waltz right out of the full sized exit doors.

You shouldn’t be “climbing over” any passengers either, as they will have left the seats, you’re only climbing over seats.

Using your thinking, the person on the window side of a 3-3-3 configuration would also have to climb over 2 people to get to the aisle and then another 2 people to get to the exit, still making 3-3-3 “unsafer.” (Though I find both plenty safe.)

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

KLM's MD11 has 3-4-2 config till the very end. But I think it's the only carrier going with 3-4-2 on MD11.

I believe about ten years before their retirement, they were reconfigured to 3-3-3.

Indeed, KL’s MD-11 were definitely 3-3-3.

I only had the chance to fly in 2-5-2 once with my wife. We flew Moscow-Miami with Transaero back in the day and we had two of the 3 middle seats. Needless to say it was a terrible experience.

cedarjet wrote:

2-5-2 is far superior, as pointed out above, the middle seat is the only seat that’s two seats from the aisle, and you have a choice of which way out, whereas 3-3-3 has two seats that are two seats away from the aisle, and there’s only one way out.

And jet 10,000+ 737/757/32X narrowbodies are in operation with window seats two seats from the aisle.

The performance standard is evacuation time, not 'How many seats from the aisle are you?'

AleksW wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Was 2-5-2 ever adopted outside the US?

Finnair had 2-5-2 on their MD-11 too. Not sure if it was modified closed to its retirement, but in the early 2000 it was 2-5-2.

Finnair also had a good number of MD-11s in higher density config with 3-4-3

Max Q wrote:

It does minimize the number of middle seats however if you’re in that middle it’s a special kind of claustrophobic hell

It has the same exact number of middle seats: 3 per row.
What it minimizes is: the number of seats more than 1 seat away from the aisle, the AVOD equipment, seat complexity, and weight.
The 3-3-3 also allows for larger overhead storage bins on the window sides as with 3 seats the bins can be extended further without protruding over the aisle.
Having said that, the loss of the 2-seat cluster was a big loss but it's making a come back in the form of premium economy.

rjsampson wrote:

For the life of me: I don't understand why widebodies weren't configured as 3-3-3 from the outset. (?)

It's pretty obvious to the industry that not only is 3-3-3 more comfortable and easier for the crew to service -- but potentially having two passengers in order to exit/evacuate is unprecedented, and surely the safety implications would have been obvious?

Not sure how 3-3-3 is more comfortable, safer or easier to service? With 3-3-3 you have 2 people in every row that need to climb over 2 people to get to the isle. With 2-5-2 you only have 1. Further more 3 is typically an unusual number to travel with - couples and individuals and families are more likely - a couple or an individual benefits more from 2-5-2, as does a family with the middle 5. Let’s say the flight is not so full, 2-5-2 offers the opportunity to stretch out and nap in the 5 row.

2-5-2 is an excellent configuration and it’s a shame that airlines did away with it.

airbazar wrote:

Max Q wrote:

It does minimize the number of middle seats however if you’re in that middle it’s a special kind of claustrophobic hell

It has the same exact number of middle seats: 3 per row.
What it minimizes is: the number of seats more than 1 seat away from the aisle, the AVOD equipment, seat complexity, and weight.
The 3-3-3 also allows for larger overhead storage bins on the window sides as with 3 seats the bins can be extended further without protruding over the aisle.
Having said that, the loss of the 2-seat cluster was a big loss but it's making a come back in the form of premium economy.

I’m fairly certain the bin configuration is the same on 777s regardless of 2-5-2 or 3-3-3

rjsampson wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

whereas 3-3-3 would be 3 seats in either direction.

I’m not 100% sure if I completely understand what you mean, but when evacuating only laterally in a 9-abrest Plane, you always have 4 seats in either direction if seated in the middle seat.