Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26925
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:23 am

I would hope Boeing will use deep bins that will take a 25" tall rollaboard wheels-in so folks don't need to "side load" and take up most of the bin space.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
I would hope Boeing will use deep bins that will take a 25" tall rollaboard wheels-in so folks don't need to "side load" and take up most of the bin space.

Boeing has standardized on using pivot bins for their widebodies, starting with the 777. The 747 and 767 soon switched from shelf bins to pivot bins later on. The 787 will use overhead bins that are even larger than those on the 777.

Boeing still uses shelf bins on their narrowbodies, but if Boeing were to use a wider fuselage, then pivot bins may work out better.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 46):
Oh! Okay....then my cousin's husband who was one of the seat managers at Boeing (now with the F.A.A.) is wrong.

I guess that I hurt someones feelings with my original post so the mods deleted my post... so I'll try not to be as "factual" this time! Big grin

Your latest attempt to "prove" that 737 seats vary 2" in width from the standard 17" width by invoking your cousin's husband is just as much nonsense as your last post!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 46):
Ok, I'll take your word for it.

I NEVER said take my word for it!!!! In fact the opposite... I have several times said for you to check it out on the web...

A) Check out ANY airline's web site (where you''ll see the max seat width on ANY 737 is 17.2").

B) Check out Boeing's web site (where you'll see that max seat width can ONLY be 17.2").

The FACT that you haven't after over 3 posts demonstrates that you have nil credibility.

Furthermore, even after I laid out the logic for you as to WHY it is IMPOSSIBLE to put 2" wider seats into a 737 you STILL have tried to post that I am wrong!! Please, please... just do the math!!!!!!! It isn't that hard!!!!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 46):
And oh, by the way....I wasn't trying to impress you. I was telling you FACTS. You went jiggy on that I guess....

And oh, by the way.... you didn't impress me with your lack of facts! So instead of wasting bandwith repeating the same false delusion over and over again, do yourself a favour and check out Boeing's website!! Do not be afraid of the TRUTH! Big grin Big grin

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
You can take care of that by boarding WILMA-style (Window, then Middle and then Aisle) like UA now does.

While that mitigates bottlenecks a bit on boarding... the problem as outlined by Baron still remains in disembarking.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
I would hope Boeing will use deep bins that will take a 25" tall rollaboard wheels-in so folks don't need to "side load" and take up most of the bin space.

Of course, with a 2-2-2 that wouldn't be a problem as there would be around a third or more overhead bin space.  Smile
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26925
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:53 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 52):
Of course, with a 2-2-2 that wouldn't be a problem as there would be around a third or more overhead bin space.  Smile

Assuming one can make the fuselage crown "tall" enough to allow them to be seated. You should be able to have a fuselage width almost two feet less then a 767 (taking into account thinner CFRP walls and insulation). Depending on how much that drops the crown area, you might not have sufficient clearance or you might need to go with those half-arsed center bins the pre-"Signature Interior" 767-300s have which can barely hold a briefcase, much less a large rollaboard. (
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
Assuming one can make the fuselage crown "tall" enough to allow them to be seated. You should be able to have a fuselage width almost two feet less then a 767 (taking into account thinner CFRP walls and insulation). Depending on how much that drops the crown area, you might not have sufficient clearance or you might need to go with those half-arsed center bins the pre-"Signature Interior" 767-300s have which can barely hold a briefcase, much less a large rollaboard. (

Stitch, you can be assured that Boeing knows just how important overhead bin space is in narrowbodies at this time... and the need for it to be 100% less of the current "game of suitcase, purse, and backpack tetris" that currently exists.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:21 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 52):

 talktothehand  I apologize, Mr Plane, but you're incorrect. Like I mentioned earlier, there are many different types of seats that an airline can chose from. One seat on a B737 can be wider than on another B737. Its the customers choice, not Boeings. Why is that too difficult to understand, its elementary, sir. And my cousin's husband is correct in every aspect. Remember, he was a seat manager at Boeing in Everett. He knows this stuff, he was doing it for years!!! Like I said, the seats are the customer's choice and ALWAYS have been this way!!!

I'm done ranting with you.  checkeredflag 
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:26 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 55):
I apologize, Mr Plane, but you're incorrect. Like I mentioned earlier, there are many different types of seats that an airline can chose from. One seat on a B737 can be wider than on another B737. Its the customers choice, not Boeings.

I don't like his tone, but sorry, he's right. You can't put seats over 17.2" wide on a 737, at least not in Y. There's wouldn't be enough room for the cart if you did that.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:27 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 55):
I apologize, Mr Plane, but you're incorrect. Like I mentioned earlier, there are many different types of seats that an airline can chose from. One seat on a B737 can be wider than on another B737. Its the customers choice, not Boeings. Why is that too difficult to understand, its elementary, sir. And my cousin's husband is correct in every aspect. Remember, he was a seat manager at Boeing in Everett. He knows this stuff, he was doing it for years!!! Like I said, the seats are the customer's choice and ALWAYS have been this way!!!

I'm done ranting with you.

I don't know what it is with you that you can't figure this out??? It is like you are sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la I don't want to know the truth!"

Otherwise why haven't you gone to Boeing's site (I have suggested 4 or 5 times now) to see for yourself that what you are saying is impossible! Or why have you not at least done the arithmatic yourself... it ain't hard at all!

Really, it isn't rocket science... the 737 with 17.2" inch wide seats has a 20" aisle. So... if you add up the 1" or 2" per seat width that you stated were the difference between WN and HP's seat width, you would only have a 14" aisle or an 8" aisle. That should be an obvious impossibility to you... even without checking Boeing's website!

Furthermore, while Brons2 is correct about not fitting the galley cart in the aisle with the seat widths you are claiming... far more important (and something that clearly demonstrates that your cousin's ex-Boeing/FAA husband is dead wrong!) is that at the reduced aisle width that you claim the 737 would never pass the FAA's evacuation test.

You can bring a horse to water...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
I would hope Boeing will use deep bins that will take a 25" tall rollaboard wheels-in so folks don't need to "side load" and take up most of the bin space.

BTW, Boeing has been offering BigBins since 2002 for the 737 (and 757 before it ceased production) that accomodate
25" tall bags in the wing-to-wing position (wheels in).
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:54 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 47):
No middle seat - that is a biggie, particularly if you want to run with load factors in the 85%+ range (which I am convinced will be the norm).

This is really the biggest argument in favor of the 2-2-2, amazing that folks haven't given it a second thought. Current generation planes were designed in an era where ~75% load factor average was the target for most airlines. That used to be far above break-even, and guaranteed you wouldn't spill any demand. Today we see most operators aiming at the 85%-90% range.

At 75% load factor, middle seats really are not a big issue since most of them will be empty (especially after pax re-arrange themselves in the cabin after the doors are shut and they realize there is all that room).

At 85% load factor that is more than twice as many middle seats that have to be occupied. On a full flight, it is important that your seat be a good seat even if all seats near you are taken (because they will be).

I'm not saying 2-2-2 is a clear winner, but it does have distinct advantages.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 38):
WNs seat width is the same width as every single other 737 operator... 17" or 17.2 "!!!

AirTran 737-700's use an 18" width in Y.

Tom.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:06 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
We will never see 2-2-2. There is no economic justification for it.

Time at the gate is justificaton enough.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
Using the same technologies, there is no way to make a 2-2-2 more economical than a 3-3.

Then Boeing must have made a complete mistake building the much wider, but same length 787 to replace the 767.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
They're not. They're making the fuselage wider. Both Boeing and Airbus have marketed this (correctly) as "You can have a wider aisle!" The majority of airlines have said, "Yes, we can, but we'd rather stick in that extra seat."

So when Boeing has a double aisle Y1 will you still be here? I ask because I know for a fact it is being considered for the larger variants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26925
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 59):
AirTran 737-700's use an 18" width in Y.

I know that is what SeatGuru says, but I wonder if the information supplied to them by users is accurate. Does Air Tran use galley carts? If not, then they might be able to get away with a 6" narrower aisle (how narrow are the carts used on the 3+3+3 A330 charters? They have narrow aisles).
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 59):
AirTran 737-700's use an 18" width in Y.

I rest my case.  wave  See ya all in the other threads!  Smile
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 60):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
Using the same technologies, there is no way to make a 2-2-2 more economical than a 3-3.

Then Boeing must have made a complete mistake building the much wider, but same length 787 to replace the 767.

You completely lost me here. The 787 is one seat wider than the 767. The 767 and 787 are neither 2-2-2 nor 3-3. You can't build the 767 or 787 as single-aisles, even if you wanted to, because there's no way that 4-4 would pass evacuation.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 60):
So when Boeing has a double aisle Y1 will you still be here? I ask because I know for a fact it is being considered for the larger variants.

I know for a fact that they're considering it too but I haven't seen anything to suggest it's 2-2-2. The last time I saw anything, the smaller variant would be 3-3 (maybe 2-3) and the larger would be 2-3-2.

Tom.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
Does Air Tran use galley carts? If not, then they might be able to get away with a 6" narrower aisle

I don't think they use carts...I've only flown them once but I'm pretty sure it was drinks on trays and snacks in baskets.

Tom.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:00 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 62):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 59):
AirTran 737-700's use an 18" width in Y.

I rest my case. See ya all in the other threads!

Rest your case??  rotfl   rotfl 

But you stated that WN and HP have a 1" to 2" difference in their seat width... not Airtran!!  Big grin Big grin

But, seriously, are you capable of any rational thinking on this subject...

Do you for A MINUTE really think that Airtran would be the ONLY airline in the world that has wider Y seats in a 737 (or 757 for that matter)??? Does that make any sense???

Again, try to just think for a moment... Airtran, with 30" seat pitch, would have wider seats than United Plus?? Or all those DL, NW, CO 757s that are flying long haul across the Atlantic??

Furthermore, you must be honestly math impaired! I've laid out seveal times the arithmatic logic as to why it is IMPOSSIBLE to have 1" to 2" wider seats on a 737 as you continue to illogically claim:

1) Carry-ons with wheels DO NOT FIT an 8" aisle (or 14" aisle).

2) A 737 with an 8" aisle (or 14" aisle) CAN NOT PASS the FAA's evacuation test.

3) Boarding/Disembarking would take much longer with an 8" aisle (or 14" aisle). (Which is against LCC cardinal rules!)

Seriously, can you comprehend ANY of the above three points????

Since you haven't addressed a single fact that I have raised in objection to your fallacious claim, yet you continue to cling to your assertion without providing any reasoning or logic or weblink (in fact, both HP and WN both say you are wrong) one can only conclude that you want to keep your head in the sand on purpose!

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 64):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
Does Air Tran use galley carts? If not, then they might be able to get away with a 6" narrower aisle

I don't think they use carts...I've only flown them once but I'm pretty sure it was drinks on trays and snacks in baskets.

If you've ever flown Airtran 737 you would know that the aisle was not 6" narrower (14")! That would have been 2" narrower than on the CRJ!!!!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:10 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 65):

You're ignorant. As others have stated, INCLUDING me: Boeing, Airbus, Embraer or any 'Planemaker' (pun intended) do not dictate aisle widths! You keep ignoring the fact that its the AIRLINES who are the CUSTOMERS that dictate that. THEY can CHOOSE the seat types they want. Boeing does NOT make that decision.

EIther you are ignoring those facts or you are just plain dumb.

I expect to get this post deleted and possibly banned. Get a clue, Planemaker. Christ!

We are beating a dead horse with a stick on this one small issue, therefore I'm done with this thread.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:06 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 66):
You're ignorant. As others have stated, INCLUDING me: Boeing, Airbus, Embraer or any 'Planemaker' (pun intended) do not dictate aisle widths! You keep ignoring the fact that its the AIRLINES who are the CUSTOMERS that dictate that. THEY can CHOOSE the seat types they want. Boeing does NOT make that decision.

EIther you are ignoring those facts or you are just plain dumb.

I expect to get this post deleted and possibly banned. Get a clue, Planemaker. Christ!

We are beating a dead horse with a stick on this one small issue, therefore I'm done with this thread.

On the one hand, I truly hope that the mods DO NOT ERASE this post as I am not offended in the least bit!!  Big grin  Big grin

While, on the other hand, your post does, show... let's say... your rather "remarkable" cognitive abilities!  rotfl .

But first off, do not ascribe to all others your "remarkable" abilities... only one person ventured that they "thought" that Airtran has 18" seats... which as everyone but you now realizes is not true.

Second, we have been specifically discussing the 737 seat and aisle widths, and ONLY the 737.

Third, instead of scurrying around typing away irrelevant invective... why don't you attempt to answer at least a single point.. just at least a single one of my many points!

But since you have not once answered ANY of my points, then, if you want to have a shred of credibility you should attempt to at least back up your assertion that 737 seats widths vary between 1" and 2"...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 40):
WN's 733 seats vs. HP's 733 seats: Totally different widths give or take an inch or two. I've worked for both airlines, I should know.

But you didn't because you can't... so then you tried this clumsy approach...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 46):
Oh! Okay....then my cousin's husband who was one of the seat managers at Boeing (now with the F.A.A.) is wrong.

Which, as I have irrefuteably pointed out, your cousin's husband is wrong since:

A) a 737 with 8" or 12" narrower aisles would not pass the FAA evacuation test, and

B) the FARs actually dictate minimum aisle width which is wider than an 18" or 19" seat would permit in 737!!

So it is real simple... unless you can show how an airline can break FAA regs on the min aisle width on a 737... and show an airline that willingly inconveniences their pax with 8" or 14" aisles while incurring extra ground time during boarding and disembarking... you... are... very... hopelessly... WRONG!!!

Afterall, customers cannot dictate the cabin width of the 737!!!  rotfl   rotfl 
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:49 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 66):
You're ignorant. As others have stated, INCLUDING me: Boeing, Airbus, Embraer or any 'Planemaker' (pun intended) do not dictate aisle widths! You keep ignoring the fact that its the AIRLINES who are the CUSTOMERS that dictate that. THEY can CHOOSE the seat types they want. Boeing does NOT make that decision.

EIther you are ignoring those facts or you are just plain dumb.

I expect to get this post deleted and possibly banned. Get a clue, Planemaker. Christ!

We are beating a dead horse with a stick on this one small issue, therefore I'm done with this thread.

AirframeAS, maybe if someone else asks the question, it will invoke an answer.

1. What are the seat widths in the 733 for HP and WN?
2. With those seat widths, how wide would the aisle be?
3. Would that aisle pass FAA cert.?

My opinion: You are correct AirframeAS. Airlines can choose to install any width seat they choose, leaving any width aisle they choose. The sticking point is, there is only so much width in the fuselage, and since a minimum aisle width is required if they actually want to use the plane to fly people around, how can any airline logically accomplish what you are claiming in a 733?

-Dave
-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.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:18 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 59):
AirTran 737-700's use an 18" width in Y.

That is impossible on a 737. The Aisle would not be able to conform to evacuation standards.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
I know that is what SeatGuru says, but I wonder if the information supplied to them by users is accurate.

Seat Guru is incorrect. The 717's have 18" seats, but not the 737's.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 63):
You completely lost me here. The 787 is one seat wider than the 767. The 767 and 787 are neither 2-2-2 nor 3-3. You can't build the 767 or 787 as single-aisles, even if you wanted to, because there's no way that 4-4 would pass evacuation.

You said it's not economical to make a wider aircraft in the same class. The 787 is identical in capacity to the 767, yet it is wider.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 63):
I know for a fact that they're considering it too but I haven't seen anything to suggest it's 2-2-2. The last time I saw anything, the smaller variant would be 3-3 (maybe 2-3) and the larger would be 2-3-2.

I know for a fact the configuration under consideration is 2-1-2 in First and 2-2-2 in Coach in a 180 and 230 seat configuration to replace the 757-200/300 and 767-200, only the larger cariant may be 2-3-2 as 2-2-2 in the 180 is for quicker turnarounds. Both variants have a range target of the 767-200ER and the economic performance target of the 737-800 and 757-200 respectively.

[Edited 2007-08-08 15:36:22]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26925
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:31 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69):
You said it's not economical to make a wider aircraft in the same class. The 787 is identical in capacity to the 767, yet it is wider.

At eight-abreast, a 787-8 is right there with a 767-300ER and 787-9 is close to a 767-400ER, but when you go to nine-abreast, the 787's lead is not insignificant.

767-300ER Boeing Three Class Configuration - 218
767-400ER Boeing Three Class Configuration - 245

787-8 Boeing Three Class Configuration - 217/237
787-9 Boeing Three Class Configuration - 254/280
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
At eight-abreast, a 787-8 is right there with a 767-300ER and 787-9 is close to a 767-400ER, but when you go to nine-abreast, the 787's lead is not insignificant.

It's still an 8 abreast aircraft by design. If an airline opts to screw you with 9 abreast then so be it. That doesn't change the fact that it's 8 abreast. A typical 777-200 seats about 260. Do you honestly believe Boeing built the 787 to replace the 777 vs. the 767? If you do, I have some flat land outside of New Orleans to sell you.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13783
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69):
I know for a fact the configuration under consideration is 2-1-2 in First and 2-2-2 in Coach in a 180 and 230 seat configuration to replace the 757-200/300 and 767-200. Both variants have a range target of the 767-200ER and the economic performance target of the 737-800 and 757-200 respectively.

How much I would like this from a passenger perspective.

But even Boeing will take into consideration what happens if Airbus comes with an similar capasity aircraft a few years later that has a single aisle, a little wider seats, a 20% smaller frontal area and 10% lower weight and fuel consumption, with the same / smaller engines. A bloothbath?

Compare the Boeing 757-300 and 767-200 specifications (same technology) and the writing is on the wall.

757-300 :
Max seating for 289 passengers in a high density configuration, Operating empty with RB-211s 64,590kg

767-200 :
Max seating for 290 at eight abreast and 76cm (30in) pitch, mOperating empty with JT9Ds 80,920kg



The costs carrying that 15.000 kg around can be calculated pretty quickly: massive. The benefits of 2-2-2 vs 3-3 .. maybe.. forget it..

I know from an airline perspective that a twin aisle also has consequences from a crew / service perspective (more crew).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:59 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 67):
only one person ventured that they "thought" that Airtran has 18" seats... which as everyone but you now realizes is not true.

AirTran uses Recaro BL3510 seats, same thing as used by some operators in the same configuration on the slightly wider A320.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 65):
If you've ever flown Airtran 737 you would know that the aisle was not 6" narrower (14")!

FAR PART 25.815 says the minimum aisle-width for a 737-sized airplane is 15". That leaves you with 121" for the seat modules. Given a typical 2" armrest, an 18" is easily doable without ending up with a 14" aisle.

Tom.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26925
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:42 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 71):
Do you honestly believe Boeing built the 787 to replace the 777 vs. the 767?

No, because at the time the 787 was launched Airbus had at best an equal answer to the 777 (with the A340E) so there was no reason for Boeing to plan for a larger model.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69):
That is impossible on a 737. The Aisle would not be able to conform to evacuation standards.

How do you figure? 737 cabin interior width is 11' 4" (136"). Take out 15" for the minimum FAR aisle width leaves you 60.5" for each seat module. Assume 4 x 2" armrests per module and you get 17.5" per seat. Narrow the armrest to 1-5/8" and you get an 18" seat.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69):
You said it's not economical to make a wider aircraft in the same class. The 787 is identical in capacity to the 767, yet it is wider.

I said "It's physically impossible for a twin-aisle to be lighter or smaller than a single-aisle from the same technology." Although I didn't state it explicitely, it should be clear from the context that this is for two airplanes of the same passenger capacity. I specifically said that we won't see 2-2-2. I did not say a wider aircraft in the same class is uneconomical.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 71):
It's still an 8 abreast aircraft by design.

Based on what? The 787 Configuration Specification (the "sales catalog" for airlines) lists 2-4-2, 3-2-3, and 3-3-3 as economy seating options with no preference. You think that Boeing designed an 8 abreast aircraft and then discovered they could fit 9 seats in it after the fact?

Tom.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:22 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 75):
How do you figure? 737 cabin interior width is 11' 4" (136"). Take out 15" for the minimum FAR aisle width leaves you 60.5" for each seat module. Assume 4 x 2" armrests per module and you get 17.5" per seat. Narrow the armrest to 1-5/8" and you get an 18" seat.

It's 15 inches at the floor, but 20" at a height 25" from the floor - armrest height. Even if the armrest was below 25", the aisle width assuming a 2" armrest is 16". The useable cabin width is 138". This drives a 17.25 seat.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 76):
It's 15 inches at the floor, but 20" at a height 25" from the floor - armrest height. Even if the armrest was below 25", the aisle width assuming a 2" armrest is 16". The useable cabin width is 138". This drives a 17.25 seat.

Gotcha, thanks.

I finally found the drawings for the Airtran interior...SeatGuru is wrong. AirTran seats are 17.29". I withdraw all previous statements about an 18" seat.

Tom.
 
voltage
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 6:50 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 72):
Compare the Boeing 757-300 and 767-200 specifications (same technology) and the writing is on the wall.

757-300 :
Max seating for 289 passengers in a high density configuration, Operating empty with RB-211s 64,590kg

767-200 :
Max seating for 290 at eight abreast and 76cm (30in) pitch, mOperating empty with JT9Ds 80,920kg



The costs carrying that 15.000 kg around can be calculated pretty quickly: massive. The benefits of 2-2-2 vs 3-3 .. maybe.. forget it..

And yet the 757-300 sold 55 units and the 767-200 sold 128 units (not even counting the 121 -200ER orders). So what does that tell us about what airlines are willing to pay for? Don't rule out 2-2-2 yet!
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 77):
Gotcha, thanks.

I finally found the drawings for the Airtran interior...SeatGuru is wrong. AirTran seats are 17.29". I withdraw all previous statements about an 18" seat.

Tom.

After getting use to AriframeAS' evasive and blustering responses ...I really have to tip my hat to you for coming back on here and acknowledging the Airtran "mix-up". However, I am a bit surprised, given the plethora of evidence that I kept pointing out, that you weren't able to work out the "logical" impossibility of 18" seats no matter what Seatguru said.  Smile

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 75):
Based on what? The 787 Configuration Specification (the "sales catalog" for airlines) lists 2-4-2, 3-2-3, and 3-3-3 as economy seating options with no preference. You think that Boeing designed an 8 abreast aircraft and then discovered they could fit 9 seats in it after the fact?



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 75):
I specifically said that we won't see 2-2-2.

Boeing designed the 787 to compete with the A330 (which has the exact same seating configuration as the 787) but... Boeing made the 787 wider (which goes against your "wasted, uneconomic space" dictum  Wink ).

Then Airbus designs the A350 XWB to not only be wider than their own A330 but... even wider than the 787 (without increasing seating capcacity... even more "wasted, uneconomic space"!

The same has happened in the narrow-body segment with the A320 having more "wasted, uneconomic space" than the 737 (and the E-jets more "wasted, uneconomic space" than the CRJ). And the Cseries design has even more "wasted, uneconomic space" than the rest... with 18.5" seats (window & aisle) and a 19" middle seat!!  Big grin

So... once you have accepted that both A and B and E and BBD have designed "wasted, uneconomic space" into their designs... it shouldn't be too hard of a leap to accept that a twin-aisle Y1/737RS is a distinct possibiity for the 752/3 and 762 end of the program.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13783
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 79):
Then Airbus designs the A350 XWB to not only be wider than their own A330 but... even wider than the 787 (without increasing seating capcacity... even more "wasted, uneconomic space"!

I think Airbus dimensioned / widened the XWB after it became clear most airlines decided to do 9 abreast on the 787. Not more comfortable then e.g. the (2-4-2) A330 or (2-3-2) B767..

I think mainline airlines will start putting 11 abreast in the A380 too, and 6 abreast in the LRJ (reply43)  Wink
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:48 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
I think Airbus dimensioned / widened the XWB after it became clear most airlines decided to do 9 abreast on the 787. Not more comfortable then e.g. the (2-4-2) A330 or (2-3-2) B767..

You forget that the A330 is already flown 9 abreast... so why is the 787 wider than the A330... and the XWB even wider than the 787?

All three have the same seating config but different widths!

BTW, I think that you know better than to compare the 753 and 762... it isn't an apples to apple comparison at all!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26925
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 81):
You forget that the A330 is already flown 9 abreast... so why is the 787 wider than the A330... and the XWB even wider than the 787?

Passenger comfort, I imagine, since a 787 in 9-abreast will have about an extra two inches of seat width on the A330/A340 in nine-abreast (and about one inch in eight-abreast over an A330/A340 in eight abreast). The A350XWB will have three-tenths of an inch extra seat-width over a 787 when both are in nine-abreast.

Shoulder room on the 787 vs. A330/A340 should be a bit better on the former. Same with the A350 vs. the 787.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13783
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:07 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 81):
You forget that the A330 is already flown 9 abreast... so why is the 787 wider than the A330... and the XWB even wider than the 787?

All three have the same seating config but different widths!

BTW, I think that you know better than to compare the 753 and 762... it isn't an apples to apple comparison at all

The 3-3-3 A330 and 2-4-2 767 are not the most used configurations. Only some leisure / charter airlines.

The majority of economy class configurations atm:

767: 2-3-2,
330/340 : 2-4-2,
787: 3-3-3,
777: 3-3-3,
XWB : 3-3-3,
747: 3-4-3,
A380 3-4-3.

Boeing admitted they thought most airlines would do 2-4-2 on the 787 offering comfort, but reality proved differently.

I think the 757 and 762 are comparable (I see US, CO and NW 757s these days on AMS, maybe AA and DL to follow?)

The example was to show the relative structural inefficiency of a wide body compared to narrow body for aircraft <250 seats (in average configurations) of similar capasity.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:12 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 75):
You think that Boeing designed an 8 abreast aircraft and then discovered they could fit 9 seats in it after the fact?

No, they designed it around 8 abreast performance and economics. If you chose to do 9 abreast, you create better seat cost economics at the expense of range.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 83):
Boeing admitted they thought most airlines would do 2-4-2 on the 787 offering comfort, but reality proved differently.

Yes, but the point is that the A330 already accomodates 9 abreast... so why would B and A "waste" space and weight on their new offerings???

(Stitch, I know that you've already answered.  Wink I'm just driving my point thorughout this post in!! Big grin )

Quoting Keesje (Reply 83):
I think the 757 and 762 are comparable (I see US, CO and NW 757s these days on AMS, maybe AA and DL to follow?)

The example was to show the relative structural inefficiency of a wide body compared to narrow body for aircraft <250 seats (in average configurations) of similar capasity.

Tsk, tsk... with your knowledge you know better. Comparing the two is a horrible comparison that doesn't show any realtive structural inefficiency. Apart from aprox. similar pax capacity the two aircraft are not at all comparable... and you know it (or should know it!  Wink )
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:41 pm

How wide would the fuselage of the Y1 need to be to accomodate a 2+2+2 seating configuration with deep enough overhead bins that allow the typical roll-on bag to be stored efficiently?

I took a look at the space in the crown of a United Airlines 757 with the enlarged bins and it seems to me that the fuselage would need to be significantly wider to make this work. The large overhead bins extend all the way to the third seat, the aisle seat - which won't exist in a 2+2+2 configuration. And while widebodies have plenty of unused space above the cabin, narrowbody fuselages have very little. If the solution for 2+2+2 is the pivot style overheads found in the widebodies, then the crown would have to be made somewhat larger to give the bins somewhere to pivot to. This is compounded by the need for the bins to not extend into or restrict movement in the aisles when in the down position. If the solution is to go to smaller bins, but add bins over the center row, then the sense of spaciousness would be lost and all the passengers would spend their time trying to stuff their too large bags into the smaller bins. More overall bin space, divided less efficiently won't work - the bins must accomodate those 25" roll-on bags, no matter what.

I just can't see how 2+2+2 can be made to work efficiently.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:12 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 86):
How wide would the fuselage of the Y1 need to be to accomodate a 2+2+2 seating configuration with deep enough overhead bins that allow the typical roll-on bag to be stored efficiently?

Good question... no definitive answers yet (obviously) but one can speculate as has been done on various previous threads! One possibility, for example, is to take the width of an A320 and add 12"... plus or minus a couple of inches depending on design, materials and technology.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 86):
I took a look at the space in the crown of a United Airlines 757 with the enlarged bins and it seems to me that the fuselage would need to be significantly wider to make this work.

No it wouldn't... see below.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 86):
The large overhead bins extend all the way to the third seat, the aisle seat - which won't exist in a 2+2+2 configuration.This is compounded by the need for the bins to not extend into or restrict movement in the aisles when in the down position.

On a 2+2+2 the bins on attached to the side wall could be like those on the E-jets that fit the roll-aboard bag nose-to-tail...



Quoting Grantcv (Reply 86):
If the solution is to go to smaller bins, but add bins over the center row, then the sense of spaciousness would be lost and all the passengers would spend their time trying to stuff their too large bags into the smaller bins.

No, as pointed out above, the side wall bins would fit the standard 25" roll-aboard nose-to-tail... and the center bins would accomodate the 25" roll-aboard wing-to-wing but on edge so you can fit 3 per seat row in the center bins (or 2 flat to have more head room under the bin). This configuration would accomodate more roll-aboards than on the 737/757... and thus be more efficient as bags can be stowed faster.

However, I agree that some of the feeling of spaciousness would be lost with center bins but not too much.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 79):
However, I am a bit surprised, given the plethora of evidence that I kept pointing out, that you weren't able to work out the "logical" impossibility of 18" seats no matter what Seatguru said.

All of your posts were explaining why you couldn't have a 2" variance (you'd end up with a 14" or 8" aisle, which is obviously too small). It wasn't until Boeing7E7 (Reply 76) provided the correct FAR aisle widths and usable cabin width that the math for 18" broke down.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 79):
Boeing designed the 787 to compete with the A330 (which has the exact same seating configuration as the 787)

A330's with 3-3-3 seating are very rare. 787's with 3-3-3 will be very common. They do not use exactly the same seating configuration.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 79):
Then Airbus designs the A350 XWB to not only be wider than their own A330 but... even wider than the 787 (without increasing seating capcacity... even more "wasted, uneconomic space"!

You area aware that the quote "wasted, uneconomic space" is from one of your posts, not mine, right?

If you actually look at what I wrote, instead of requoting your posts, you'd note that it was the extra aisle, not the extra width, that I said wasn't going to happen.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 79):
So... once you have accepted that both A and B and E and BBD have designed "wasted, uneconomic space" into their designs... it shouldn't be too hard of a leap to accept that a twin-aisle Y1/737RS is a distinct possibiity for the 752/3 and 762 end of the program.

Twin aisle is absolutely possible, and you won't find any post of mine that says it wasn't. 2-2-2 is what I said we won't see as a standard layout. 2-3-2 is certainly a possibility.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 81):
You forget that the A330 is already flown 9 abreast... so why is the 787 wider than the A330... and the XWB even wider than the 787?

All three have the same seating config but different widths!

For starters, they don't all have the same seating configuration. They can have the same number of seats but, if they do, the seat and aisle widts are totally different. An A330 fits 9-abreast if you make it really cramped. The 787 was built wider to allow 9-abreast in comfort comprable to the existing 8-abreat configurations, or allow 8-abreast in noticably more comfort. The worsened economics of 8-abreast over 9-abreast on the 787 are covered by the improved efficiency of the rest of the plane when compared against the A330 and 767. The A350XBW was built wider so that it can offer the 8-abreast 787 comfort in a 9-abreast configuration and can get 10 seats in if you really want to (which the 787 cannot do). In each case, going wider gave the airlines new combinations of capacity/comfort...it wasn't just widening for widening's sake.

This is all a giant tangent off the original argument which started this, which is that the economics of a 2-2-2 can't be made good enough to outperform a 3-3 of the same generation.

Tom.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:30 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
This is all a giant tangent off the original argument which started this, which is that the economics of a 2-2-2 can't be made good enough to outperform a 3-3 of the same generation.

Agreed.

The rational argument against that proposition is that the 2-2-2 need not outperform the 3-3 in the aerodynamic sense of the word "perform" if its added value - operational, due to boarding time; commercial, due to pax comfort - is enough to make it outperform the 3-3 in the business sense of the word.

There are current examples of "aeronautically underperforming" aircraft "business outperforming" their competitors. The E-jets versus CRJs being the case in point.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 89):
The rational argument against that proposition is that the 2-2-2 need not outperform the 3-3 in the aerodynamic sense of the word "perform" if its added value - operational, due to boarding time; commercial, due to pax comfort - is enough to make it outperform the 3-3 in the business sense of the word.

Absolutely agreed re: the operational advantage. If it can materialize, the business case would work. The plane would still be a worse aerodynamic performer but the faster turn might pay for it.

I disagree on passenger comfort...it certainly would be more comfortable but, if boarding times were equal, passenger comfort wouldn't provide enough of a draw to override the poorer economics against a hypothetical 3-3 competitor.

Tom.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 90):
I disagree on passenger comfort...it certainly would be more comfortable but, if boarding times were equal, passenger comfort wouldn't provide enough of a draw to override the poorer economics against a hypothetical 3-3 competitor.

Many think like you, but I disagree. I have no tabulated data, but I have seen too many reports of "E-jet creep" to believe comfort is irrelevant.

E-jet creep: The phenomena where the introduction of E-jets into a route formerly operated only by ERJ and CRJ aircraft causes competitors to upgrade their own equipment in response (frequently to their own E-jets).
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:04 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 91):
Many think like you, but I disagree. I have no tabulated data, but I have seen too many reports of "E-jet creep" to believe comfort is irrelevant.

E-jet creep: The phenomena where the introduction of E-jets into a route formerly operated only by ERJ and CRJ aircraft causes competitors to upgrade their own equipment in response (frequently to their own E-jets).

I don't believe "E-jet creep" is irrelevant and I don't believe that comfort is irrelevant. I just believe that comfort only becomes relevant after price is taken out of the equation.

My understanding of the routes you're talking about is that operators can operate a larger aircraft (an E-Jet) with the same ticket prices and make the same profit because of the improved economics of the E-Jet over the ERJ/CRJ's. Given an $x ticket on an E-jet or an $x ticket on an ERJ/CRJ, I absolutely think passengers will gravitate towards the roomier aircraft. This whole situation is made possible as a business model by the economic advantage of the E-Jet.

However, the hypothetical case we're discussing here is Y1 vs. the presumed Airbus competitor, which are expected to come to market about the same time and therefore should be on a technologically level playing field. Their technical efficiency ought to be about equal. If one maker offers a 2-2-2 and one offers a 3-3, the 2-2-2 will necessarily be larger, heavier, and more expensive to operate than the 3-3 (ignoring the boarding time factor for the moment). If tickets on each are the same price, the 2-2-2 will get more people over the 3-3 (E-jet creep) but, given that the econmics of the two planes can't be the same, the operator of the 2-2-2 is going to be making less profit than the 3-3 operator and that's not sustainable in the long term...the 2-2-2 ticket prices will have to come up to cover the increased operating cost and that will send passengers right back to the 3-3.

Tom.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:48 am

If the customer is smart enough and goes through the trouble of choosing the better plane when prices are equal, that means that he attributes value to comfort. That in turn means he is willing to spend more to have comfort, which means that a price premium is practicable.

Now, maybe this premium is so low that it is negligible. Maybe the only premium the customer is willing to pay is the time spent choosing between companies with identical prices - it could be. But it is not, I believe.

You see, even if things were truly as you suggest, the company using the uncomfortable aircraft would fill their planes as easily as the other (because due to revenue management, seats are sold at progressively higher prices - the "good plane" fills a few seats first, but as soon as it is full enough to move to the next price in its revenue management scheme, demand goes to the "bad plane"). In the end, both would tend to have equal loads.

But companies go out of their way to avoid this asymmetric competition, to the extent of reassigning planes, assigning mainline narrowbodies (i.e. more expensive, per trip; sometimes requiring less frequencies), or buying competitive planes (premium cabin CRJs or E-jets of their own). This means that the comfort difference IS making a business difference - driving better RASM for the more comfortable plane.

So, either comfort doesn't matter or it does matter. If it matters, people will pay for it, if not, they won't. But you can't have it both ways   

[Edited 2007-08-09 18:52:44]
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:50 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 93):
So, either comfort doesn't matter or it does matter. If it matters, people will pay for it, if not, they won't. But you can't have it both ways

Agreed.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 93):
Now, maybe this premium is so low that it is negligible.

This was my tacit assumption that you've made explicit. I think the growth of LCC's, climbing load factors and absolute numbers in the face of declining service, and lockstep fare adjustements across the industry all demonstrate that the price premium in economy class is negligable.

Tom.
 
MMEPHX
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:54 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:36 am

If Y1 is to replace 737/320 size aircraft is a 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 really feasible? Looking at a fairly typical 150 seat layout for A320, with 12F and 138Y, currently requires 3 F Rows and 23 Y Rows @31". If we assume F stays as 3 Rows and Y became 2-3-2 that means the same capacity could be covered in 20 rows. Not far off the length of a A318. With the added width of a second aisle, natural increase in cross sectional area, are the material & engine improvements enough to overcome the aerodynamic challenges of a short, wide fuselage?

Now for a 757/738/739 replacement 2-2-2 looks a bit more realistic. I somehow can't see a twin aisle for the smaller variants being feasible. There again I'm sure the fine folks at Boeing and Airbus are looking at all this and more in the search for a future design.
 
MMEPHX
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:54 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 95):
Not far off the length of a A318

..and before anyone jumps on me...I meant to say A319.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 94):
This was my tacit assumption that you've made explicit.

So we disagree, but can understand each other. I can live with that  Smile
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:45 am

Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 95):
Now for a 757/738/739 replacement 2-2-2 looks a bit more realistic. I somehow can't see a twin aisle for the smaller variants being feasible. There again I'm sure the fine folks at Boeing and Airbus are looking at all this and more in the search for a future design.

The "twin aisle" looks very good to me as it CAN be done with 17.2" seats for only a modest increase in frontal area over the A320, area almost certainly already required by the LD3 capiblity that is assumed to be a massively desired feature. Doing a 2-3-2 is moderately questionable as that gets to being a 767.

Now no airline will be required to actualy USE two aisles. One company could run a normal narrow narrowbody aisle and wide 3+3 seats, or like I assume many will just order extra sets of 777/787 3 wide seat assemblies and stuff them in with whatever width aisle it ends up with. Companies with only narrowbodies or willing to spend more can use the width for twin aisles for quicker loading and a more premium feel. Huge benifit up in the domestic F/J class where a 1+2+1 configuration makes all the "high rollers" much happier than 2+2.

Also its nearly 100% certain that the 737RS in its primary version will START at the 737-800 size and go up from there. The 737-700 market is already virtualy dead outside of WN and other top off orders. WN even I'm fairly sure would love a bigger plane than the 737-700 just are currently unwilling to spend more money a frame, and have an extra type in the fleet. Which is moot when the 737RS arrives and WN will be grabbing them as fast as Boeing is willing to deliver them to a single customer.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:57 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
All of your posts were explaining why you couldn't have a 2" variance (you'd end up with a 14" or 8" aisle, which is obviously too small). It wasn't until Boeing7E7 (Reply 76) provided the correct FAR aisle widths and usable cabin width that the math for 18" broke down.

No, I brought up the FAA evacuation requirement and the FAR min aisle requirement before Boeing7E7... he just spoon fed it to you. So as I said, you really should have been able to logically grasp immediately that a 2" variance was impossible without even any reference to the FARs!

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
A330's with 3-3-3 seating are very rare. 787's with 3-3-3 will be very common. They do not use exactly the same seating configuration.

They do have the same seating... 3-3-3.... or 4-4-4. That one will be more common is just a tangent that does, however, refutes your argument that pax comfort is worth zero.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
You are a aware that the quote "wasted, uneconomic space" is from one of your posts, not mine, right?

No the words are yours...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
It is wasted, uneconomic space



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
If you actually look at what I wrote, instead of requoting your posts, you'd note that it was the extra aisle, not the extra width, that I said wasn't going to happen.

No, your argument and the context have been clear throughout this post... pax comfort = wasted space...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Passenger comfort has nearly zero sales value.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
And the passengers have demonstrated time and again that they value price over comfort.

And, again, other example of a revisionist post...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
Twin aisle is absolutely possible, and you won't find any post of mine that says it wasn't.

... when you actually said...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
We will never see 2-2-2.

A 180 degree flip-flop...

And so it has gone on for most of this post that you ignore the rebuttal to your points or change tack...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
The worsened economics of 8-abreast over 9-abreast on the 787 are covered by the improved efficiency of the rest of the plane when compared against the A330 and 767.

... mentioning the over 20-year old design of the 767 is irrelevant and a red-herring tangent. On the other hand, you avoid justifying that the 787 is wider than it "strictly needs to be to fit 2-4-2 or 3-3-3"... as on the A330.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
The A350XBW was built wider so that it can offer the 8-abreast 787 comfort in a 9-abreast configuration and can get 10 seats in if you really want to (which the 787 cannot do).

First off, you contradict your ealier posts that pax comfort is worth zero... and then you create the fiction of a 10-abreast XWB!! Why???

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
In each case, going wider gave the airlines new combinations of capacity/comfort...it wasn't just widening for widening's sake.

No... there is no new capacity... all three... A330, 787 and XWB have the same 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 and no more! Since increased capacity is ruled out then comfort is the remaining reason... which you have been loathe to admit since you've repeated that "pax comfort is worth zero".

Furthermore, and more pertinent to the thread topic... I have pointed out the same situation of wider fuse but same seating with narrowbodies that you ignore because it doesn't fit your "pax comfort is worth zero" mantra.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
This is all a giant tangent off the original argument which started this, which is that the economics of a 2-2-2 can't be made good enough to outperform a 3-3 of the same generation.

You are the source of the tangents. And you are incorrect about the subject of the original argument. The main argument of this thread has been against atwin aisle...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I think passengers would prefer 3-3 18" wide seats and an aisle they can get past during cart service over 2-2-2 17" wide seats with aisles they can't get past.

...or for a twin aisle...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 98):
The "twin aisle" looks very good to me as it CAN be done with 17.2" seats for only a modest increase in frontal area over the A320, area almost certainly already required by the LD3 capiblity that is assumed to be a massively desired feature. Doing a 2-3-2 is moderately questionable as that gets to being a 767.

However, there hasn't been a SINGLE post where ANYBODY has even alluded to a 2-2-2 outperforming a 3-3. This is a complete fabrication!!! Why do you fabricate when the record is there for all to see??? Talk about creating tangents!

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 92):
This whole situation is made possible as a business model by the economic advantage of the E-Jet.

Not so... the corresponding CRJ models have better operating economics (EMB reluctantly even admits to it in their publications).

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 92):
I just believe that comfort only becomes relevant after price is taken out of the equation.

Let's see how many people continue to fly a legacy carrier if they reduced pitch to 30." Big grin

Your blanket statement is incorrect since pax fare purchase is driven by a variety of factors such as flight time, fare differential, flight length, aircraft type, airline, etc, etc. FYI, Boeing has done detailed studies and flight frequency is actually the number one factor.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 92):
If one maker offers a 2-2-2 and one offers a 3-3, the 2-2-2 will necessarily be larger, heavier

This has already been thoroughly discussed and the width difference, as already has been pointed out several times, need not be appreaciably greater than the relative differences between the E-jets and the CRJ... or the A320 over the 737... or the XWB over the 787.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 92):
given that the econmics of the two planes can't be the same, the operator of the 2-2-2 is going to be making less profit than the 3-3 operator

E-jet and A320 operators better dump their jets for more economic and narrower fuselage CRJs and 737s!! Facetious comment aside, it does illustrate what arilines would do if they'd follow your simplisitic view of the airline industry.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

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