Airbus Calls For 18 Inches Wide Seats As Standard

Gonzalo · Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:41 pm

While the difference on 1 inch with the current 17 inches standard seems to be irrelevant at first glance, Airbus is supporting their claim on a study by The London Sleep Centre that used polysomnography to record every standard physiological sleep measurement – including monitoring brainwaves, eye, abdominal, chest and hip leg movement – on a selection of passengers. The study found that a minimum seat width of 18 inches improved passenger sleep quality by 53 % compared to the 17-inch standard...

http://www.businesstraveller.com/new...irbus-calls-for-minimum-seat-width

Rgds.
G.

traindoc · Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:52 pm

Don't confuse the issue with facts! To the airlines all that matters is butts in seats. And more narrow seats means more seats abreast, which means more pax per plane. To Tim Clark of EK it is a no brainer.

Memo from the airlines--if you want comfort buy business class, otherwise sit down and shut up!

tortugamon · Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:06 pm

If economy was very comfortable you would not have as many upgrades to economy plus and business. Price conscious consumers just look at price not airplane nor seat widths. Wider seats are heavier seats. I think airlines are now looking to segregate economy into two classes more and more.

It's certainly two different strategies. I would love 18 to be standard just don't think it will be.

tortugamon

shamrock604 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:11 pm

Quoting traindoc (Reply 2):
Don't confuse the issue with facts! To the airlines all that matters is butts in seats. And more narrow seats means more seats abreast, which means more pax per plane. To Tim Clark of EK it is a no brainer.

Memo from the airlines--if you want comfort buy business class, otherwise sit down and shut up!

Memo from Passengers - if you want us to keep flying, allow us to do so without sitting in pain.

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:39 pm

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 4):
Memo from Passengers - if you want us to keep flying, allow us to do so without sitting in pain.

Unless, of course, you offer us a low fare. Then we don't much care.

dynamicsguy · Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:43 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
While the difference on 1 inch with the current 17 inches standard seems to be irrelevant at first glance, Airbus is supporting their claim on a study by The London Sleep Centre

They would say that, wouldn't they. To counter that, Boeing's research apparently says the tipping point is at the 17.2" of a 10 abreast 747 (again, they would say that...) and that is what determined the fuselage width of the 787 to allow 9 abreast.

I smell a but of a PR campaign. Yesterday they tweeted a new ad campaign to spruik their 18" longhaul seats, the articles about the evolution of seat widths, and now this.

Rara · Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:46 pm

If aircraft were configured as "sleepers", with reasonably roomy bunk beds, how many passengers would fit in a plane compared to regular seating?

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:53 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
If aircraft were configured as "sleepers", with reasonably roomy bunk beds, how many passengers would fit in a plane compared to regular seating?

LH considered offering such beds in the crown area of their 747-8s for Economy Class passengers for a fee, but found interest was too low.

incitatus · Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:00 pm

Reasonable dimensions for coach should be seat width 19" and pitch of 36" I will do the work for free for Airbus to prove that

afterburner33 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:02 pm

Wasn't there talk of an 11-abreast option for the A380 at one stage? How wide would the seats be in that configuration?

LittleFokker · Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:04 pm

Could 6 abreast 18" seats fit in a 737, A320, or a 757?

AirbusA6 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:07 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 12):
Could 6 abreast 18" seats fit in a 737, A320, or a 757?

But they're mainly used on shorter journeys, you don't spend 12-14 hours on a 737!

lightsaber · Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:13 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 4):
Memo from Passengers - if you want us to keep flying, allow us to do so without sitting in pain.

Unless, of course, you offer us a low fare. Then we don't much care.

That is my thought. Passengers have proven they will sacrifice quite a bit for a 10% savings.

Why is Airbus trying to regulate their customer AirAsiaX out of business?

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
But they're mainly used on shorter journeys, you don't spend 12-14 hours on a 737!

Exactly. Sleep studies need not apply.

Lightsaber

JAAlbert · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:03 pm

I am sure this is intended to counter all the 777X media attention of the past few weeks. If Airbus can convince authorities to adopt an 18" seat, the economics of the 777X and 777 go right out the cabin window.

I for one would love an 18" seat as the bare minimum - I'm not holding my breath for it, however.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 12):
Could 6 abreast 18" seats fit in a 737, A320, or a 757?

Don't the 320s have 18" seats? I thought I heard that AA is fitting its new 320 family of aircraft with 18" seats.

a380787 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:17 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
If economy was very comfortable you would not have as many upgrades to economy plus and business. Price conscious consumers just look at price not airplane nor seat widths. Wider seats are heavier seats. I think airlines are now looking to segregate economy into two classes more and more.

Airlines used to make econ uncomfy so you'll upgrade to biz. Now airlines are using regular econ (3-4-3 on 77W) to get people to upgrade to Y+ (charging 2x price for less than 2x comfort)

I'll continue voting with my wallet for airlines that still preserve 8-wide on the 330/340s, 9-wide on the 777, and 10-wide on 380

TreeHillRavens · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:17 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15):
I for one would love an 18" seat as the bare minimum - I'm not holding my breath for it, however.

Then again, Airbus' own A350XWB will take only 17.7" seat in 9 abreast configuration.

TheRedBaron · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:22 pm

The problem is that Joe Public, doesn't want to pay for the 18 wide inch and 32 to 33 pitch. So basically you have to endure the possibility of deep vein trombosis, back ache and cramps on a 9 hour plus flight. On a less than 5 hours there is not much point on offering since most people like the lowest possible fare. But I find it puzzling and d disgusting that a lot of TATL and Transpac flights are sardine cans and your only possibility is going to C or F. Some carriers have Economy plus, if that is the case Ill always pay for it since I don't care a lot for a super IFE or airline Food, but Ill pay for the space.

Mexico has Interjet at 33 and 34 pitch on single aisle aircraft and by what difference ...

18 inch standard? I don't think I will happen... I hope I am wrong but I guess $$$ talks

TRB

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:23 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 12):
Could 6 abreast 18" seats fit in a 737, A320, or a 757?

The A320 already has 18" seats as standard (17" are optional with a 6" wider aisle, but I do not believe anyone uses that configuration).

They would fit on the 737 and 757, however that would result in a 12" aisle, which I do not believe is allowed.

Boeing's ACAP does show a 2+3 configuration for the 737-200 with 19" wide seats, but not sure if that was ever used by an airline.

Btriple7 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:29 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 7):
I smell a but of a PR campaign. Yesterday they tweeted a new ad campaign to spruik their 18" longhaul seats, the articles about the evolution of seat widths, and now this.

Yep. They're on it:

http://youtu.be/Gp-GiIsk7IE

http://youtu.be/2YcvDKzWE2I

//Bt7

seabosdca · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:31 pm

Would this happen? Not a chance. The costs of legislating every 747 and long-haul 757 out of existence, requiring 8Y in the 787 and 9Y in the 777, and outlawing charter configurations on any airliner would be astronomical.

This is an attempt to raise passenger awareness of a key Airbus advantage, to increase potential revenue for Airbus operators and lower it for Boeing operators around the edges. Will it work? In terms of economy class ticket sales, I doubt it. Where it might have a small effect is in forcing 777/787 operators to devote a bit more space to premium economy.

airDFW · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:38 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
If aircraft were configured as "sleepers", with reasonably roomy bunk beds, how many passengers would fit in a plane compared to regular seating?

United is already planning that:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/uni...ing-viability-of-stacking-th,2841/

Oroka · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:50 pm

Quoting traindoc (Reply 2):
Memo from the airlines--if you want comfort buy business class, otherwise sit down and shut up!

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 1):
Memo from Passengers - if you want us to keep flying, allow us to do so without sitting in pain.

In the end it comes down to what you pay. You can pay for Economy Premium or fly with an airline that has more space but charges more. 17" will become the standard in economy class everywhere, so sit in the seat or pay more.

Fuel prices are up, union mandated wage hikes are up, yet you expect to pay the same or less... something has to give. More fare cost for you, or less seat space. Pick one and pay accordingly.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I suggest you don't eat the cake all by yourself, you may not fit in the economy seats.

roseflyer · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:53 pm

Another iteration of the seat width wars. The most common width in an Airbus plane is 18 inches, so of course they are going to support studies saying 18 inches is better. The most common width on a Boeing airplane is 17-17.5 inches. I am not surprised in any way that Airbus is behind a study saying that 18 inches should be industry standard. Seat width is all over their marketing presentations. Boeing tried to push 18.5 inches with the 777 and 787, and the result is airlines went back to 17 inches to squeeze more seats in. In the end it is an airline decision.

Kevin Keniston, Airbus' head of passenger comfort, said: "If the aviation industry doesn't take a stand right now then we risk jeopardising passenger comfort into 2045 and beyond – especially if you take into account aircraft delivery timetables combined with expected years in service.

I’m not really sure how much Airbus gets to decide this. The airlines are the ones who buy the seats. Any time you try to make a wider airplane to get wider economy seats, airlines go back to 17 inches when they see revenue potential. I guess Airbus can build airplanes that only fit an 18 inch wide seat, but then you’ll still get airlines squeezing in a 16 inch seat. If I remember correctly, Emirates CEO said that passengers don’t care about seat width if you distract them with IFE and food.

scbriml · Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:59 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
LH considered offering such beds in the crown area of their 747-8s for Economy Class passengers for a fee, but found interest was too low.

Customer interest or not, those bunks added no additional passengers and are effectively dead weight since they can't be occupied for take-off or landing (due to no emergency egress). I could never see the business case when Boeing was touting them.

IslandRob · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:13 pm

In a related development, Airbus repeated its call for "4 engines 4 longhaul".

KIdding aside, seems unwise/insulting for a airliner manufacturer to preach the virtues of a configuration that many of its actual and potential customers do not plan to use for their fleets. -ir

EPA001 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:18 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 24):
If I remember correctly, Emirates CEO said that passengers don’t care about seat width if you distract them with IFE and food.

He did indeed. But it will not be true for everyone. I try avoid 10-abreast B777's anyway I can, but others might feel different about that. Good IFE and good food are good compensations, but if you can have that + avoid 10-abreast seating, that makes a trip so much more attractive.

18 inch is the best way to go for long haul trips, but it is more expensive or the airlines using it can potentially make less money out of their planes. The final configuration is always a trade-off.

. For shorter trips (not exceeding 5 hours or so) a smaller seat is still acceptable I guess.

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 24):
I’m not really sure how much Airbus gets to decide this. The airlines are the ones who buy the seats.

Airbus can influence them by dimensioning their planes to accommodate 18" seats instead of 17" seats in the baseline configuration (which they have), but that does result in a wider and heavier airframe, all things else being equal (which they seldom are).

Bogi · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:24 pm

Maybe, Airbus makes indirectly sentiment, against planned 777X with 10 seats per row?

knoxibus · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:26 pm

Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 17):
Then again, Airbus' own A350XWB will take only 17.7" seat in 9 abreast configuration.

Wrong, it is 18".

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 24):
The airlines are the ones who buy the seats

For E/C seats, Boeing has two offers on 787, either SFE (Boeing has set-up the catalogue and buys the seats) or BFE (airlines chose the seat they want and they pay for it). I think Airbus has something similar for the A350XWB, so this statement does not appeal to all cases.

wingman · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:31 pm

I think Airbus should man up and refuse to sell planes to any customer that decides on less than 18" in a widebody. Boeing probably wouldn't like having that market to itself but someone's going to have to cater to the torture market.

KPDX · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:36 pm

Hahahaha.... What a silly marketing campaign.

PITingres · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:38 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 31):
someone's going to have to cater to the torture market.

Or the (apparently large) market for people who don't in fact think that there is any significant difference between an 18 inch seat and a 17 inch seat. Like myself, for instance.

Seat pitch matters to me, but I don't find that seat width matters at all, even on long (eg LAX-AKL) flights.

Mutt · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:50 pm

Airbus marketing....reaching new lows so ridiculous it's comical!! This, Xwb (when it's competition is actually wider), Sharklets, 4 engines 4 long haul, Chinese copy (comment, not marketing), etc. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell any regulatory agency is going to mandate a seat minimum of 18". Haven't they embarrassed what is an otherwise innovative (before the A350 Xwb) company enough?

Can't wait for the next one!!!

AustrianZRH · Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:52 pm

Quoting PITingres (Reply 33):
Seat pitch matters to me, but I don't find that seat width matters at all, even on long (eg LAX-AKL) flights.

I couldn't care less about pitch, but 18" allow me sleep. 17" don't. My personal experience here is in line with the sleep institute. And with 5' 9" and 155 lbs I'm by no means a very big person.

rcair1 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:14 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15):
I am sure this is intended to counter all the 777X media attention of the past few weeks. If Airbus can convince authorities to adopt an 18" seat, the economics of the 777X and 777 go right out the cabin window.

Yes - this is all about marketing. Airbus or Boeing will support whatever 'standard' makes their a/c look more competitive, or their competition look worse.

Also - I'm sure they only want the standard size for "counting" purposes - they would never limit their customers choices by forcing them into a seat pitch/width. That could easily backfire - drive customers to their competitor that "allows" 17.9 " seats.

Yawn....

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:21 pm

Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 17):
Then again, Airbus' own A350XWB will take only 17.7" seat in 9 abreast configuration.

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 30):
Wrong, it is 18".

The June 2013 A350-900 ACAP shows 18" center armrest to center armrest at 3+3+3, so the actual seat cushion width would be a bit less.

The 2006 Launch Presentation showed 17.5" seat width at 3+3+3.

ikramerica · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:23 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15):
I am sure this is intended to counter all the 777X media attention of the past few weeks. If Airbus can convince authorities to adopt an 18" seat, the economics of the 777X and 777 go right out the cabin window.

They would need to convince the authorities that the purpose of the seats is for getting quality sleep, not for transporting passengers. Length of flight is immaterial. Many 12 hour flights are daylight flights, so sleeping isn't a priority. And some experts recommend limiting your sleep on flights to help acclimate to the new timezone.

I personally can't sleep in an 18" seat, a 19" seat, a sloped flat sleep, and barely in the full flat F seats. So 17" doesn't really matter much.

Maybe the airline employee unions will use this to force airlines to offer wider seats for crew rest for F/As when there isn't a dedicated roomette. I can see their argument that curtaining off a coach row, even with greater foot room, isn't enough.

TreeHillRavens · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting knoxibus (Reply 30):
Wrong, it is 18".

Read from flightglobal a while back that it's just gonna be 0.5" wider than the standard seat width on the 787 in 9 abreast configuration. Well, may be thing has changed since.

cmf · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:32 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 18):
The problem is that Joe Public, doesn't want to pay for the 18 wide inch and 32 to 33 pitch.

I think it is more accurate to say that Joe Public consider all airlines equally bad and thus select the cheapest ticket.

AirbusA6 · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:34 pm

Airbus isn't expecting legislation. But what it has got is publicity, this story was mentioned on the radio news this morning (BBC Radio 5). Airlines have got away with shrinking seat width. because the public are less aware of it than of seat pitch.

By saying it often enough, they are trying to portray the idea that Airbuses are more comfortable than Boeings...

Indy · Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:36 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14):
That is my thought. Passengers have proven they will sacrifice quite a bit for a 10% savings.

While I agree people are generally EXTREMELY cheap I don't think they would take pain for a 10% savings. I don't think people said "yes... make it so I can't move and shove a seat into my knees so I can save a few dollars." Airlines kept packing the planes tighter and tighter and passengers had no choice but to accept it. My opinion is that minimum seat with and pitch should be regulated. Minimum health and safety standards should be figured in and whatever seat size is figured to be is what airlines and manufactures should be required to adhere to. Safety may be a factor but I think health has been completely ignored.

Fortunately airlines are now offering premium economy products that give options to passengers wiling to pay more. And this is closer to the 10% more and not the 200%+ required for a J/F ticket. I don't think Delta has had much problem filling their economy comfort seats. I know some get the upgrades for free or next to free, but obviously there are plenty of people willing to pay extra for the legroom.

I recognize the segment of the population that would fly subway style if they could save money. But I also recognize the segment of the population that is willing to pay a bit more for better service but gets largely ignored in favor of the cheapest flyer.

justloveplanes · Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:17 pm

17 to 18 inches is a difference I can feel. For sure. 777's and the 787 concept were designed around this.

It is a clever marketing strategy by Airbus to highlight the stengths of their product. This is a clear A350 vs 787 both at 9 abreast ploy.

I don't know who funded this particular sleep study (Airbus?), but on the surface, I myself can feel the difference between a 777 and 747 significantly. To me, width more important than pitch.

Motorhussy · Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:24 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 38):
They would need to convince the authorities that the purpose of the seats is for getting quality sleep, not for transporting passengers. Length of flight is immaterial. Many 12 hour flights are daylight flights, so sleeping isn't a priority.

While agreeing from an airline and economic perspective, don't authorities have to, at some point, look at the average weight/height/build etc of their citizens and ensure that their people's health isn't going to be compromised by the airlines that serve them?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 38):
And some experts recommend limiting your sleep on flights to help acclimate to the new timezone.

Based upon the time of arrival at your destination IE, don't sleep on the flight if you'll be arriving in the evening.

Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 39):
Well, may be thing has changed since.

9-abreast on 787 is 17.2", on the A350 it is 18".

Oykie · Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:35 pm

My worst longhaul experience has been on Thomas Cook A330-300 OSL-KBH with 9 across seating. I even paid for an upgrade only to realise that the seat pitch and width was still worse than Ryanair! My best longhaul experience in economy was Qatar Airways DOH-MEL 14.5 hours in their 9 across seating onboard their 777-200LR.

When flying longhaul I will pay extra for some more width and pitch. I did not sleep at all onboard Thomas Cook A330, and going back via SHJ for a total of 17 hours onboard Thomas Coock, I have decided to never, ever fly Thomas Cook for long haul and never ever in an A330 with 9 across seating. I will pay for comfort. Up to a point of course. I have not yet flown oboard a 777 with 10 across seating. I have heard different comments regarding that experience. I might try it one day, just to see how it feels.

When I flew Virgin Atlantic A330 I did pay for an extra wide seat in economy and have paid for Premium Economy on Virgin Atlantic. In my opinion those purchases have made the journey much more relaxing, and in fact I have not been as tired as I was when flying the 9 across seating with Thomas Cook.

In my experience there is something to the claim that wider seats increases sleeping comfort. I am one of those few passenger who will pay a bit more money for extra comfort, yet again I understand that I am lucky not to be as price sensitive as other customers.

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
I think it is more accurate to say that Joe Public consider all airlines equally bad and thus select the cheapest ticket.

But there are huge differences between seat manufaturers and airlines in economy. To know the best seats in the air gives an added value to the overall airline experience. Some Joe including me will pay some money for those seats.

zotan · Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:39 pm

There is an ongoing battle between Airbus and Boeing over seat width. Boeing has been marketing the 787 with 9 abreast seat width, which results in a much narrower seat. Airbus can do the same on the A350 with a wider seat. If the industry adopted an 18 inch standard, it would put Boeing at a disadvantage as their cabins are more narrow.

par13del · Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:09 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 39):
By saying it often enough, they are trying to portray the idea that Airbuses are more comfortable than Boeings...

Does make you wonder how the A330 was able to "kill" the 767 which had one of the best seating arrangements prior to all this 9 and 10 across, guess comfort only goes so far

Imagine the room on a 777W compared to the A350 with all 18" seats, hhhhhhmm, economics for the airline may not be good but pax comfort would be through the roof.

TheRedBaron · Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:54 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
I think it is more accurate to say that Joe Public consider all airlines equally bad and thus select the cheapest ticket.

Joe public doesn't even care what aircraft they are on, they only care for $$$, hence why some airlines have very OLD iron.

Quoting Indy (Reply 40):
While I agree people are generally EXTREMELY cheap I don't think they would take pain for a 10% savings. I don't think people said "yes... make it so I can't move and shove a seat into my knees so I can save a few dollars." Airlines kept packing the planes tighter and tighter and passengers had no choice but to accept it. My opinion is that minimum seat with and pitch should be regulated. Minimum health and safety standards should be figured in and whatever seat size is figured to be is what airlines and manufactures should be required to adhere to. Safety may be a factor but I think health has been completely ignored.

Amen, maybe they should put a waiver for your cheap tickets, maybe that way, people would stand up and notice

Heck even some frequent flyers I now do not know Seat Guru.com.... even newer seats on some narrow bodies make a world of difference .

TRB

Stitch · Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:59 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 40):
While I agree people are generally EXTREMELY cheap I don't think they would take pain for a 10% savings.

Considering the growth of LCC carriers in Europe and Asia, I think they will.

PITingres · Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:09 pm

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 33):
I couldn't care less about pitch, but 18" allow me sleep. 17" don't. My personal experience here is in line with the sleep institute. And with 5' 9" and 155 lbs I'm by no means a very big person.

We are roughly the same size (I am probably slightly wider), so it really comes down to personal preference. Just don't imagine that because you feel a width difference, that everyone our size does.

Oykie · Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:14 pm

Quoting zotan (Reply 44):
If the industry adopted an 18 inch standard, it would put Boeing at a disadvantage as their cabins are more narrow.

How can you state that Boeing cabins are more narrow? The 777 is wider than the A350 and the 787 is wider than the A330.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net