Quoting oykie (Reply 49): 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.

A350 is wider than than the 787. That's what this is about.

Quoting wingman (Reply 29):

What a great idea. Telling potential customers to take a hike always works out well.  

Quoting zotan (Reply 50): A350 is wider than than the 787. That's what this is about.

Correct, and the A380 is wide for no reason. It can fit 19" seats in Y, but why? Does SQ get more revenue from their 19" seats? BA is putting in 17.5" in the A380 just like their 747s, and this must anger Airbus to no end as it takes away the advantage Airbus built into the A380 in terms of seat comfort.

Quoting zotan (Reply 50): A350 is wider than than the 787. That's what this is about.

But the A350 is an overall larger plane. The 787 was unveiled as a 8 across plane competing against the A330. In relation to that the 787 is wider. The A350 xwb was launched to target the 777.

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 33): I couldn't care less about pitch, but 18" allow me sleep. 17" don't.

Haha, I am the complete opposite.

Somebody needs to remind them there is ample evidence of the harm from the inability to stretch your legs for long periods.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 54): Somebody needs to remind them there is ample evidence of the harm from the inability to stretch your legs for long periods.

Yes, but you can stretch your ass...  

Anything less than E+ is meaningless for me in that regard. I'm tall, so while nice, even the fake 34" E+ UA had on the p.s. service wasn't cutting it. But 36" does make a difference. I'll take 17.2" at 36" inches even if I am 250 pounds.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 46): Joe public doesn't even care what aircraft they are on, they only care for $$$, hence why some airlines have very OLD iron

My point against your original argument 

OK. Then at least put 18" seats in economy plus.

Quoting oykie (Reply 53): But the A350 is an overall larger plane. The 787 was unveiled as a 8 across plane competing against the A330. In relation to that the 787 is wider. The A350 xwb was launched to target the 777.

But an 18" standard would restrict the 787 to 8 abreast, and the 777 to 9 abreast. That is why Airbus is more than happy to call for such a standard. All for the sake of comfort of course  

This is an indication of frustration and desperation from Airbus, and indicates to me that they have lost some major deals to the 777X, rather than 350-1000, that we have not heard of yet.

It won't work with the airlines or public, but would work if they can get every regulator to mandate it.

I think a mandated width is a good idea ,to put some base limit on how low an airline can go, however all existing models would need to be grandfathered otherwise, Boeing aircraft would not be flying anymore in economical configurations compared with Airbus types BUT

It won't even work for Airbus if they can get Brussels to mandate it, (something like their successful tax on overflying aircraft to clean up the environment), because the USA and the rest of the world won't do it, and then all flights originating in Europe will be at a disadvantage to other origins.

Ruscoe

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 59): This is an indication of frustration and desperation from Airbus

Come on, this seems a bit exaggerated.
It's just marketing - emphasise your strengths and present your (potential) weak points in a better light.


However, there is an interesting point:
Airbus actually does tend to choose fuselage diameters which are comfortable and great for the original mission they were supposed to be used to. But if we get down to the trend of squeezing more seats per row into a given frame, the Airbus diameters struggle more than the Boeing ones.
737 vs A320: Both are 6 abreast of course. But one could argue that A flies some inches in diameter around without use (they might be nice for passenger comfort though). Or are those inches of any use for Business class seats? Are they the reason the A320 can use containerized cargo while the 737 can not?
A330: 8 abreast great, but horrible to useless 9 abrest (for most airlines).
A350: look at A330 but replace numbers with "9" and "10"...
A380 vs 747: 380 might make use of its extra inches for 11 abreast, but with how much inches per seat? Much less comfort? However, with 10 abreast, the 380 is more comfortable than the 747.
777: Good 9 abreast and not-so-good 10. But still ok... 777x expected to be better.
787: Great with 8 abreast and ok with 9 abreast.

The only Boeing plane which is similar to 330/350/380 with an additional seat is the 767 (8 instead 7): Horrible.
So would be the 747 - but has someone ever tried 11 abreast in the 747? Would it even be feasible like in the 767/330?

So it makes sense for Airbus to launch this 18-inch campaign - it shows some of their strengths and hides weak points within the same campaign...

[Edited 2013-10-28 15:06:09]

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 59): This is an indication of frustration and desperation from Airbus, and indicates to me that they have lost some major deals to the 777X, rather than 350-1000, that we have not heard of yet.

Airbus secured 108 new A350-1000 orders in the last 13 months, they can't be that unhappy. This is just marketing at work.

Quoting DUSint (Reply 60): A380 vs 747: 380 might make use of its extra inches for 11 abreast, but with how much inches per seat? Much less comfort? However, with 10 abreast, the 380 is more comfortable than the 747.

An 11-abreast A380 will give you the same comfort as an 10-abreast 777/

Quoting AirDFW (Reply 20):

This isn't a very trustworthy news source. By the way, it says it would eliminate the need for seat belts and oxygen masks, which obviously, the FAA would never let anyone even think about.

SA manage to run all of their aircraft as 17" and look where that has got them!   

How is talk of the horrifying 11 abreast A380 going, again?

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 11): But they're mainly used on shorter journeys, you don't spend 12-14 hours on a 737!

Not yet.

Quoting AirDFW (Reply 20): 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...2841/

Oh please... quoting The Onion is like quoting what is on toilet paper... bunks won't work - how would you safely evacuate everyone in an emergency; - assuming they sit in/around the sleeping space? What about injuries sustained from pax tripping on stairs going up & down to a bunk - and the associated lawsuits thereafter...

Quoting Polot (Reply 58): But an 18" standard would restrict the 787 to 8 abreast, and the 777 to 9 abreast. That is why Airbus is more than happy to call for such a standard. All for the sake of comfort of course

Exactly. Airbus wants to restrict what Boeing can do with their products, thus improving the relative economics of their own products.

Quoting DUSint (Reply 60): So would be the 747 - but has someone ever tried 11 abreast in the 747? Would it even be feasible like in the 767/330?

No - insufficient space for the aisles.

Quoting oykie (Reply 53): The A350 xwb was launched to target the 777.

Yes but not in width, the 777W is still wider than the A350.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 59): It won't work with the airlines or public, but would work if they can get every regulator to mandate it.

Every airline landing at a EU airport after say a 6 hour minimum flight time from a non-EU airport must have 18" seats as the minimum size onboard, the legal logic used for the ETS could be ported.
If airlines want to avoid the tax they can make one stops in Bermuda, the Azores and other stops within the 6 hour minimum.
Anyone here connected to Brussels to push the proposal forward?

Quoting par13del (Reply 68): Every airline landing at a EU airport after say a 6 hour minimum flight time from a non-EU airport must have 18" seats as the minimum size onboard, the legal logic used for the ETS could be ported.

The response from other countries can be ported from the ETS debacle as well. This is just PR, nothing is going to come out of it. Not that it even matters, I don't think the EU has the authority to enforce something like this on aircraft registered outside the EU.

[Edited 2013-10-28 18:07:13]

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 16): 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

Well said!   

I have to ask. What the hell does "Airbus says" mean? Is there a guy named Pierre Airbus out there saying things? I always thought Airbus was a company and not a person that "says" things. But, apparently, it's someone who thinks a blatantly obvious attempt at making Airbus fuselage widths the right choices, and assumes that the folks who purchase airplanes will fall for a ludicrously obvious attempt at rigging the game, and are stupid enough to give the study any credibility will rule the day.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 14):

TK has a 3 3 3 config on their 777. Upgrading to premium economy is not that much more and you get a 2 3 2 configuration of seating with a pretty good pitch. I will be willing to pay for this flight in Y+.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 13): 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.

JAAlbert got it right... it is another PR exercise.. 777X with 10 abreast will be less than 18" (wider than current EK 10 abreast due to thinner wall linning)... so obviously this is a game that Airbus is playing to help strengthen their A350-1000 vs 777X argument...

Quoting par13del (Reply 68): Every airline landing at a EU airport after say a 6 hour minimum flight time from a non-EU airport must have 18" seats as the minimum size onboard, the legal logic used for the ETS could be ported.If airlines want to avoid the tax they can make one stops in Bermuda, the Azores and other stops within the 6 hour minimum.Anyone here connected to Brussels to push the proposal forward?

18 inches without a pitch minimum is just a lousy Airbus trick.

If the intent is to give passengers some decent comfort, then 19-inch width and 36 inches of pitch seems like the bare minimum that is acceptable. Also throw in a minimum recline angle.

Pass law now and give airlines 5 years to be 50% compliant and 10 years to be 100% compliant.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 74): If the intent is to give passengers some decent comfort, then 19-inch width and 36 inches of pitch seems like the bare minimum that is acceptable. Also throw in a minimum recline angle. Pass law now and give airlines 5 years to be 50% compliant and 10 years to be 100% compliant.

This law would increase airfares for everyone by at least 50%. Are you really saying that should be imposed on everyone?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 75): This law would increase airfares for everyone by at least 50%. Are you really saying that should be imposed on everyone?

Perhaps with a bit of humor I say why not? How did you arrive at 50%?

We can have 19" wide seats and 36" pitch with a ~20% reduction in the number of seats in a typical long-haul Y cabin. That does not directly translate into 20% more expensive tickets because some costs go down, so the market will adjust to a different price that is higher but not 20% higher.

An even more compelling reason not to regulate space is that more space is less green.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 76): We can have 19" wide seats and 36" pitch with a ~20% reduction in the number of seats in a typical long-haul Y cabin.

How do you figure that? The 777 is the only airliner that can accommodate 19" seats without losing a column of seats (assuming the operator is using 9Y). For other aircraft and 10Y 777s, depending on your aircraft the lost column will take away 11% (A380/747/777)-15% (767) by itself, or 20% for a long-haul 757. You're taking away another 15% in pitch. That means a minimum of about 27% of Y seats lost (except for 9Y 777s), with a maximum of more like 35%. On top of that you're also losing economies of scale and some ancillary revenue (with more space overhead, fewer passengers will check bags). You're also losing the ability to charge a premium for PE, and some business passengers might even downgrade to economy.

[quote=cmf,reply=56]My point against your original argument

You are correct maybe I did not explain myself (did not help that Anet server went down for few minutes and my post was lost)  

What I find really intolerable is the ridiculous amount of (LACK) space in coach at 30 or 29 inch pitch, going to the lav, requires everyone to stand up and if your neighbor is a bit on the heavy side...god help you.

Now this is clearly some PR and Airbus promotion of their products, but they have a point on the minimum space to be safe, confortable and livable.

TRB

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 71): I always thought Airbus was a company and not a person that "says" things.

I thought everyone knew:

"Corporations are people, my friend" - Mitt Romney, 2012

Quoting AirDFW (Reply 20): United is already planning that: http://www.theonion.com/articles/uni...2841/

Quoting KenanC (Reply 62): This isn't a very trustworthy news source.

Its satire its not news. This is fake news meant as comedy.

There is zero chance of legislation being passed for seat width. Its not a question of health, its comfort. Comfort is personal and people will vote with their pocketbooks if they are not happy with the comfort.

Right now it seems like the trend it so give as little as possible to the consumer so you can offer the lowest price but be careful not to go too far where you annoy your passengers (e.g. Spirit).

I think Airbus is smart to get this conversation out there. If people talk about, Airbus wins. There is no downside.

The 77W at 10 abreast does have 17" seats but that is not the long term plan so this talk about 17 vs 18 really isn't even fair in my opinion.

In reality though we are talking about a less than a 18" (A350) seat (See Stitch reply #35) compared to a 17.3/17.4" (787/777x) seat. That amount is about the length of my thumb nail.

I think this is intended by Boeing as they try to come up with the most economical cross section. As Airbus came later (A320 vs 737; A350 vs 787, etc) they chose to position themselves as comfort over economy which makes sense.

Again, I think the smaller seat gives airlines the lower costs in weight and aerodynamics and it has the added benefit of causing more discerning clientele to upgrade to Economy Plus or Business. Airlines should be able to do 19"+ seats at 9 abreast in the 777x so that could be phenomenal comfort if their consumers care. In reality I think this will become the new Economy+.

tortugamon

Seat pitch is more important than width to me, I have long legs and I am not very large, just normal sized. I still sit comfortably in the small 737 seats, its the legroom that gets me sore knees

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 77): The 777 is the only airliner that can accommodate 19" seats without losing a column of seats (assuming the operator is using 9Y).

The A380 is in that space too - on the maindeck anyway.

Rgds

What a spirited and thoughtful symposium, based - as is every discussion in these columns - at the end, on applicable financial aspects. This being indubitable, why cannot similar effort be brought to bear on other methods, in discussion on seating, by which the airlines may establish an acceptable return on investment, while delivering an equally acceptable product to the consumer.

Passengers range upwards and outwards towards two metres in height and 200kg in weight. Or some such. All discussions and claims relative to airline passenger seating, receive criticism and evaluation against that to which by habit we have come to accept as a norm. Some sort of average.

Whatever 'average' is presently used in establishing a basis from which and against which all proposals are meted, is it, in reality, acceptable? It is a seat that is under consideration, not a bed; why should we be able to sleep in it? How can any operator outfitting an airliner devise seating that is equally uncomfortable for everyone?

Has consideration been given to seats in a greater range of sizes, available for purchase 'off-the-plan'? What about a basic charge for a seat, to which accrues surcharging for mass and/or dimension of the intended occupier? After all, how can it be fair that regardless of the occupier's size (almost) an identical charge applies?

It will be obvious that I have ignored matters in detail - this is intentional as it's other ideas that I seek.
thankyou.

Why not just have a 15" isle width with bench seats on both sides of the isle? You know...like the back seat of a car. Then you could fit even more people in a single row!!  

People want cheap seats. 777X should have 3-5-3 at 16" to make the tickets cheap. If you want comfort buy eco plus or biz.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 85): People want cheap seats. 777X should have 3-5-3 at 16" to make the tickets cheap. If you want comfort buy eco plus or biz.

Only thing is eco plus seats are typically the same width as cattle class. Maybe that will change with some airlines offering more width, in addition to pitch in the future???   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35): 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.

Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 37): 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.

To be clear, when an OEM or an airline talk about seat width, we are talking about armrest to armrest width. The backrest will obviously narrow down in a tapered way at armrest height, but then it fans out slightly as you go up the backrest, to equal the armrest to armrest width (granted it is dependent of the seat design) to allow foldable armrest.

The seat cushion is actually larger than armrest to armrest width, as cushion usually are flush to the armrest support arm (if there is one!), which is narrower than the armrest cap (the bit you rest your elbow on, well, if you can fight for the space with your neighbour ). In brief, on standard seats, the cushion/pan seat is usually the wider part of the seat (cushions are generally flsuh with each others, other see below reference to front row seats).

And then you have all the variants impact. A front row seat will be narrower than a standard seat because of the in-arm tray table/video monitor. Then some seats towards the rear part of the fuselage will narrow down due to the end of the tapered area and the offset needed because of seat rails location. Sometimes you can have on a triple as a last row, one pax with say 16.5" seat width and the two others at 17.5" (chose your seat carefully).

Quoting DUSint (Reply 60): So would be the 747 - but has someone ever tried 11 abreast in the 747?

Don't forget that 747 started with 9 abreast.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): 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.

I think that was one point which was made - in some regions/carriers customers are indeed voting with their wallets and choosing airlines based on seat comfort. That is the nightmare scenario for some airlines as it represents a tipping point where they can't squeeze any more revenue out of degrading the economy travel experience/comfort in order to upsell that comfort back to the passengers.

Along the same lines, witness Ryanair (finally) scaling back their hostile and aggressive low-quality service because passenger tolerance has finally bottomed out.

The mantra and accepted wisdom is that pax will put up with anything so long as they don't have to pay. I would suggest that this depends a lot on culture, country etc. The fact than we seem to be bottoming out on what pax will accept in terms of comfort and service indicates to me that air travel is probably too cheap.

Anyway, that is the market - the same forces that let airlines degrade existing services so they can upsell them back to customers will impose limits on what airlines can do in relation to seating comfort, food, etc. I think we are starting to see that now.

Personally, I am happy to pay more for more seat pitch and width and I choose my airlines accordingly. When I travel for business I also make my choices for the same reason. I know a lot of people who act the same way.

There has been a lot of press recently about demographic stratification in the flying public and a few hard looks at the current airline business models based on intentionally degraded services. I sense a pendulum swing out there. I also speculate that we will see a lateral stratification where airlines in countries which have less open competition (eg, the US and others which are more heavily unionised etc) tend toward being mainly low cost, low quality carriers due to the fact that their business models mandate a low quality/cost product, while airlines in countries which, rightly or wrongly, are more able to compete due to competitive employment regimes, different passenger expectations etc, provide more 'premium' services. I think we're seeing that already when you look at US carriers compared to some of the European and Asian airlines. This opens a whole other argument about level playing fields for airlines...

Obviously Airbus are doing this as part of a PR or marketing campaign, they're a business so no surprises there. I personally think it's a good thing and kudos to them; it contributes to the discussion about whether or not airlines reached the bottom and where do we go from here.

As a side note, it's interesting that many countries have legally mandated standards on live animal shipping standards, but no such regulations exist for humans....  

Quoting hb88 (Reply 89): As a side note, it's interesting that many countries have legally mandated standards on live animal shipping standards, but no such regulations exist for humans....

Excellent point!!  

Quoting hb88 (Reply 89): I think that was one point which was made - in some regions/carriers customers are indeed voting with their wallets and choosing airlines based on seat comfort

As individual wealth around the world slowly and steadily climbs, there will come a point for many of them in many aspects of their life, where the lowest price "at any cost" (so to speak) is no longer an acceptable trade-off.

Eventually many people come to value (and that's the right word) a certain minimum standard that they are prepared to pay for.

In developed countries, we can see that in so many fields. Price is crucial - but not at the abandonment of quality.

There will always be many of course for whom absolute lowest cost is still the driver, but I suspect the number looking for that "acceptable quality at a price" will be the biggest growth area in years to come.
Just my opinion of course

Rgds

Quoting flyabr (Reply 86): Only thing is eco plus seats are typically the same width as cattle class. Maybe that will change with some airlines offering more width, in addition to pitch in the future???

I would say that has to chance to make Eco Plus attractive, so Eco Plus will probably stay at ~18" while Eco will go down to ~16".

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 3): Memo from Passengers - if you want us to keep flying, allow us to do so without sitting in pain

No offence dude, but if a 17inch seat causes you pain, perhaps you need to reconsider your seat purchases? Perhaps buy two or a larger seat up front?

I'm not skinny by any standard but I've never experienced pain from sitting in a 17 inch seat. Even on AA's 773W I was comfortable in Y.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91): Eventually many people come to value (and that's the right word) a certain minimum standard that they are prepared to pay for. In developed countries, we can see that in so many fields. Price is crucial - but not at the abandonment of quality.

So true. Therefore I find 17" seats acceptable for flights up to 5 hours or so. But to fly across the Atlantic, the Pacific or over land from Europe to Asia/Australia the 18" mark is my personal minimum.  

Quoting par13del (Reply 68): Every airline landing at a EU airport after say a 6 hour minimum flight time from a non-EU airport must have 18" seats

Not going to happen - too many EU airlines fly around with 17" seats.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 94): Therefore I find 17" seats acceptable for flights up to 5 hours or so. But to fly across the Atlantic, the Pacific or over land from Europe to Asia/Australia the 18" mark is my personal minimum.

+1. However, the majority of Y class clients only logs on to Expedia, Opodo, or Kayak and the likes, and books the cheapest flight without even looking to seat pitch or width...

And those who do complain after the flight often start complaining about the aircraft rather than the airline's seating arrangement (e.g., it is beyond me why LX uses those uncomfortable 17" seats on their Airbus fleet - at 8 abreast they could easily take 18" seats, probably weight reasons?!). This is one reason why I started to avoid LX on long haul whenever possible.

Why don't they just offer larger seats at a higher price? Oh wait... airlines already do!

Or, alternatively, larger people become, erm, less large? I hate the 10-abreast 777s too but my toosh still fits in the seat itself just fine.

Quoting garpd (Reply 93): I'm not skinny by any standard but I've never experienced pain from sitting in a 17 inch seat. Even on AA's 773W I was comfortable in Y.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 94): So true. Therefore I find 17" seats acceptable for flights up to 5 hours or so. But to fly across the Atlantic, the Pacific or over land from Europe to Asia/Australia the 18" mark is my personal minimum.

For me it's not so much 'butt room' as it is shoulder room - sitting next to a tall, even fit dude is torture.

I'd be happy with a 16" seat if I knew I had relatively small people next to me so that we weren't throwing elbows at each other all the time. Young attractive women, preferrably  

I can still remember a flight in the middle seat on a 737 between 2 fairly large men. I'm also fairly large (as in tall and in proportion, not fat) and it was really unpleasant . After 3-4 hours my arms were in agony. I hate to imagine having to endure that for 12-14 hours. It's not just legroom that counts.

Eating the meal in narrow seats is really tricky as well, sitting in the aisle seat of an AF 10Y 777, I had to lean right into the aisle to give myself enough room to move my arms!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 77): The 777 is the only airliner that can accommodate 19" seats without losing a column of seats (assuming the operator is using 9Y). For other aircraft and 10Y 777s, depending on your aircraft the lost column will take away 11% (A380/747/777)-15% (767) by itself, or 20% for a long-haul 757.

757s are hardly the staple of 6-hour plus flights and are not made anymore, so the only reason to focus on them it to skew the case.

Also, as already mentioned, a few inches can be shaved from aisles.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 77): On top of that you're also losing economies of scale and some ancillary revenue (with more space overhead, fewer passengers will check bags). You're also losing the ability to charge a premium for PE, and some business passengers might even downgrade to economy.

Longhaul passengers have significant incremental costs to carry because of fuel burn, in-flight meals, and additional lavs and flight attendants.

Considering all your points, 20% fewer seats is still reasonable, but I can't vouch for 50% higher fares.