|Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):|
If you keep the same J product, than the answer is likely no and you'll still have around 100 seats. But one can also use smaller seats and going to 6 or even 7 abreast would give you 150 to 175 seats.
It seems J seats are in strong development, comfortable lie flat is a must with something like 1.98m or 6ft 6'' bed lenght. I have looked at two recent products which use mild herringbone, LH
new business and Uniteds new 787 business.
It seems LH
can bring 6 abrest in a 330/340 cross section (5.28m) with good comfort both in seating, elbow room (mild V) and bed of 1.98m with 57'' pitch or 1.45m of cabin length used.
The United product is an angeld seat, sticking the feet beside the front seat like a herringbone but always on the same side. It has similar data but needs 60'' pitch is seems, 6 abrest in a 5.49m cross section. The seat width is 22'' instead of 20' for the LH
What one can see is that a 150 J seat 778 would be possible and most probable economical, means we might have business equipped direct 18 hour flights coming back, dividing 115k$ on 0.75*150 instead of 143k$ on 0.75*100 makes 1022$ per pax in fuel costs vs 1927$, almost half the cost and if I take the reduced OEW of a 150J seat cabin into the 778 I end up at 970$ fuel cost at 75% load factor.
What I also see is that a 140 seat all J A350-900 is possible. I would loose some 14t in OEW and therefore be able to fly 9200nm nominally, ie a 359 all J class with these kind of seats can also be used on such 18 hour missions
(it would probably be 17 hours then as it flies 4% faster).
The 777-8X would be more then capable of 18 hours in such a config, it could actually fly 20 hour legs without resorting to cargo bay tanks.
A 787-9 with a reduced cabin of 125J is more marginal, it would loose 10t OEW and have a nominal range of 8700nm and it gets fuel limited at 8500nm vs 9200nm for the 359.
If we then finally configure the 359 and 778 as new SIN
candidates with 140 resp 150J cabins they would burn 91t and 109t, clearly the 359 is more interesting as it's fuel costs would be 865$ vs 970$ per occupied seat with 75% load factor. The reason for this big difference is in their weights, the 359 would be 30t lighter in OEW and would start with TOW 258t vs 313t for the 778. The 778 is laid out for flying those distances with full ship, the 359 not.
So at the end of a long dive into the costs of such flights comes the conclusion that we could see this flight coming back from 2015 when Singapore gets their A350-900s
[Edited 2013-11-23 11:17:57]