ANA To Install Economy 10-across On Some B777s

LondonCity · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:05 pm

According to the seat map on ANA's Japanese language webpages, the move affects only the B777-300ER. At the present time it is unclear how many B777-300ERs will get the denser 3-4-3 Y seating.

The number of airlines providing 3-3-3 Y seating on the B777-300ER is getting fewer by the day.

I wonder if JAL will follow suit ?

www.businesstraveller.com/news/100339/ana-joins-ten-across-b777-club

seabosdca · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:06 pm

How very odd that for some period of time ANA will operate both 10-across 777s and 8-across 787s.

gabrielchew · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:13 pm

I believe that Skytrax has a rule against 5* airlines have 10 abrest seating in Y on the 777. During the meetings in Tokyo before NH was awarded their 5* rating last year, NH managements said that only domestic/regional 777s would get 10 abreast so as to not break the Skytrax rule. We'll see if after all the 777s are reconfigured to 10 abreast if NH are reclassified as being 4*.

LAXintl · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:36 pm

Excellent decision.

ANA has been quite low density, so gaining about 20 additional economy seats will help the economics.

I have done work with several carriers reviewing similar changes, and the economics are extremely compelling to make the switch. I eventually see virtually everyone going to 3-4-3 on the 777 at the end.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
How very odd that for some period of time ANA will operate both 10-across 777s and 8-across 787s.

Newer deliveries that are equipped with economy plus are arriving with 3-3-3 in Y class now.

http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/us/e/asw_common/inflight/seatmap/b787_8/

=

a380787 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:43 pm

sigh .... another 3-4-3 Y to avoid

great for airlines, and really sucks for passengers. i'm glad Airbus keep their long-haul seats to be 18" wide.

airbuseric · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:48 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 4):
sigh .... another 3-4-3 Y to avoid

great for airlines, and really sucks for passengers.

Come on,... life is not that bad! I fly a lot on 3-4-3 configs in Y, and still survive and get a great fare also. People want to pay lower fares these days, and airlines are there to keep their business running also... Choices!

B747forever · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:49 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 4):
sigh .... another 3-4-3 Y to avoid

great for airlines, and really sucks for passengers

Want more space, pay for it. Otherwise, when flying in Y dont expect anything more than getting transported safely from A to B.

sr117 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:54 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 6):
Want more space, pay for it. Otherwise, when flying in Y dont expect anything more than getting transported safely from A to B.

Or fly an another wide-body; it seems that the brilliant Boeing idea of giving fuselages space for "extra wide" seats in economy is nothing more than an invitation for airlines to squeeze in extra narrow ones instead.

Giving the airlines just enough to squeeze in standard-width seats seems to provide the best outcome for passengers.

vfw614 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:56 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 6):

Want more space, pay for it. Otherwise, when flying in Y dont expect anything more than getting transported safely from A to B.

Well, as long as there is a choice, it is always possible to vote with one's feet. I always avoid a routing with a 10 abreast 777. I cannot actually remember when I was on one for the last time.

B747forever · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:00 pm

Quoting sr117 (Reply 7):
Or fly an another wide-body;

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 8):
Well, as long as there is a choice, it is always possible to vote with one's feet.

And that is what passengers do, they vote with their feet and that is why we still today have 3-4-3 777s. Obviously Y passengers only care about price.

tortugamon · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:20 pm

Air Canada says that going from 9-abreast to 10-abreast turned their worst routes into their most profitable routes:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...m-for-profit-corporate-canada.html

tortugamon

vfw614 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:29 pm

Quoting (Reply 8):

And that is what passengers do, they vote with their feet and that is why we still today have 3-4-3 777s. Obviously Y passengers only care about price.

Hmmm....:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 8):
I cannot actually remember when I was on one for the last time.

Althought it helps to be based in Europe where you always have a decent choice.

Birdwatching · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:30 pm

What's the big deal?

United has 2-4-2 in their 777s.

...in business class!

Soren

B747forever · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:35 pm

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 11):
Hmmm....:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 8):
I cannot actually remember when I was on one for the last time.

That is you, your choice do not represent all passengers. The majority of passengers dont care whether they fly in a 3-4-3 or 3-3-3 configuration. If they really voted with their feet, carriers with a 3-4-3 configuration would fly empty airplanes, and be forced to change to 3-3-3. But that isnt how it looks today. Of course, you will have the token passenger, like you that avoids 3-4-3, but the majority only cares about price.

LondonCity · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:38 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
Air Canada says that going from 9-abreast to 10-abreast turned their worst routes into their most profitable r

In fact, even with 10-across in Y, the ANA B777-300ER carries a maximum of 264 pax whereas the high density AC B777-300ER carries 458 pax. That's truly dense.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 12):
United has 2-4-2 in their 777s.

So too has BA.

KPDX · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:38 pm

People here are hillarious and huge drama queens. If you don't like it, as others said, pay for something different! Like the mighty 18 inch #AirbusComfort standard!

Do know you're in an overall small minority, though... Airlines are doing this for a reason.

PHX787 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:57 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
ANA has been quite low density, so gaining about 20 additional economy seats will help the economics.

NH's 77Ws feel really really small in comparison to other airlines' 777s. But this is a strange move, given the fact that the last few flights I've had with them have had relatively low load factors.

I do not believe all of the 77Ws will get this fix; perhaps these planes will be used on higher-density routes to Asia.

spacecadet · Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:02 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 6):
Want more space, pay for it.

You already do pay for it. ANA routinely prices their seats about 20% higher than other carriers. And they don't seem to have much problem filling them, because people fly ANA (especially internationally) specifically for their better service.

If you don't want to pay for 2-4-3 seating, you're always free to just buy the cheapest fare on whatever airline.

If they're going to continue to lower their standards to those of other Star Alliance members (and no doubt that's what's behind this), then there will be no reason to fly them over any other airline. And then they'll have no choice but to lower fares. In the end they will make no more money, but their Star Alliance partners won't feel like they're getting shown up anymore. That's how airlines get into this race to the bottom business to begin with.

LondonCity · Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
I do not believe all of the 77Ws will get this fix; perhaps these planes will be used on higher-density routes to Asia.

You may be correct in saying that only some B777-300ERs will receive the new seating. But these refitted B777-300ERS have large F and J cabins so they are not intended for local regional flights.

Airlineroute indicates that they will see service to ORD. Within the next two weeks they may operate one-off services to SFO/LAX.

There's no reason why, in due course, they may be used on ANA's busier European routes.

seabosdca · Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 17):
And they don't seem to have much problem filling them

The fact that they are switching to 3-4-3 suggests otherwise.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 17):
If they're going to continue to lower their standards to those of other Star Alliance members (and no doubt that's what's behind this)

They could care less how they compare to other *A members. The much more likely explanation for this change is that they think it will make them more money. And other carriers' experiences show that thinking is likely correct.

AABB777 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:13 pm

This is a smart business decision by NH to better effectively compete with other airlines offering 3-4-3 configuration. As has been stated previously, most Economy Class passengers buy on one thing and one thing only: price of the ticket. As more airlines continue to configure 777s in 3-4-3 it will become a revenue disadvantage for those airlines still offering 3-3-3. However, I get it from a pax perspective that 3-4-3 is not as comfortable and feels cramped, but money talks and airlines cannot get the bulk of Economy Class passengers to pay more for extra seat pitch and width. For example, I don't think the typical passenger flying IAD-DOH/DXB-BOM in Economy Class knows that QR offers 3-3-3 and EK offers 3-4-3 on the 777.

a380787 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:26 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 13):
The majority of passengers dont care whether they fly in a 3-4-3 or 3-3-3 configuration.

If that's the case, then 8-abreast 767s and 9-abreast 330s should've been prevalent, not left to charter airlines going to Cancun

But it's a sad state that flying is so commoditized that racing-to-the-bottom is the winning formula.

tortugamon · Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:38 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
NH's 77Ws feel really really small in comparison to other airlines' 777s. But this is a strange move, given the fact that the last few flights I've had with them have had relatively low load factors.

I don't think passengers will really know the difference. The configuration is exactly the same except for 14 additional Y seats.

tortugamon

ASA · Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:24 pm

Oooohhhh ... time for 11-across Manatees!

so sad ... fewer and fewer Y class airplanes to ride

longhauler · Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:40 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 21):
If that's the case, then 8-abreast 767s and 9-abreast 330s should've been prevalent, not left to charter airlines going to Cancun

There is a very big difference between an 8 abreast B767 and 9 abreast A330 vice a 10 abreast B777. The 10 abreast B777 has virtually the same sized seat as a B737, whereas the higher density B767/A330 does not.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 21):
But it's a sad state that flying is so commoditized that racing-to-the-bottom is the winning formula.

Blame the passenger ... they are getting the exact seat for which they are willing to pay! If there was any resistance against the 10 abreast B777 from the start, and passengers boycotted them, then they would have been quickly converted back to 9 abreast. But they didn't! It's all about price.

I predict that in 5 years time, the 9 abreast B777 will be a thing of the past. Airlines today don't get a premium for the larger Y seat, putting them at a huge economic disadvantage.

B747forever · Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:47 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24):
If there was any resistance against the 10 abreast B777 from the start, and passengers boycotted them, then they would have been quickly converted back to 9 abreast. But they didn't! It's all about price.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Some members on A.net keep saying that passengers will vote with their feet and avoid 3-4-3 on 777. That is simply not true, as passengers have already chosen price over comfort, and airlines have to follow suit.

I am actually surprised that there are airlines that still offer 3-3-3 on their 777s.

Stitch · Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:49 pm

10-abreast on a 777 is not too far different from 10-abreast on a 747 and people have been "used" to that for decades.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 17):
ANA routinely prices their seats about 20% higher than other carriers. And they don't seem to have much problem filling them...

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
The fact that they are switching to 3-4-3 suggests otherwise.

If NH was experiencing consistently lower load factors on their 9-abreast 777s, then moving to 10-abreast would be pointless.

That they are moving to a higher-capacity configuration supports spacecadet's assertion that NH is likely seeing consistently high load factors and is leaving profitable passengers behind due to lack of available capacity.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 13):
The majority of passengers dont care whether they fly in a 3-4-3 or 3-3-3 configuration.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 21):
If that's the case, then 8-abreast 767s and 9-abreast 330s should've been prevalent, not left to charter airlines going to Cancun

Well we do have major carriers like Air Asia and Cebu Pacific who do operate A330s at 10-abreast.

And I believe that if major US/EU/Asian carriers did go to 9-abreast on an A330 or 8-abreast on a 767 for long-haul and the fare dropped a couple hundred bucks, people would still fill the planes.

warreng24 · Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:14 pm

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 2):
NH managements said that only domestic/regional 777s would get 10 abreast so as to not break the Skytrax rule.

*sigh*

UA fliers heading to BKK getting screwed again. When UA canceled BKK, they shifted most of us over to NH (due to the TPAC JV). First we lose UA E+ and now we get NH 10-across Y. Awesome.

sshank · Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:24 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Excellent decision.

ANA has been quite low density, so gaining about 20 additional economy seats will help the economics.

I have done work with several carriers reviewing similar changes, and the economics are extremely compelling to make the switch. I eventually see virtually everyone going to 3-4-3 on the 777 at the end.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
How very odd that for some period of time ANA will operate both 10-across 777s and 8-across 787s.

Newer deliveries that are equipped with economy plus are arriving with 3-3-3 in Y class now.

http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/us/e/asw_co...87_8/

I bet. Compelling is likely an understatement, as Air Canada as proven with their CASM King (also know as the 77W)

Not so 'compelling' for the rest of us though, especially considering the long hauls that AC is using the aircraft on (unless of course you hold stock of low molecular weight heparin manufacturers).

RamblinMan · Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:07 pm

I remember as a kid looking at the boeing website...this was sometime late-90s-ish...and the layout it showed for the 777 definitely had them at 10-across in coach. This is not a new thing. The only surprise here is how long it's taken to become the standard.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Well we do have major carriers like Air Asia and Cebu Pacific who do operate A330s at 10-abreast.

And I believe that if major US/EU/Asian carriers did go to 9-abreast on an A330 or 8-abreast on a 767 for long-haul and the fare dropped a couple hundred bucks, people would still fill the planes.

9-across A330s. Doubt 10 would be possible. And 8-across on a 767 puts the seat width below 17 inches which breaks some sort of IATA standard which is why you only see it on sardine-can charters.

Aaron747 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:57 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
NH's 77Ws feel really really small in comparison to other airlines' 777s. But this is a strange move, given the fact that the last few flights I've had with them have had relatively low load factors.

The vast majority of Japanese are thinner than we are. And the vast majority of ANA passengers are Japanese. I doubt they are very concerned about passenger perceptions of this, or they wouldn't be making the change.

Viscount724 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:11 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Excellent decision.

ANA has been quite low density, so gaining about 20 additional economy seats will help the economics.

I have done work with several carriers reviewing similar changes, and the economics are extremely compelling to make the switch. I eventually see virtually everyone going to 3-4-3 on the 777 at the end.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 25):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 24):
If there was any resistance against the 10 abreast B777 from the start, and passengers boycotted them, then they would have been quickly converted back to 9 abreast. But they didn't! It's all about price.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Some members on A.net keep saying that passengers will vote with their feet and avoid 3-4-3 on 777. That is simply not true, as passengers have already chosen price over comfort, and airlines have to follow suit.

I am actually surprised that there are airlines that still offer 3-3-3 on their 777s.

If passengers were aware of the difference, which most are not, I think many would be willing to pay a little more especially on the ultra-longhaul routes. It's the 9-abreast 777 operators' fault that they don't promote this advantage more.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
10-abreast on a 777 is not too far different from 10-abreast on a 747 and people have been "used" to that for decades.

I notice the difference. I have no problem with 10-abreast 747s and have flown on many for the past 40 years, but to me the 10-abreast 777 seems more cramped, partly due to the very narrow aisles. And the 747 cabin is about 7 inches wider if memory correct. And you can't argue that putting one more person in the same or slightly less space is not as pleasant.

davidho1985 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:51 am

Flow numbers of 777 9-across short haul and EK 77W 10-across from HK->DXB (and it was a red-eye flight),
I didn't feel any differences in terms of the seat itself and the comfortableness of the journey between 9-across and 10-across.

Motorhussy · Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:00 am

I see this as a further hint that NH will favour the 777-9 over the A35J when it comes to replacing the 77W. That extra capacity that they're building in will not be found in the Airbus.

Regards
MH

Stitch · Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:03 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 31):
I have no problem with 10-abreast 747s and have flown on many for the past 40 years, but to me the 10-abreast 777 seems more cramped, partly due to the very narrow aisles

Well the difference is about 3cm in seat width and 5cm in aisle width, but if you notice, you notice. However, the majority of people seem to either not notice or they notice and don't consider it a "deal breaker" considering how many 10-abreast 777s are in service and how that number steadily rises over time.

Viscount724 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:29 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 31):
I have no problem with 10-abreast 747s and have flown on many for the past 40 years, but to me the 10-abreast 777 seems more cramped, partly due to the very narrow aisles

Well the difference is about 3cm in seat width and 5cm in aisle width, but if you notice, you notice. However, the majority of people seem to either not notice or they notice and don't consider it a "deal breaker" considering how many 10-abreast 777s are in service and how that number steadily rises over time.

That may be true, but looking at Boeing orders/deliveries data, over the past 12 months, 21 carriers have taken delivery of new 777s (excluding freighters). More of those carriers (12 vs. 9) are operating them with 9-abreast Y class than 10-abreast.

Stitch · Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:38 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 35):
That may be true, but looking at Boeing orders/deliveries data, over the past 12 months, 21 carriers have taken delivery of new 777s (excluding freighters). More of those carriers (12 vs. 9) are operating them with 9-abreast Y class than 10-abreast.

However, between 2010 and 2012, 777-300ER deliveries with 10-abreast seating have risen from 15% to 69%.

Chart courtesy of AirInsight.com [ http://airinsight.com/2013/10/28/airbus-sleep-research/ ]

Viscount724 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:52 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 35):
That may be true, but looking at Boeing orders/deliveries data, over the past 12 months, 21 carriers have taken delivery of new 777s (excluding freighters). More of those carriers (12 vs. 9) are operating them with 9-abreast Y class than 10-abreast.

However, between 2010 and 2012, 777-300ER deliveries with 10-abreast seating have risen from 15% to 69%.

If that's based on the 152 77W deliveries from January 2010 through December 2012, I don't agree with that data. Looking at Boeing's deliveries data I get the following:

9-abreast - 71 aircraft, 11 carriers
10-abreast - 68 aircraft, 10 carriers
Plus 13 delivered to leasing companies and I don't know who the operators are, but even if they're all operating 10-abreast, the total would only be 53%, not 69%.

The data is also slightly distorted since exactly 25% of all 77Ws delivered during those 3 years went to 2 Gulf carriers (32 to EK and 6 to EY) which are of course both 10-abreast.

Of the 5 carriers whose 77W deliveries during that period were in the double digits, only the 32 EK aircraft are 10-abreast. The other 48 are 9-abreast (CX-15, TK-12, CA-11, QR-10).

Also, of the 16 77Ls delivered during that period, almost all were 9-abreast, as were all 6 of the 77Es (2 each to UA/OZ/NH).

So, even if those 13 leasing company 77Ws are all 10-abreast, when you add the 77Ls and 77Es, more 777s in total were delivered with 9-abreast than 10 during those 3 years.

davidho1985 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:36 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 31):
the 10-abreast 777 seems more cramped, partly due to the very narrow aisles.

Yes, the only thing I noticed was the narrower than usual aisles, thats all.

Motorhussy · Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:00 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
all were 9-abreast, as were all 6 of the 77Es (2 each to UA/OZ/NH).

Those esteemed airlines' *alliance partner NZ is currently converting their 77E fleet to 10-abreast in Y.

KarelXWB · Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:09 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
gaining about 20 additional economy seats will help the economics.

In case of ANA it's 14 additional Y seats only (250 => 264 seats).

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 14):
In fact, even with 10-across in Y, the ANA B777-300ER carries a maximum of 264 pax whereas the high density AC B777-300ER carries 458 pax. That's truly dense.

Those AC 77W's don't have first class - J, W and Y only - resulting in more available space for additional Y seats. The ANA's on the other hand have a four-class cabin with F, J, W and Y.

I don't think you will notice any difference when sitting in Y of both airlines, as long as seat width and pitch are the same.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Well we do have major carriers like Air Asia and Cebu Pacific who do operate A330s at 10-abreast.

That would be 9-abreast.

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 33):
I see this as a further hint that NH will favour the 777-9 over the A35J when it comes to replacing the 77W. That extra capacity that they're building in will not be found in the Airbus.

If they select the A350, they will lose those 14 seats in exchange for 20% lower fuel burn. That's also plausible.

The 10-abreast on the 77W almost comes for free, as Tim Clark once said "you're a fool not doing 10-abreast".

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
If that's based on the 152 77W deliveries from January 2010 through December 2012, I don't agree with that data. Looking at Boeing's deliveries data I get the following:

Nice analysis.

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 38):
Yes, the only thing I noticed was the narrower than usual aisles, thats all.

The seats however are smaller (roughly 17" versus 18.5"). And aren't arm rests a bit smaller as well? People with wider shoulders for example might notice the difference.

[Edited 2014-03-19 02:11:16]

mjoelnir · Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:30 am

I understand the economic reasons for operators to go from 9 seat to 10 seat a row for Y on the B777, but I do not believe that the passengers do not feel the difference or do not know a difference. To vote with your feet you first have to have a clear choice. The airlines do not advertise the change and I have not seen a webpage were you book a flight telling you about the difference. So, for the passengers flying every few years a long haul flight, they first have to get the experience of the joys of flying a 10 across B777, to than react a few years later to try to avoid this planes.

Emirates states clearly that the A380 is there most appreciated frame in use and she has a bit more space for the economy passengers. Is everybody here so sure that the passengers have not got the news and voting with there feet is going on?

[Edited 2014-03-19 04:58:02]

raffik · Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:01 pm

I flew with EK on 4 777 flights with 10 across in economy and it was absolutely fine. I'm not particularly thin or narrow and it was comfortable. I don't see a problem with this. I did do 8 across in a 767 which was configured like an A330 and it was awful, very uncomfortable

Carpethead · Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:05 pm

Argggg. I wished ANA had not gone down this road.
Hopefully, they are relagated to known routes so I can avoid that config in the future.
I am not exactly sure but there should be 3 or 4 aircraft still in the old-business class configuration, so it will be these aircraft subject to the nose-to-tail cabin re-installation.

mjoelnir · Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:37 pm

Quoting raffik (Reply 42):
I flew with EK on 4 777 flights with 10 across in economy and it was absolutely fine. I'm not particularly thin or narrow and it was comfortable. I don't see a problem with this. I did do 8 across in a 767 which was configured like an A330 and it was awful, very uncomfortable

I flew once EK LHR to MEL via DXB, four legs altogether a few years ago. 1 leg A380, 2 legs A340-500 and one leg B777-300ER. The comfort level on the 10 seat A380 and 8 seat A340 were similar and than I got the 10 seat B777 for the last leg. Flying with EK the A380 and A340 and than the B777 on the same trip successfully imprinted the difference on me.
Since than I have up to now successfully avoided the B777 with 10 seat rows.

na · Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:11 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 4):
sigh .... another 3-4-3 Y to avoid

Yes, a miserable move. But most who will fly on them will be Japanese anyway, and as they are mostly being shorter and slimmer as us Westerners it might work for them.
The 77W though finally deserves a suitable nickname: cattlecarrier.

HeeseokKoo · Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:10 pm

According to seatguru, width of ANA's 9-seat configured 77W and 772 is only 16.5" or 16". If this is true, I don't mind ANA going 10-seat because ANA will be able to keep the width the same anyway. It seems ANA keeps 34" pitch, so that's a huge relief.

Meanwhile when ANA introduced 9-seat 787, ANA also added a row of Y and reduced pitch from 34" to 31". That was far worse than this case.

JAL · Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:13 pm

I sure hope that JAL doesn't follow suit!

mercure1 · Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:18 pm

For those that cry about personal space, then go out and buy premium economy or even business class tickets.

Airlines run a business and are properly segmenting their product offerings with differing features.

Seems like many here that complain have champagne taste on beer budgets and want the world of service for impossibly low pricing.

The 10-seater 777 is a very good option for airlines to meet reality of rising cost, yet stagnant ticket pricing.

seabosdca · Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:20 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):
The seats however are smaller (roughly 17" versus 18.5"). And aren't arm rests a bit smaller as well? People with wider shoulders for example might notice the difference.

Most 9Y 777 operators aren't actually using 18.5," but 18". But the point is good. I have wide shoulders, and I definitely notice the difference. But I'll put up with a lot for a cheap ticket.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 46):
According to seatguru, width of ANA's 9-seat configured 77W and 772 is only 16.5" or 16".

Seatguru is incorrect on this (and on a whole lot of seat width data). ANA has typical seats on their 9Y 777s. I'm not sure exactly how wide they are but they are at least 18".

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net