Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:35 pm

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
When Boeing was touting the 787 one of the major consumer-focused features was a comfortable cabin including, among other features, Y class in a 3-2-3 configuration. At that time, Boeing had to have known that if airlines could configure the Y class cabin with 8-abreast or 9-abreast, the vast majority of airlines would choose 9-abreast.

Why did Boeing not just design the aircraft with a cabin wide enough to comfortably accommodate 3-3-3 seating?

767 15' 6" (7 abreast)
330 17' 4" (8 abreast)
787 18" (9 abreast)
350 18' 5" (9 abreast)
777 19' 3" (9/10 abreast)
747 20' (10 abreast)


Boeing designed an 8-across product that happened to support a 9-across configuration which was targeted for high density operations. Just like the 777 is a 9-across product that can support a 10-across configuration. It was a 767/A330 replacement with 5500 nautical mile range. Plain and simple.

Initial configurations were for 224 3-class seats in the -8 and 259 3-class seats in a -9. There was a light configuration of the -8 with 186 seats for ultra long haul routes out to 8,500nm. F had two rows at 80" Pitch, B had 32 seats at 60" and economy was 8 across at 34" pitch. The -9 added a row of F (which was 4 across) and IIRC 2-3 rows in Y. The net seat count was 206 or 214, but I've long since lost the pdf.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 1):
That's the issue .... Boeing is CUSTOMER- focused, not consumer focused. And their customer is the airline, and that means delivering a CASM killer at all costs.

Actually, they did build it for the consumer. 8-Across, bigger windows, lower humidity etc.... The entire pitch was a more comfortable product.

The customer (airlines) opted for consumer (passenger) abuse because it was there. You can put 10-across in a 777 too. Its ugly as heck, but you can. It has about the same comfort as the 9-across 787.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 43):
Nope. The 787 was designed from the beginning as 3-3-3. If it had been designed for 2-4-2, it would have been the same width as an A330.


These were the original arrangements -3/-8/-9. 9-across was the high density option just as 10-across is for the 777. It makes perfect sense to go from an 18" 767 seat width or 18.5" seat width 777 design to a 17.25" seat width on an aircraft promising improved comfort.  Yeah sure The concept is working out well.  bigthumbsup  Nothing like 737 comfort for 12-18 hours.




Quoting BaconButty (Reply 7):
It was originally intended to have a spacious 8 abreast economy section, however, at some point (2005 ish?) They squeezed another 4 inches (?) out of the side walls due to more efficient noise insulation. This moved it from splendid and spacious 8 abreast to the torture instrument the hoi polloi have to suffer now.

(abroad with crap internet so no link)

Late 2005 or early 2006. It was known it could do 9-across after that, but the intent was high density.

[Edited 2015-08-28 14:49:06]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13436
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:40 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 12):
but of course the CEOs and executives making these decisions to make all coach passengers miserable will themselves travel in the lap of luxury.

Which hearkens to the greatest truism in human history: you get what you pay for.


Quoting United787 (Reply 16):
would it be possible for Boeing or Airbus to design a widebody comfortably for one configuration but have the overall width just slightly to narrow to make the extra seat impossible?

Possible? .....yes.
Prudent? ......of course not.

Why would they want to artificially impede on flexibility for the ones who purchase the aircraft from them.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:52 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 50):
These were the original arrangements -3/-8/-9. 9-across was the high density option just as 10-across is for the 777. Or is it your position Boeing was lying?
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 50):
Late 2005 or early 2006. It was known it could do 9-across after that, but the intent was high density.

Marketing sleight of hand, not "lying" but emphasizing where the ball wasn't. When they were still holding out for more 777-200ER sales, they did not want to announce to the world that they had built an aircraft that was a direct 777-200ER replacement. So they focused on the artifical 8-abreast configuration, marketing the 9-abreast configuration that gave identical capacity to the 777-200ER as "high density." But neither Boeing marketing nor airline customers are stupid. They could see by that point that the "high density" configuration had 747-width seats and that the airplane was a 9-abreast airplane. And, sure enough, there was barely a trickle of 777-200ER sales after that point, and every 787 customer but JAL went 9-abreast (although it took ANA a while).

[Edited 2015-08-28 14:55:35]
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:59 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 52):
Marketing sleight of hand,

Why would you backtrack passenger comfort already established by the 767 and 777. More like post airline configuration decision marketing slight of hand, as in oh ok... "we'll run with it". "It helps with the bean counter numbers too!"

At minimum they would have made it so that the 3-3-3 could support 18" wide seats, not 17.25". That's three more inches of cabin width.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 52):
But neither Boeing marketing nor airline customers are stupid.

One such customer was dumb enough to get up in a room full of people and criticize Boeing for not delivering a 240 seat 787-8 that could fly 8,500 miles when no such thing ever existed. So yeah, some of them are pretty stupid.

[Edited 2015-08-28 15:02:41]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4325
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:59 pm

Some airlines put 8 abreast on the 767 and 9 on the 330. The only reason this is not more widespread is its a hair marginally more ridiculous than 9 abreast on 787.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:00 pm

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 54):
Some airlines put 8 abreast on the 767 and 9 on the 330. The only reason this is not more widespread is its a hair marginally more ridiculous than 9 abreast on 787.

You got that right.   
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:37 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 32):
It was optimized for the width of "8.5 seats" from the get go, and while they can pretend to offer unrivaled comfort in their marketing materials showing 8-abreast, behind the scenes they're very much actively pitching 9-abreast to the airlines as a way to drag them away from the 350 camp.

Well you could be right but all of the marketing I saw in the beginning showed 8-abreast and they talked about how nice it would be for passengers. Maybe privately they were saying to airlines that it was all a hoax. Can't say for sure. I do believe that they are currently only pitching it as 9-abreast as the market has spoken. I just believe that they were really thinking 8-abreast was going to be the most common at first and that over 20 years things can change, as they did with the 777 and even the 8-abreast 767s and making it so it could be minimally qualified for 9abreast seemed prudent.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 44):
One could argue the cabin width of the 787 is better optimised for premium economy, business and first than the A350.

I think there is some truth to that. I think our Y seat has gotten worse and now an 8-abreast 18.5" with 34" of pitch sounds pretty good for Y+/C now vs when you already start with a comfy 18"+ in Y maybe some will not chose to upgrade. You really don't get an Extra Y+ seat in an A350 nor an extra J seat, so you carry around the extra wait but gain very little revenue opportunities except in Y where people only care about price - that doesn't sound ideal.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 53):
At minimum they would have made it so that the 3-3-3 could support 18" wide seats, not 17.25". That's three more inches of cabin width.

Why? What a waste and the flexibility is gone, everyone would just go to the one configuration. And honestly, who says the difference between 17.5" at 18" is huge - it certainly was not being talked about when Boeing launched this aircraft. Pax Experience info has blown up in the last 5+ years and I am not sure it was foresaw that it would even be an issue. Airbus is at least partially responsible for this conversation as they have chosen to differentiate their product based on it.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 53):
Why would you backtrack passenger comfort already established by the 767 and 777.

Because it leads to unnecessary operating expense throughout the aircraft's life. The great bulk of Y pax do not buy based on comfort. Even if they do, seat width is not the first thing they think about. You can see Boeing has internalized this through the 777X, which just like the 787 is optimized for a 17.2" or so seat width.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 53):
At minimum they would have made it so that the 3-3-3 could support 18" wide seats, not 17.25". That's three more inches of cabin width.

Why? It would have made the plane heavier (and the -9 even closer to a 777 in economics) for no benefit.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 54):
Some airlines put 8 abreast on the 767 and 9 on the 330. The only reason this is not more widespread is its a hair marginally more ridiculous than 9 abreast on 787.

For better or worse, there seems to be a floor around 17" below which mainstream airlines don't think they can go.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
all of the marketing I saw in the beginning showed 8-abreast and they talked about how nice it would be for passengers. Maybe privately they were saying to airlines that it was all a hoax. Can't say for sure.

I don't think they had to say anything, except to give the airilnes the cabin dimensions and present a high-density configuration. I think the airlines were perfectly capable of figuring out the score on their own. These are businesses that run on cartoonishly tiny margins and know how to save a penny.

[Edited 2015-08-28 15:47:02]
 
HOOB747
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:30 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:03 pm

I flew Qatar's 787's a few months ago and noticed the seat-backs standing higher than in other aircraft (like UA's 744's for instance). I don't much mind the width, but if I have to crane my neck to see over the seat in front of me, the experience feels more claustrophobic. So when you add narrow 3-3-3 seating with restricted forward vision, the 787 gets a bad rap. Lufthansa's 747-8i's seats seem higher than others also. The taller seats make the cabin feel smaller, and that is a trend I could do without.
I love dem planes....
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:15 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 57):
I don't think they had to say anything, except to give the airilnes the cabin dimensions and present a high-density configuration. I think the airlines were perfectly capable of figuring out the score on their own. These are businesses that run on cartoonishly tiny margins and know how to save a penny.

You're probably right. Makes sense.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:17 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
Why? What a waste and the flexibility is gone, everyone would just go to the one configuration. And honestly, who says the difference between 17.5" at 18" is huge - it certainly was not being talked about when Boeing launched this aircraft. Pax Experience info has blown up in the last 5+ years and I am not sure it was foresaw that it would even be an issue. Airbus is at least partially responsible for this conversation as they have chosen to differentiate their product based on it.

I'm talking about the suggestion it was by design. If the true intent was a 3-3-3 bird, they would have made it a 3-3-3 bird not a 2-4-2 that could be operated in 3-3-3. 3-3-3 has always been high density, just like 10 across for the 777.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 57):
You can see Boeing has internalized this through the 777X, which just like the 787 is optimized for a 17.2" or so seat width.

In 10 across. AKA crap class.

.

[Edited 2015-08-28 16:33:37]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
ckfred
Posts: 5188
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:43 pm

Remember that the DC-10 and L-1011 were originally 2-4-2. Airlines advertised that a person was never more than one seat away from the aisle.

Then, deregulation came along, and the airlines eventually went to 2-5-2.

By the way, I remember the PBS series on the design of the 777. I forgot what the original configuration in J was, but I remember a Boeing executive telling the CEO of BA that another customer was adding an additional seat to each row of J, but increasing the pitch to some insanely large number. The belief is that seat width is not a big factor, if a person has plenty of room to stretch out.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 60):
If the true intent was a 3-3-3 bird, they would have made it a 3-3-3 bird not a 2-4-2 that could be operated in 3-3-3.

That's exactly what they did. A "2-4-2 that could be operated in 3-3-3" describes the A330/A340, not the 787. The 2-4-2 configuration on the 787 uses so much space per passenger as to be unrealistic, while the 3-3-3 configuration is historically normal. It's a 3-3-3 plane, it was designed as a 3-3-3 plane, and as soon as there was no more need to sell 3-3-3 777s it was marketed as a 3-3-3 plane.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:21 am

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 60):
I'm talking about the suggestion it was by design. If the true intent was a 3-3-3 bird, they would have made it a 3-3-3 bird not a 2-4-2 that could be operated in 3-3-3. 3-3-3 has always been high density, just like 10 across for the 777.

But I do think that was in-mind in the original design - the flexibility and the choice. I don't think Boeing expect this level of 9-abreast adoption 10 years ago. 5 years ago maybe. And 17.2" is the minimum size of coach, which is where they came out. Not an accident.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 62):
It's a 3-3-3 plane, it was designed as a 3-3-3 plane, and as soon as there was no more need to sell 3-3-3 777s it was marketed as a 3-3-3 plane.

But you just told me that the airlines would have done the math and would have figured out what it was without having Boeing tell them. This seems like a contradiction that they needed to wait until the 777 stopped selling.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
tjcab
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:24 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 39):
I can't think of any either, but I'm sure there's some no-name charter airline in the 3rd world that might just be doing that.....

Wow! Is this a serious remark? Let's please stick to facts here, rather than voicing random thoughts with degrading undertones, and adding no value to this discussion.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:32 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 63):
But you just told me that the airlines would have done the math and would have figured out what it was without having Boeing tell them. This seems like a contradiction that they needed to wait until the 777 stopped selling.

I don't see the contradiction. Boeing designed it as 3-3-3, and the airlines would have realized that. Boeing didn't want to market 3-3-3 as the default until it was clear that 777-200ER sales were done. It's been pretty well established that Boeing was internally worried about stepping on the 777 in the early years of the 7E7/787 program. But the airlines knew, which is why once the 787 was on offer 777-200ER sales, already hurt by A330-300 improvements, pretty much stopped.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:39 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 65):
I don't see the contradiction

It just sounds like: Marketers aren't needed, but if they are they wouldn't have told airlines what was really possible anyway because they had other motives. Its fine, not sure what is the case. I am sure some airlines use more Boeing effort than others.

tortugamon
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:42 am

Boeing didn't want the 787 stealing from the 777 family. With the benefit of hindsight, the 787-9 is the defacto standard, and good orders for the 10, plus customer fit out preference with both models, perhaps bigger would have been better.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:43 am

This is an opportunity to point out that Thompson Aerospace with their staggered CozySuite product can offer 10 wide at 18" for the 777 and 9 wide at 20" for the 787. I don't have problems with 17" just so long as the AVOD controller is not stowed in the inside of the seat under the arm rest. . I find it almost impossible to extract it from that location. Touch screen controls for me thankyou!! My complaint is with seat cushions. On recent flights on BA on 777 and 787 in Y and Y+ I have found the cushions lacks support and bottoms out on the under frame. This makes for a very uncomfortable seating experience. This need not be so, design of the cushion infill should be pretty simple to avoid this. Of course the cushions can get past their best buy date fairly quickly because of their continuous use.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:52 am

Having just back to backed on A350 and 787 in 3-3-3 I can tell you that the A350 is a far more comfortable product in everyway. In a 787 to get 9 abreast in the window seat you are sitting on the window, no space at all and seat width at shoulder hight is not very good. Don't get me started on self dimming windows, utterly pointless. I was really suprised at how much space there was in an A350, more that a 777 in 3-3-3.

But do airlines care about customer comfort in econmoy class? Nope..
BV
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:11 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 25):
Boeing designed the plane at 2-4-2. NH and JL operate some at that.

All JL 787s are 2-4-2.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 35):
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 18):
That's called the 747. How many operators of 11-abreast 747 can you count ? Less than a handful ?

Just curious...who flies the 747 with 11 abreast? I can't think of any...

Don't believe the 747 has ever been certificated for 11-abreast. I recall some discussion of it years ago but it never happened.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 54):
Some airlines put 8 abreast on the 767 and 9 on the 330. The only reason this is not more widespread is its a hair marginally more ridiculous than 9 abreast on 787.

If the 767 was being designed today I expect it would be slightly wider to permit 8-abreast seating that's marginally acceptable. A very few charter/leisure carriers have operated 8-abreast 767s but it's probably the worst of all widebody configurations while 7-abreast is the best. Problem is that with today's cost and revenue structures, a twin-aisle aircraft with only one more seat across than a 737/A320 doesn't make economic sense. Fortunately 7-abreast 767s will be flying for many more years. They're always my first choice, followed by 2-4-2 A330/340.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 61):
Remember that the DC-10 and L-1011 were originally 2-4-2. Airlines advertised that a person was never more than one seat away from the aisle.

Then, deregulation came along, and the airlines eventually went to 2-5-2.

Quite a few charter/leisure carriers operated DC-10s and L-1011s with 10-abreast (3-4-3) including a handful of full-service carriers. Pan Am's L-1011-500s were 3-4-3 in Y and very cramped. UA retained those seats when they took over the aircraft briefly after the Pacific route purchase, but when they were later sold to DL, they were converted to 9-abreast to match the rest of DL's L-1011 fleet.
 
karadion
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:06 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:35 am

One word: Dreamlifter. Boeing wanted to do a single-piece fuselage which meant that transporting from one site to another would be a challenge. Any wider would have become more problematic for a Dreamlifter. Also breaking it down into pieces would have meant that the plane would have been heavier in order to make a bigger fuselage.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13436
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:47 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
Everyone knew from the beginning that the 787 was a 9Y airplane. Airline customers and Boeing engineers can both do math; they aren't fooled by gauzy filtered pictures of unrealistically massive Y seats. The 9Y part just wasn't said too loudly, to avoid hurting the 777 program prematurely.

You contradict yourself here though.

If "everyone knew from the beginning" because the airlines and engineers "can both do math"...... then how would "saying it too loudly" hurt the 777 program?

Hurt it how, and in whose eyes?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:19 am

Quoting ckfred (Reply 61):
Remember that the DC-10 and L-1011 were originally 2-4-2. Airlines advertised that a person was never more than one seat away from the aisle.

Then, deregulation came along, and the airlines eventually went to 2-5-2.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 70):
Quite a few charter/leisure carriers operated DC-10s and L-1011s with 10-abreast (3-4-3) including a handful of full-service carriers. Pan Am's L-1011-500s were 3-4-3 in Y and very cramped.

BA and CX also flew their Tristars in 3-4-3 configurations.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
Having just back to backed on A350 and 787 in 3-3-3 I can tell you that the A350 is a far more comfortable product in everyway. In a 787 to get 9 abreast in the window seat you are sitting on the window, no space at all and seat width at shoulder hight is not very good.

I've sat in a 3-3-3 A330 on a window seat and it was just fine. Here's my trip report on it: MAD-ATH And ATH-YUL With IB And TS (by kaneporta1 Oct 29 2014 in Trip Reports)
I can't see how the 787 is worse. In the end, any long-haul aircraft featuring 30" pitch (like BA and QR) will feel awful whether the width is 17" or 18".

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
Don't get me started on self dimming windows, utterly pointless

+1000000 on that!
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:24 am

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 73):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 70):
Quite a few charter/leisure carriers operated DC-10s and L-1011s with 10-abreast (3-4-3) including a handful of full-service carriers. Pan Am's L-1011-500s were 3-4-3 in Y and very cramped.

BA and CX also flew their Tristars in 3-4-3 configurations.

For BA that was only the L-1011-1s used mainly on shorthaul routes in Europe. Their briefly-operated L-1011-500s used on longhaul routes were 2-5-2.
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:26 am

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
Why did Boeing not just design the aircraft with a cabin wide enough to comfortably accommodate 3-3-3 seating?

At what point is it comfortable? You need to set a threshold somewhere. The width was very deliberately chosen to allow 3-3-3 with the same 17.2" seats as a 3-4-3 747. Boeing's customer is the airlines. If economy passengers are not willing to pay extra for more width, why should airlines carry more cost?

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 12):
The airplane was designed for 2-4-2 seating. 3-3-3 was intended for LLC holiday charter type markets only, same as 777 3-4-3.

No. From the mouth of one of the guys responsible for configuration they expressly wanted to avoid the amount of cramping required for 3-4-3 on a 777. 3-3-3 on a 787 is not equivalent to 3-4-3 on a 777.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:47 am

Quoting Alfons (Reply 29):
Quoting Alfons (Reply 29):
I've read in the last few months news media articles where sometimes something like this was written :"Boeing/Airbus did an assessment and went to the customers to ask what they want..."

I mean, even a 2-man IT Start-Up - if they got some education on that in the past - will do proof-of-concepts prior asking for seed-money and spending thousands of $ into the build-up of their idea. Doesn't it make sense that Boeing/Airbus do the same before spending billions? Which goes to my point: maybe at this time (787 project start), the Boeing customer base were more interested for 8 than 9 abreast? Will you try to spend billion on a bigger plane for 9 abreast with all negative aspects of this decision (weight, fuel, etc.), because you think the future will ask for that, if your customer base tells you today "No!"?

Hmm...

Boeing actually has a mockup of a 787 interior in their marketing building that has both 8 and 9 abreast configurations where airline management can compare them side by side. They also have a A330 mockup interior as well. Airlines choose what they want.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:04 am

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 75):

No. From the mouth of one of the guys responsible for configuration they expressly wanted to avoid the amount of cramping required for 3-4-3 on a 777. 3-3-3 on a 787 is not equivalent to 3-4-3 on a 777.

They're the same seats in the three set. The only difference is the 777 has a 1" narrower aisle and a fourth seat in the middle section.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3638
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:05 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 46):
You know ... that wee bit of difference between a 1 hour SFO-LAX hop and that 15 hour LAX-MEL one ......

No one complained all those years on 747's. Oh yeah it was because of 34" seat pitch not 17" seat width.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:11 am

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 78):
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 46):
You know ... that wee bit of difference between a 1 hour SFO-LAX hop and that 15 hour LAX-MEL one ......

No one complained all those years on 747's. Oh yeah it was because of 34" seat pitch not 17" seat width.

Regardless of seat pitch, the wider 747 cabin makes 10-abreast much more acceptable in my experience than 10-abreast on the 777.
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:48 am

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 77):
They're the same seats in the three set. The only difference is the 777 has a 1" narrower aisle and a fourth seat in the middle section.

The 747 is 9.5 inches wider across the outer armrests than a 777. To keep the seats the same you need to lose a lot more than 1" at each aisle.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3638
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:55 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 79):
Regardless of seat pitch, the wider 747 cabin makes 10-abreast much more acceptable in my experience than 10-abreast on the 777.

We were talking about 3-3-3 in the 787 not the 3-4-3 in the 777. So your comment does not make sense based on my comment that you were referring to. So 787 & 747 are comparable. The current 777 has 4" narrower cabin. the 777x will offer wider cabin to allow closer isle width to the 787, but still smaller than the 747 isle.

I would not want to fly a 777-300 with 10x and 16" isles would be to cramped. But I was comparing the 787 to the 747.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3638
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:00 am

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 80):
The 747 is 9.5 inches wider across the outer armrests than a 777. To keep the seats the same you need to lose a lot more than 1" at each aisle.

747 is 241" cabin width the 777-300 is 231" width an even 10". the 777-8/9 will be 235". Mind you this is really due to thinner sidewall panels & the 747 could probably gain the extra 4" as well if being wanted it to. Easy fix just option for 2" thinner side wall panels.
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:07 am

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 80):

The 747 is 9.5 inches wider across the outer armrests than a 777. To keep the seats the same you need to lose a lot more than 1" at each aisle.

The triples are the same seat units. The quad in the middle doesn't have a double armrest and the aisles are reduced to 17".
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9724
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:31 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):
Wider cabins means heavier fuselage and more drag.

I think that fundamentally this is the answer, despite a lot of other reasons floated in the 83 replies.

The plane was to be efficient. Narrower is more efficient, ceteris paribus.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:20 am

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 80):
The 747 is 9.5 inches wider across the outer armrests than a 777. To keep the seats the same you need to lose a lot more than 1" at each aisle.

I believe the widest part of the 747 cabin is well above the area where the seat width is measured. The 777 however is positioned much more closely to the max cabin width. At least that is how it looks based on the diagrams I have followed.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20937
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:32 am

Even at $40/bbl fuel is pricier than the old aircraft. If you want the space, buy Y+. In inflation adjusted terms it is cheaper than old school Y.

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
So what is preventing Boeing from putting out and AD stating that only 8 abreast is allowed in Y on the 787?

Sales. Are you serious? Only JAL sells 8 across Y. If passengers wanted the space, they would be paying a premium for it. The 787 on shorter missions will be very cost effective. The reality is those willing to pay more expect Y+ or J.

What is the technical justification of the AD? They aren't done on a whim. There has to be a fault found that would eventually ground all 9-across 787s until they were converted and there is currently a seat shortage.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:10 am

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
Why did Boeing not just design the aircraft with a cabin wide enough to comfortably accommodate 3-3-3 seating?

Had they done that AA and UA would have instead squeezed 3x4x3 (sorry if this has already been said I only read about half the replies)

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 13):
but then economic reality set in


You mean the economic reality that some airlines can only make 1.5 billion in a quarter now, yet they could make even more if they squeeze in an extra seat per row?  


Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 15):
If airlines are truly discounting their seats to make up the seat discomfort

They're not. Except for perhaps Norwegian and the like.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:44 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 43):
Nope. The 787 was designed from the beginning as 3-3-3. If it had been designed for 2-4-2, it would have been the same width as an A330.
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 50):
Boeing designed an 8-across product that happened to support a 9-across configuration which was targeted for high density operations. Just like the 777 is a 9-across product that can support a 10-across configuration. It was a 767/A330 replacement with 5500 nautical mile range. Plain and simple.

Err...which one is it?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
Well you could be right but all of the marketing I saw in the beginning showed 8-abreast and they talked about how nice it would be for passengers. Maybe privately they were saying to airlines that it was all a hoax.

Boeing was less than truthful with the public in what they were selling? Looking at their press communications during the 787 delays this shouldn't be surprising.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
Why? What a waste and the flexibility is gone, everyone would just go to the one configuration. And honestly, who says the difference between 17.5" at 18" is huge - it certainly was not being talked about when Boeing launched this aircraft. Pax Experience info has blown up in the last 5 years and I am not sure it was foresaw that it would even be an issue. Airbus is at least partially responsible for this conversation as they have chosen to differentiate their product based on it.

Maybe passenger experience info has blown up because airlines are pushing the limits of what passengers want to endure for 12 hours. No use trying to push the blame on Airbus, passengers aren't talking about bad 787 experiences because of Airbus, they are talking about it because the product is uncomfortable.

I also struggle with the concept that Boeing is offering airlines a choice and this somehow makes it okay to offer products that gets a lot of complaints. Airlines have a choice with Airbus as well, the choice is very defined though. You can go with an acceptable product for your long haul flights or you can really squeeze or customers.

It is interesting though, if airlines do start fitting in 10-abreast in the A350 in large numbers (never designed for this and hope this never happens), what will this do to Boeing having a wider 777 cabin for the same seats? Could we then say that Boeing was wasteful with their designs by flying around extra unnecessary weight (width)?

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 73):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
Don't get me started on self dimming windows, utterly pointless

1000000 on that!

What? That is one of the enhanced passenger experiences. What do I have to look forward to if the seats are cramped and the windows is a pointless?
 
User avatar
Classa64
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:40 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:44 pm

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
Why did Boeing not just design the aircraft with a cabin wide enough to comfortably accommodate 3-3-3 seating?

Just as they designed it for 3-2-3 Making it comfy for a 3-3-3 config would mean airlines in there quest for more seats would try a 3-4-3 config. From what i read on here, they (the airlines) are just not happy with the space in the product they buy and always wanting more it seems, and if more means buying a bigger plane they will just pack more in to a smaller one. Seems its all about numbers and not about comfort, I would sure love to see the people making these decisions sit in the back packed in and see how that goes for them or if it was good idea in the first place...
"Freedom is the miles i'm rolling on"
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:48 pm

If we consider the average load factor for wide bodies is around the 75% mark, a 3+3+3 nine across seating configuration is more comfortable than 2+4+2 eight across seat configuration.

For instance at 75% load factor with 9 across seating, 4 of the 7 passengers seating in each row will have a vacant seat next to them. In the 8 across seating only 2 of the six passengers will have a vacant seat next to them.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer a vacant seat next to me over a wider 18" seat.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:02 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
Why? What a waste and the flexibility is gone, everyone would just go to the one configuration. And honestly, who says the difference between 17.5" at 18" is huge - it certainly was not being talked about when Boeing launched this aircraft. Pax Experience info has blown up in the last 5+ years and I am not sure it was foresaw that it would even be an issue. Airbus is at least partially responsible for this conversation as they have chosen to differentiate their product based on it.

It has been a quite successful astro-turf campaign by Airbus to somehow convince people who didn't even know better that somehow that .5 inch of seat width was all the difference in the world when it comes to comfort. It is all about biases and confirmation bias. These same people yapping about "18 in seat is so comfortable...and the A320 is wider so therefore it is more comfortable" and on and on were the same people who didn't even notice the differences in the economy seat before the Airbus marketing engine told them to believe it.

In fact, I would venture a guess that the biggest thing they mostly noticed was the seating arrangement (2x3x2 for 767 3x3x3 for 777, 2x4x2 for A330/340) or the slightly bigger cabin because of specs between A320 and 737, all the while not even noticing that airlines were jamming the same width seats in the single aisle aircraft, and didn't care about seat width but certainly noticing "high density" seating arrangements (instead of 1 person to the aisle in the 777, now they see 2 people and that has an effect).
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 87):
You mean the economic reality that some airlines can only make 1.5 billion in a quarter now, yet they could make even more if they squeeze in an extra seat per row?

'Some' airlines. Not all. A lot of airlines that have fleets larger than most countries will obviously make a lot of revenue, but for an airline making a loss or starting up, then every little helps (TM).
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 91):

It's not astro turf at all. Try sitting on 10 abreast 777 and then sit on 10 abreast 380 and tell me with a straight face you couldn't tell any difference whatsoever....
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:56 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 88):
What? That is one of the enhanced passenger experiences. What do I have to look forward to if the seats are cramped and the windows is a pointless?

The tray table keeps your knees pinned in place which is cosy..
BV
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:15 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 90):
If we consider the average load factor for wide bodies is around the 75% mark, a 3+3+3 nine across seating configuration is more comfortable than 2+4+2 eight across seat configuration.

For instance at 75% load factor with 9 across seating, 4 of the 7 passengers seating in each row will have a vacant seat next to them. In the 8 across seating only 2 of the six passengers will have a vacant seat next to them.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer a vacant seat next to me over a wider 18" seat.

Those seats aren't vacant anymore. Improved revenue management means that average load factor is around 85-90%.

75% load factors are a thing of the past.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 86):


What is the technical justification of the AD? They aren't done on a whim. There has to be a fault found that would eventually ground all 9-across 787s until they were converted and there is currently a seat shortage.

Lightsaber

I would rather crap class be legislated out of business in the U.S. through customer service requirements being placed on U.S. carriers. Minimum 18" seat width for all new build aircraft types and a minimum seat pitch of 32". Aisle standards are already set. Given all the wide-bodies can already support this except for the 747, mandate the standard for long haul flights immediately with 18 months to comply. 747s are close enough to retirement that they get a waiver. The cost per ticket Increase would be about $10. People will survive the price hike better than they will this nonsense of ever shrinking space.

People aren't making a choice to pay for flying in an uncomfortable or a more comfortable seat. They buy a seat. They aren't being given a choice when there are only so many seats on a plane with extra legroom and the next price delta is half the cost of a compact car. Besides, there's a health reason to support such criteria. Over a million people in the U.S. get DVTs from flying and about 10% die from it. Many more have debilitating strokes.

[Edited 2015-08-29 08:04:23]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:46 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 96):
Over a million people in the U.S. get DVTs from flying and about 10% die from it. Many more have debilitating strokes.

100,000 people per year die from flying induced DVTs in the US?! You're going to have to back that statement up with something.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:49 pm

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 5):
Remember as well that Boeing's initial sales pitch to airlines was a spacious 8-abreast cabin.

Sure, but please let us also keep in mind that the 787 (or 7E7 as I remember from the good old days!), was also designed for ultra-long range missions, and was initially marketed around this capability.
Then, every gram matters, and to some extent so does cabin comfort (because ulh direct flights will come at a higher fare than 1-stop flights and need a bit of appeal to customers reluctant to spent 16+ hours in a narrow metal tube), therefore 2-4-2 then would win: less seat weight, and fewer pax, better comfort than the 'average" 787 cabin, for more weight to be allocated to fuel and thus better range.
Since existing 787 customers generally do not care so much about ultra-long-haul ops, that extra range is not needed (despite the plane still being capable of doing it at any time, if need be in the future) and they can carry the extra pax, and extra seat weight etc... and make more $$$ in fares.
When I doubt... go running!
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: 787: Why Did Boeing Not Design A Wider Cabin For 3-3-3?

Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 97):
100,000 people per year die from flying induced DVTs in the US?! You're going to have to back that statement up with something.
http://www.orthonc.com/dvt_air_2.html

And that was 2001. There are 3 million total cases with a 10% mortality rate in the U.S. each year from all sources with a third of them related to flight. I lost a family member to it in 2003 so I'm more than familiar.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!

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