|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. The concept is working out well. 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]