wingman
Posts: 3776
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:14 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 99):
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.

The thread is too long to follow this particular subplot, but is the suggestion that fewer people are dying on Airbus planes? I should think not. The issue is that people are unhealthier than ever and this is the primary problem. My old boss at Amex died a few months ago, most likely due to DVT, and he'd been riding G-550s for the prior 15 years. Lots of flying, little exercise, and degraded plumbing is going to kill you on a 350 or 787 just the same.
 
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 7:01 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 99):
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.

Someone with an agenda misinterpreting a statistic cited in a letter to the Lancet commenting on an article in the Lancet is not particularly credible.

Real source (various national health agencies, for example), put the risk of symptomatic VTE at one-in 2-6000 (with most of those being symptomatic only in the sense that you can detect them with an ultrasound, and the vast majority of those do not lead to any sort of long term injury).

And just think about the numbers. 100K deaths in 600M flights leads to a death every 40 or so 737 flights. And since short flights are not a big risk factor, the actual death rate for long haul flight would have to be be much higher than that.
 
sxf24
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:01 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 96):
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.

The cost would be way more than $10 - think something like 30-50% higher.
 
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 7:14 pm

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 102):
The cost would be way more than $10 - think something like 30-50% higher.

You're only removing about 20 seats.
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 7:15 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 101):

Someone with an agenda misinterpreting a statistic cited in a letter to the Lancet commenting on an article in the Lancet is not particularly credible.

Real source (various national health agencies, for example), put the risk of symptomatic VTE at one-in 2-6000 (with most of those being symptomatic only in the sense that you can detect them with an ultrasound, and the vast majority of those do not lead to any sort of long term injury).

And just think about the numbers. 100K deaths in 600M flights leads to a death every 40 or so 737 flights. And since short flights are not a big risk factor, the actual death rate for long haul flight would have to be be much higher than that.

Oh I see, so you find a different number to be statistically acceptable? Thanks for caring.
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 7:20 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 100):
The thread is too long to follow this particular subplot, but is the suggestion that fewer people are dying on Airbus planes? I should think not. The issue is that people are unhealthier than ever and this is the primary problem. My old boss at Amex died a few months ago, most likely due to DVT, and he'd been riding G-550s for the prior 15 years. Lots of flying, little exercise, and degraded plumbing is going to kill you on a 350 or 787 just the same.

She was a 22 year old 100 lb wet college volleyball player and competitive cyclist. What degraded plumbing do you suggest she had?
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
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 7:28 pm

Boeing from the start designed the 7E7 to have a 3-3-3 configuration. With ANA and JAL as one of the earliest adopters of the 787, they started their configuration with the 2-4-2. The brochure for the 2-4-2 is using a galley design that has been dumped a long time ago. The interesting thing is that the 2-1-2 "First" has never been incorporated in any 787. When the 7E7 / 787 Boeing interior Demo went up, they had the 3-3-3 seating configuration. However ZA001 was configured with a 2-4-2 but was based on the ANA LOPA design.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5459
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:14 pm

As a somewhat larger than average American male (6', 210 lbs) I have no problem on 737's on 737 flight lengths. I have flown longhaul on 777's (9 abreast) and 747's (10 abreast) and found them similar as far as the seats are concerned. I would want to avoid 10 abreast on a current 777 if possible for a long flight. Fortunately my current favorite airline (BR) has made no noise about going to 10 abreast on their 77W's. I would suspect that JFK-TPE might have payload issues with a 10 abreast 77W, so that might well be the reason they have not tried it. It certainly would not make sense to add the seats and then not be able to fill them because it would exceed payload/range limits. And since I expect to be traveling to the Philippines frequently in the foreseeable future I am keeping track of what is happening and what is available.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
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 8:45 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 96):

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]


The FAA is not going to mandate seat width. It has virtually nothing to do with DVT. Sitting stationary next to a window is what is high risk.

"Traveling in economy class does not increase your risk for developing a blood clot, even during long-distance travel," according to Dr. Mark Crowther, of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. "However, remaining immobile for long periods of time will."

He added, "Long-distance travelers sitting in a window seat tend to have limited mobility, which increases their risk for DVT. This risk increases as other factors are present."

Female passengers taking the contraceptive pill, travelers over 70, cancer patients and the severely obese were warned that they had a higher risk of developing DVT—and the risk was "strongest for flights over eight to 10 hours."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/0...airplane-window-seats-experts-say/

The risk according to some real scientists is not higher for narrow seats since they don't restrict leg movement. Seat pitch can be a factor, but not to the point of the FAA getting involved. Please stop scaring people with incorrect information.
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 8:48 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 108):

Anything to support the race to the bottom.  bigthumbsup 

[Edited 2015-08-29 13:48:54]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
I380North
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:25 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:20 pm

And once upon a time the Boeing 787 was,
then 1). Game-changer, Dreamliner : 2-4-2 8 abreast (Y+) the way it suppose to be
and now 2.) DreamOn : 3-3-2 9 abreast (Y) screw pax comfort, make more...
coming soon near you as in B787v2
3.) Dream-machination : 3-4-3 10 abreast (Y-) the real cattle class/call

And hoping somewhere there is still an airline with 20" seat @38" pitch in 2-X-2 Y (+/-) configuration that I can do business with. I see the current airline assault on pax comfort as a pendulum swing. Just wait.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7898
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:27 pm

Increasing seat WIDTH will do absolutely nothing to reduce the chance of contracting DVT. You need to increase seat PITCH, and it needs to go far beyond 32" if you want to make a difference. 34" minimum.

However, and I am sorry that you personally know someone who did pass away, DVT is a very minor issue. The percentage of passengers who contract it is so small that imposing changes can't be justified.



As an aside, I agree 100% that pitch is more important than width. It's why I quite like EK 777s, the 34" is much more valuable than the loss of width. IMHO if you have enough legroom people won't mind about width. It's when you have 30" and 17" seats (for example BA) that people get upset.

[Edited 2015-08-29 14:27:57]
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
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 9:55 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 104):
Oh I see, so you find a different number to be statistically acceptable? Thanks for caring.

Calling you out on an absurd, made up, number, has no bearing on my evaluation of the problem or any sympathy I might have for those it affects. You'll note I said nothing as regards either of those topics.
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 728
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 10:01 pm

Quoting I380North (Reply 110):
And hoping somewhere there is still an airline with 20" seat @38" pitch in 2-X-2 Y (+/-) configuration that I can do business with. I see the current airline assault on pax comfort as a pendulum swing. Just wait.

Many airlines offer Premium Economy class seats with those dimensions. Just pay for it.

Oh, and no one said the "Dreamliner" marketing pitch was for the passengers. It certainly is for the airlines!
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:12 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 21):
Airlines will happily provide more room in Economy if passengers are willing to pay for it. Boeing (and Airbus, and airlines of all sorts) instead cater to reality:

This can be an AvB debate.

Airbus has much wider seats in its products. Same airlines. The manufacturer in Europe simply designed a more comfortable product. It's okay, we can admit it.
 
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 10:37 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 90):
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.

Which reputable, long distance routes in Y are operating at 75%?

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 93):
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....

I can tell the difference. My wife can tell the difference. My adult kids and their families can tell the difference.

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.

My father is deemed a DVT risk passenger, due to diagnosed poor circulation. At 82 he has to provide a medical certificate for long distance flights, and due to the doctor's diagnosis, airlines require him to fly business or first (and he must also hold medical insurance with the condition disclosed), so surely there is a relationship between space and health, at least on 10 hour plus flights.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:41 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 12):
However, the airlines decided to cram 3-3-3 in the 787 for mainline international markets too, because they can. It really is miserable for 14 hour flight (which wasn't exactly low fare either), but of course the CEOs and executives making these decisions to make all coach passengers miserable will themselves travel in the lap of luxury.

Airlines can because that's all some customers are willing to pay for. All it would take for airlines to stop offering narrow seats and cramped seat pitch is for customers to stop flying under those conditions.

Like any for profit businesses, airlines do what they can to get the most profit. As long as customers are willing to pay for crap seating, they will continue to get crap seating.

Nobody forces a person to fly coach...it's a choice. Customers have long ago proven they want cheap fares. They come at a price, that being more seats in a smaller floor area. It can be done with width, pitch or both.

Quoting Cosyr (Reply 37):
Because the 787 was designed to be 2-4-2, and airlines opted for 3-3-3.

The 787 was designed for both. It is up to the airlines themselves to decided how to outfit the interior.

In my opinion, pitch is a bigger deal than width....certainly withing the 17-18" boundaries. Just look at how luxury and relaxation are portrayed.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 88):
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.

There are lots of reasons an airline seat can be uncomfortable. I can only speak for myself but sure, seat width is part of it, but design of seat and pitch are much more important to me...and I'm a big dude that has done a lot of Y flying around the world. The jerk doing the full recline thing in front of me is probably number one.

If there's anything I'd legislate against in Y, is more than 3 degrees of tilt.

I've had great and terrible flights on both A320's and 737's. I did a lot of flying on OS between DXB and VIE. It's about a 6 hour flight and it was more comfortable than any BA747 or LH A330/340 flight. The only problem I had with EK 777's is that their seat cushion truly sucked.

Width has not been an issue.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 88):
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)?

What it will do is introduce another 10 across product and the customers will decide which they like better.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 114):
Airbus has much wider seats in its products. Same airlines. The manufacturer in Europe simply designed a more comfortable product. It's okay, we can admit it.

I won't admit anything of the sort. The seats being wider doesn't mean they are better. There are lots of things that go into making a seat comfortable...and width is only one of them...and for me, it's not very high on the list.

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 115):
My father is deemed a DVT risk passenger, due to diagnosed poor circulation. At 82 he has to provide a medical certificate for long distance flights, and due to the doctor's diagnosis, airlines require him to fly business or first (and he must also hold medical insurance with the condition disclosed), so surely there is a relationship between space and health, at least on 10 hour plus flights.

Old people are more predisposed to DVT than young people. Lack of leg mobility while seated is more critical to DVT than seat width. Besides width, things you get with J class are more legroom, and also easier access to an aisle.

I haven't been able to find a single study that suggests seat width, (specifically the difference between 17 and 18"), is a factor in DVT.

More room is always better but how much better depends on a lot of factors.
What the...?
 
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?

Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:00 am

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.

Not sure where you travel but almost every flight I've been on in the past couple of years, regardless of time of year, has had a much higher load factor than 75%. Many airlines are reporting load factors well over 80%. For example, AC reported a system load factor of 83.4% for 2014. And it's usually the shorthaul narrowbody domestic flights that are likely to have lower load factors, especially in the winter when there's much less domestic travel. So the average widebody load factor is probably even higher than the overall number.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

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

Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:42 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 117):
Not sure where you travel but almost every flight I've been on in the past couple of years

South East Asia!

QANTAS reports load factors around the 76% mark, Singapore around the 79% mark, Cathay Pacific recently reported load factors close to 87%, but that was an increase of 5% over the previous year and included Dragonair that flies into mainland China.

If we adjust the figures for different load factors with an aircraft fitted with 288 economy seats we have the following:

Economy (Y) Seat Count: 288
Rows for 9 Abreast: 32
Rows for 8 Abreast: 36

Load factor 9 wide 8 wide 9 Abreast Seating 8 Abreast Seating (sorry tabulations don't work on A-Net)

L/F Pass. Average Average
75% 216 6.75 6 24 144 67% 0 72 33%
80% 231 7.21875 6.416666667 7 121 52% 15 57 25%
85% 245 7.65625 6.805555556 21 86 35% 29 43 18%
90% 260 8.125 7.222222222 4 56 22% 8 28 11%
95% 274 8.5625 7.611111111 18 28 10% 22 14 5%

In summary (I don't know how to insert a spreadsheet)

9 abreast seating
Load factor 75%: 67% of passengers vacant seat next to them; 80%: 52%; 85%: 35%; 90%: 22%; 95%: 10%

8 abreast seating
Load factor 75%: 33% of passengers vacant seat next to them; 80%: 25%; 85%: 18%; 90%: 11%; 95%: 5%

If we look at the percentages, typically a passenger is twice as likely to have a vacant seat next to them on a nine abreast aircraft over a 8 abreast aircraft.

If we consider the 10% of passengers that prefer a wider seat, would equally accept a vacant seat beside them (in lieu of a wider seat), in theory it is not until the 95% load factor mark that those passengers can not be accommodated for.

As such, instead of airlines flying around heavier aircraft with 18" seats, they could adopt seat assignment and passenger profiling technologies that allows seats to be assigned to passengers on their preferred preferences. For example, passengers flying as couples would (not) prefer to be seated to next to each other where as passengers flying solo would (not) prefer to have a vacant seat next to them.

If an airline can satisfy 50% of its passengers that make a buying choice based upon the width of a seat with this approach, the airline will have an extra 32 revenue passenger seat opportunities to offset any of those passengers who decide to fly on another airline. My estimate/guess is around 15 passengers maximum at a 95% load factor.

For reference I often fly on the shut eye Singapore Airlines BNE-SIN flights simply because I can sleep as normal on the flight. If I have a person sitting next to me I will find it difficult to sleep (1-2 hours), If I have a vacant seat next to me I can sleep 3-4 hours (of the nine hour journey). Recently, I started flying the Sunday flights as there are often full rows of vacant seats. This means I can lie down and capture 5-6 hours of sleep.

In all instances the flights are operated by A330 18" 8-abreast seat aircraft. For me my buying choice is based upon (1) late night schedule (2) having a vacant seat next to me, (3) having the opportunity for a full row of seats to myself, (4) width of seat.

As such when load factors rise I am more likely to have my buying choice options ticked on a 17" 9 seat abreast aircraft rather than a 18" 8 seat abreast aircraft. At very high load factors, it is still more likely that I will have some of my buying choice options ticked of the 9 seat abreast aircraft.

At the end of the day, I don't like flying on aircraft with high load factors, so my preferred buying choices are overwhelmed by being stuck in a aircraft with lots of people. In those instances.......as long as the airline keeps feeding me......I'll live to fight another day!
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:31 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 116):
There are lots of reasons an airline seat can be uncomfortable. I can only speak for myself but sure, seat width is part of it, but design of seat and pitch are much more important to me...and I'm a big dude that has done a lot of Y flying around the world. The jerk doing the full recline thing in front of me is probably number one.

We are discussing a small increase on one seat. If only taken as one seat it isn't that much of a difference, unless you take that extra space across all the seats. It comes down to more space all around, whether with the individual seats or a roomier cabin.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 116):
What it will do is introduce another 10 across product and the customers will decide which they like better.

But as arguments on here goes, seat width doesn't matter and as long as the tickets are cheap people will fly on them. So if airlines decide they want a 10-abreast A350 then the same arguments that we have against the A350 vs the 777 and 787 is reversed....those that fight about 0.5" seat width increases being no big deal will realise it was a big deal after all. At the same time the extra weight the 777X will carry due to being wider isn't an issue really.

At the same time the others will argue that, we were wrong and seat width didn't matter at all...it would be so fun to look back.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

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

Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:13 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 2):
I believe it was because then it would have competed much more directly with the great and mighty 777.

I agree, Boeing already hurt their 747 program, with building the T-7 so close in size the Queen of The Skies, they do not want another repeat of that.
 
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?

Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 93):
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....

That is closer to a 1" difference. More will feel the difference there then the difference between 787 and A350 at 9-abreast as that will be closer to .5" in seat width, if that. I do think A350 aisles will be wider than 787 aisles.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 96):
I would rather crap class be legislated out of business in the U.S. through customer service requirements being placed on U.S. carriers.

What a terrible idea. Its a free market and customers being forced to pay more would hurt domestic airlines. 18" seats in a 787 means 8 abreast vs 9 which means that all Y fares will need to be ~13% more to match the revenue. Who is going to pay 13% more for a US airline in Y vs a European one? An absolute terrible idea. Lets not reduce ourselves to a nanny state where the government has to decide for us. Vote with your wallet if you care so strongly. Its not like there aren't options. Terrible.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 119):
But as arguments on here goes, seat width doesn't matter and as long as the tickets are cheap people will fly on them. So if airlines decide they want a 10-abreast A350 then the same arguments that we have against the A350 vs the 777 and 787 is reversed....those that fight about 0.5" seat width increases being no big deal will realise it was a big deal after all. At the same time the extra weight the 777X will carry due to being wider isn't an issue really.

If airlines and the traveling public accepts 10-abreast in the A350 as minimally acceptable and only a small amount of people turn to other products as a result then we will see a mass roll out of that configuration and the A350 will become much more economical to operate and the 777 will definitely be carrying more weight than it needs to because it will be wider and won't carry any more revenue in Y than the smaller A350. I really don't get why this is complicated. Right now 17.0 is minimally acceptable 17.2" is largely without reproach. 10-abreast A350s are said to be 16.9" with other changes that we don't yet know. Lets see if what is minimally acceptable changes.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 120):
I agree, Boeing already hurt their 747 program, with building the T-7 so close in size the Queen of The Skies, they do not want another repeat of that.

The only thing worse than cannibalizing your own product is letting a competitor do it. Not improving the 777 in order to save a couple 747 orders is like stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

tortugamon
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:45 am

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
787 18" (9 abreast)
350 18' 5" (9 abreast)

I didn't realize the two were so close in size. Are we really having this big of a fight over 5" distributed over 9 seats (less than .5" per seat)?

Quoting gasman (Reply 26):

And the 747 at 10 abreast is still a significantly more pleasant passenger experience than 10 abreast on a 777 or 9 abreast on a 787. There's no doubt that airlines are getting greedier.

It's the same size seat.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 32):
Airbus is much more honest regarding the 350. Their perspective is "9 means 9, period. If you go 10 you're on your own".

Airbus is actively looking at how to increase seat width enough to make an A350 acceptable at 10 across just as they have been investigating how to make an A380 11 across. If they can hit that 17" number than I would imagine that more airlines would jump on it and then the 777x would have something to worry about.

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...ast-a350-a-slice-more-comfortable/

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
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.

It's the CW on here that Y passengers do not pay extra for a more spacious seat. How about with a Y+ or a J passenger? Seeing as 1-2-1 has become more or less the standard in every single decker widebody, there must be a perceptible difference going from 767 to A330 to 787 to A350 to 777 with the 777 being nearly 4 ft wider than the 767. I know EK likes to say passengers will pay a premium to fly on the A380, but what have airlines found when it comes to J passengers? Is the wider cabin noticeable on the bigger planes and are J or Y+/W passengers willing to pay a premium for that extra space? DL's 744's having 1-2-1 on their lower deck must be quite comfy...
 
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?

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:41 am

Reposting the same post with modifications to follow the rules.

Since Boeing717200 states that Boeing has all along that 8 abreast was going to be the configuration, he claims that 3-3-3 configuration was not a reality until LATE 2005. The "Firm Concept" was finalized in October 13, 2003 which from that point on would be a 3-3-3 and Firm Configuration was finalized in June 15th, 2005 which is mid-2005. So it was the marketing people that could present that it could be flown in a 2-4-2 configuration. Engineering and Marketing are two different sets of people. One that makes the planes and one that markets the planes. If people that says it was going to be a 2-4-2 design, then fine believe the marketing people all you want.

There was a Boeing Technical Excellence Conference in Newport Beach back in July 20-22 2004 which the topic was mostly about the 7E7 and they were talking about a variety of things. One of those discussion was about the seating arrangement that the 7E7 was going to use which were: 3-3-3, 2-4-2, 3-2-3, 2-3-2, 2-2-2, 2-1-2, 1-2-1. The reason for this is the seat track system that they devised for the 7E7 was to create standards and to make it easy for any 7E7 operator to change out to a different seating configuration without ripping up the tracks. The 7E7 when compared to the 777 actually lowered the seat tracks below the level of the floor panel instead of being at the top level of the floor panel. This design would allow for flush track covers to be installed and allow for wiring to be routed between floor panels. Again his argument was that this was a "Patentable concepts vs. airlines". How does he know? He's never seen the document.

As for news sources:
Aviation Week published an article in April 2005.
Title: "Seats may define 787 success" by John W. McGill
"At 226 in. wide, the economic and efficiency projections are based on nine-abreast setting."
The width is actually 227" today.

Also:
Patrick Ashton "787 offer revenue advantage"
"John W. McGill argues that the Boeing 787 fuselage cross-section is uncompetitive with Airbus because it provides nine-abreast seating in the back (AW&ST Apr. 4, p. 6). The wider cross-section was selected because of its impact in the front where market share is determined on long-haul routes. The Airbus A350 will offer 3 in. less seat width up front than the 787, making for an inferior first-class product. While McGill is correct that economy passengers don't like middle seats, their spending habits shows they will tolerate quite a lot. Having the extra seats in back allows the 787 to provide the attractive fares that economy passengers are willing to pay."

There's this article in November 24, 2003 published by Michael Mecham "High Ceilings, Lots of Light for 7E7 Cabin"
"Assuming standard 18.5-in. seats with 2-in arm rest in economy, aisle width will be 21 in.--2.25-in. wider than Boeing's 777. Nominal economy seating is in a 3-2-3 configuration, although a higher density nine-abreast arrangement is possible."
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:22 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
Everyone knew from the beginning that the 787 was a 9Y airplane.

And yet Boeing promoted the additional seat width on the 787.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2jflgfn.jpg
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:24 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 119):
But as arguments on here goes, seat width doesn't matter and as long as the tickets are cheap people will fly on them. So if airlines decide they want a 10-abreast A350 then the same arguments that we have against the A350 vs the 777 and 787 is reversed....those that fight about 0.5" seat width increases being no big deat l will realise it was a big deal after all. At the same time the extra weight the 777X will carry due to being wider isn't an issue really.

Any person has only one direct perspective...their own. I have no idea how people will react...that's for the marketplace to decide. EK tried the 10 abreast and their load factors stayed about the same, so it became their standard layout. Focus groups and other research pale in comparison to people who have spent their own money and are stuck in a tube with 300 or more of their fellow humans for 10 hours or more.

It looks to me like AC has gone a bit crazy with 10 abreast and 31" pitch. 458 in a 3 class 77W...though granted one of the classes is Y+...but damn...that's a lot of self loading cargo in a not huge space.

Somebody will try 10 abreast on an A350...maybe it will work, maybe not, maybe sometimes....but it's going to be worth someone's effort to find out.

Speculation can be great fun as a thought exercise but in the end, it's just a guess. I spent a couple hours on a 9 abreast Yemenia A300, (or 310), and like most flights, width wasn't much of an issue because I was in a row with plenty of pitch.

I think it's perfectly ok for different people to have different seating preferences. For the most part, there are airlines willing to cater to everyone. The tricky part is whether or not one can afford it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124):

I seem to recall Boeing pushing the 7x7 as a super comfy 8 abreast aircraft, with 9 as a rarely spoken about option, since at first, their competition was going to be the A350 MkI. Once Airbus switched to the XWB at 9 abreast, airlines started asking for the 9 abreast 787 option as their first choice, so that's what Boeing promoted.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11849
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:44 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):
Airbus knows that and has focused its marketing on economy seat width. A.net has bit into the marketing strategy of Airbus. I've seen them print giant posters about how the A320 is better than 737, A350 is better than 787 based on seat width. It's all marketing. This is one area that Airbus wins since it is easy for the consumer to relate to narrow economy seats. Things like operating empty weight and fuel burn are all invisible to the public but tend to be of greater importance for the airline that actually buys the airplane.

I disagree. Airbus made their planes larger, that's not marketing at all, it's real. The marketing is only drumming up that real difference.

I've recently flown for the first time on a 737, then first time on a 767, Y window seat both times, Royal Air Maroc both times. It was night and day !

Quoting avek00 (Reply 21):
Airlines will happily provide more room in Economy if passengers are willing to pay for it.

I disagree. If I want 10% more floor space, I can't get it for 10%, or even 20% more. Y+ is easily twice the Y price, and you certainly don't get twice the space.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:09 pm

There's really no point complaining. Vote with your dollars. Patronise airlines flying A350s, A380s and 777X and 9-abreast 777s (of the few left like TK).

This practice won't change until there's a yield cost to operate the slave ships. And if anyone wants to know the logical conclusion of this trend, just look at Air Canada's new configs.....also a logical consequence of a lack of competition.

All those arguing that airlines are ultimately justified because Y pax are cheap, will get to taste their faith when an AC 77H type config comes to your favourite alliance carrier.

The legacy airlines are making the case for LCC TATL easier everyday. If the pedicure l product isn't differentiated, why pay legacy prices? The sooner B6, U2, FR jump in to the game the better. Same level of service, without the utter contempt for Y pax.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:14 pm

Quoting ytz (Reply 127):
The legacy airlines are making the case for LCC TATL easier everyday.

An astute observation.

But once real LCCs start TATL, the legacies may be forced to compete by offering a more attractive Y configuration!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9481
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:55 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 128):
But once real LCCs start TATL, the legacies may be forced to compete by offering a more attractive Y configuration!

Or compete by packing in as many Y seats as possible to lower costs and specifically differentiate themselves (and subsidize their higher Y costs) with their premium cabins and larger networks...

Note that the influx of [U]LCCs on short haul routes have done little to make competing Y class on legacies (worldwide) any better. It will be the same long haul. You want better? Pay the premium for it- if not up for that the legacies will gladly sell the cheap pax a similar product as a LCC on the same plane.

Quoting ytz (Reply 127):
The sooner B6, U2, FR jump in to the game the better. Same level of service, without the utter contempt for Y pax.

I'll give you B6, but have you flown U2 and FR? You think an airline with 28-29" Y seat pitch and another that would have that if they were not exit limited will be flying 18.5" wide Y seats with 34" pitch just because they are flying long haul?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 126):
I disagree. Airbus made their planes larger, that's not marketing at all, it's real. The marketing is only drumming up that real difference.

True, although with the A350 Airbus was in somewhat of an awkward position when it came to sizing. It had to do double duty as a competitor for the 787 and a credible response to the 77W after the A346 failed on the market place. Size it where 10Y is attractively doable for airline and everyone would do that and your plane is too large to effectively replace the A330 and fight the 787, and keeping the same fuselage width as the A300/A330/A340 was met with a lukewarm response in the original A350 as the 787 was on a huge PR roll. Airbus really had no choice but make it larger than the 787 (because they certainly couldn't make it the same width- Boeing's marketing would be sending Airbus flowers) but narrower than the 777, although even Airbus admits it is looking at ways to make wider 10Y seats more feasible on the A350 at airline requests.


[Edited 2015-08-31 09:58:44]

[Edited 2015-08-31 10:00:29]

[Edited 2015-08-31 10:12:40]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:56 pm

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 122):
Airbus is actively looking at how to increase seat width enough to make an A350 acceptable at 10

Help me out here, did Airbus design its seat tracks so that they cannot be changed or adjusted?
If the airline want to put more seats in a row the width of the seat has to go down, from 8 to 9 another track is required, and the width of the aisle may or may not have to be adjusted, what is the difficulty with Airbus on that score?
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:17 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 130):

Help me out here, did Airbus design its seat tracks so that they cannot be changed or adjusted?
If the airline want to put more seats in a row the width of the seat has to go down, from 8 to 9 another track is required, and the width of the aisle may or may not have to be adjusted, what is the difficulty with Airbus on that score?

I don't know exactly what process they're going through. I'm just going based on what they said in the article:

"But Airbus has been quietly working on a configuration that would enable airlines to offer a seat that will be just shy of 17″ at 10-abreast, the airframer confirms.

Though “we haven’t launched it” yet, says Airbus executive VP, strategy and marketing Dr. Kiran Rao in relation to the smidge-more-room 10-abreast layout, “you can play with the angles on the sidewalls and you can play a little with the armrest and then you can be very clever with the design of the seat. It will be 16.8” or 16.9”, something like that.”"

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...ast-a350-a-slice-more-comfortable/

If 17" really is the minimum the general market will accept for seat width, then Airbus is getting close to making the A350 a 10 across bird. Among other things, I would imagine that would close the deal for them with EK over the 78X.
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:15 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 101):

Someone with an agenda misinterpreting a statistic cited in a letter to the Lancet commenting on an article in the Lancet is not particularly credible.

You don't think the Lancet is credible? Journals are ranked based on credibility, go look at where the Lancet sits!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9409
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:37 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):
The only thing worse than cannibalizing your own product is letting a competitor do it. Not improving the 777 in order to save a couple 747 orders is like stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

Not that this is not absolutely true, you must admit it has occurred time and again in corporations. And of course I am not talking about the 777 or the 747 but when the 787 was first being developed and the program gaining traction and shape within the corporation. One group fights another program group, and I have known personally the need to "tip toe" around a major programs "territory" within the corporation. Usually the one group is making a lot of money for the company and the people have done well and risen through the ranks and are now in influential positions. Additionally as much as they want that dollar over that dime, the thousands - millions of dimes falling into the companies coffers can obscure the dollars on the horizon.  
Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 131):
, then Airbus is getting close to making the A350 a 10 across bird.

Interestingly Airbus has the ten across seating listed on its website as a seating option: "10 abreast - High efficiency"
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...0xwbfamily/a350-1000/cabin-layout/

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:40 pm

I would imagine that would close the deal for them with EK over the 78X.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 131):

Especially as they want it for "regional" routes
 
nry
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:41 pm

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 132):
You don't think the Lancet is credible? Journals are ranked based on credibility, go look at where the Lancet sits!

Much lower these days after the shoddy vaccine autism study they had to retract....
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320, A321, A340 (surprisingly no A330 yet)
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
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?

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:53 pm

A slide from today's commercial aviation conference in Vegas. It looks like 100% of the people chose not-seat width when determining what was critical to their choice on who to fly. They must all be crazy, Seat Width is Everything!!  

http://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/638390913006342144

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 123):
How about with a Y or a J passenger? Seeing as 1-2-1 has become more or less the standard in every single decker widebody, there must be a perceptible difference going from 767 to A330 to 787 to A350 to 777 with the 777 being nearly 4 ft wider than the 767.

I think seat width does matter for Y+ / J etc. But even that there is a law of diminishing returns. ~21" is really what most airlines need even for F. It becomes more about Pitch and amenities and service once the width is satisfactory.

The trick for the 77X will be to see how they can generate more revenue out of the added cabin width vs the A350. If they can't find ways to capture more revenue width-wise then the A350 will have a big advantage.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 133):
Not that this is not absolutely true, you must admit it has occurred time and again in corporations. And of course I am not talking about the 777 or the 747 but when the 787 was first being developed and the program gaining traction and shape within the corporation. One group fights another program group, and I have known personally the need to "tip toe" around a major programs "territory" within the corporation. Usually the one group is making a lot of money for the company and the people have done well and risen through the ranks and are now in influential positions. Additionally as much as they want that dollar over that dime, the thousands - millions of dimes falling into the companies coffers can obscure the dollars on the horizon

A good example is Kodak which was one of the first to develop digital cameras. I just can't picture sitting with the board of directors when someone speaks up to say "I know our primary business is film, but I have invested a lot of time and money into a technology that makes film completely unnecessary!" - Some companies like IBM can reinvent while others like Kodak chose more poorly.

tortugamon
 
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?

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):

A slide from today's commercial aviation conference in Vegas. It looks like 100% of the people chose not-seat width when determining what was critical to their choice on who to fly. They must all be crazy, Seat Width is Everything!!  

This is also a survey of Spirit customers, which are practically the most most price sensitive bunch you can find. Even things like "airports served" don't matter to them.

I'm not trying to imply legacy airline customers aren't price conscious, but at least they'll have limits when it comes to other factors. As an example, I won't consider ISP or SWF as a viable airport for one actually bound for Manhattan NYC, regardless of price.
 
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?

Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:23 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 137):
This is also a survey of Spirit customers, which are practically the most most price sensitive bunch you can find. Even things like "airports served" don't matter to them.

I agree but I thought it was interesting that seat width or seat comfort or anything like that was even on there, and they fly the more comfortable Airbus product !  

As others have said, and I agree with, price, seat pitch, airport, route structure, IFE, ff program, are all more important to most.

tortugamon
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

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

Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:21 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):

I think seat width does matter for Y+ / J etc. But even that there is a law of diminishing returns. ~21" is really what most airlines need even for F. It becomes more about Pitch and amenities and service once the width is satisfactory.

The trick for the 77X will be to see how they can generate more revenue out of the added cabin width vs the A350. If they can't find ways to capture more revenue width-wise then the A350 will have a big advantage.

It will be interesting to see. EY could go for a sumptuous A380 style 1-1-1 F class but otherwise, with J on the way up and F on the way down, it seems like airlines will have a hard time charging much of a premium for 1-2-1 J on a 777 vs an A350. In this regard, it would actually favor an airline like LH or EK who doesn't offer all aisle access in J, as they can continue (if they choose) to offer a 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 J. With 2-2-2, you at least have the option of charging a premium for the middle two seats since they don't share aisle access while discounting the outer 4.. The issue at that point is not really one of space but aisle access. it will be a market test to see if J customers are willing to pay less in exchange for not having exclusive aisle access. with premium Y on the rise, could they get a bit creative and mix classes? do something like 1-4-1 with outer seats being J and the inner seats being a W class?

I think this is where both the 787 and the A380 have an efficiency advantage - the A380's top deck is at the goldilocks equilibrium for not too narrow not too wide on the for premium class 1-2-1 seating in either J or F and the bottom deck is right sized for 10 across E and a really sumptuous 1-2-1 F if you are so inclined like SQ. The 787 is wide enough to offer a spacious 1-2-1 J cabin and a 3-3-3 E cabin. Go any wider to add an extra seat in E and you're wasting space in J. Go narrower for 8 across in Y and your J space gets a bit tight (I have seen the occasional review of an A330 or 767 complain about a tight J cabin, especially compared to a 777. reviewers never said if they would pay a premium for that 777 cabin though).

[Edited 2015-08-31 14:22:51]
 
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?

Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:37 pm

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 139):
it seems like airlines will have a hard time charging much of a premium for 1-2-1 J on a 777 vs an A350.

A well thought out post. You clearly know your premium seat configurations but I would like to point out that there is a way for wider cabins to fit in more seats than shorter cabins at the 787-777 range and that is by increasing the angle of the seat to make it more width-wise instead of forward where 1-2-1 could still be possible and you might be able to fit an extra row into the same length of floor space in a smaller cabin. BA for example has found away to do an 8-abreast J cabin* that takes advantage of the width as well and their new speculative cabin (there is an active thread) is even more geared toward maximizing the use of an aircraft's width while giving direct aisle access. I think Boeing has the seat designers on notice to come up with something and I am sure EK will be leading the way. I doubt we will see 2-3-2 in their 777X configuration but we will see!

*kinda

tortugamon
 
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?

Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:41 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140):
A well thought out post. You clearly know your premium seat configurations but I would like to point out that there is a way for wider cabins to fit in more seats than shorter cabins at the 787-777 range and that is by increasing the angle of the seat to make it more width-wise instead of forward where 1-2-1 could still be possible and you might be able to fit an extra row into the same length of floor space in a smaller cabin. BA for example has found away to do an 8-abreast J cabin* that takes advantage of the width as well and their new speculative cabin (there is an active thread) is even more geared toward maximizing the use of an aircraft's width while giving direct aisle access. I think Boeing has the seat designers on notice to come up with something and I am sure EK will be leading the way. I doubt we will see 2-3-2 in their 777X configuration but we will see!

Or do the JAL way : 2-3-2 J on their 777 (and 2-2-2 on 787) that is all aisle access while not requiring to climb over someone's feet the BA's seat is. And their method is even better because it's 100% forward facing - none of that angle/backward issue that others face.
 
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?

Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:08 am

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 132):
You don't think the Lancet is credible? Journals are ranked based on credibility, go look at where the Lancet sits!

Sure Lancet is credible. They just didn't say what the OP, or the article he cited, says it did.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7709
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:38 am

Interesting that Airbus got it wrong again on the A350, they tried to compete with the 777 using two aircraft, the A330/340
and the latter was not a big success.


Now they are trying the opposite and aiming to compete with the 777/787 with one aircraft, the A350, its a good aircraft but not that much bigger than the 787 and not nearly wide enough to compete with the 777.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:27 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 143):

Interesting that Airbus got it wrong again on the A350, they tried to compete with the 777 using two aircraft, the A330/340
and the latter was not a big success.

Its the other way around.

Airbus competed what is essentially one type, A330/340, against Boeing's two types, 767 and 777. A350 vs. 787 and 777 is the same pattern.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 144):
Airbus competed what is essentially one type, A330/340, against Boeing's two types, 767 and 777

So the 747 was only competed against when the A380 was produced?
I honestly thought the 4 engine A340 was supposed to compete against the 747, especially the -600.
 
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?

Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:12 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 144):

Airbus competed what is essentially one type, A330/340, against Boeing's two types, 767 and 777. A350 vs. 787 and 777 is the same pattern.

Airbus is also doing 2 types now

330neo + 350

vs

787 + 777X
 
travelhound
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:20 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 143):
Now they are trying the opposite and aiming to compete with the 777/787 with one aircraft, the A350, its a good aircraft but not that much bigger than the 787 and not nearly wide enough to compete with the 777.

...but, I do think the A350 is positioned right in the heart of the market, so from that perspective it is going to be the right aircraft for a lot of airlines. For me, I can see opportunity for airlines with multiple aircraft (i.e. A330's, A340's & 777's) to consolidate their operations around the A350. In this instance the extra cost of flying a wider bodied aircraft could be (?) recouped from the synergies associated with having a single type of aircraft in their fleet.

Time will tell!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):
A slide from today's commercial aviation conference in Vegas.

There was an interesting interview in the Australian Aviation magazine (about 2-3 years ago) with the than Air New Zealand CEO discussing product differentiation and customer satisfaction.

What made this article interesting was the CEO was quite candid and in the years following Air New Zealand won quite a few awards for its product and high customer satisfaction ratings.

In one instance the CEO commented passengers in business class often behaved like spoiled brats and that the trick for appeasing these customers was trying to keep them occupied for the full duration of the flight. In another instance he conceded airlines in effect packed a whole lot of people into a tightly confined space and the trick was to try and make this experience as less unpleasurable as possible.

He also remarked passengers often perceived the cost of flying as excessive and as such they had very high expectations (i.e. they complain if they don't get everything they think they should get) for service and product.

If we consider the majority of passengers in economy class are often "occasional flyers" and that for a good proportion of them the "cost of a ticket" can represent a high percentage of their savings, what represents value for us "enthusiasts" on A-Net may not be representative for the majority of the flying public.

In reality the cost of a ticket is based around the "real estate" required to fly a person between point "A" & "B". The more real estate, the more cost!

Airlines target markets! I don't think it is reasonable to expect airlines to be all things for all people. As such there will always be a trade off. Whether that be seat width, IFE, in-flight food and beverages, etc. airlines will do the best they can to ensure they can capture enough passengers at a reasonable price to make sure their businesses are profitable.

Alan Joyce at the recent QANTAS 2015 year profit announcements went out of his way to make the point that the cost of a ticket for flying on QANTAS today was effectively 40% cheaper than what it was 10 years ago! The point of these comments were he didn't want the reporting of the strong profit to send a message to QANTAS passengers that QANTAS were charging them too much!

At the end of the day, for the majority of passengers price is often a deciding factor for which airline to fly on. A small change in price can result in a small change in load factors. When we consider the difference between profit and loss for most airlines revolves around very small percentages in yields and load factors it is not surprising airlines re trying to extract as much value as they possibly can out of their very expensive aircraft assets.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7709
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

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

Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:52 pm

For Airbus the problem is there's just too big a gap between the largest A350 and the A380.


O f course Boeing fills it perfectly with the 777-9.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
wingman
Posts: 3776
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

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

Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:23 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 137):
Even things like "airports served" don't matter to them.

When you're that cheap you don't even care where you're going. $16 one way straight to hell? Sign me up.

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