jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:19 am

Quoting luftaom (Reply 6):

9 abreast 787s and 10 abreast 777s are absolutely horrible.

Yet (probably) profitable for carriers.  
"Up the Irons!"
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 am

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 1):
was hoping "luxurious" would not mean this!

Luxurious, coming from an airline executive, is code for 'just bearable'. In other news, I am surprised to see so many complain about this 9 abreast move Qantas is making here who have a history in ferociously defending Emirates going 10 abreast in 777 at slightly more generous pitch - which is basically what Joyce is proposing for the 787 here.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
A premium heavy configuration will make sure the trip shall be profitable.

Only if they can fill it with sold tickets, and considering Australia is not THE most premium heavy market (there is a fair share, but nothing extraordinary), this is not self-evident.
 
User avatar
HGL
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:25 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:22 am

I note the repeated suggestion that LHR-PER non-stop may be launched when QF receive the 787, Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor - The West Australian, going so far as to report that

Quote:
Qantas will soon enter into discussions with the State Government and Perth Airport on support packages and infrastructure needs for its planned London non-stop service from 2018.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/...non-stop-flight-service-to-london/

Now I have no idea what "support packages" the State Government should need to offer given that the airport is federally owned though privately run and international aviation is also a federal responsibility. Perhaps QF want the WA Tourism commission to sponsor QF advertising campaigns, who knows as Thomas doesn't make it clear.

As to "infrastructure needs", what might they be? Improved connectivity between T3/4 and T1 International or the introduction of an international facility at T3/4 to allow seemless connection for passengers travelling interstate or intrastate?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 35):
can, frankly, suck it.

Imagine Joyce saying that. He might think it but I doubt he'd be so crass as to say. Of course passengers want to pay as little as possible but to put the blame for less space on passengers is not completely honest. It is the airlines that decide how they will configure their cabins and it is the competition between them that leads some to reduce seat pitch and/or seat width. Many infrequent passengers will have no idea about how much space compared to another airline they will have until they actually board the aircraft.

[Edited 2016-06-03 01:00:31]
Qui omnes despicit, omnibus displicit.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17499
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 46):
Use Thompson Cozy Suite.

Do you have shares?   

They clearly aren't the panacea that Thompson claim as, AFAIK, not a single airline has installed them.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:04 am

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 48):
No, I don't. but if you look at the 777 ACAP it shows the 2 inch armrest for the 3 seats that are 59 inches wide for the 3-4-3 configuration. So you can figure it out easily based on that, other wise the seats would be around 17.87 inches if the armrest was 1.5 for example.

It is strange that they don't list the armrest width on the 787 seeing as it is listed in the 777 ACAP. You would think it would be included in the ACAP as it is in the Airbus A350 ACAP document.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 48):
Well, I got around 10cm or 4 inches of extra space. Now this is the interesting part as you will notice the same thing on the other Airbus widebodies. Based on my own experience of flying the A330 in Y(8 abreast), that extra space is between the the sidewalls and the armrest of the window seats, which when compared to the Boeing aircraft I've flown in Y is always larger (ie 2 inches for the A330 which corresponds to their ACAP and around 1 inch for the 777 for example(9 abreast)). On the 787 that distance is about 0.6 inches based on the ACAP.

Now this is my opinion based on the above, but I believe that the "cramped" feeling is more based on how much the space is between the sidewalls and the seats rather than the actual seat width itself. Which then leads to this:

I thought the design of the A350 allows for straighter sidewalls so you see less "wastage" and the seats sit more comfortably to the side of the aircraft. At the very least it is straighter than the A380 and A330 which has more space that isn't used.

Its also strange that the 787 ACAP doesn't include a illustration of the shape of the fuselage so you aren't sure what the shape is like. This is the same for the 777 ACAP, but they do include a shape of the fuselage for the 737. I have to wonder why this is done like this.

Their seats shapes they use on the 787 just looks strange, I wonder if they used real world seat shapes whether the shape will take away more than they are showing.
 
User avatar
VCEflyboy
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:23 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:37 am

Also keep in mind that it won't be long before SQ starts flying their a350s to major US destinations and Aussie pax regard SQ as a luxurious airline and Singapore as an ideal stopover unlike EK and Dubai which have never been digested.
 
L0VE2FLY
Posts: 986
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:33 am

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 55):

Only an a.nutter would fly from Australia to North America via SIN or DXB!   Such itinerary would make the trip significantly longer, except for Western Australia-US East Coast.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:57 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 21):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
As an aside, I am surprised so many a.netters have a Body Mass Index that perfectly matches an 18" seat.

  

Indeed. And who's posteriors are so sensitive that they're able to measure a 0.5" difference with that extremity alone, and so accurately that it goes from being 'torturous' to 'luxurious' . . .

Ooh - don't like to argue a point with people I respect on here, but I think your being a bit disingenuous. Since your BMI is pretty much* related to a 3 dimensional measure and width is 1 dimensional, big variations in the former result in much smaller variations in the latter. Obviously I don't have any figures, but I'd bet the range of widths from where 90% of adults are touching elbows, to where 90% of adults are not is quite small, and small variations are therefore noticeable IMO. Anyhow, all things being equal, the difference between the "luxurious" 9 abreast 787 and the likes of the 9 abreast 777, 8 abreast A330 and 10 abreast A380 is more like 1-1.5''.

Airlines who provide that product should get slated, IMO, and it's a shame more passengers don't.

* I know, mass != volume, but we're all flesh and bone.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:31 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 35):
If you want luxury you need to pay for it. Economy class travellers whinging about lack of room while buying cheap tickets can, frankly, suck i

That's fine if there's clarity about what's being bought. Currently it's obfuscated behind ill defined airline terminology.

Take eggs for an example. 15 years ago you could have said that consumers didn't care about obtaining eggs from battery hens. They claimed to not like the cruelty but wouldn't pay to end it. Then you have the 2004 EU legislation on labelling, there's clarity between cage/barn and free range, and there's a massive shift in consumer behavior. And if we had better defined products in aviation, and if the 9Y 787 (and 10Y 777) were labelled "Sub economy" with a consumer warning, we would see a welcome shift in consumer behavior there too.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

I'm afraid they are propagating an a.net myth and preconceived notions about "seat comfort" (seat width of 18 inches is the bestest!! and 3-3-3 on 787 or 3-4-3 on 777 is the worst evah!!) when the majority of the flying public is far more concerned with legroom, and wouldn't notice a .5 inch difference in seat width even if they had a ruler.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:00 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 47):
Doesn't mean the passenger is going to notice the slightest difference.

That is not true. You find amassed negative feedback for 777 and 787 seats. Here is a copy of my post from the other thread (it matches here 100% too):

Read some airline review sites. E.g. this one:
http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-reviews/emirates/

Quotes (most from the headlines of the post) from the latest few reviews for 777:
- "seats are too small and rigid", seat width 1 of 5 stars
- "seats very close together", seat width 2 of 5 stars
- "seating uncomfortable", seat width 1 of 5 stars
- "never fly with Emirates again, I had to tuck my elbows tightly into my sides to eat my meal.", seat width 2 of 5 stars

I did not find a single 777 review, where the seat width was reported to be Ok. Overall very poor reviews. And this is not from aviation enthusiasts.

Or read the user comments here:
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Bri...s/British_Airways_Boeing_787-8.php

My point is, that it is noticed by many "normal" people. In fact it is not only noticed but also attributed to Boeing instead to the airline. Where I look, Boeing is slowly gaining a reputation for subpar passenger comfort.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 47):
And it certainly doesn't influence airline's buying decision, although a certain percentage of the A.net population thinks so.

It does influence airline's buying decisions, if an airline suddenly notices, their customers went elsewhere. In that case, they (have to) will buy differently.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:04 pm

Just wait until the 11 across A380 hits service
 
wingman
Posts: 3776
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:06 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60):
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 47):
Doesn't mean the passenger is going to notice the slightest difference.

That is not true. You find amassed negative feedback for 777 and 787 seats. Here is a copy of my post from the other thread (it matches here 100% too):

Read some airline review sites. E.g. this one:
http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-reviews/emirates/

Quotes (most from the headlines of the post) from the latest few reviews for 777:
- "seats are too small and rigid", seat width 1 of 5 stars
- "seats very close together", seat width 2 of 5 stars
- "seating uncomfortable", seat width 1 of 5 stars
- "never fly with Emirates again, I had to tuck my elbows tightly into my sides to eat my meal.", seat width 2 of 5 stars

I did not find a single 777 review, where the seat width was reported to be Ok. Overall very poor reviews. And this is not from aviation enthusiasts.

This would help explain EK's declining passenger counts on their 777 fleets and their recent decision to scrap the type and cancel their pending 777X order.

Hello?? Dura Oblongata?? Is there one in there?
 
TC957
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:14 pm

So " a very luxurious configuration " means in QF-talk no F class and 9-across in Y.

I should have though QF would be well to mirror BA's seating plan for their 789's, with a couple of rows less Y class seats for a better seat pitch and only 8 across.
 
wingman
Posts: 3776
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:48 pm

Quoting TC957 (Reply 63):
I should have though QF would be well to mirror BA's seating plan for their 789's, with a couple of rows less Y class seats for a better seat pitch and only 8 across.

I don't think that's correct, they're staying at 9X but either reducing armrest widths and/or aisle widths. Not an unwise move seeing as people fly the 330/340 series over 767s and JAL apparently still has to compete for Y pax on its 8X 787s. Seat width does matter, but the actual difference between competing aircraft on similar routes is only consequential to a minority of travelers whose collective bitching has resulted in exactly 0.000% impact on aircraft sales and customer usage. If this actually was a meaningful factor Ryanair and Southwest would be bankrupt, and so would Boeing.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9489
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:50 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 64):
If this actually was a meaningful factor Ryanair and Southwest would be bankrupt, and so would Boeing.

If it were actually a meaningful factor you would see Boeing pressing for 18.5" standards for long haul, which would be great for Boeing but would suck for Airbus. There is a reason why Airbus specifically pushes 18" seats, and its not because they are concerned about the passenger's space.

[Edited 2016-06-03 07:53:10]
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:53 pm

The only way to make is "very" luxurious would be bucking the general trend and go 2-4-2 in regular Y, make a really comfortable 2-2-2 PE/Y+ in 40+" pitch, and find a way to do 27" wide bed in J.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:00 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 42):
Where do you draw the line on when you can complain and when you can't? If I pay for a sale fare, obviously I can be treated like lowlife scum and I deserve it. If I pay full fare economy, do I then have a right to complain?

Honestly, I'd say you have even less right to complain since the only reason one purchases an expensive Economy fare is:

a) they need the flexibility to cancel or change without penalty;
b) they have to be on that flight and are booking at the last moment


If you pay that much and are booking months ahead, you should have spent the money on a discounted Business fare.


Quoting BaconButty (Reply 57):
Ooh - don't like to argue a point with people I respect on here, but I think your being a bit disingenuous

Frankly, I was. Airbus Aficionados beat the "comfort" drum non-stop on this forum and I'm sick of it. I respect your point as a valid one, but add the below:



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60):
You find amassed negative feedback for 777 and 787 seats.

And yet they are two of the world's most popular airplane models in terms of sales. And every day they fly full or near to it. So they may be uncomfortable, but they are not so uncomfortable that the travelling public actively books away from them, otherwise they'd be flying empty and airlines would retire them out of their fleets for the Super Awesome Sparkle Cake Experience Airbus.

[Edited 2016-06-03 08:13:11]
 
qf002
Posts: 3577
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:25 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
As well as a decrese in capacity it would also be a substantial increase in CASM (sorry CASK). While the 789 won't be weight restricted on the return, I still think the A380 would come out tops overall.

The A380 is QF's best solution at the moment but the 789 option blows it out of the water:

- 25-30% boost to westbound capacity while eastbound capacity remains steady.
- More premium capacity while eliminating F (which is a cabin QF never wanted to offer into DFW to begin with).
- 2-3 times more cargo potential over the A380.

I'm not sure why you think CASM would rise. Sure, you have higher crew costs but two 789s should burn less fuel than a single A380 and do so while offering a very substantial increase in available passenger and cargo capacity. You also have to consider the potential to improve yields from MEL by offering a second nonstop service as well as the potential savings driven by dropping the extra 2wk MEL-LAX services or by eliminating the DFW stop on the freighter service.

It just makes sense.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
SFO, YVR and 2xHKG (instead of 747 332) would be my guesses for the early routes. Longer term I could see increasing SCL to 5/6/7 weekly would also be on the agenda once EDTO 330 approval is granted by CASA.

SFO seems to be doing extremely well so I'd be surprised to see them cut capacity there. If SYD-DFW does go to 789s then I would even make a case for SFO potentially getting an A380 a few days a week.

YVR doesn't feel like a good fit for such a premium-heavy configuration. I might be wrong but it doesn't feel to me like a pressing priority for QF.

HKG would be a major reduction in capacity which makes little sense to me.

My view is that QF is now thinking about the 789 in the context of a fleet that also includes 779s for routes like SFO, HKG, HND, LAX, JNB etc. Replacing the 744 fleet with 777s allows the 789s to move into a more specialised role which targets a part of the market that QF has never explored before.

As always, I might be waaaay off the mark. But I hope I'm not because the idea of QF opening routes like MEL-DFW, SYD-ORD and PER-LHR fills me with huge excitement.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:40 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 64):
Seat width does matter, but the actual difference between competing aircraft on similar routes is only consequential to a minority of travelers whose collective bitching has resulted in exactly 0.000% impact on aircraft sales and customer usage.

What evidence do you have for your bold and absolute claims? I see people saying things like this:

Quote:

"never fly with Emirates again"

"3 out of 10 because it got me where I needed to go but don't think I'll fly economy with Emirates again."

"Absolutely horrible, very cramped seating and I am only 5'3" so legroom was ok - but when you are surrounded by large people who try to invade your personal space because you're little, it can get frustrating."

"very very disappointed"

"Will use Thai Eva or Qatar next time even though it will cost a little more." (over EK)

"and no, before anyone asks, I'm not anti-Boeing, I love their aircraft normally."

"BA are trying to cram as many people as they can in with a 3 3 3 configuration and I will be avoiding in future."

"This aircraft is on our very short "to be avoided" list. This critique is written by a former Boeing employee."

"First, I LOVE BRITISH AIRWAYS - .... I will NEVER fly this model of aircraft on BA again!"

"This flight was intercontinental and I was so uncomfortable it hurt. Other passengers were complaining as well. Never again."

"Even if we are both skinny, we were still so squeezed between the armrests.... It's a shame they make you fly in these inhumane conditions; it should not be allowed"

"The armrest is so narrow that not only can you not share it, .... Miserable. Cramming people in like this seems like cynical"

"Praying for competitors on this route soon that use the 8-across configuration."

"I'm avoiding at ALL costs. HORRENDOUS !!!!"



All from the two links in my first post...

So sorry, you are just wrong. There is impact.

Quoting wingman (Reply 64):
If this actually was a meaningful factor Ryanair and Southwest would be bankrupt, and so would Boeing.

Weird definition of meaningful. What about a factor that impacts the bottomline by say 7% (just an arbitrary sample)? Would that factor not be meaningful? It would be extremely meaningful I would say. Factors become relevant long before they ruin a company.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:51 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 69):
So sorry, you are just wrong. There is impact.

Post citation and proof of impact or it didn't happen. 'Nuff said.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:16 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 69):
What about a factor that impacts the bottomline by say 7% (just an arbitrary sample)?

If an airline would make 7% more per flight using an Airbus in place of a Boeing for any reason, Airbus would have 100% of the market right now.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):
So they may be uncomfortable, but they are not so uncomfortable that the travelling public actively books away from them, otherwise they'd be flying empty and airlines would retire them out of their fleets for the Super Awesome Sparkle Cake Experience Airbus.

Between flying empty and attracting less than you would otherwise is a huge difference. It's silly to assume, that because not everybody has left the 10 abreast 777 operators, there is no impact.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 70):
Post citation and proof of impact or it didn't happen. 'Nuff said.

The people I quote prove, that Wingman is wrong. I did not make the 0.000% impact claim.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 69):What about a factor that impacts the bottomline by say 7% (just an arbitrary sample)?
If an airline would make 7% more per flight using an Airbus in place of a Boeing for any reason, Airbus would have 100% of the market right now.

You misunderstood. Wingman said, that because nobody went bankrupt, the seat width is not a meaningful factor. I said, that "only" 7% impact on the bottomline can be extremely meaningful (e.g. see 77W vs. A346) but still far from ruining companies.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 68):
I'm not sure why you think CASM would rise. Sure, you have higher crew costs but two 789s should burn less fuel than a single A380 and do so while offering a very substantial increase in available passenger and cargo capacity

You are onto something here. The QF 560t A380 on a typical DFW-SYD day of 16hrs 40 min. will carry a 35.2t payload. Its trip fuel is 209.458t. About Two 789 flights , same flight time will carry ~ 61t payload for a total trip fuel of 175.614t. On a per tonne of payload the 789 uses less than half the fuel of the A380 At current IATA fuel price of $470 m/t the A380 fuel cost is ~$2800 per mt of payload and the 789 ~$1340 per m/t. of payload. The open question is can you fly the 789 twice for the same cost as the A380, once plus the fuel spread . Probably not. But if you want to deploy both types on routes best suited to their load/ range characteristics you will be ahead overall.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:46 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 72):
Between flying empty and attracting less than you would otherwise is a huge difference. It's silly to assume, that because not everybody has left the 10 abreast 777 operators, there is no impact.

People stop giving their custom to businesses all the time for many reasons. Yet new people slide in to take their place so the net loss is none.

That airlines are moving to denser and less comfortable configurations appears to me to be a clear sign that for every customer who never flies with them again, another one is ready to do so. And more likely two or three are ready to do so.

BA is sticking with a slightly-wider nine-abreast on the 787 in response to customer complaints even though they could have just gone with their original plan announced when they ordered them, which was to have WT at 2+4+2. They'd still be more efficient than their 767-300ER fleet at that configuration and they could market themselves as more comfortable than any competitor, regardless of what airframe they are operating.

But they wouldn't make as much money.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 73):
You misunderstood. Wingman said, that because nobody went bankrupt, the seat width is not a meaningful factor. I said, that "only" 7% impact on the bottomline can be extremely meaningful (e.g. see 77W vs. A346) but still far from ruining companies.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
People stop giving their custom to businesses all the time for many reasons. Yet new people slide in to take their place so the net loss is none.

Agreed. In case of EK, I could even imagine, that they overall soak up more frustrated 10-abreast 777 customers from other airlines than loosing pax due to their 10-abreast 777 (so overall their balance might be positive). Which does not change the fact, that to some degree the 777 and the 787 cause pax to avoid their operators. Would EK have 5%, 2% or 0.5% more pax with 9-abreast 777? I dont know (and I have not claimed to know). But I do know, it is not 0.000%.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:45 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
Would EK have 5%, 2% or 0.5% more pax with 9-abreast 777? I dont know (and I have not claimed to know). But I do know, it is not 0.000%.

Likely true, though I am inclined to believe the decimal point is to the left of the number, as opposed to the right.

Which made me think about Average Load Factors. I believe the Industry Average is in the low 80% range, but it must be a fair bit higher for the 777-300ERs in those airlines, otherwise why would you need to go to 10-abreast as 9-abreast should be optimal at an 80% average load. You'd have less empty seats during the low season (so less need to discount to fill them) and more revenue per seat during the high season (lack of supply).
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:57 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
But I do know, it is not 0.000%.

But do you know it isn't 0.0001%? Even 100 complaints from all of the passengers that fly on a 777 or 787 every day would likely be less than that. You are right that there is likely a result, but I would say there is also probably a result from Americans choosing to fly Boeing instead of Airbus because Boeing is an American company. Just because there is a result doesn't mean that it is meaningful.

Just an FYI 7% of the people flying on 777s and 787s in a day would be tens of thousands of passengers. If the case was made that there would be a
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 59):
I'm afraid they are propagating an a.net myth and preconceived notions about "seat comfort" (seat width of 18 inches is the bestest!! and 3-3-3 on 787 or 3-4-3 on 777 is the worst evah!!) when the majority of the flying public is far more concerned with legroom, and wouldn't notice a .5 inch difference in seat width even if they had a ruler.

Care to support your assertion that the flying public is more concerned with pitch than seat width? I guess if you are flying in Y and your seat mate is on the big side, you wouldn't be too concerned about whether your legs are touching the seat in front of you, it would be the shared space with your fellow passenger that concerns you more.

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 61):
Just wait until the 11 across A380 hits service

Will be at worst the same as the 777, if you go for 17" aisles and 17" seats on the A380 on the main deck you get back 18". So you will have at worst the same comfort as the 777. Which, going by the discussion here is what people should expect to being positively comfortable.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):
Honestly, I'd say you have even less right to complain since the only reason one purchases an expensive Economy fare is:

a) they need the flexibility to cancel or change without penalty;
b) they have to be on that flight and are booking at the last moment


If you pay that much and are booking months ahead, you should have spent the money on a discounted Business fare.

The assertion is that those flying Y shouldn't complain about the seats as this is what you paid for. Even if everyone paid sale fares for their seats I still won't agree, but we know that not everyone pays those prices. If I have to fly home because a family member has passed away and it falls over a busy period, I don't get more right to complain over my seat mate who planned his holiday 11 months ago and got the few less expensive seats. We both have the same rights to complain about what we get. It seems like Boeing fans on this site keeps trying to tell those that comment that Boeing long haul offerings in Y are crap, "no its not, you pay Y fares so suck it up".

Or do we think if we go to a Restaurant and get an early bird special, we couldn't complain if the food is bad? People aren't expecting 20" seat widths, but trying to tell those flying in Y that the seats aren't that bad when the comments are out there that they are that bad and British Airways are acting to try and remedy it, seems like people aren't facing the facts due to their love for the OEM.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:25 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 57):
Since your BMI is pretty much* related to a 3 dimensional measure and width is 1 dimensional, big variations in the former result in much smaller variations in the latter.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I find remarkable variation in width from person to person, especially when I travel.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60):
That is not true. You find amassed negative feedback for 777 and 787 seats. Here is a copy of my post from the other thread (it matches here 100% too):

Read some airline review sites. E.g. this one:
http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-reviews/emirates/

Quotes (most from the headlines of the post) from the latest few reviews for 777:

Read some airline review sites. E.g. this one:
http://www.airlinequality.com/seat-reviews/aer-lingus/

Quotes (most from the headlines of the post) from the latest few reviews for A330:

"considerable discomfort"
"The seat pitch was no greater than you would find on any US airline and the spacing between seats is just as bad."
"Seats have tight width and leg room"

 Wow!
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60):
It does influence airline's buying decisions, if an airline suddenly notices, their customers went elsewhere. In that case, they (have to) will buy differently.

And which airlines, specifically, have done that?

How many airlines purchased the A340NG, when it was available, over the 77W specifically due to seat width?
How many airlines have purchased the A330 over the 787 specifically because of seat width?
How many airlines using 77W have gone from 9Y to 10Y, but went back to 9Y because they "suddenly notices their customers went elsewhere?
How many airlines have reverted from 9Y 787's to 8Y for the same reason?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):
Quoting BaconButty (Reply 57):Ooh - don't like to argue a point with people I respect on here, but I think your being a bit disingenuous
Frankly, I was. Airbus Aficionados beat the "comfort" drum non-stop on this forum and I'm sick of it.

  

Airbus builds amazing aircraft that rightly sell on their merits. They do not, however, sell because their Y seats can be slightly wider.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
People stop giving their custom to businesses all the time for many reasons. Yet new people slide in to take their place so the net loss is none. That airlines are moving to denser and less comfortable configurations appears to me to be a clear sign that for every customer who never flies with them again, another one is ready to do so. And more likely two or three are ready to do so.

  

If someone has never worked retail, I don't think it's possible to understand. But if you have, then you know that the slogan "the customer is always right" couldn't be further from the truth. I've seen people bend over backwards to be help, courteous and accommodating. And all the feedback they get is "I'm never coming back!" (tho they usually do, which is why I love the comments in previous posts).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
BA is sticking with a slightly-wider nine-abreast on the 787 in response to customer complaints even though they could have just gone with their original plan announced when they ordered them, which was to have WT at 2+4+2.

Exactly.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 79):
People aren't expecting 20" seat widths, but trying to tell those flying in Y that the seats aren't that bad when the comments are out there that they are that bad and British Airways are acting to try and remedy it, seems like people aren't facing the facts due to their love for the OEM.

One does not need to love one OEM or another to recognize market realities. Airlines DO NOT make buying decisions on economy seat width. Anyone who says otherwise is not facing facts.


Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 80):
Airbus builds amazing aircraft that rightly sell on their merits. They do not, however, sell because their Y seats can be slightly wider.

Nobody claims Airbus aircraft sell better because they have wider seats. Some people just have the opinion that wider seats are more comfortable. So yes, some people may find the 1" / 2.54 cm wider seat cushion more comfortable.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 60):
My point is, that it is noticed by many "normal" people. In fact it is not only noticed but also attributed to Boeing instead to the airline. Where I look, Boeing is slowly gaining a reputation for subpar passenger comfort.

The same posters on here who propagate that message are the ones that comment on those blogs. Same with Flyertalk, etc.

People will easily air their grievances. It is like reviewing a restaurant on Yelp and 3 people complained of water spots on their silverware so obviously it is a terrible restaurant that is not bearable to eat it.


http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/yelp-south-park.png
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:54 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 80):
One does not need to love one OEM or another to recognize market realities. Airlines DO NOT make buying decisions on economy seat width. Anyone who says otherwise is not facing facts.

True, but there are some facts that cannot be disputed as well. All Airbus models are more comfortable for passengers in Y than their Boeing counterparts. With the population getting bigger this may play a role in future decisions. It may not as well, we will see what happens in the future.

My own personal experience, with my own overweight body is that Airbus is more comfortable. If I can choose to fly between a Airbus and Boeing model I will choose the Airbus model. I will still fly the 777 or 787 if they are the choices out there as 17" seat widths will not kill me, but it will not be as comfortable.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 81):
Nobody claims Airbus aircraft sell better because they have wider seats. Some people just have the opinion that wider seats are more comfortable. So yes, some people may find the 1" / 2.54 cm wider seat cushion more comfortable.

And not just the extra space for me, it is the extra space for every passenger and the probable wider aisles that helps with the overall experience.
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 46):

And therein lays the problem. Seat manufacturers are not held to installer regulatory requirements. Their work supports Part 25 requirements through minimum performance standards under FAA issued Technical Standard Orders. It's not up to seat suppliers to determine if aircraft specific installation requirements are being met, only that the seats posess the minimum required regulatory structural and flammability standards. All installation requirements are the responsibility of the airlines, MRO and/or OEM to address and coordinate seat design related to layout/installation with a seat manufacturer.

The seat manufacturers can only coordinate with OEMs and MROs with regard to installation of new seat designs such as the Cozy Suite. It's up to those entities to determine if airline interest is worth the legwork.

Like you I would hope some level of coordination had been done before offering this product. However it is more likely only cursory studies have been done with installers. Probably one of the reasons this product had been offered for a number of years with no takers.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9489
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:09 pm

Remember that some time ago (~2008) DL was going to install the Cozy Suites on their 763s and 777s. Obviously that never happened. The fact that a major airline committed to it then later pulled out, and that there have been 0 takers since then, kinda of gives an indication that something is wrong with the product. Now whether that be certification, cost, or poor customer reviews (in focus tests) is the question.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:16 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 81):
So yes, some people may find the 1" / 2.54 cm wider seat cushion more comfortable.

I think all people would find that extra 1" / 2.54cm of seat cushion and back width to be more comfortable.

What I just find it hard to swallow is the claims that it fundamentally alters one's ability to sit in said seat for more than a handful of hours.



Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
All Airbus models are more comfortable for passengers in Y than their Boeing counterparts.

The 767 has the same seat width as the A330. The 777 at 9-abreast has the same seat width as the A340 at 8-abreast or the A350 and 9-abreast (with wider armrests and I believe wider aisles in the latter case).
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:41 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
All Airbus models are more comfortable for passengers in Y than their Boeing counterparts.

Flat out WRONG!   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
The 767 has the same seat width as the A330. The 777 at 9-abreast has the same seat width as the A340 at 8-abreast or the A350 and 9-abreast (with wider armrests and I believe wider aisles in the latter case).

  
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
The 767 has the same seat width as the A330. The 777 at 9-abreast has the same seat width as the A340 at 8-abreast or the A350 and 9-abreast (with wider armrests and I believe wider aisles in the latter case).

Ok, let me clarify my statement then. Of all current in-production models the Airbus are more comfortable than Boeing. If we take the majority of airlines going to 10-abreast with the 777 and looking at it in the future (CX) then my statement stands true.

You do get your airlines that do not follow the trend, Cebu Pacific or Air Asia with the A330, but the majority is sticking with 8-abreast. I believe the majority of airlines are now going 10-abreast in the 777 and 9-abreast in the 787.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 87):
Flat out WRONG!

See above.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:19 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 88):
Of all current in-production models the Airbus are more comfortable than Boeing. If we take the majority of airlines going to 10-abreast with the 777 and looking at it in the future (CX) then my statement stands true.

Yes it does, but it also gives truth to those who have been stating that passenger comfort (at least as it applies to seat width) is not very important to an airline's bottom line, otherwise the airlines would stay at 9-abreast.

So they are indeed "facing facts" and their statements are not just a reflection of their "love for Boeing".
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:18 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 81):
Some people just have the opinion that wider seats are more comfortable.

Which is entirely understandable and agreeable. However. . .

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
True, but there are some facts that cannot be disputed as well. All Airbus models are more comfortable for passengers in Y than their Boeing counterparts.

Not all posters can separate their opinions from facts like you can, Karel.

For enzo:

That may be your opinion and I am certain you honestly believe that from your experiences. However, I am built quite differently than you, I am rather tall and lanky. I also always (at least when I am buying my own ticket) buy a window seat. And I find the Airbus models (particularly the A320 and A330) curve in too much at the sidewalls making them more uncomfortable than their Boeing counterparts. Which, BTW, has more to do with the design of the aircraft itself than the seats do.

I have a different opinion. I know some who share it, and some who do not. And I completely recognize that that is my opinion, nor does it mean that "Airbus planes are uncomfortable. PERIOD." But the very fact I, and others I know who are built like me, do have a different view, means that your "some facts" are not facts at all, let alone "undisputed." They are opinions.


Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7900
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:21 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 69):
What evidence do you have for your bold and absolute claims? I see people saying things like this:

They are most likely the same people whinging on this website and FlyerTalk. John and Ginny taking the kids to Disneyland aren't the sort to take to online review sites to comment on the width of the seats, Airlinequality and other similar sites would still generally attract people who are better versed than your average customer.

And you better watch out for all those complaints about how cramped and uncomfortable, inhuman even, the 747 is. Or the 737 for that matter. And let's never forget the glory days of the 707.

I am convinced that most of the "cramped" feeling is psychological because you know it could be wider. Yes the seats are objectively narrower than on the A330 and A350, no argument, but they certainly aren't the battery farm that some make them out to be.

A 9 abreast A330 on the other hand...
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:53 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 79):
Care to support your assertion that the flying public is more concerned with pitch than seat width? I guess if you are flying in Y and your seat mate is on the big side, you wouldn't be too concerned about whether your legs are touching the seat in front of you, it would be the shared space with your fellow passenger that concerns you more.

Sure, I'll back that up:

Given shrinking seats, it may be no surprise the biggest improvements travelers want is space. Here are the top three amenities travelers say would make the air travel experience better:

1. More legroom – 29%

2. More space between other passengers – 26%

3. More comfortable seats – 22%

Source: https://www.tripadvisor.com/PressCenter-i7236-c1-Press_Releases.html

Want more:

http://www.multivu.com/mnr/49263-tri...als-air-travel-on-the-rise-in-2012

"Calling for More Comfort
Twenty-two percent of survey participants don’t enjoy a single thing about air travel, and most travelers cite legroom and seat comfort (or lack thereof) as their biggest complaint.

41 percent believe that more legroom is the biggest improvement airlines can make, with 30 percent citing more comfortable seating. However, 71 percent aren’t willing to pay for extra legroom on domestic flights less than four hours long.
On flights longer than four hours, however, 35 percent would shell out $25 for more legroom."
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:36 am

Quoting luftaom (Reply 6):
9 abreast 787s and 10 abreast 777s are absolutely horrible.

10-abreast 777s aren't wonderful, but the main issue is the aisle. 9-abreast 787s are perfectly fine.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
As an aside, I am surprised so many a.netters have a Body Mass Index that perfectly matches an 18" seat.  

Remarkable, is it not? Only on Anet could a few centimetres be such a topic of hot debate.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 33):
Please QF do yourself and your pax a favor and don't hire the "brilliant" Aussie designer Marc Newson again!   ...

Agreed. Though have you seen the EK seats in the A380? Feels like being in a L1011 back in the day.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 44):
If you fly in economy it doesn't matter how much you have paid because you know exactly what you're getting.

What does that even mean? Economy fares vary widely, as does the service offering between carriers and, in fact, often on an airline too - sometimes great, sometimes atrocious. But "let them eat cake", right?

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
True, but there are some facts that cannot be disputed as well. All Airbus models are more comfortable for passengers in Y than their Boeing counterparts.

Your quality of argument is astounding. Something is indisputable, because I say so, and here it is. FACTS!

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
My own personal experience, with my own overweight body is that Airbus is more comfortable.

Ah, well that perhaps explains it.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:48 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 88):
. Of all current in-production models the Airbus are more comfortable than Boeing. If we take the majority of airlines going to 10-abreast with the 777 and looking at it in the future (CX) then my statement stands true.

You only speak of Y, nothing about Y+, J and F.


Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 93):
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
My own personal experience, with my own overweight body is that Airbus is more comfortable.

Ah, well that perhaps explains it.

  

[Edited 2016-06-03 22:48:20]
"Up the Irons!"
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:22 am

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 56):
Only an a.nutter would fly from Australia to North America via SIN or DXB! Such itinerary would make the trip significantly longer, except for Western Australia-US East Coast.

I just did MIA-JFK-HKG-SYD. Two primary reasons:

1. It avoided Los Angeles International Airport;
2. CX Business Class is freaking awesome.

Also available on the QF FF redemption site for classic rewards were First and business on EK to SYD. In economy I agree you'd have to be nuts but in business I can honestly say I arrived back in SYD in the best shape I've ever been in after a long haul flight including 9 hours of sleep between JFK and HKG.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 58):
That's fine if there's clarity about what's being bought. Currently it's obfuscated behind ill defined airline terminology.

You say that as if their isn't. Even a mug punter would know that there is First, Business and Economy and there are differences between the 3. If you want comfort you need to pay the $$$ to get it and not fly economy in order to get it.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 93):
Quoting Sydscott (Reply 44):If you fly in economy it doesn't matter how much you have paid because you know exactly what you're getting. What does that even mean? Economy fares vary widely, as does the service offering between carriers and, in fact, often on an airline too - sometimes great, sometimes atrocious. But "let them eat cake", right?

Economy fares do vary widely based on lots of factors as does the service etc. But what doesn't vary widely is the small, comparatively uncomfortable seat found in every aircraft of every airline. So if you are paying lots for economy there is a value argument to be had but, again, the very name of it should give away what it is.

On a side note I did renew my love affair with Southwest when I was in the States. They really are a good airline.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:54 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):
Airbus Aficionados beat the "comfort" drum non-stop on this forum and I'm sick of it.

Same here. But at the same time I don't really fault them for doing so, because they do have the advantage in that area. It might be a bit overstated, but still an advantage none the less. What I find annoying about it though is that they find a way to market it in literally everything they present. For example, I was fortunate enough to visit Airbus' A380 wing facilities at CEG about a month ago to learn about the manufacturing process. But of course, they found some way to feature their 18 inch seat width campaign into their presentation....
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:08 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
Yes it does, but it also gives truth to those who have been stating that passenger comfort (at least as it applies to seat width) is not very important to an airline's bottom line, otherwise the airlines would stay at 9-abreast.

So they are indeed "facing facts" and their statements are not just a reflection of their "love for Boeing".

We know that airlines are out to make money and not supply J seats for Y prices. We also know for a FACT that Boeing airplanes are very good at making a company money. So until people talk with their wallets I see no reason why Boeing or airlines will be forced into a change.

The outlier at the moment is BA that has changed its seating in the 789 from the 788. Either British Airways is more sensitive to negative reviews or this could turn out to be a trend. Time will tell.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 90):
Not all posters can separate their opinions from facts like you can, Karel.

For enzo:

That may be your opinion and I am certain you honestly believe that from your experiences. However, I am built quite differently than you, I am rather tall and lanky. I also always (at least when I am buying my own ticket) buy a window seat. And I find the Airbus models (particularly the A320 and A330) curve in too much at the sidewalls making them more uncomfortable than their Boeing counterparts. Which, BTW, has more to do with the design of the aircraft itself than the seats do.

I have a different opinion. I know some who share it, and some who do not. And I completely recognize that that is my opinion, nor does it mean that "Airbus planes are uncomfortable. PERIOD." But the very fact I, and others I know who are built like me, do have a different view, means that your "some facts" are not facts at all, let alone "undisputed." They are opinions.

I agree it gets difficult when you compare seats that are not the control of the OEMs but the airlines. It could be that you would have the same seats (width) in either Airbus or Boeing models in one airline if they decide for commonality across their range of aircraft.

What no-one can dispute, which is what I am trying to point out and no-one is contradicting, the seat widths in Airbus models are designed by Airbus to be wider and more comfortable in the A320, A330, A350 and A380 than Boeing in the 737, 787 and 777. These are the current in production models and in the case of the 777 and 787 you have to take the layout that is preferred by airlines (10-abreast and 9-abreast). If the majority of airlines decide to move to 9-abreast seating in the A330 I will state that it is the worst for passenger comfort, but this isn't happening.

Those are the figures, I add my own experience and opinion as well. In my own experience I notice pitch less than width. In your case, I would suggest you never fly FR, they have those "comfortable" 737 widths with added little pitch. I am sure you will have a smashing time on a FR flight.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 93):
Your quality of argument is astounding. Something is indisputable, because I say so, and here it is. FACTS!

So Airbus cabins do not allow for wider seats?

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 93):
Ah, well that perhaps explains it.

Personal experience, cannot accuse me of only relying on the numbers. I still don't spill over to the other seat like most people will do in a few years time. I would be one of the 66% adults that are classed as overweight in New Zealand.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 94):
You only speak of Y, nothing about Y+, J and F.

Seriously? How many 17" seats in long haul J have you experienced?
 
L0VE2FLY
Posts: 986
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 pm

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:38 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 93):
Agreed. Though have you seen the EK seats in the A380? Feels like being in a L1011 back in the day.

Great news, I love the L-1011!  What's so bad about EK's A380 seats? I flew on one a while ago and didn't notice anything bad about it.


Quoting Sydscott (Reply 95):
I just did MIA-JFK-HKG-SYD. Two primary reasons:

1. It avoided Los Angeles International Airport;
2. CX Business Class is freaking awesome.

Also available on the QF FF redemption site for classic rewards were First and business on EK to SYD. In economy I agree you'd have to be nuts but in business I can honestly say I arrived back in SYD in the best shape I've ever been in after a long haul flight including 9 hours of sleep between JFK and HKG.

The problem is most pax can't afford anything but Y, if the cost of SYD-LAX Y non-stop was the same as SYD-SIN/DXB-LAX J or F, a lot of people will go for the one-stop in a heartbeat.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: QF CEO Promises Very Luxurious 787-9 Configuration

Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:12 am

There is so much crap sprouted in this thread and others like it about seat width. Seriously, if all you experts were lead into an aircraft blind folded and sat in an economy seat, you wouldn't have a clue what aircraft you were on, never mind the seat width, if you and your backside can tell the difference of an inch or half an inch, you are truly talented.

The manufacturers build the aircraft, they offer options of seat numbers for the cross sections, they don't build the seats, they don't force the airlines to put 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 or even 11 seats across in economy, the airlines do make that decision for themselves. If the general public despised the 777 at 10 across as much as people on here would make you believe, no airline would do it, yet just about every major operator of it is retrofitting their aircraft to 10 across. For the average family travelling, you pay for what you can afford, if that 17.5 inch seat is so bloody uncomfortable, you have a whinge about while your in it and as soon as you're out of it, you forget about it and get on with doing what you are there to do, have fun or get business done.

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