Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:45 pm

Given the choice I will always pick an A330 (unless I wanna fly a specific plane for novelty reasons). I flew JFK-AUH on the 77W and then AUH-JNB on the A330 and boy could you notice the difference.

The legroom on AA's 77W is abysmal and this is coming from a pretty short guy (5'3"). JJ's A350 were a treat as well.

Hope to get an 787 experience in soon.
@DadCelo
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:56 pm

Comfort of the A330 is easily offset by it's reduction in speed vs. a 777. Especially westbound. Most US operators are flying at .78-.80 mach.
 
User avatar
proudavgeek
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:29 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:14 pm

Armodeen wrote:
777Jet wrote:

1 - 10 abreast 380
2 - 9 abreast 777
3 - 9 abreast A350
4 - 8 abreast A330
5 - 10 abreast 777
6 - 9 abreast 787


Fixed it for you ;) (yes I know it wasn't on the list, but it really is better than everything else out there for Y pax comfort).



Nice Fix, could not agree with it more! :-)
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:40 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
Comfort of the A330 is easily offset by it's reduction in speed vs. a 777. Especially westbound. Most US operators are flying at .78-.80 mach.



How does this impact a passengers experience in Y though?

caverunner17 wrote:
People are way too caught up in the seat width argument. Frankly, one of my most uncomfortable flights in Y was on AirBerlin's A330. 8-across, but either the padding or the way the seat was shaped hit my back and made it super uncomfortable. I'd take a 9-abreast 787 any day if there was more padding.


What if you get a 9-abreast 787 with uncomfortable padding?
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:26 am

enzo011 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
Comfort of the A330 is easily offset by it's reduction in speed vs. a 777. Especially westbound. Most US operators are flying at .78-.80 mach.



How does this impact a passengers experience in Y though?

caverunner17 wrote:
People are way too caught up in the seat width argument. Frankly, one of my most uncomfortable flights in Y was on AirBerlin's A330. 8-across, but either the padding or the way the seat was shaped hit my back and made it super uncomfortable. I'd take a 9-abreast 787 any day if there was more padding.


What if you get a 9-abreast 787 with uncomfortable padding?


It impacts their experience by subjecting them to it longer. Flying 4000nm westbound at .78 mach vs a 777 running .85 into a 90knt headwind literally adds another HOUR to the flight time.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:23 am

Varsity1 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
Comfort of the A330 is easily offset by it's reduction in speed vs. a 777. Especially westbound. Most US operators are flying at .78-.80 mach.



How does this impact a passengers experience in Y though?

caverunner17 wrote:
People are way too caught up in the seat width argument. Frankly, one of my most uncomfortable flights in Y was on AirBerlin's A330. 8-across, but either the padding or the way the seat was shaped hit my back and made it super uncomfortable. I'd take a 9-abreast 787 any day if there was more padding.


What if you get a 9-abreast 787 with uncomfortable padding?


It impacts their experience by subjecting them to it longer. Flying 4000nm westbound at .78 mach vs a 777 running .85 into a 90knt headwind literally adds another HOUR to the flight time.


Yes it would in that hypothetical strawman scenario based on some rather extreme assumptions, do you have an example? Looking at reality, I just compared the DL A330 flight to Atlanta with the KLM B777 flight from Amsterdam. On the same days, the time difference is usually 6 minutes.

What makes you think A330s are being slowed down to mach 0.78? And if they are, why aren't airlines slowing their triples for the same reason? The tiny time difference actually implies they're being flown at a closer speed than even their regular crusing speeds.

Likewise looking at Virgin flights between LHR and JFK, no discernible difference between B787 and A346.

In any case overall, I'd accept a 20-30 minute addition to be more comfortable for the other 8-9 hours. That's a lot of time being less comfortable.But it looks like in reality the journey time is pretty much a wash.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:46 am

Planetalk wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


How does this impact a passengers experience in Y though?



What if you get a 9-abreast 787 with uncomfortable padding?


It impacts their experience by subjecting them to it longer. Flying 4000nm westbound at .78 mach vs a 777 running .85 into a 90knt headwind literally adds another HOUR to the flight time.


Yes it would in that hypothetical strawman scenario based on some rather extreme assumptions, do you have an example? Looking at reality, I just compared the DL A330 flight to Atlanta with the KLM B777 flight from Amsterdam. On the same days, the time difference is usually 6 minutes.

What makes you think A330s are being slowed down to mach 0.78? And if they are, why aren't airlines slowing their triples for the same reason? The tiny time difference actually implies they're being flown at a closer speed than even their regular crusing speeds.

Likewise looking at Virgin flights between LHR and JFK, no discernible difference between B787 and A346.

In any case overall, I'd accept a 20-30 minute addition to be more comfortable for the other 8-9 hours. That's a lot of time being less comfortable.But it looks like in reality the journey time is pretty much a wash.


Strawman Scenario? Happens every single day in the winter. The A330's LRC is .78 mach. The 777's LRC is .84 and .85 is normal. The 777's wing has significantly less induced drag at higher speeds, the A330 is akin to a glider.
 
zippy
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:52 am

It's been a while since I've flown on a 777, but I did get a chance to try out the 787 in Y/Y+ on three different carriers recently. I'm not a particularly tall or wide guy so I don't really mind the narrower seats that seem to be more popular these days.

UA - awful, as expected. They use the vile, minimally padded, slidey seats on the 787-9, and mine wouldn't even stay reclined. Neither the credit card readers, the IFE, nor the WiFi worked (well, they worked initially but the purser kept rebooting it and eventually broke it for everyone). Food was mediocre, snacks didn't exist. The broken IFE also broke the overhead light switch.

TZ - probably the best experience because the extra legroom was substantial and paired with a kid-free zone. The seats were reasonably comfortable. Food was pretty good, but someone cranked up the heat on the outbound leg and TZ charges for water...

NH - Worst seats of the bunch. Like sitting on a board. Absolutely awful. Compounded by the fairly tight seat pitch and the woman behind me who prevented me from reclining the seat, I'd say that these were easily the least comfortable of the bunch. At least the food was edible and the seats were proper reclining ones.

The final leg of the trip was on a UA 744. Finally, proper lighting, padded seats, and proper ventilation. Overall the most comfortable experience even if the WiFi didn't work (despite United repeatedly spamming me with emails about how wonderful their WiFi is) and the food was absolutely revolting (spoiled process cheese as a snack? HandiSnacks shouldn't taste like feet (but this is probably to be expected on RyanAir's long-haul subsidiary).

If you're of healthy to average size, I'd go for whatever type and carrier has the most passenger friendly layout. I realize most carriers have moved to slimline seats in Y, but if there's a type that has properly padded seats I'd go that route. Likewise with those horrible sliding seats. I didn't realize that removing the overhead vents was a common occurrence, but if I had a choice I'd prefer them. And, of course, beware that UA also preempts passengers in bulkhead seats so that they can put screaming infants in the bassinet (nee bulkhead) rows. IMO the 747 benefitted more from being neglected by UA than from being an inherently more comfortable type.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:07 am

Varsity1 wrote:
It impacts their experience by subjecting them to it longer. Flying 4000nm westbound at .78 mach vs a 777 running .85 into a 90knt headwind literally adds another HOUR to the flight time.



Luckily most of the more comfortable configurations, as we see in this thread, is with the slower aircraft. I am open to correction but I don't think the speed of an airliner works that way. They decide on an speed and then it is subjected headwinds or tailwinds. So if the 777 is flying close to cruise speed in an headwind it will mean they are using more fuel to fly closer to the cruise speed. If the A330 is subjected to headwinds so will the 777. The cruise speed of the 777 and 787 and A350 is more than the A330 but I don't know if the extra 10-30 minutes will make much of a difference.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:08 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

It impacts their experience by subjecting them to it longer. Flying 4000nm westbound at .78 mach vs a 777 running .85 into a 90knt headwind literally adds another HOUR to the flight time.


Yes it would in that hypothetical strawman scenario based on some rather extreme assumptions, do you have an example? Looking at reality, I just compared the DL A330 flight to Atlanta with the KLM B777 flight from Amsterdam. On the same days, the time difference is usually 6 minutes.

What makes you think A330s are being slowed down to mach 0.78? And if they are, why aren't airlines slowing their triples for the same reason? The tiny time difference actually implies they're being flown at a closer speed than even their regular crusing speeds.

Likewise looking at Virgin flights between LHR and JFK, no discernible difference between B787 and A346.

In any case overall, I'd accept a 20-30 minute addition to be more comfortable for the other 8-9 hours. That's a lot of time being less comfortable.But it looks like in reality the journey time is pretty much a wash.


Strawman Scenario? Happens every single day in the winter. The A330's LRC is .78 mach. The 777's LRC is .84 and .85 is normal. The 777's wing has significantly less induced drag at higher speeds, the A330 is akin to a glider.


Huh? the a330 cruises at 0.82. A look at the Atlantic on FR24 right now though shows the A330s doing more or less the same speed as the 777s and 787s, and faster than the 767s I see. Airbus didn't design a long range plane to cruise at the same speed as an A320.

The A350 has the same cruise speed as the boeings so will be the more favourable option when most 777s are 10 across.
 
ahmetdouas
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:23 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:21 am

Planetalk wrote:
ahmetdouas wrote:
Planetalk wrote:

Indeed, there's been a lot of misinformation about this, the assumption seemed to be that this was taking BA seats up to 17.5" + so it would be close to the airbuses. Which is not true and would have begged the obviously questions why everyone hadn't done it.

No idea why they installed such small seats to start with,but QR did the same, theirs are 16.9". Frankly below 17" should be the realm of chárter carriers.

Pefsonally I stick to A330/A340 whereverpossible. Decent seat width, great configuration, nice and quiet. The A350 or B777 in 9 abreast being next best, but the noise of the triple I find fairly unbearable. Cant wait for my next A340 flight in december, after the A380, best plane in the sky from a pax perspective IMHO.

I'm a normal sized guy (1.79m, 72kgs) and width does make a difference, most crucially at shoulder level. The 787/777 10 abreast seats seem to be just below the tipping point between rubbing shoulders and not doing so quite often. Which is why what appears a smal difference can make a big difference, if it's at a 'critical point'.


I flew the BA A380 upper deck Y and found it nothing too special except being admittedly very quiet. Seat pitch awful!
I remember a better experience on a TK 3-3-3 77W
I am trying out NZ 77W 3-4-3 Y but with more pitch! Let's see how it goes.


I'm not too surprised, BA are fairly ropey across the board these days. They actually use the same economy seat across their fleet (except 787) even if a wider one would fit. So for example you get the same seat on A380 as on B747. this is because they want to maintain a clear differential to premium economy, which would be reduced by more comfortable Y. Fairly shoddy in my view. They do as you say also have awful pitch.

The TK 777 will has seats appropriate to the plane so they wil be more comfortable that the BA 380. The 777 in 9 abreast is a very comfortable plane, just the noise gets to me a bit.

Obviously my comparison requires other things being equal, but in general airlines tend to keep the same pitch bewteen different aircraft types, but will vary the seat width. So on the same airline an A330 will be more comfortable than a B787 or B777 10 across - QR are perhaps the best and most extreme example as their 787s have less pitch as well compared to other types!

Enjoy your flight - I did the NZ 777 last December from Auckland to Buenos Aires. I was a bit nervous, but the gods smiled on me that day and I got 3 seats by the window to myself, so made my myself a bed and had one of my best flights ever! I'd imagine it wouldn't be much fun it it's full, so try and pick a seat strategically. The service is great though, really good food, great ice cream, sparkling wine in economy(!) that can be ordered form your seat back, hope you have a good trip.


Yes it was my disappointment with BA seat pitch on the A380 that caused me to think Air NZ this time. I am 1.90 m and 70 kilos so very tall and lanky! Seat width doesn't bother me so much but seat pitch most certainly does, especially if the seats next to me are full, which they were on the BA A380. I sat window seat on the 2-4-2 upstairs economy set up.

Thanks for the NZ tip, yes definitely it looks like a good airline so I hope I have a good time. I chose a window seat for free at the time of booking, take that BA. And I am sure on a 10 hour flight 2 inches of seat pitch will make a difference!
 
debonair
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:50 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:45 pm

keitherson wrote:
For the Airbus A330, economy remains 2-4-2, and very few carriers (though they exist) have moved to 9-across in 3-3-3 configuration: exceptions include Air Asia, Air Transat, WOW Air. But nearly all legacies and flag carriers keep 2-4-2.


WOW Air is operating in standard 2-4-2: https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/WOW_a ... s_A330.php
 
gabrielchew
Posts: 3816
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:43 am

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:14 pm

I think in most cases, the seat pitch is more important than the seat width. The only time i've flown had felt noticeably squeezed was on an A310 with 3x3x3. That was pretty bad, but thankfully it was a short flight.
http://my.flightmemory.com/shefgab Upcoming flights: AMS-RIX-BUD-VDA,ETH-TLV-FCO-LHR,STN-TXL-LCY,LTN-CPH-LTN,LGW-SZG,MUC-LHR
 
User avatar
FBWFTW
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:09 pm

Re: Long-haul Y pax experience: Boeing 77Ws and 787s vs Airbus 350s and 330s.

Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:42 am

Varsity1 wrote:
Comfort of the A330 is easily offset by it's reduction in speed vs. a 777. Especially westbound. Most US operators are flying at .78-.80 mach.


The speed depends on the airline and their cost index. I've been on HA's A330'a (including their newest one at the time-N379HA) in Y+ (which is a regular seat with added pitch) four times now and the first westbound legs were blocked at 10:50 but flown in ~10:30 at M.81/.82
The second long westbound was scheduled for 10:50 originally when I booked and then changed to a block of 12:00. I found out from a buddy that HA instituted a cost index and dialed it back down to .80 in the cruise. My second leg was every bit of 11:00 (10:58 wheels up to wheels down)


As for the thread-I can't compare to a 777, 787 or even A350 but I for sure would pick an A330 over a 757/767 772/773. Part of the reason I love Airbus IS the comfort factor and the airlines I fly generally have their A32X/A33X at 18-18.5" and to me it DOES make a big difference. I also found the Trents to be quieter on the 330 vs GE's on 76 and PW on 75's. I'll take an A330 or any 2-4-2 aircraft in Y any day cause that gets me a window and the wife an aisle without any issues.
Avgeek & Airbus fan
Flown-712 722 732/5/8/9 741 752 762/3ER, L10, DC8/9/10 MD88 E75/90 A320/21 A332/3
Fav Plane(s) A330-243/L10
Fav Airlines-B6/HA
Favorite engine-RR/PW
Favorite Route-BOS-HNL
https://my.flightradar24.com/FBWFTW#

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

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