I have been reading reviews on a seating plan website, most reviews for just about all 787-8/9 operators give really bad reports of the seats, both business and economy, either too small, bad recline, aisles are too narrow etc. Why is this? Bad design perhaps?

I have recently flown to and from Guangzhou from LHR on China Southern and I was surprised just how small and uncomfortable the seats were. I chose aisle seats on both flights so I wouldn't have to disturb anybody for a trip to the toilet, and was constantly bumped into by other people and the food trolleys due to the narrow aisles. The back of the seat was so uncomfortable it gave an aching back for days after both flights, so much so, I will actively avoid flying on a 787 of any airline, until the seats are improved. I will do this by either flying out of my way, or by 777's and/or Airbus aircraft where possible direct to my destination, or stop-over point.

Do the airlines ever read the reviews of their passengers? Or are they all committed to the "Race to the Bottom" I hear and read so much about?

Your thoughts would be welcome.

When first conceived, the 787 was presented with 2-4-2 economy seating with comfort levels close to the L1011/DC10 in the 70s. Overall, not a bad way to travel on the ultra long hauls envisioned.

Over time, financial considerations overtook the dreaminess of the Dreamliner. 3-3-3 economy is equivalent to the '60s narrowbodies in terms of space. As long as people are willing to put up with it on 10-12 hour flights, this type of thing will continue.

Where are you reading complaints regarding 787 business class seats? All the long haul seats are fully lie flat except JAL and Ethiopian. Some airlines have chosen aisle access and some have not, but up front in business class is where the 787 truly shines. The large windows so that even people in aisle seats can see out and the higher cabin pressure are more noticeable up front.

Regarding the back of your economy seat being uncomfortable, that has little to do with the 787. The seats are designed by 3-4 seat manufacturers and they all have their standard models. Some have slim line and lightweight options. Seat width can vary by about an inch or so depending on airline but the cushions and back rest comfort have little to do with the airplane. I don't know which manufacturer makes China Southern seats. Some people like the newer seats and some prefer older style seats. Airlines like slimline so that they can reduce pitch.

I've just stepped off a CX 350 and the comfort factor between it and 787 is very noticeable.

However, will airlines be able to charge a premium for a more comfortable seat? No.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I've only flown on a 787 twice (a return trip) and I actually found the seats quite comfortable. They were better than I expected. Maybe this was because I had low expectations beforehand (it was on Norwegian), but there really was nothing to complain about. The seat pitch was good and I could sit very comfortable. I'd fly them again any day.

This!

I've flown on varying airlines inc BA and TOM in Y and VS in J. Haven't found it bad at all. TOM flights were full too and more of a problem was queues for toilets than problems with seat width. I'm a broad guy but not overweight. Maybe could envisage problems with you were of a larger size.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Where are you reading complaints regarding 787 business class seats? All the long haul seats are fully lie flat except JAL and Ethiopian. Some airlines have chosen aisle access and some have not, but up front in business class is where the 787 truly shines. The large windows so that even people in aisle seats can see out and the higher cabin pressure are more noticeable up front.

In case I am not permitted to give the name of the website, it is a popular site that lists most of the popular airlines and their various aircraft types. Do a search for aircraft seatmaps and it will most likely be the top result.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Regarding the back of your economy seat being uncomfortable, that has little to do with the 787. The seats are designed by 3-4 seat manufacturers and they all have their standard models. Some have slim line and lightweight options. Seat width can vary by about an inch or so depending on airline but the cushions and back rest comfort have little to do with the airplane. I don't know which manufacturer makes China Southern seats. Some people like the newer seats and some prefer older style seats. Airlines like slimline so that they can reduce pitch.

There are many poor reviews of business class seats, and some good ones to be fair, mostly complaining of the poor foot space in the fully flat position among other gripes.

It's all about the economics. Airlines only look at profit and most people will tolerate less than comfortable seats for a cheap flight. Others that won't will pay to upgrade.

I've flown the 787 once from ORD-DFW in Y and the seat really wasn't bad.

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Talking about comfort i go with an B737 before an A320 any day.
They get old verry bad and the noise level plastic movements are not so nice, fly a 16 year old A320 and then a B737 *windows are also bigger on the 737...


On the other hand i was on a 777 10abreast not verry nice...

Those claiming that it was quite comfortable are lying. Probably Boeing or airline PR people.
The 3-3-3 on the B787 is unbearable. I 've flown it on QR and NH, both not acceptable in any terms.
On QR, flew the way back in an emergency exit row to feel less claustrophobic, and because of the narrower seat there (tray table), I couldn't move in my seat.
The guy next to me reclined and started a fight with the couple sitting behind. Rightfully so, as the lady found herself crushed in her seat.

The 3-3-3 B787 makes Ryanair feel like Economy Plus.
Anyone claiming otherwise should not be believed.

On the other hand, the JAL B787 in 2-4-2 feels exceptionally roomy. They also offer great seat pitch to make it even roomier.
It's inconceivable that they're not Skytrax 5 or 6 star. JL's C is also lie-flat now on the SS8's/SS9's.
JL deserves all the merit for going against the flow of ill-managed airlines.

I will never fly a 3-3-3 B787 ever again.

Thai7879 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Where are you reading complaints regarding 787 business class seats? All the long haul seats are fully lie flat except JAL and Ethiopian. Some airlines have chosen aisle access and some have not, but up front in business class is where the 787 truly shines. The large windows so that even people in aisle seats can see out and the higher cabin pressure are more noticeable up front.

In case I am not permitted to give the name of the website, it is a popular site that lists most of the popular airlines and their various aircraft types. Do a search for aircraft seatmaps and it will most likely be the top result.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Regarding the back of your economy seat being uncomfortable, that has little to do with the 787. The seats are designed by 3-4 seat manufacturers and they all have their standard models. Some have slim line and lightweight options. Seat width can vary by about an inch or so depending on airline but the cushions and back rest comfort have little to do with the airplane. I don't know which manufacturer makes China Southern seats. Some people like the newer seats and some prefer older style seats. Airlines like slimline so that they can reduce pitch.

There are many poor reviews of business class seats, and some good ones to be fair, mostly complaining of the poor foot space in the fully flat position among other gripes.

If people are complaining bout footwell space, then I don't really see anything unique about the 787. If you are talking about United, they are using the same seat on the 777, 767 and 787. Other airlines are using identical seats as on A330s as well. If you are nebulously referring to online criticism, then it is every where regarding every airline and plane.

Please tell us what airline people from the site you are mentioning has an uncomfortable 787 business class seat.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Nah, Airbus traditionally offers the worst of the lot, ie 9 abreast A300/310/330. Such an uncomfortable arrangement that most airlines don't go there and stick to having 8 seats across, only the bottom feeder airlines go for this 9 abreast cesspool arrangement.

And then they decided to come out with a design (that is patented) to seat 11 people across on an A380 with an odd and uncomfortable setting that sees the window seats being higher than the rest of the seats, truly appalling that they are willing to stoop so low in terms of comfort levels.

I've just returned from a return flight between London and Houston in Business on BA partially with a B787-9.

While the cabin was fantastic; massive windows, "mini-cabins", noticeably higher cabin pressure, the seats were horribly narrow. I'm of normal build, but even my shoulders were squashed against both sides of the seat's shell. After a while it was uncomfortable. And you were constantly bumped into by people passing the seat.

However, as mentioned above it's the seats and not the plane. The return flight on a B744 was equally as narrow but didn't offer the benefit of the higher pressure.

I frequently fly a route (LHR-PHL) served by a BA 788, 789, and occasionally 772. I've flown it in WT, WT+, and CW. The seats on the Dreamliner are perfectly comfortable in every class I've traveled in. I have never noticed anything negative about them.

spacecookie wrote:

Talking about comfort i go with an B737 before an A320 any day.
They get old verry bad and the noise level plastic movements are not so nice, fly a 16 year old A320 and then a B737 *windows are also bigger on the 737...


On the other hand i was on a 777 10abreast not verry nice...

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree on the 737. I have been on quite a few A320s over the past few years ranging up to 27 years of age not one of them was as loud or had nearly as much interior vibrations as the last 737-800 I was ever on which was not nearly as old of a plane. It is the worst on the 737 during engine startup. The CFM56 has some rather strong resonances right around when it first starts and any 737 I've been on it has sounded like the wall and the overhead bins are shaking lose their plane where the same resonance barely causes vibration on the A320. The A320's windows might be slightly smaller, though they are positioned better. When it comes between the two, it take the plane that is much quieter and has a wider cabin and seats, that happens to be the A320.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Nah, Airbus traditionally offers the worst of the lot, ie 9 abreast A300/310/330. Such an uncomfortable arrangement that most airlines don't go there and stick to having 8 seats across, only the bottom feeder airlines go for this 9 abreast cesspool arrangement.

I think that's spiderguy's point. If they ad an extra seat, it makes them so narrow that most airlines would not get away with it. The only Boeing widebody this is the case for is the 767 which is why many argue it was the best design for comfort.

Newbiepilot wrote:

If people are complaining bout footwell space, then I don't really see anything unique about the 787. If you are talking about United, they are using the same seat on the 777, 767 and 787. Other airlines are using identical seats as on A330s as well. If you are nebulously referring to online criticism, then it is every where regarding every airline and plane.

The may use the "same" seat, or rather same type/brand of seat, but they use a wider version of that seat on the 767 which is generally why people like it better. When flying long haul people tend to appreciate the extra seat space and the extra aisle width that allows them to not get hit by the drink cart. Even on shorter flights I notice a difference between 17" seats and 18" seats and a wider aisle. This goes for the A330 too for airlines that have it. I will give the 777 a break as it was largely used in 3-3-3 until recent years and because they are trying to alleviate the problem on the 777X, but the 787 was very poor planning. Did Boeing honesty think any airline would really use their envisioned 2-4-2 or 3-2-3? They made a plane that is too wide for those, but not quite wide enough for 3-3-3. If they were serious about having most do 2-4-2/3-2-3 other than very cheap airlines, they should have made it to the same width as the A330 and if they wanted most airlines to use 3-3-3 they should have made it as wide as the A350.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Nah, Airbus traditionally offers the worst of the lot, ie 9 abreast A300/310/330. Such an uncomfortable arrangement that most airlines don't go there and stick to having 8 seats across, only the bottom feeder airlines go for this 9 abreast cesspool arrangement.

So I guess we can conclude that flying on a 3-3-3 BA 787 is better than flying on the 3-3-3 Biman Bangladesh A310.

Other than that, you have made a strawman's argument.

BestWestern wrote:

I've just stepped off a CX 350 and the comfort factor between it and 787 is very noticeable.

However, will airlines be able to charge a premium for a more comfortable seat? No.

To all, building off BestWestern's comments:
There is the crux of the issue. Those willing to pay more buy at least Y+. If a passenger wanted 8-across Y enough, the would have skewed their buying toward the airlines offering that product at a reasonable price premium.

It costs within noise the same per flight of a 787 with 8-across or 9-across Y. The 787 has lower per flight costs than the A359. Unless passengers stop buying off negligible fare differences, this obviously isn't an issue outside of a.net.

Even less of an issue on sub 10 hour flights.

I cannot wait for the gripping on TATL seats on NEO or MAX flights...

Lightsaber

I've flown on Qatar 787s four times so far and I must say they are the most uncomfortable aircraft I have flown in..... And my Mrs, who is only 5ft tall, complained how cramped it felt....

I much prefer travelling by A380, they don't fell as claustrophobic as a 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787.

Just booked another trip to BKK in May on Qatar, and will have to suffer the 787 on one leg, but I get to enjoy the A380 on two of the other legs....

lightsaber wrote:

The 787 has lower per flight costs than the A359.

And a 737 has lower per flight costs than a 787, nothing new about smaller aircraft having lower per flight costs.

I have flown on both the 787 and A350 as a passenger. My only complaints regarding the 787 were the toilets being too small and the electronic window shades didn't work for me.

I found the A350 quieter in terms of engine start, mechanical noises during taxi and approach, and quieter in the cruise. That being said I found the 787 much quieter than the 777.

Very impressed with the new IFE systems installed on these jets.

HHScot wrote:

I've just returned from a return flight between London and Houston in Business on BA partially with a B787-9.

While the cabin was fantastic; massive windows, "mini-cabins", noticeably higher cabin pressure, the seats were horribly narrow. I'm of normal build, but even my shoulders were squashed against both sides of the seat's shell. .

I have to agree. I flew on a BA 789 from AUH-LHR round trip in J. I consulted a seat map site to get a seat with direct aisle access, so I didn't have to step over anyone. My shoulders were wedged between the sidewall and divider (somewhat broad in the shoulders) whether the seat was upright or reclined, unless I was leaning forward. Lateral legroom was minuscule, but plenty fore and aft, even with the footstool on the rearmost seats. Not the greatest J seat, but they were a good deal cheaper than an Etihad J seat for the same trip.

it's odd that on a aviation site, posters still lambaste the frame manufacturer for choices made by the customer airline.. Seats are the buyers option.. Lavs are the buyers option,

the thread should be titled "China Southern's uncomfortable seats"..

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Why is always the misconception? It's the airlines not the companies that build the aircraft that decide on seats. I'm sure if airlines could pull it off they'd do 12 across in a 77W and 16 in an A380. I've flown both the 787 and 350, Both were quite comfortable.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Nah, Airbus traditionally offers the worst of the lot, ie 9 abreast A300/310/330. Such an uncomfortable arrangement that most airlines don't go there and stick to having 8 seats across, only the bottom feeder airlines go for this 9 abreast cesspool arrangement.

Let's not forget the infamous 8 abreast Boeing 767 configuration which was operated by several charter airlines till not so long ago. A few years back I was displeased to sample it aboard a Pulkovo/Rossiya 767 flight to a destination in Central Asia.

kanban wrote:

it's odd that on a aviation site, posters still lambaste the frame manufacturer for choices made by the customer airline.. Seats are the buyers option.. Lavs are the buyers option,

the thread should be titled "China Southern's uncomfortable seats"..

Perhaps some of the blame can be levelled at the frame manufacturer for certifying and offering higher density configs

kanban wrote:

it's odd that on a aviation site, posters still lambaste the frame manufacturer for choices made by the customer airline.. Seats are the buyers option.. Lavs are the buyers option,

the thread should be titled "China Southern's uncomfortable seats"..

This is a view that is posted quite often when talk about cabin widths are discussed. Its the airlines fault when Boeing designs seem to me less comfortable for passengers than the Airbus comparable aircraft.

When Boeing are in discussions with airlines do they talk about seat widths in Y or do they discuss where in the market the new design would fit? So would AA be in discussion with Boeing about a 250 seat capacity aircraft or would they go in detail about a 250 seat 18" seat width for Y? Because it seems there is then a disconnect between either Airbus or Boeing and their customers. One would be listening to the customers on what they want in a aircraft and the other seems to do what it wants (17.2" seat widths in Y or 18" seats in Y).

Fiend wrote:

kanban wrote:

it's odd that on a aviation site, posters still lambaste the frame manufacturer for choices made by the customer airline.. Seats are the buyers option.. Lavs are the buyers option,

the thread should be titled "China Southern's uncomfortable seats"..

Perhaps some of the blame can be levelled at the frame manufacturer for certifying and offering higher density configs

Well Airbus offers 3+4+3 on the A350 family and some customers (Air Asia, for one) are configuring their frames with it. So I guess that means we should consider Airbus to be the worst offender because they have certified the most cramped option, even if only a handful of their customers take them up on said option?

Let us not try to pull away attention from the OP by throwing in anecdotic / hardly used high density configurations. It can lead to incorrect generalizations.

Airbus claims to aim for an 18" seat width. Indeed, evidence bears out that there exists a concept in their design strategy which determines fuselage width such that the most likely airline configuration will result in 18" seats. On the other hand, Boeing's design choices seem to have created aircraft (777 and 787) where 18" seats leave lots of extra space, but 17" seats are possible, and allow the plane to carry more people, thus that is what most airlines choose. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/comfort/

I've flown on Air Transat's 3+3+3 A332, and I feel that the comfort level is not significantly worse than Air Canada's 3+4+3 777's and 3+3+3 787's. If Transat were offering a better price on a route I want to fly, I wouldn't hesitate to choose them over AC.

From the Airbus site linked above:

In keeping with its commitment to passenger comfort, Airbus provides comfort without compromise. Its entire market-leading commercial aircraft product line is designed for today’s standard of passenger comfort: at least an 18-inch wide seat in full-service economy class, while still offering airlines unrivalled operating economics and fuel efficiency.

Dream-whiners will always abound. I flew Y on a DY 788 and a DL 763, and as much as I love the 767, I was much more comfortable on the Dreamliner.
2-3-2 w/ 29" pitch< 3-3-3 w/ 32" pitch, just my opinion.

Thai7879 wrote:

In case I am not permitted to give the name of the website, it is a popular site that lists most of the popular airlines and their various aircraft types. Do a search for aircraft seatmaps and it will most likely be the top result..

Nothing prevents you from posting links to websites that provide evidence for your claims.

Source: Reviews at Seatplans.com -- http://www.seatplans.com/

Just post the link(s) as I have done here. The link I posted might not be to the site you visited.

I've flown in economy on AC between Vancouver and Toronto a few times, and for a sub 5 hour flight, I found the 787 to be just fine. Love the large windows, the lighting, and I do like the tinting windows vs the shades. The IFE is pretty good as well, especially the map feature, very nice. I'm 6'2" ish and about 92kg, so not small or large I guess, kind of average for a guy. I guess if you fly a lot, and can actually tell the difference between planes, and seats, and seat layout, most people will never know the difference. I will choose the 787 again, I can't comment on longer flights at all. I would love to try the 2-4-2 in JAL.

All of these discussions point in a single direction for me: pay more for more, or be uncomfortable. It has less to do with an A or B aircraft and more to do with an airline and it's choice for capacity. Three days ago I was on a UA 787 in "Polaris"-- 9.5 hour flight. The 787 is a SPECTACULAR bird, some of the new Polaris service was really nice. But it's basically the same seat as a 772, 767, TATL 757 (for now) and therefore basically the same as usual. I didn't fly Y because my last UA 772 in Y+ for 9.5 hours required 2 ambien, Melatonin and 2 vodkas to survive. I bought this J ticket months ago and it was shockingly cheap. Basically a high economy fare.
And, truth be told, the one thing that can really ruin a fight is your seat mate- that's nobody's fault- and I'm not Jennifer Aniston!

CF-CPI wrote:

When first conceived, the 787 was presented with 2-4-2 economy seating with comfort levels close to the L1011/DC10 in the 70s. Overall, not a bad way to travel on the ultra long hauls envisioned.

Over time, financial considerations overtook the dreaminess of the Dreamliner. 3-3-3 economy is equivalent to the '60s narrowbodies in terms of space. As long as people are willing to put up with it on 10-12 hour flights, this type of thing will continue.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I read that as "Boeing failed to achieve the promised economy with the promised comfort levels" - one of the two had to give.

Be that as it may, I've only flown 787 on VS, and I've documented the shoulder room with pictures compared to an SQ 777 and SN A320 in viewtopic.php?f=4&t=705123&p=10410109#p10410109

I've since taken similar pictures on every flight I've been, and I can confidently say that no other aircraft has been this tight on shoulder room. I'm a shade under 6ft and of average built (34-36 trousers, if that's anything to go by). Not flying this arrangement again if I can help it. Don't get me wrong, it's a lovely aircraft, and I was excited to fly on it.

With regards to the flying public, I think the "pay for upgrade" or "just want the cheapest ticket" are the two extremes, at least as far as economy passengers go. Most people I know who fly regularly are painfully aware of the seating discomfort, but would rather spend the extra money on better accommodation, their kid's education or whatever. I am usually willing to spend a £100-200 extra on a 11hour flight to get PE, if the economy is already fairly expensive (flights over easter and xmas to South Africa sometimes present this situation), but as a friend of mine pointed out, he has to multiply that 4 to cover his family, and that real money he can better spend.

For my part, I try to pick another airline that offers better space, and am usually willing to pay a little more if needed, particularly if there are added benefits. For example, between HKG and LHR I've taken Finnair once (which allowed a first visit to Finland, opportunity to fly their A350, and opportunity to see an old friend), and often fly SG (A380/777, opportunity to stop over in a city that I really like and have several friends to visit). That is worth the extra money. The seating alone isn't really.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Oh rubbish, as mentioned many times in this thread, it's how the airlines set up the cabins that makes the difference, I spent a good amount of time on LX 343's and 777's this year, both offer the same amount of space and comfort, meaning F was good, J was okay and Y sucked, on both aircraft.

I would also point out that a WN 737 is more comfortable than a UA 737 in coach, blame the airlines, not the manufactures.

enzo011 wrote:

kanban wrote:

it's odd that on a aviation site, posters still lambaste the frame manufacturer for choices made by the customer airline.. Seats are the buyers option.. Lavs are the buyers option,

the thread should be titled "China Southern's uncomfortable seats"..

This is a view that is posted quite often when talk about cabin widths are discussed. Its the airlines fault when Boeing designs seem to me less comfortable for passengers than the Airbus comparable aircraft.

When Boeing are in discussions with airlines do they talk about seat widths in Y or do they discuss where in the market the new design would fit? So would AA be in discussion with Boeing about a 250 seat capacity aircraft or would they go in detail about a 250 seat 18" seat width for Y? Because it seems there is then a disconnect between either Airbus or Boeing and their customers. One would be listening to the customers on what they want in a aircraft and the other seems to do what it wants (17.2" seat widths in Y or 18" seats in Y).

Unfortunately it is not a view or opinion.. it's a fact. When it comes to fuselage widths etc, the OEM develops models and economic projections and then goes with the most economical for the airlines.. If the customer airline chooses narrow or cramped seating that's their prerogative. I recall years ago when working on the Jetfoils that Westerners were having a problem on the Hong Kong boats.. the seats were way to close together.. however observing the passengers it was noted that most natives crouched on seats instead of putting their butts on them and for that reason the ferry company crammed more seats into the available space..

However it is also typical here for some to broad-brush the entire 787 fleet and all customer airlines after a single experience on one airline that was less than expected by Western experiences

Spiderguy252 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Traditionally, Boeing has always compromised on passenger comfort compared to Airbus, be it by accident or design. The only aircraft from Boeing's stables which can truly claim superiority over corresponding Airbus variants is the Boeing 767.

Other than that, if you fly Airbus all the way you shouldn't have a problem, whether in F, J or Y.

Nah, Airbus traditionally offers the worst of the lot, ie 9 abreast A300/310/330. Such an uncomfortable arrangement that most airlines don't go there and stick to having 8 seats across, only the bottom feeder airlines go for this 9 abreast cesspool arrangement.

So I guess we can conclude that flying on a 3-3-3 BA 787 is better than flying on the 3-3-3 Biman Bangladesh A310.

Other than that, you have made a strawman's argument.

It's less "strawman-ish" than the argument you have put forth, the A300/310/330 have a cabin width of 5.28m, while a 787 has a cabin width of 5.5m, just common sense that you would fit slightly larger seats on the 787 than the Airbuses in a 9 abreast config.

aerolimani wrote:

Airbus claims to aim for an 18" seat width. Indeed, evidence bears out that there exists a concept in their design strategy which determines fuselage width such that the most likely airline configuration will result in 18" seats. On the other hand, Boeing's design choices seem to have created aircraft (777 and 787) where 18" seats leave lots of extra space, but 17" seats are possible, and allow the plane to carry more people, thus that is what most airlines choose. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/comfort/

I've flown on Air Transat's 3+3+3 A332, and I feel that the comfort level is not significantly worse than Air Canada's 3+4+3 777's and 3+3+3 787's. If Transat were offering a better price on a route I want to fly, I wouldn't hesitate to choose them over AC.

From the Airbus site linked above:

In keeping with its commitment to passenger comfort, Airbus provides comfort without compromise. Its entire market-leading commercial aircraft product line is designed for today’s standard of passenger comfort: at least an 18-inch wide seat in full-service economy class, while still offering airlines unrivalled operating economics and fuel efficiency.

Airbus claims to aim for an 18" seat, and even produces nice marketing to support it, but the fact remains that the 333 is certified for a crushload of 440 pax that can only be achieved with a 9 abreast setting, if they truly cared about comfort (ie removing the marketing from the picture), they wouldn't had ceritfied and offered such a config to airlines.

As a comparison, the equivalent 787-9 (and its still wider) is only certified for 420 pax, even the larger and even wider 772 has a maximum of just 440 pax.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Airbus claims to aim for an 18" seat, and even produces nice marketing to support it, but the fact remains that the 333 is certified for a crushload of 440 pax that can only be achieved with a 9 abreast setting, if they truly cared about comfort (ie removing the marketing from the picture), they wouldn't had ceritfied and offered such a config to airlines.

As a comparison, the equivalent 787-9 (and its still wider) is only certified for 420 pax, even the larger and even wider 772 has a maximum of just 440 pax.

And yet, the number of airlines actually flying the 9-abreast A330 is relatively few. I assume it's because it's just that tiny bit too narrow for most airlines, besides a few leisure and low cost carriers like Air Transat and Monarch. Whereas, the width chosen by Boeing, for the 787s, is just big enough that pretty much everybody (except JAL) is filling them all with 9-across seating.

The question is whether Airbus and Boeing chose their widths based on what they felt would be the most common seating choice by airlines. If Boeing was hoping that most operators would keep the 787 at 8-across and the 777 at 9-across, then they chose wrong. If Airbus was hoping that most operators would keep the A330 at 8-across, and the A350 at 9-across, then Airbus chose correctly. Of course, there's not that many A350 operators yet, but so far, they've all gone with 9-across, I believe.

As to the A330NEO and 9-across, there's a lot of useful discussion here: viewtopic.php?t=581629
It will be interesting, indeed, to see what airlines decide to do with the NEO.

As to the OP… BA says that their 787-8 seats received a lot of negative feedback, and that they are doing something different for the 787-9. https://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/ ... for-787-9/

kanban wrote:

Unfortunately it is not a view or opinion.. it's a fact. When it comes to fuselage widths etc, the OEM develops models and economic projections and then goes with the most economical for the airlines.. If the customer airline chooses narrow or cramped seating that's their prerogative. I recall years ago when working on the Jetfoils that Westerners were having a problem on the Hong Kong boats.. the seats were way to close together.. however observing the passengers it was noted that most natives crouched on seats instead of putting their butts on them and for that reason the ferry company crammed more seats into the available space..

However it is also typical here for some to broad-brush the entire 787 fleet and all customer airlines after a single experience on one airline that was less than expected by Western experiences

I understand your view that it is the airlines that choose to go with 9-abreast in the 787. But you yourself just posted that the OEMs develops the models and economic projections and then goes with the most economical to the airlines. It is Boeing that chooses the fuselage width that allows a (barely) acceptable 9-abreast for Y in the 787 and you and others try to blame the airlines when they choose this option. I think Boeing tried very hard to sell the Dreamliner as the most economical and comfortable frame ever but they knew to be the most comfortable you would have to sacrifice the economical part and vice versa.

Whilst saying goodbye and thank you to passengers deplaning the Boeing 787, I must tell you they are impressed. Be it business or economy, they like this aircraft. In economy class they love the seat, the way it reclines, the inflight entertainment system and the cabin environment.

I remember one couple from Denmark in particular. They had traveled Copenhagen to Toronto on our 787 with 9 abreast seating, over night, then connect to our Barbados flight on the 777 with 9 abreast seating before our conversion to 10 abreast. They preferred the cabin of the 787. I found it hard to believe at first, but time and time again, the 787 comes out on top of the passenger favourite list.

Flying the 787 on long range international and transcon, Los Angeles or Vancouver to Toronto, I must say I am overwhelmed by the positive response to the 787!

jeffrey0032j wrote:

It's less "strawman-ish" than the argument you have put forth, the A300/310/330 have a cabin width of 5.28m, while a 787 has a cabin width of 5.5m, just common sense that you would fit slightly larger seats on the 787 than the Airbuses in a 9 abreast config.

So the only way the 787 comes up trumps versus Airbus models is when the scant few who operate a 9-abreast configuration on the A300/A310/A330 are in the contest. 95% of airlines have opted for 2-4-2 on their Airbus widebodies, and the 787 is a serious downgrade over those.

Heck, the consensus is that the A350 (also 3-3-3) is more comfortable than the 787 too!

What airlines say they want during preliminary design is often very different when they start selecting seating options.. Boeing puts in the basic tracks, the seat manufacturers build frames that fit.. then the airline bean counters try to stuff as many butts in as possible for profit not comfort.. some seem to think Boeing retains a club for beating errant customers who crowd the seats in.. not so. My only advise would be: research the airline before buying a ticket or spend more for a different class ticket

I've flown the 787 a few times (in Y) and I also find the seats very uncomfortable. I am used to the 10-across 77W, and while I obviously prefer the 9-across, I don't find it uncomfortable. I too actively avoid the 787.

A friend d flew Virgin to HKG last week. I asked him to tell me what he thought of economy. He commented on the fabulously sized windows, brilliant IFE but awful seats. Said he was constantly bumping his neighbour and they, theirs and felt that at 5ft 8in, it wasn't a great experience comfort wise at all. He's flying back Premium Economy so will compare.

I flew QR a couple of years back and thought exactly the same. The trade off being the huge windows etc but I guess if you're in the middle seat, it's not as enjoyable.

For short hops there is I guess trade off but for longer haul, I'd certainly go out of my way and pick the 777 at 9 abreast or the A380 as my preferred choice.

Last Christmas I flew EY SYD-AUH-GVA/ZRH-AUH-SYD. The aircraft were A380/A330/B789/A380. The B789 was OK at 9 abreast, not great but OK, for the 6 hours to AUH. The really interesting thing was that the two A380 had totally different seats. The SYD-AUH A380 had what I would call "normal" A380 seats. The A380 AUH-SYD had the same seats as the B789, That will be my last EY B789/ new config A380 flight on sectors longer than about 6 hours. The seats after about 7 hours were cruel & unusual punishment and AUH-SYD is 14-15 hours!
Will be interesting to actually sit in QFs B789 seats, especially on the 17/18 hour PER-LHR flight! [Not that I would normally use that flight, I don't go to LHR much, but as an avgeek I'll try it once]

Gemuser

I have flown longhaul on NH/ET/LA/NZ (including an 8 across 787 for reference)and I do believe what is relevant is whether you have someone directly next to you or not. I think I'm up to about 14 sectors, and have been fortunate to have had empty seats on a number of them.I would add the following observations. On the flights with someone next to me the shoulder space is the issue, not the pitch, which makes it impossible to find a comfortable position for long. Relevant for window seat people (the majority in A.net I will wager) You can't escape into the window "cavity" as you can on most types because the seat is right next to the wall/window (that is why even the 777 10 abreast is better). Other relevant things that vary airline to airline include firmness of seat cushion and slimline bolstering on seat backs affecting comfort and ability for passengers behind to press into your back.

I don't think any one of these issues makes the 787 worse, it's the combination of all of these which pushes into the public consciousness. The breadth of discomfort factors makes it unpleasant for more people. I have had good flights on the 787 too depending on my seat where one or more of these causes have been reduced (exit row/no seat behind etc)

Waterbomber wrote:

On the other hand, the JAL B787 in 2-4-2 feels exceptionally roomy. They also offer great seat pitch to make it even roomier.
It's inconceivable that they're not Skytrax 5.

On 24DEC, I was on JL's 789 (also a 2-4-2) flying from KUL to NRT and the seat was very roomy. I will not hesitate to fly their 789 again.