It's been well documented that the A35K has the same listed capacity as the 77W, in a 3-class configuration, and thus Airbus is pitching it as a 77W replacement. However, that configuration stipulates about 350 or 360 seats in 3 classes. For airlines like AF and AC that have high Y configurations of around 450 seats, with 3-4-3 Y, can the A35K match that capacity?

The two are the same length, with the 77W wide enough to sit 10 abreast on a normal configuration in Y, where as the A35J can only do 9, so no, it cannot match the 77W capacity.

Note the exit limit on the A35J is also 440, where as the 77W is 550.

Look at CX for example, roughly comfortable seat maps, 3 class seats 368, where as the A35J seats 344. The A350 has an extra row of J, so that could be 2 Y, which adds 14 seats, making it a rough apples to apples comparison value of 358.

whywhyzee wrote:

The two are the same length, with the 77W wide enough to sit 10 abreast on a normal configuration in Y, where as the A35J can only do 9, so no, it cannot match the 77W capacity.

Note the exit limit on the A35J is also 440, where as the 77W is 550.

Look at CX for example, roughly comfortable seat maps, 3 class seats 368, where as the A35J seats 344. The A350 has an extra row of J, so that could be 2 Y, which adds 14 seats, making it a rough apples to apples comparison value of 358.

I believe that the exit limit on the A350 is about to be raised to 480, also there was a proposal from Airbus to move lavs and galleys downstairs to raise seat count but as yet Airbus is not formally offering this option.

whywhyzee wrote:

The two are the same length, with the 77W wide enough to sit 10 abreast on a normal configuration in Y, where as the A35J can only do 9...

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

whywhyzee wrote:

The two are the same length, with the 77W wide enough to sit 10 abreast on a normal configuration in Y, where as the A35J can only do 9, so no, it cannot match the 77W capacity.

French bee’s A350-900 have a seating configuration of 411 with a 3-4-3 economy configuration.

whywhyzee wrote:

Note the exit limit on the A35J is also 440, where as the 77W is 550.

The exit on the A350 limit depends on the doors the customer selects, it can be less than 440.

whywhyzee wrote:

Look at CX for example, roughly comfortable seat maps, 3 class seats 368, where as the A35J seats 344. The A350 has an extra row of J, so that could be 2 Y, which adds 14 seats, making it a rough apples to apples comparison value of 358.

The 40J32W296Y 77W is a relative new configuration for CX with 10 across in Y, when the A350-1000 entered service with CX it was 40J32W268Y on the 77W with 9 across compared to the 46J32W256Y on the A350-1000. The A350-1000 can fly further with a full passenger load and lifts about 8 tonnes more at maximum payload.

vhtje wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The two are the same length, with the 77W wide enough to sit 10 abreast on a normal configuration in Y, where as the A35J can only do 9...

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

I and many colleagues have been actively avoiding 10 abreast "normal" 777 configurations in Y for the last 5-6 years. (UA, AF, KL). Passenger satisfaction/comfort takes a hit. So it depends on your definition of normal and the airlines. I have choosen Korean, SQ, JAL and Delta 9 abreast 777 flights over other carriers for this reason. Even taking stops.

Boeing supporters and 10 abreast operators have done a lot to learn everybody this 10 abreast 777 is " normal, "new seats", the way forward. Me and many just avoid those aircraft, lots of alternatives these days.

I am 5´7 and not overweight, I find the 10 abreast 777, simply a torture chamber, since it is used for more than 8 hour flights...
Id gladly pay 200 each way more just for that 2 extra inches
Best Regards

TRB

TheRedBaron wrote:

I am 5´7 and not overweight, I find the 10 abreast 777, simply a torture chamber, since it is used for more than 8 hour flights...
Id gladly pay 200 each way more just for that 2 extra inches
Best Regards

TRB

Totally. I'm not long but I am broad shouldered and it SUCKED! people who say it is an insignificant difference are delusional

The 787 isn't much better with 9 abreast.

Blame the airlines, not the manufacturer. If they build a wider fuselage it will get just get another seat squashed in. Even the A330 is now suffering from this.

unimproved wrote:

The 787 isn't much better with 9 abreast.

Blame the airlines, not the manufacturer. If they build a wider fuselage it will get just get another seat squashed in. Even the A330 is now suffering from this.

I blame the manufacturer. Almost all A330 and A350 operators have 8 and 9 abreast respectively on their economy classes. Most 777 and 787 operators have 10 and 9 respectively. Boeing gives airlines the opportunity they can't refuse: one more seat for every row.

TheRedBaron wrote:

I am 5´7 and not overweight, I find the 10 abreast 777, simply a torture chamber, since it is used for more than 8 hour flights...
Id gladly pay 200 each way more just for that 2 extra inches
Best Regards

TRB

Yeah rubbing shoulders with your neighbors when trying to sleep on a 15-hour flight is...unpleasant...

afterburner wrote:

unimproved wrote:

The 787 isn't much better with 9 abreast.

Blame the airlines, not the manufacturer. If they build a wider fuselage it will get just get another seat squashed in. Even the A330 is now suffering from this.

I blame the manufacturer. Almost all A330 and A350 operators have 8 and 9 abreast respectively on their economy classes. Most 777 and 787 operators have 10 and 9 respectively. Boeing gives airlines the opportunity they can't refuse: one more seat for every row.

The first 9 & 10 abreast 330's and 350's are already popping up. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more get "upgraded" to this config on their first D/C04 check (just like what happened to the 777).

unimproved wrote:

The first 9 & 10 abreast 330's and 350's are already popping up. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more get "upgraded" to this config on their first D/C04 check (just like what happened to the 777).

I don't think 9 and 10 abreast in A330 and A350 respectively will be the mainstream configurations. Emirates is the pioneer of 10-abreast in a 777. Let's see whether EK will put 9 and 10 abreast on its A330neos and A350s.

unimproved wrote:

The first 9 & 10 abreast 330's and 350's are already popping up. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more get "upgraded" to this config on their first D/C04 check (just like what happened to the 777).

Low cost airlines have used 3-3-3 configurations on A330s for a very long time, and I do not see majors moving to adopt it.
For now, the same kind of airlines are using 3-4-3 on A350s.
I hope it will not get worse (we can never be sure), but so far, the situation seems stable on the A330 and A350 side.

Theseus wrote:

unimproved wrote:

The first 9 & 10 abreast 330's and 350's are already popping up. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more get "upgraded" to this config on their first D/C04 check (just like what happened to the 777).

Low cost airlines have used 3-3-3 configurations on A330s for a very long time, and I do not see majors moving to adopt it.
For now, the same kind of airlines are using 3-4-3 on A350s..

9-Abreast has been used by some airlines since it is in service, literally as Air Inter as the first Airline to fly it, had it (iirc), and before that, and still, airlines flies A310s in 9AB (maybe A300, but i wouldn´t know who).
On a 9AB 787 or 10AB 777 you have essentially as much seat width as on the 737 that took you to the Hub, with the CRJ wide seat you get on an 9AB A330 or 10AB A350 everyone will notice right away, so it is hard to get away with it as an airline...

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

9-Abreast has been used by some airlines since it is in service, literally as Air Inter as the first Airline to fly it, had it (iirc), and before that, and still, airlines flies A310s in 9AB (maybe A300, but i wouldn´t know who).
On a 9AB 787 or 10AB 777 you have essentially as much seat width as on the 737 that took you to the Hub, with the CRJ wide seat you get on an 9AB A330 or 10AB A350 everyone will notice right away, so it is hard to get away with it as an airline...

best regards
Thomas

???!!! Someone has clearly never made that transition, or you're very skinny. On a 737 I don't rub shoulders with the guy next to me. On a 787 or 10AB 777, I do. 0.4" is the average difference between a 737 seat and a 787 seat (17.6 vs. 17.2 on 787 vs. 17.0 on 77W). Air Canada's are 17.3" wide. Singapore purportedly uses 18" wide seats on their 787s, but I don't know if I believe that. Aisles would be unusable.

patrickjp93 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

9-Abreast has been used by some airlines since it is in service, literally as Air Inter as the first Airline to fly it, had it (iirc), and before that, and still, airlines flies A310s in 9AB (maybe A300, but i wouldn´t know who).
On a 9AB 787 or 10AB 777 you have essentially as much seat width as on the 737 that took you to the Hub, with the CRJ wide seat you get on an 9AB A330 or 10AB A350 everyone will notice right away, so it is hard to get away with it as an airline...

best regards
Thomas

???!!! Someone has clearly never made that transition,.

I actually don´t think i ever transferred from a 737 to a 10AB 777, usually from an F70 or E-Jet

But i actually do not mind the 10AB 777 all that much, surprisingly..... but 9AB A310 is one step too far. .... and i am not particularly petite with 1.83m/~100Kg (floating around that) .... i do notice the difference of course.

best regards
Thomas

You guys have a wrong approach to social life.

patrickjp93 wrote:

???!!! Someone has clearly never made that transition, or you're very skinny. On a 737 I don't rub shoulders with the guy next to me. On a 787 or 10AB 777, I do. 0.4" is the average difference between a 737 seat and a 787 seat (17.6 vs. 17.2 on 787 vs. 17.0 on 77W). Air Canada's are 17.3" wide. Singapore purportedly uses 18" wide seats on their 787s, but I don't know if I believe that. Aisles would be unusable.

Luckily I've only had to take two 77W flights on AF and they were 3-4-3. It was ridiculous that the two and half hour AY A321 flight I took to CDG had an inch wider seats than the AF 77W on a over eight hour trans-Atlantic flight.

vhtje wrote:

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

Yes, I've always thought that the 'extra-wide body' slogan is, well, not exactly honest. The A350 is a bit wider than the A330 and than what Airbus had originally proposed (namely, the same width as the A330), but it's still not as wide as the 777. Perhaps it's time that misleading slogan was dropped.

DrPaul wrote:

vhtje wrote:

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

Yes, I've always thought that the 'extra-wide body' slogan is, well, not exactly honest. The A350 is a bit wider than the A330 and than what Airbus had originally proposed (namely, the same width as the A330), but it's still not as wide as the 777. Perhaps it's time that misleading slogan was dropped.

A350 "extra-wide-body" is jaust marketing name to it from distinguish orignal A350. Bussiness jets are not wide as 777 by they are still more confortible! OMG

DrPaul wrote:

vhtje wrote:

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

Yes, I've always thought that the 'extra-wide body' slogan is, well, not exactly honest. The A350 is a bit wider than the A330 and than what Airbus had originally proposed (namely, the same width as the A330), but it's still not as wide as the 777. Perhaps it's time that misleading slogan was dropped.

That was a response to "Dreamliner" marketing as well as to distinguish from the original A350 (sort of A330neo). Never trust marketing gimmicks, irrespective of Brands

DrPaul wrote:

vhtje wrote:

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

Yes, I've always thought that the 'extra-wide body' slogan is, well, not exactly honest. The A350 is a bit wider than the A330 and than what Airbus had originally proposed (namely, the same width as the A330), but it's still not as wide as the 777. Perhaps it's time that misleading slogan was dropped.

A350 is wider than A330 and moved up from the established Airbus wide body cross section.
In the Airbus portfolio "wider" is the marque property of the A350XWB.

why would/should it reference the product of another manufacturer?

Then:
What is "dream" quality about Dreamliner? A nightmare ...

WIederling wrote:

DrPaul wrote:

vhtje wrote:

So much for the A350 being an “Extra Wide Body”

Yes, I've always thought that the 'extra-wide body' slogan is, well, not exactly honest. The A350 is a bit wider than the A330 and than what Airbus had originally proposed (namely, the same width as the A330), but it's still not as wide as the 777. Perhaps it's time that misleading slogan was dropped.

A350 is wider than A330 and moved up from the established Airbus wide body cross section.
In the Airbus portfolio "wider" is the marque property of the A350XWB.

why would/should it reference the product of another manufacturer?

Then:
What is "dream" quality about Dreamliner? A nightmare ...

True, but the way the XWB bit was promoted, tagging it proudly onto the A350 name, implied that this plane was a good couple of feet wider than other wide-bodied twin-jets, and not merely a few inches wider than its predecessor and still short of its main rival. Still, I guess that 'Just A Little Bit Wider' isn't the most catchy slogan.

As for the 787, calling anything 'dream' is asking for trouble. The sarcastic rejoinder 'In your dreams...' comes to mind.

DrPaul wrote:

WIederling wrote:

DrPaul wrote:

Yes, I've always thought that the 'extra-wide body' slogan is, well, not exactly honest. The A350 is a bit wider than the A330 and than what Airbus had originally proposed (namely, the same width as the A330), but it's still not as wide as the 777. Perhaps it's time that misleading slogan was dropped.

A350 is wider than A330 and moved up from the established Airbus wide body cross section.
In the Airbus portfolio "wider" is the marque property of the A350XWB.

why would/should it reference the product of another manufacturer?

Then:
What is "dream" quality about Dreamliner? A nightmare ...

True, but the way the XWB bit was promoted, tagging it proudly onto the A350 name, implied that this plane was a good couple of feet wider than other wide-bodied twin-jets, and not merely a few inches wider than its predecessor and still short of its main rival. Still, I guess that 'Just A Little Bit Wider' isn't the most catchy slogan.

As for the 787, calling anything 'dream' is asking for trouble. The sarcastic rejoinder 'In your dreams...' comes to mind.

Arguably the A350s main competitor wasn´t the 777 at that time, as the A358 and A359 are clearly meant to compete against the 787 and the A351 MK1 was aiming more for the 787-10 then the 77W, as it was a fairly simple stretch at the time. And there you have an extra wide cabin.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Arguably the A350s main competitor wasn´t the 777 at that time, as the A358 and A359 are clearly meant to compete against the 787 and the A351 MK1 was aiming more for the 787-10 then the 77W, as it was a fairly simple stretch at the time. And there you have an extra wide cabin.

That all is rather irrelevant.
The A350MK1 reused the established A300 cross section also present on A310, A330/340.
the A350MKfinal aka XWB dropped that and shew an increased diameter dual lobe cross section.
( The original A300 cross section is near perfect circular.)

Nice and funny to reference a competitors product "we have the longest, thickest Ding" to arrive at "XWB is an overstatement"
but it does not represent the derivation of XWB at all.

While the A35K CAN be configured for 10-abreast, no one but the skinniest passengers in the world would want to fly it long haul with 16.7" wide seats.

No, it can't match the capacity, and it wasn't designed to. The A350 family represents a good capacity middle ground between the 777-300ER and the 789. While many on here wonder if the GEnx CMC PIPs for the 787 will stave off more A350 orders until the A350 NEO, the truth is the two aircraft fly different missions different ways. The A359 can fly farther than the 777-300ER 9-abreast or 777-200ER much more efficiently and land with much better economics. The A35K steps this up a notch in terms of capacity. Both have very unique capabilities and are rightly vaunted by passengers for its comfort. And the family opens routes of travel that no one before the 787 had previously thought about. That said, for short(er)-haul routes, unless you have a full load of cargo, the A350 is not a very efficient bird.

The 787-10 on the other hand is turning into a dream for 4to 5 and 10 to 13-hour trips and can connect the edges of all continents, so in a way it's the 2nd wind of the Hub&Spoke model. United is using it to fly big trunk domestic routes like LAX-EWR. Singapore is using it for a number of Asian routes, and New Zealand will be doing the same. British and Air France-KLM will probably be deploying theirs for smaller TATL and growing Chinese hubs. Why Qantas hasn't hopped on that bandwagon yet with all of its 789 success is a mystery, but meh...

If the Chinese carriers pick it for their domestic, SE Asian, and Tasman trunk travel where the A350 is just too much plane, the 787 will end up being more successful than the 777-300ER. Once we get the formal GE announcements on PIPs, or Boeing launches the 787 NG, we'll see some very large orders come through.

I know Project Sunrise is a bit of a tired topic, but the 789 can already fly directly from Brisbane to Chicago and will be starting in April of next year. A re-engined and optimized version could fly SYD/MEL-ORD and could also fly all 3 of those hubs to JFK no problem. If Qantas goes with the A350 ULR and finds out it's too much plane to make the economics work for JFK (especially with the Australian dollar suffering so much), then they can fall back on the 787 NG and either sell the A350s to British Airways or reconfigure them for shorter trunk routes like LAX, SFO, or DFW. Then the older 787s can be reconfigured for higher capacity on the Asian and trunk domestic flights (Perth).

So, to circle back, the A350 is a down-gauge for most 777-300ER operators and has almost too much capability for most of the flying 10-abreast routes. It's not nearly the massive down-gauge that the 787 family is, but it represents the same gamble Boeing took on airlines NEEDING to down-gauge their 77W flights in the wake of more P2P flights skipping the big hubs or smaller ULH fliers taking off at smaller hubs. The A350 may be a little bit niche in the end, but it DOES make for an excellent long-distance trunk craft for flights like HKG-JFK.