Boeing 787 configurations

[Mattg]

I have now flown on 787 Dreamliners in both a 2-4-2 (8 abreast) and 3-3-3 (9 abreast) configuration and wanted to make a few comments.

The 8 abreast aircraft I flew on (Japan Airlines) was very comfortable in economy.

By comparison, I've just done a couple of long-haul flights on Jetstar's 9 abreast 787s and the economy seats seemed really narrow. Sitting by the window, it almost felt like the curved wall was impeding on your head space. The aisles seemed quite narrow too. In fact, I think I actually felt more comfortable the last time I flew on a 777 in 3-4-3 configuration - and that's a really tight squeeze as it is.

Qantas hasn't yet announced how they'll configure their new 787 aircraft, but I'm really hoping they go for 8 abreast. AJ apparently said that 9 abreast is "standard". But if QF use this configuration in Y then they're effectively saying that "standard" is good enough. I fly QF wherever possible, but I would be very hesitant to pay QF prices to fly long-haul in a 9-abreast 787... especially if they are going to be used on some of the ultra long-haul routes being discussed like PER-LHR or SYD-ORD.

 

[TomVexille]

IIRC in a 9 abreast configuration the seat width is the same as a 737, or a 777 in 10 abreast. So hardly ideal for long haul IMO.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I have now flown on 787 Dreamliners in both a 2-4-2 (8 abreast) and 3-3-3 (9 abreast) configuration and wanted to make a few comments.

The 8 abreast aircraft I flew on (Japan Airlines) was very comfortable in economy.

By comparison, I've just done a couple of long-haul flights on Jetstar's 9 abreast 787s and the economy seats seemed really narrow. Sitting by the window, it almost felt like the curved wall was impeding on your head space. The aisles seemed quite narrow too. In fact, I think I actually felt more comfortable the last time I flew on a 777 in 3-4-3 configuration - and that's a really tight squeeze as it is.

Qantas hasn't yet announced how they'll configure their new 787 aircraft, but I'm really hoping they go for 8 abreast. AJ apparently said that 9 abreast is "standard". But if QF use this configuration in Y then they're effectively saying that "standard" is good enough. I fly QF wherever possible, but I would be very hesitant to pay QF prices to fly long-haul in a 9-abreast 787... especially if they are going to be used on some of the ultra long-haul routes being discussed like PER-LHR or SYD-ORD.

After having done a couple of overnight flights on the JQ 788 in whY (DPS/BNE & BKK/MEL) I would rather the 332 with the couple seating othen the side. The legroom on the 788 seemed more crampled also.

 

[Ansett]

IIRC in a 9 abreast configuration the seat width is the same as a 737, or a 777 in 10 abreast. So hardly ideal for long haul IMO.

Yet many airlines are running 9 Abreast as standard including long and ultra long haul. For example,

Air NZ 787-9 = 9 Abreast.

UA 787-8 = 9 Abreast 787-9 = 9 Abreast

BA 787-8 = 9 Abreast 787-9 = 9 Abreast

AA 787-8 = 9 Abreast

AC 787-8 = 9 Abreast 787-9 = 9 Abreast

EY 787-9 = 9 Abreast

AI 787-8 = 9 Abreast

QR 787-8 = 9 Abreast

VS 787-9 = 9 Abreast

I understand that ANA are among the few offering 8 Abreast with 3 versions of of the 787-8 2 at 8 abreast and 1 at 9 abreast

JAL offering 8 Abreast across its entire 787 fleet.

So technically AJ could well be correct with the 3-3-3 being the norm.

Having flown a JQ 787 in 9 Abreast I shall now avoid any 787 configured in this manner and that includes any QF aircraft.

 

[Ansett]

After having done a couple of overnight flights on the JQ 788 in whY (DPS/BNE & BKK/MEL) I would rather the 332 with the couple seating othen the side. The legroom on the 788 seemed more crampled also.

Hi Oz difference between JQ 787 and QF A330 is

JQ seat Pitch 30 Inches seat width 17 Inches.

QF Seat Pitch 31 Inches Seat width 17.2 down to 17 inches depending on config.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Hi Oz difference between JQ 787 and QF A330 is

JQ seat Pitch 30 Inches seat width 17 Inches.

QF Seat Pitch 31 Inches Seat width 17.2 down to 17 inches depending on config.

Do you know what the JQi 332 pitch was?

We had upfront seating HNL/BNE prior to the 788 and although I don't think that actually gives you more legroom (just a more forward seat) compared to the rest of whY, I don't remember not being able to stretch my legs out under the seat in front.

 

[Ansett]

Do you know what the JQi 332 pitch was?

We had upfront seating HNL/BNE prior to the 788 and although I don't think that actually gives you more legroom (just a more forward seat) compared to the rest of whY, I don't remember not being able to stretch my legs out under the seat in front.

Hi Oz

Seat Pitch for JQ 332 was 31 inches and seat width reported at 17.5 inches

 

[TomVexille]

Yet many airlines are running 9 Abreast as standard including long and ultra long haul. For example,

Air NZ 787-9 = 9 Abreast.

UA 787-8 = 9 Abreast 787-9 = 9 Abreast

BA 787-8 = 9 Abreast 787-9 = 9 Abreast

AA 787-8 = 9 Abreast

AC 787-8 = 9 Abreast 787-9 = 9 Abreast

EY 787-9 = 9 Abreast

AI 787-8 = 9 Abreast

QR 787-8 = 9 Abreast

VS 787-9 = 9 Abreast

I understand that ANA are among the few offering 8 Abreast with 3 versions of of the 787-8 2 at 8 abreast and 1 at 9 abreast

JAL offering 8 Abreast across its entire 787 fleet.

So technically AJ could well be correct with the 3-3-3 being the norm.

Having flown a JQ 787 in 9 Abreast I shall now avoid any 787 configured in this manner and that includes any QF aircraft.

I agree that it's the norm. But it's not ideal for long haul. Boeing designed the 787 with 8 abreast in mind, with some LCCs as the airlines that might squeeze in 9.

 

[Ansett]

I agree that it's the norm. But it's not ideal for long haul. Boeing designed the 787 with 8 abreast in mind, with some LCCs as the airlines that might squeeze in 9.

Agreed and as stated I shall avoid the 9 Abreast 787 aircraft no matter who it is where ever practical to do so.

 

[dajop]

Just flew on Scoot 787 SIN-MEL and my main complaint was not seat width or pitch but seat height, due to lack of height adjustable headrest seat was too low compared to what I am used to.

Due to very limited recline (something I really appreciate - I don't need to recline much, if at all to be comfortable) I felt the pitch was OK and in fact I comfortably worked on my laptop and watched a DVD on it, something I struggled with travelling on A330 on SQ a few days earlier SIN-TPE.

The seats on Scoot also seemed wider and aisles narrower than on the TG version that I flew a few weeks earlier. Maybe they are maybe they aren't I didn't take a tape measure to it, but after the TG 787 flight (only SIN-BKK) I vowed to avoid the 3-3-3 787 if at all possible. And a few weeks later circumstances meant, with a very last minute booking (t-4 hours) scoot was the only choice and more pleasant than I expected.

 

[Awesom Andy]

The Japanese carriers were the earliest customers, and configured them 8 abreast as the plane was intended. However, everyone else realised they could fit an extra seat in, so 9 seats became standard. It now got to the point where ANA decided to start fitting 9 across as well. Time will tell what JAL is going to do, but I have the impression that they tend to move a little slower when/if things change.

As always, a dream(liner) can turn into a nightmare(liner) depending on what's in it.

 

[moa999]

9 is definitely the norm.

Anyone who thinks QF will do any different is kidding themselves

 

[Awesom Andy]

9 is definitely the norm.

Anyone who thinks QF will do any different is kidding themselves

Although I guess having 10 across might have crossed their minds at some stage...

 

[serfty]

9 is definitely the norm.

Anyone who thinks QF will do any different is kidding themselves

Fully agree with this ... only flown in on once (on JQ).

Not in a rush to repeat.

 

[JohnK]

Don't think 9 abreast is a good idea.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Don't think 9 abreast is a good idea.

I can say that it's a good idea, but I'm a bean counter by trade. However, I would most definitely avoid it when I'm off duty.

 

[Pleb Status]

QF will be 3-3-3 without any doubt in the 789. I would not be surprised if the only 8 across 787 (JL/NH) are converted to 9 across when they come due for a cabin refresh.

Luckily, I have avoided the 787 to date. I was booked on a BA 787 but it went tech and was swapped out with a 763.

With most 777 going 3-4-3, it looks like the only large aircraft you will want to travel in Y in will be A330neo/350/380.

 

[OZDUCK]

Traveled once in economy on Air New Zealand 789 - never again. It wasn't the legroom, had a exit row seat, but the general all round cramped and uncomfortable feeling. And it wasn't just me - my wife who is half my size also said never again.

 

[dajop]

JThe seats on Scoot also seemed wider and aisles narrower than on the TG version that I flew a few weeks earlier. Maybe they are maybe they aren't I didn't take a tape measure to it

Further to this, I note seatguru lists Scoot's seat width as 18.9", TG's as 18", UA's as 17.3" and JQ's as 17". Whilst I'd rate TG's similar width to UA (have been on both), I'd believe Scoot's seats are definitely 1" wider than TG's. With one forearm/elbow on one armrest, the other comfortably sat beside (not on) the other armrest. This is something I couldn't do on TG where I still needed both armrests (this is test I use, if can't get away with only using one armrest ... big fail). I don't think I could do on UA (although UA was 3 seats to myself, so didn't get a full appreciation of narrowness). Downside with wider seats, is narrower aisles, and I was bumped several times, by crazy rushing FA's who lack the grace of the Singapore girls (and boys) of their parent.

 

[moa999]

Not quite sure I believe all the Seatguru stats