Nz 777 v ek 777

[Ansett]

First off not defending either party here.

I have noticed many critics of EK for using a 777 on long flights in economy and having 10 abreast seating with comments that people would never fly EK because of this.

I also note that NZ run 777's 10 abreast yet I have never seen any negative comments about this. Why is this?

Are we overly critical at the moment due to EK/QF Tie-Up

I apologise if their is indeed extensive criticism of NZ for having 10 across seating.

 

[Fruitcake]

NZ hasn't traditionally been considered a major player in the one stop Australia to Europe market. So it's hardly surprising that they don't get much mention in a discussion about QF/EK.

For what its worth, only their 77W fleet is 10-abreast Y. Their 772 fleet is 9-abreast.

 

[Ansett]

NZ hasn't traditionally a major player in the one stop Australia to Europe market. So it's hardly surprising that they don't get much mention in a discussion about QF/EK.

For what its worth, only their 77W fleet is 10-abreast Y. Their 772 fleet is 9-abreast.

This is true my main point and perhaps not well communocated was the statement that some people would NEVER take any EK flight because of the 10 Abreast on its 777 seems strange that we dont hear the same about NZ 777

 

[samh004]

The ANZ 773 has the Skycouch, maybe that's helping them keep a positive spin on things... which reminds me, has anyone actually used it?

 

[anat0l]

There are other reasons to be critical of the QF/EK tie-up - both legitimate and illegitimate....

FlyerTalk probably has a higher concentration of those that believe that the NZ 10-abreast is a travesty. Some have flown it, some have not, but they criticise all the same. I think the same can be said about EK really.

I haven't seen many reports saying that it was OK. A couple of Skycouch reports, but that doesn't count.

IIRC EK does have an "advantage" in that each Y seat has 34" pitch (or something like that). So what is lost in width is greater in pitch (even with the new "living area" concept considered, it's still substantial).

When I toured Boeing in 2010 for Star Mega Do 2, we asked Boeing about seat pitch and width, and according to their consumer survey an overwhelming number of people would rather give up width compared to pitch (hence seemingly justifying the tighter squeeze across in some of the show seating).

 

[oz_mark]

When I toured Boeing in 2010 for Star Mega Do 2, we asked Boeing about seat pitch and width, and according to their consumer survey an overwhelming number of people would rather give up width compared to pitch (hence seemingly justifying the tighter squeeze across in some of the show seating).

Surveys may say that, but I wonder what the truth is when confronted with the alternatives.

TG at one point had both layouts - a 10 abreast with greater seat pitch, and 9 abreast with lesser seat pitch (total seat count was the same). It is the 9 abreast layout that remains. I wonder why that is?

 

[Ansett]

For me at a mere 5foot 7 and a half leg room is not the most critical. I am more concerned about elbow room so that I can eat with out having to deform my body.

Kind of why I prefer A320 Over 737-8

 

[anat0l]

Surveys may say that, but I wonder what the truth is when confronted with the alternatives.

TG at one point had both layouts - a 10 abreast with greater seat pitch, and 9 abreast with lesser seat pitch (total seat count was the same). It is the 9 abreast layout that remains. I wonder why that is?

Well be that as it may... I assume Boeing did its homework with real test mock-ups. They don't make up all those mock-ups for no reason.

I know BA at one point did the same thing (except didn't alter the pitch - just went from 9 abreast to 10 then back to 9). A similar consumer backlash I believe lead to reverting to 9 abreast.

I was surprised by Boeing's findings too, to be honest.

To be fair, NZ's pitch is 32-33", compared to EK which is 33-34", so not a big deal and 1" greater than most other Y cabins in the Western world. Plus, with slim line seats, there's more living room, so 32-33" goes a little longer way.

 

[Flying Fox]

For what its worth, only their 77W fleet is 10-abreast Y. Their 772 fleet is 9-abreast.

Not wanting to be a smarty pants but the interior cabin width on both the B77W and B772 are the same at 5.86M.

 

[Fruitcake]

Not wanting to be a smarty pants but the interior cabin width on both the B77W and B772 are the same at 5.86M.

Correct. That's what this thread is about. 10 seats vs 9 seats in the same space.

 

[serfty]

There was quite a bit of angst in the FT NZ forum on going to 10 across for the 77W (from the 9 on the existing 772's).

I think would be more published regarding EK 777's in this as they have had 10 across for much longer.

FWIW, AA's new 77W also has 10 across in economy.

 

[anat0l]

There was quite a bit of angst in the FT NZ forum on going to 10 across for the 77W (from the 9 on the existing 772's).

I think would be more published regarding EK 777's in this as they have had 10 across for much longer.

FWIW, AA's new 77W also has 10 across in economy.

Now that I think about it, AC's refurbished 777s with PE also has Y at 10 abreast. And of course, the AC board on FT was not happy.

 

[madrooster]

Plus, with slim line seats, there's more living room, so 32-33" goes a little longer way.

That highlights how we are technically comparing apples and oranges when comparing seat pitch. I say this because some airlines have newer slimline seats and some have the older thicker seats (EK A330 especially...).

A friend of mine (infrequent flyer) who recently flew with me on the QF A380 was saying that he felt there was more legroom (based on being able to stretch his legs out fully flat without reclining) on the QF A380 (31 inch pitch) compared to some asian carriers he has been on where the pitch is > 31 inch, eg. CZ with 35 inch (according to Seatguru).