Welcome the Qantas 787's :)

[Ansett]

And the A350 is even bigger than the 787

[TABLE="class: wikitable"][TR][TD]Fuselage width[/TD][TD="colspan: 3"]5.96 m (19.6 ft)[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Seat width



[/TD][TD="colspan: 3"]18.0 in (45.7 cm) in standard 9-abreast economy
16.8 in (42.7 cm) in 10-abreast high density economy[SUP][186]






[/SUP][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

Here is a good comparison between the 787 and A350

Airbus A350 XWB vs Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Which new long-haul carrier is best? | Stuff.co.nz

 

[dajop]

I have never been on a B787 but it seems like lots of people dislike the 3-3-3 config in Y.

By my research the fuselage of the A330 is 5.28m vs B787 at 5.49m. So my question is why do people find the A330 more comfortable when the B787 is wider?

On 787 you have one extra seat. If your research is correct, 21cm extra width. Typical seat width is 17.5" = 44.5cm. I guess something has to give, usually a little bit narrower seat and narrower aisle. Although to be honest I don't know why people like 330's so much. They too seem quite narrow. A 3-3-3 configured 777 is generally much more spacious, even though it is less "couple friendly". Which brings me to the main reason why people don't like 3-3-3 on 787. It is neither spacious nor couple friendly.

Having said that I've found 787 ok. I think it depends. If you are lucky enough to have narrow shoulders, or broad shoulders and sit next to someone with narrow shoulders it will be Ok. A row full of broad shouldered strangers = bad.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A 787 3-3-3 would be spacious compared with an A330 at 3-3-3 (offered by Air Asia). At 16.5 inches that's rather tight.

 

[Flying Fox]

And the A350 is even bigger than the 787

[TABLE="class: wikitable"][TR][TD]Fuselage width[/TD][TD="colspan: 3"]5.96 m (19.6 ft)[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Seat width



[/TD][TD="colspan: 3"]18.0 in (45.7 cm) in standard 9-abreast economy
16.8 in (42.7 cm) in 10-abreast high density economy[SUP][186]






[/SUP][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

Here is a good comparison between the 787 and A350

Airbus A350 XWB vs Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Which new long-haul carrier is best? | Stuff.co.nz

With the B777 quoted as 5.87m wide; does that mean airlines will go 10 abreast for the A350?

 

[Aussie_flyer]

With the B777 quoted as 5.87m wide; does that mean airlines will go 10 abreast for the A350?

777 cabin width 5.84 m
A350 cabin width 5.61 m

Cabin and fuselage width aren't the same thing.

 

[Altair]

Blame the 3-3-3 Y 787 seating on UA, ET, AI, LA and QR. The 787 was designed for 8 across. The first two carriers to get them, NH and JL, fitted them with 8 across. Every other carrier that has gotten them since has fitted with 9 across with NH reconfiging theirs to match because it was "industry standard". JL now uses 8 across as a selling point.


The windows used to have problems and didn't go dark enough. That issue has been fixed. The problem with the windows now is that they can be centrally controlled by the cabin crew who can also lock the settings and prevent pax from changing the tinting.

The 787 was hyped up by Boeing regarding passenger comfort. They can talk about the cabin pressure/humidity/lighting but they fact is they always knew that 9 across in WHY was what the airlines were basing their analysis on. In fact in one of the earlier pitches the to EK for the original A350 Airbus was told that EK was not interested as the A350 cabin was too narrow for 9 across (Airbus had proposed the same fuselage width as the A300/310/330/340 to reduce the production cost) using the same seats as the 777 (they even tried to put them in the cabin demonstrator). Boeing used the 9 across to get the LCC to buy and publicly presented 8 across for the "premium" image.
In regards to noise well Boeing to reduce weight reduced the insulation with Randy even blogging about how A380 passengers were complaining about how it was too quiet so a 787 with similar noise levels to a 777 was considered acceptable.
Personally I have not flown a 787 and will try to avoid it, along with a 777, as much as possible, even changing routing and carriers. I have also read the A350 is not too much different but will read more reviews as more airlines fly it.

 

[Jacques Vert]

Seems to me that 3-3-3 is necessary for QF and others to get the fares down to a minimum which is what most pax want, many of whom don't fly often enough to care and don't know any better having never sat up front.

Those of us who like to be comfortable but not willing or able to pay for J (and don't have enough points) can always go PE assuming QF price it at a reasonable level. I understand premium will be 2-3-2 which sounds good to me: waiting and hoping that they get the rest of PE right.

 

[JohnK]

True. Except AirAsia X managed to squeeze 9 abreast on the A330. Are they the only ones with that configuration? You couldn't pay me to sit in their economy cabin!

The 9 abreast wasn't the problem with Air Asia X.

 

[bismarck]

9 abreast on LATAM's 787 was very tight. Was super glad to have a shadow. Still getting getting my shoulder bumped every time someone walked down the aisle though because it's so narrow.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Seems to me that 3-3-3 is necessary for QF and others to get the fares down to a minimum which is what most pax want, many of whom don't fly often enough to care and don't know any better having never sat up front.

Those of us who like to be comfortable but not willing or able to pay for J (and don't have enough points) can always go PE assuming QF price it at a reasonable level. I understand premium will be 2-3-2 which sounds good to me: waiting and hoping that they get the rest of PE right.

Its nothing to do with Y pax not knowing better because they havent sat up front. They DO know better because they've flown on 747/380/330 in Y and are far more comfortable. 787s in Y with 9 abreast have an absolutely terrible reputation as is more than evident in this thread.

 

[eastwest101]

Its nothing to do with Y pax not knowing better because they havent sat up front. They DO know better because they've flown on 747/380/330 in Y and are far more comfortable. 787s in Y with 9 abreast have an absolutely terrible reputation as is more than evident in this thread.

Good point - its common knowledge here on AFF and with improved ability of customers to compare/choose and communicate information about 'uncomfortable' seating - thanks to the internet and incresing use of social media and pictures with review sites and improved ability to do 'research' on specific aircraft and airlines I expect that less frequent flyers may start to become more aware about the differences in seat pitch and width, just as they are now aware of things such as fuel prices and airfares. I think the 9 abreast B787 may have just imperceptibly passed the point of 'gee thats a lot of seats but thats how the tickets are so cheap' to something like "this is starting to feel a bit claustrophobic and I think I'll do some research before booking next time." On the proposed/suggested QF B787 routes remember that pax will often have from 12-18 hours to think about it as well.

 

[dajop]

Scan always go PE assuming QF price it at a reasonable level.

That's a big call ("reasonable level").

I often wonder what the market would be for a slightly wider seat, without the extra service or extra pitch/recline? On a 787 with 3-3-3, put in 2 or 3 rows of 2-4-2 seats, and sell them at a premium of 12.5% to the average fare paid (say average economy fare SYD-LHR return is $2500, upsell the wider seat for $150 each direction, rather than the much larger increase in price to Y+.

I am 6', but cope with 31" pitch, and easily cope with 32" pitch seats, it's the width that usually makes it most uncomfortable.

 

[Jacques Vert]

Its nothing to do with Y pax not knowing better because they havent sat up front. They DO know better because they've flown on 747/380/330 in Y and are far more comfortable. 787s in Y with 9 abreast have an absolutely terrible reputation as is more than evident in this thread.

Good point - its common knowledge here on AFF and with improved ability of customers to compare/choose and communicate information about 'uncomfortable' seating - thanks to the internet and incresing use of social media and pictures with review sites and improved ability to do 'research' on specific aircraft and airlines I expect that less frequent flyers may start to become more aware about the differences in seat pitch and width....

Fair comments but I'm not sure how many have become that savvy.

The pax I was talking about don't know what type of plane they are on even when they are still sitting in the seat; not convinced that they will take seat width into account when booking their flights....I grant you that some will, but I don't think they will be in the majority.

I suspect that if an airline went 2-4-2 and charged extra as a result, then they would have empty seats on planes. I hope I am wrong but I would suggest that there is a significant %'age of pax that only consider cost.

OTOH, my main point was that those of us who do realise that the seat width is unacceptable, would prefer better service as well, but can't/won't pay the extra $ to fly J, could fly W if the price point stacks up (wishful thinking maybe but here's hoping).

In our case, +1 & I mostly travel as a couple and a 2-3-2 config in W would suit us very nicely if the price is right.

 

[Jacques Vert]

I am 6', but cope with 31" pitch, and easily cope with 32" pitch seats, it's the width that usually makes it most uncomfortable.

I hear you.

I once arranged to move my seat to sit next to a work colleague from SYD to DRW on a 734 (3-3). Didn't even think about the fact that he was over 6' and very broad across the shoulders (and elsewhere). I found myself squashed between him and another guy who was considerably bigger.

The only time I managed to take a deep breath of air was when I got up to go to the loo. I practiced shallow breathing for the remainder of the flight.