I don't care how well designed the seat is, how thinner the armrests are, etc, etc.
3-4-3 is worse than 2-5-2 or 3-3-3. PERIOD.
And it is not only about space for your butt but shoulder room too.
I've sat next to wide framed guys, just like me, on 738s and 320s and it was beyond uncomfortable. I can't imagine what it is going to feel like on a777 343 config.
Interesting revelation, do we know the pitch and width of the seats?
17" width with 31" pitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpetekYXMD80
I've investigated and number crunched a little to put together this comparison of these new economy configurationa.
10 abreast 777
-a fairly unprecedented ... cruncher
-16.5-17" seats
-Aisles 3-4" narrower than usual
-in terms of avg lateral width per seat, just about exactly the equal of the 9-abreast Air Transat A310. Yeah.
-While the seat may be as wide as a 787 or 747, IMO it's almost impossible to get any kind of general feeling of comfort or spaciousness in that kind of environment.
The aisles are not 3-4" narrower. In terms of average lateral width per seat, you're getting exactly the same as you would on an AA narrowbody aircraft. The shoulder and eye level width is better than any Airbus widebody, particularly for the window seat passenger.
The aisles are not 3-4" narrower. In terms of average lateral width per seat, you're getting exactly the same as you would on an AA narrowbody aircraft. The shoulder and eye level width is better than any Airbus widebody, particularly for the window seat passenger.
In a recent thread in the DL forum, you insisted that new seats would run several million dollars per aircraft, on average. Would AA really spend several million dollars times 47 aircraft to retrofit the existing 777 fleet with 3-4-3 seating in economy?
I can understand airline spending millions of dollars on new premium seating (because of the premium fares), but a couple hundred million dollars or more to add some uncomfortably tight economy seating?
Not sure if this was already posted but EK is also 3 4 3 and while the BEST service and comfort in J and F, Westerners know to stay away from EK Y. The blasted seats just have no room. They made a strategic decision based on demographics that show more Y passengers come from Asia (especially India and Pakistan where the people are smaller (not my words, this is what a sr vp w EK told me back in the day when the first 773's were being delivered. Of course they did not fly to the States then of have 3X daily service to almost every major city in Europe. It's no fun to be back there in Y on a 14+ hour flight unless your the size of Ghandi
Programs: HHonors Gold, no status on UA, AA, NH, JL
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
The aisles are not 3-4" narrower. In terms of average lateral width per seat, you're getting exactly the same as you would on an AA narrowbody aircraft. The shoulder and eye level width is better than any Airbus widebody, particularly for the window seat passenger.
But if I'm flying TPAC then comparisons to AA narrowbodies don't really matter. What matters is what the others are doing. Why fly AA-operated PVG-LAX when you could fly JL PVG-NRT-LAX and get more comfortable seats and better service? Or UA non-stop, where they'll have the wider seats, if not the better service? And I would take an Airbus widebody in 2-4-2 over a 777 in 3-4-3; I *strongly* prefer to have the wiggle room.
Though speaking of JL, they do have aircraft in 3-4-3 configuration, but they have the good sense to stick to 3-3-3 on international routes, which AA doesn't seem to want to do.
Why fly AA-operated PVG-LAX when you could fly JL PVG-NRT-LAX and get more comfortable seats and better service? Or UA non-stop, where they'll have the wider seats, if not the better service? And I would take an Airbus widebody in 2-4-2 over a 777 in 3-4-3; I *strongly* prefer to have the wiggle room.
Why? Because for the average person, when AA comes up at the top of the list on orbitz they will choose it.
In a recent thread in the DL forum, you insisted that new seats would run several million dollars per aircraft, on average. Would AA really spend several million dollars times 47 aircraft to retrofit the existing 777 fleet with 3-4-3 seating in economy?
I can understand airline spending millions of dollars on new premium seating (because of the premium fares), but a couple hundred million dollars or more to add some uncomfortably tight economy seating?
The 777-200ER "refresh" will be quite expensive, but after reconfiguration, they'll have 20 more Y seats to sell, plus a Business Class and Premium Economy product that people will actually want to buy.
I expect the ROI is quite attractive. In contrast, you have a negative ROI if you're replacing seats on a narrowbody aircraft without increasing the seat count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamar
But if I'm flying TPAC then comparisons to AA narrowbodies don't really matter. What matters is what the others are doing. Why fly AA-operated PVG-LAX when you could fly JL PVG-NRT-LAX and get more comfortable seats and better service? Or UA non-stop, where they'll have the wider seats, if not the better service? And I would take an Airbus widebody in 2-4-2 over a 777 in 3-4-3; I *strongly* prefer to have the wiggle room.
Though speaking of JL, they do have aircraft in 3-4-3 configuration, but they have the good sense to stick to 3-3-3 on international routes, which AA doesn't seem to want to do.
Well, if you're in a window seat, the personal space on an Airbus widebody is actually much, much worse due to the curvature of the sidewall. If that extra inch is really that important to you, by all means, fly another airline.
Boeing and airlines have done extensive research on 10 abreast on a 777 and it is not as repelling as most people claim. Also, there's nothing to indicate a slightly wider seat materially improves demand or yields.
plus a ... Premium Economy product that people will actually want to buy.
Errrr, no, it isn't a Premium Economy product by any stretch of the imagination - it's pretty much back to todays product with a tad more leg room. Compared to BA, QF, JL, CX etc. it's half baked and no reason whatsoever to choose AA over most foreign carriers that fly the same routes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Boeing and airlines have done extensive research on 10 abreast on a 777 and it is not as repelling as most people claim. Also, there's nothing to indicate a slightly wider seat materially improves demand or yields.
I think you've overlooked BA's experience. Some of their 777's started out with 10-wide seat and had to be converted to 9-wide because the customers disliked it so much.
__________________
Frequent travel - it broadens a lot more than the mind....
Errrr, no, it isn't a Premium Economy product by any stretch of the imagination - it's pretty much back to todays product with a tad more leg room. Compared to BA, QF, JL, CX etc. it's half baked and no reason whatsoever to choose AA over most foreign carriers that fly the same routes.
It is Premium Economy insomuch that it is better than the standard economy product and can be sold for a revenue premium. Of course, AA would never be able to get pricing at the level of WT+ or other Premium Economy products.
I have to agree that there's no reason to choose AA over most foreign carriers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernardd
I think you've overlooked BA's experience. Some of their 777's started out with 10-wide seat and had to be converted to 9-wide because the customers disliked it so much.
I don't think you can say customer backlash over a 3 high-density LGW-based 777s was more of a driver than BA's fleet standardization program.
Why? Because for the average person, when AA comes up at the top of the list on orbitz they will choose it.
Agreed. Sadly, because of this reason, I would not be surprised to see more airlines move toward 10 abreast in 777s in the future. Already, we have EK, AF, KL, NZ and potentially AA.
But the loyal flyers will be in MCE. I'd give up 1 inch of width in order to get 4 inches of legroom. I think that this is a good deal for loyal flyers.
To get real: a lot of AA elites on these planes will end up in the 3-4-3 section under these plans -- that's not a good deal for AA elites.
.... let's just wait and see what proportion of AA elites will have to pony up money to stay in a 3-3-3 section on these AA planes, but it is certain that with these plans it is to be far more than it currently is -- that's not a good deal for AA elites.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.
People want cheap fares ; the lower the cost that's wanted , something has to give
If AA is going to 3-3-3 plus 3-4-3, then they are still offering a less crowded section for those prepared to pay higher prices and of course, if people did dislike it, they can always book on other airlines; would be v unlikely that a 777 would be running to a destination where no other options exist
I have flown 3-4-3 on a 777 once. NEVER again. If you have never experienced this horrid cabin, you will do it only once. This is the worst mistake that AA could have made with their fleet renewal. For those that say "oh, I will be upgraded or in more room", wait until there are IROPS and you aren't. It is absolute torture. I fly over 100,000 miles a year, and I would simply rather not fly than fly in a 10 abreast 777. I hope AA reconsiders.
But the loyal flyers will be in MCE. I'd give up 1 inch of width in order to get 4 inches of legroom. I think that this is a good deal for loyal flyers.
...and if you don't end up in MCE....weather/IROPS/misconnect?
You have no idea what you are talking about with the comfort level of 1 less inch of width. KL AF and NZ (in addition to some European package sellers) are flying these. They are HORRIBLE. Until you sit on one for 10+ hours, your statement is reckless and uninformed. After flying NZ, I had a hard time believing to was even legal to put people in that type of environment.
