scnzzz

Umm, not LCC, but both AA and AC ex-HKG have 3-4-3 in Y. Who knows, maybe UA will join this too with their rumored 77W order.

cartman7110

Crikey also does not like it.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...my-passengers/

QRC3288

No it won't be an issue.

And fyi, just for trivia sake EWR is CX's longest+heaviest mission, also using the 77G like YYZ but farther. JFK is basically identical to EWR's distance but uses 77H (as does BOS, second farthest after EWR/JFK, and ORD also uses 77H), which has 65 fewer passengers in the pax compartment, lightening the load significantly.

Cathay Boy

I know Airbus has patented the three-levels flatbed style economy "seats", maybe that is the future.

percysmith

I think this will impact the 773 and 77W fleets only. A333 in 3-3-3 is really an exclusively LCC configuration and I believe a 3-4-3 A350 will be too.

If CX goes 3-4-3 on the 77Ws, gonna take a more serious look at EY and QR, depending on who can give me a A380/330 flight. Or AY if the price is right.

Eastbound, JL and KE and OW are gonna get a much closer look at.

If CX adopts 3-4-3 on the A350 I'm gonna start flying Scoot to Aus - probably more comfortable.

Just for clarification I have no problems with seat widths on 2-4-2 A330s - helps since I am usually accompanied either by my wife or mother only, neither as broad as me.

Cathay Boy

My broad shoulders already cause much discomfort in CX-Y, PEY is "just right", but after the new MPC BS the E fare is treated the same as Y, B, H, K? Pathetic.

I'm going to switch to an airline that isn't messing around with seats (AA seems to be destine to offer narrower seats with "no frills" package as well, urgh).

Yes, time to give other Asian airlines that is committed to luxury a serious look.

So far who do we have? Eva, JAL, Korean? (Korean, urgh, still don't trust their pilot training program....)

QRC3288

I don't think the choices are abundant, unfortunately. I know Eva is 9 abreast, and JalPAK says all JAL is 9 across now. I also avoid Asiana and Korean when possible for safety record reasons.

Wait to see what CX does. There's no way this change is coming within the year anyway, given the logistics of conversions. And you can believe every other major global airline is intently watching CX: CX is the second-largest 77W operator in the world after EK. With EK at 10 across but CX at 9, there are still some holdouts. If CX switches to 10, it's going to be hard for competitors to match CX and EK's cost structure in economy. Like EK, CX is simply becoming a longhaul behemoth. I wouldn't be surprised to see other carriers switch to 10 across if CX does.

(unrelated to this thread, but related to the size of CX's 77W fleet is CX's incredible LH growth in the last 7 years...the growth is really remarkable, and coincides with CX's fully delivered 77W fleet....this is tangentially related to the pilot issues coming to light now. Not too long ago, CX had a much greater percentage of its capacity focused on regional and mid-haul flying. In recent years, a much larger percentage of seat capacity has been added on long-haul and ultra long-haul routes and I suspect this is leading to some of the current pilot issues coming to light).

Nicc HK

With the changes to MPC programme and the rumoured changes to seating, has CX hired the love child of Ernst-Stavro Blofeld and Dr. Evil?

CX seems to have mated the diabolical (MPC) with the outrageous (10 across).

Any white cats with their masters wondering around Cathay City?

JALPak

Just to be clear, JAL int'l configured 777 (not counting JAS') has always been 9 abreast. Only domestic ones are 10 abreast.

luckypierre

UA has ordered 10 300 (swap for a Dreamliner order). Consensus on the UA board seems they will go with 10 across seating arrangement (unfortunately). I don't believe they have announced their decision.

percysmith

Just as a comparison, general averages on each type of equipment (trying to be airline-neutral and preferring measurements that give one decimal point):

777 10-abreast: 17.2 inches https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/1...o-matter-spin/
787 9-abreast: 17.2 inches http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...ying-on-a-787/
737: 17.2 inches http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/...or-boeing-737/
A320: 17.7 inches http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/...or-boeing-737/
A330/340: 17.8 inches http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Cat...bus_A340_E.php
777 9-abreast: 18.5 inches http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Cat...77-300ER_A.php
747: 17.5 inches http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Cat...00_Class_4.php
A380: 18.5 inches http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qat...irbus_A380.php

From my experience in the back:
777 10-abreast: Very uncomfotable (above)
787 9-abreast: OK if not full. May be more uncomfortable if full
737: noticeably more cramped than an A320
A320: reasonably comfortable
A330/340: comfortable
777 9-abreast: very comfortable
747: minimum level I will accept for long-haul/if I have to sleep
A380: very comfortable (I think sxc's description is apt)

percysmith

I find airlines going to 10-abreast 777 either because they need to be cheap, or because they can http://backcountryroads.blogspot.hk/...nz1-la-to.html . I think CX is thinking it belongs to the latter.

Asian airlines that are competitive on transfer business don't: SQ, BR, CZ, KE, OZ. Though there are exceptions now: NH, CI

SinoBritAsia

@percysmith: I really want to experience BA 787-9 in Y with the wider seats adopted because the 787-8s were branded awful by pretty much all pax

percysmith

Mine's a Scoot 787-9 http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Sco...ng_787-900.php

I think the seat width is definitely overstated since the cabin width is 787-8 http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/...7-9-Dreamliner . Unless because there's no trolleys the aisle width is reduced below 15-inch?

Cathay Boy

Hmm... 787-9 is only longer but definitely not wider, maybe it's another psychological effect people have (newer is better all around).

But on the other hand all of my colleagues that flew on 787 swore it's the best experiences they have. They feel more more comfortable and fresher compared to other long-haul planes (makes sense since 787 claims to have lower elevation air quality).

If CX goes 10 abreast I would jump to JAL's 787s.