mdb

I think that NWA with the 787 has an opportunity to steal business from other long haul carriers if they outfit the cabin with "just a little more room." I believe that a coach product with 34-36" pitch and 19" wide seats(and of course AVOD) would do VERY well indeed and allow NWA to either charge more - or steal customers.

themicah

Right now the FAs on long-hauls ask pax to close their shades because the sun makes it hard for people to sleep, and see their IFE screens. And even if you do want to look out the window, when it's dark inside and super-bright outside, it can be uncomfortable for your eyes looking out the window and then looking back in.

The whole point of the LCD shutter windows is that it will give pax the choice of opening/closing their shades in a way that interferes far less with those sitting next to them. The LCD system isn't designed to shut the windows, but to dim them by providing electronically controllable variable tint. On long-hauls, the crew will be able to select a dark setting so that if pax want to look out the window, they can do so without bothering others around them as much (the windows will have a dark tint like on a limo). Those who want their windows closed completely will still be able to do so--except at takeoff and landing where the crew can set all the windows to an open setting.

Personally, I think it's a very clever solution, and hope it actually gets implemented!

Here, however, I'm totally with you. I cannot for the life of me understand why they don't use multiple boarding doors on more flights. JetBlue does it. The Delta Shuttle does it. Many third-world airlines do it. If done properly it would speed up turnaround time, reduce misconnects, make pax happier, and make the crews more time-efficient (by not wasting valuable crew time on boarding). I suppose this belongs in another thread (about ground-ops, not the 787), but I definitely would like to see it happen.

DanKelly

Lets get back on topic.

* Label on top/side of aisle seats with a graphic (ghostbusters style) showing not to pull on the seat back in front of you to get in, but to lean/push on your own seat back.

* If possible have labels in the overhead bins showing a particular width with a seat number. That way it's clear where your overhead space is.

* Label on seat back showing not to push/kick the seat in front of you.

* label on bulkhead floorspace indicating passengers not to stand there if it's not designed with enough room to do so.

* If possible, seats that are more resistant to being pushed / pulled / kicked.

* Positive blockage (Aluminum plate?) between seatback pocket and passenger's back. Some seats you can feel bulges in your back when people jam large items in them.

* If possible have seats a little higher, with footrests for the short folks. This will allow more underseat storage and more leg room for us big guys.

* Seat-bottom to floor blockers at front of seats so items don't go sliding 20 rows up when landing. This will also help against passengers who like to jam stuff under the seat behind them.

* Make at least one galley have a flip-down panel so that in-flight an FA could sit in the gally and dish out water, and snack boxes, etc like at a bar. Install a sensor that records the amount of time it's just closed so that management can have a metric to see unavailable/lazy flight attendants.

* Higher wbc:coach ratio, but don't shorten coach pitch, get rid of the beds like on the 333, and bring back the easy-boys like on the DC10. Those A330 beds are more embarassing than a gass guzzling H1 Hummer SUV. Promote the resulting product as being more environmentally friendly.

* 2-X-2 seating configuration is a must.

* Eliminate any seats that don't fully recline.

* Keep the bassinet seats as far from first class as possible.

* All aisle seats should have flip-up armrests, so that avaialbility of premium seats isn't diluted to handicapped space.

* Any seats that are too small and for crew use only (like those 2 rows on left side of DC10) should be clearly labeled as such.

* Door like barrier between FC and coach with a label "FC Passengers only".

* Dividers between personal foot space might be nice.

* I avoid flying the A330 because the seats seem too narrow, whatever tricks you can do to make them seem wider on the dreamliner would be appreciated.

* If the window shades are electronic, have a slide switch on each seat so that pax in that row can "vote" on state of window, and captain can force open/closed when required instead of FA yelling at pax to open/close it.

* AVOD Improvements over the a330.
- Make AVOD remote disabled while in handrest
- Tighter horizontal/veritcal viewing angle in the AVOD displays so I dont have to see what my neighbor is watching.
- Relocate call button to overhead from handrest/remote.
- Have a real AVOD OFF button on seatback to black out AVOD display. This setting should survive reboots (Nothing like trying to sleep while the captain reboots a faulty AVOD every 5 minutes during a night time x-atlantic, with 250 AVODs flashing bright white each time he does).
- Have a menu item on AVOD showing service schedule (Meal times, drink times, etc).
- Display position in queue for takeoff and landing where applicable.
- Detailed customs references and peculiar local laws for arrival country.
- Airport map showing gate location and directions for your personal connecting flight, including on-time status.

bocastephen

I would like to see a channel 9 and the self serve refreshment station. However, issue number one for me is the seating. This is a brand new aircraft design - a totally clear canvas that can be used to revolutionize the comfort of long haul travel while enabling NWA to jump light years ahead of the competition. Most of their overseas competition ordered the A380, which I believe was a critical mistake. NWA must use this opportunity to reintroduce comfort - cost effective comfort - back into the airline product.

The three main issues with seating are pitch, width and design. I love the Thompson model, but I can't see NWA taking the risk on that - although they should. However, if they stick with a traditional seating layout, I don't want them to ignore the comfort opportunities that Boeing intentionally designed into this aircraft.

Now is the time to decide on the layout as far as pitch and width - I think NWA should consider a E+ option. 34 pitch in standard coach, 38 pitch in E+ (automatically assigned to elites, and sold to non-elites). The width should be a standard 19" with stand-alone chairs - meaning each seat has its own arm rest with abit of clear space between the seats. Use the EMB175 as an example.

Once the layout (width/pitch) is set, I would send a rfp out to the various seat manufacturers for design specs and bids on new seats. Lets see some innovation in design from these companies and let NWA customers and staff try out the prototypes. There is plenty of time to get FAA certs on the new seats before the aircraft start coming off the line.

I would like to see things like better recline with whole seat rotation, adjustable bottom cushion height and length, more supportive cushioning, materials that are temperature neutral, and better head/neck support.

The ball is in NWA's court - they can make this airplane the most comfortable product in the sky, or they can go cheap and drop the ball on this in a big way.

divrdrew

To be honest, my biggest fear with NWA at this point is that their current financial situation will cause them to drop the ball and miss out on a golden opportunity to revolutionize air travel for long distances. Everything said here really should be considered when it pertains to pax comfort.

IIRC, the entire dreamliner project was supposed to be designed with passenger comfort at the forefront and it would be a real pity if NWA dropped the ball on this one. for coach, slightly wider seats, more pitch, more creature comforts (plates in the back of seats, movable armrests, solid trays, ife suggestions, louge area, etc, etc, etc) should all be done, not considered. For biz, tru lay flat beds (like many other carriers) and upgraded service.

Northwest has a VERY rare opportunity here to make a statment with the launch of this aircraft and, if done properly, I think that they can steal a lot of passengers from other airlines for long-haul over-the-pond flights. If they screw this up, they could very well see just the opposite effect.

Sam Drucker

I'm glad somebody mentioned the Pilot's eye view. . . I was actually hoping the A330 would have had this. For the airline, it's cheap entertainment. Maybe some people would be bored, but I wouldn't.

I mis-connected in NRT a few years ago, and got rebooked on an ANA 777 the next day. As we taxied, a camera (apparently mounted on the nose gear) displayed the view ahead. After we retracted the gear on climb-out, a belly camera view was available. It was great.

For those asking for Channel 9 (cockpit comm), why not also offer some actual cockpit instrument displays too. Again, for the airline, it is cheap entertainment (at least for some people).

sllevin

I'm still unconvinced that anything more in coach is good. It just wastes space that I'd rather see made available to Y/B fares for upgrades to WBC. 31" is fine for coach, IMO.

I'm okay with spending 1800 +30,000 miles to fly to Europe in WBC. That's called "rewarding your loyal flyers and get more money from them." When the only choice is no upgrade, then I'm as likely to fly another carrier.

Steve

mdb

For WBC -- true flat beds and 2x2x2 seating allowing for wider seats than the 330 - which are too narrow. THe 787 is just enough wider to allow more comforable 2x2x2 seating... I hope NWA follows Boeings intentions.

Please do NOT make the 767 mistake many airlines have and try to put an extra row in WBC - the difference between CO and DL is amazing on the 767 because CO did not force in another row...

Sam Drucker

That's a rather uppity attitude. Let them be cramped in coach because I don't plan to be there? A few more inches of seat pitch in coach than 31 would make a whale of a difference on a long flight. The point here is to make a coach product that is comfortable for a long haul. These aircraft will be able to stay aloft for 16+ hours, and the majority of the passengers will be in coach. Not everybody can get upgraded, no matter what the ratios are for WBC vs. Coach. When the only choice is no upgrade, what would compel you to prefer the NW787 on a 16 hour flight, compared to getting to your destination on another carrier?

USA_flyer

American tried it with MRTC and they've abandoned it as too costly. I don't see that you're going to get improved pitch or width in economy, the max you'll get is 32/33in pitch.

What I would suggest is better cushioning and fabrics on the seats. I'm not keen on the idea of vinyl/faux leather seat covers so softer but durable covers would be good.

Better head rests would also be good. Something you can lean your head on would be good.

3x3x3 configuration would be good. The plane has to be something like 2/3rds full before you actually have to sit next to someone (I think I read that somewhere).

Put those huge IFE boxes elsewhere please!

And I've robbed this one from DanKelly: Positive blockage (Aluminum plate?) between seatback pocket and passenger's back. Some seats you can feel bulges in your back when people jam large items in them.

bocastephen

AA failed with MRTC because they never marketed it properly. It became part of the their brand in name only - but the true meaning of MRTC and *why* it should appeal to the market was never expanded on. However, jetBlue knows how to market based on product, rather than price - so if done properly, the concept of product superiority and differentiation can be a giant killer in this business.

sllevin

Actually, I've do sometimes fly longhaul coach. Probably about three times a year. And it's pretty okay, broadly speaking. I hate it every time, but sometimes, you have no choice.

However, I would rather see NW focus on providing more premium seats for upgrade (and take the revenue hit that here and there, a loyal customer who might have paid full WBC instead uses money and miles), than the broad revenue hit of making coach nice enough that people fly coach instead of WBC. I just don't see the grand improvement in coach of having more legroom and pulling out seats for that.

Steve

DanKelly

It might be a good idea for peeps to read this info about the dreamliner before posting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

kb1992

Thanks for the link.

According to that website, NW 787 will have 36 WBC seats and 185 Y seats. The ratio is about 1:5, on par with 744, much better than A330.

rtarbuck

I'm impressed! If NWA lives with these samples, I think most of us will be very happy.