Air Houston

Thanks!

phkc070408

So we're all disappointed about the 10 across on the 77W. I was just looking on UA.com and see that the seat width on the 77W is 17.05", but it is only 17" on the sCO 772.

I was thinking about places to steal space from and the only places that I can think are taking the aisles down to the minimum requirement, the armrests, and maybe pushing the window seat closer to the wall, but it seams like a stretch to get another 17 inches out of all of this.

If this is actually how they got the room for the extra seat, it definitely makes the window seat more cramped and does bring people's shoulders closer together., but the space between the armrests is pretty much the same. Does anyone know of any other sources of width that could have been used to gain a few inches?

Continuing the subject, if anyone has flown in Y on both the 772 and the 77W, I would love to hear how much worse the 10x actually is.

sbm12

The seat width numbers reported on the websites are mostly useless because there is no common/standard rule about what to measure to report.

The aisle is narrower. The armrest is narrower. The seat itself is narrower. These are facts.

phkc070408

Wishful thinking that things were actually not as bad as they seemed. :-/

halls120

I have flown on 772s that are 9 across and 772s that are 10 across in Y. The seat on the 10 across is narrower, no matter what fantasies are posted on airline web pages.

3Cforme

The Feds - with the child seat fit guide mandated on carrier web pages - did define a standard seat width measurement as the distance between the inside of the armrests for that seat. One might see something like '16.3-17.2 inches' in coach, with the narrow measurement at seats with the tray in the arm rest. Since this is a CFR compliance issue one might expect to see more accurate info than provided by SeatGuru, etc.

As for aisle and arm rest width measurements, good luck to the OP.

oopl

If you're sitting in Y, go with the 772.

spin88

There is a certain width to an aircraft at floor length, every airplane has it, and it is a fixed number. Out of it comes the Aisles, which are 19" on nearly every aircraft in coach. If one does not consider the curvature of the plane (which will give a little extra at waist and shoulder height on a wide-body, and at waist height on a narrower body, and can slightly vary by plane type) one can devide this floor space by the number of seats, after taking out 19" aisles. I did this and get the following figures:

-A380 (at 10x, lower deck) has 21.8”/seat (at 8x, upper deck) has 23.8"/seat
-777 (at 9x) has 21.3"/seat
-763 (at 7x) has 21.2”/seat
-A320 (at 6x) has 21.2”/seat

-A330/330neo (at 8x) has 20.8"/seat
- A350 (at 9x) has 20.3”/seat
-747 (at 10x) has 20.2”/seat
-737/757 (at 6x) has 20”/seat

-787 (at 9x) has 19.8"/seat
-777x (at 10x) has 19.7/seat

United though has gone with 18" aisles on the 77W, which is why you get bumped in aisle seats more on this plane, and with those extra 2" of width added to the seats, the 77W/772 (as being retrofited by United) is:

-777 (at 10x, using 18” aisles as UA is, which is why they are so narrow) has 19.4”/seat

So if you consider the actual space of seat pan and arm rest, and any extra space to the wall, the 3-4-3 777 gives .6" less space than a 737, and 1.9" less space than the current 3-3-3 configuration. Then to repeat, it has narrower aisles.

Finally, the 3-4-3 has supports that obstruct the foot space in the middle 4 block, so its even less comfortable in those seats.

And I think these type of figures are a more accurate reflection of actual confort than the fake figures that United (and other airlines using these tight configurations) are using.

And if you want to see what these seats feel like, check out the horrible reviews that they are getting on Seat Guru from the larger American travelers who are being squeezed into them.

bocastephen

I've flown the AA 10x777 and I can tell you from first hand experience, the seat is a significant downgrade to any other coach airline seat I've ever experienced. If you've ever flown on a CR200 or a DH3, you have an idea of the personal space you would have on the 777 seat. If you're unhappy spending 2hrs on a CR200 or 1hr on a DH3, then I can assure you won't like 10+hrs on a 10x 777 regardless of the airline.

spin88

I did not fly (I was in J) but sat in the 77W E+ seat, and 100% agree. If you are a larger male (for example my jacket size is a 46L) unless the seat next to you is empty, or there is a child next to you, you will be shoulder to shoulder for the entire flight, and your arms will be touching the entire time. Two small women/kids can set side by side, but a regular size American is going to be very uncomfortable.

Exleftseat

Here in Japan I received an advertising e-mail from UA yesterday titled "Fly our new 777-300ER between San Francisco and Tokyo". The pictures of the Polaris cabin don't look too bad, although
they are far from being a "wow factor". How about this : For "customers in our United Economy® seats, high ceilings allow for the overhead storage bins to almost disappear, giving travelers a broader view of the aircraft interior. Thanks to the 777's nearly vertical sidewalls, those with a window seat will benefit from additional headspace. The LED mood lighting throughout the cabin creates an environment that helps you settle in for work, leisure, or rest." Work, leisure or rest in a 3-4-3 configuration? Of course they cannot mention the cramped seats in the back, so "additional headspace" is the new punchline. Since FA's request that the window shades are down about five minutes into the flight, what are the benefits of a window seat anyway? Well, headspace of course?
My condolences to those having to fly in the back.

jjmoore

I'm worried I am going to be one of those suffering in the back next month. Even as a GS with GPU applied to a refundable fare (purchased back in Dec), no dice on clearing. Now, many seats are gone, and I'm worried that it will be booked full by departure date. If that's the case, I am going to hope for irrops out of SIN so I can get the more comfortable B789 directly to SFO.

minnyfly

I've flown the same seat and have encountered quite a few more uncomfortable seats over the years. It's a little tighter, but the seat itself is good. Long-haul in Y isn't fun no matter what. I'm not booking away from it.

spin88

As a silver, flying on deep discount tickets, as you have admitted before, what you do will not have a material impact on United. What matters is what business travelers, who are buying a week or so out - when flights are generally more expensive - will do. These folks tend to be repeat travelers, and more knowledgeable about what experience they can get when they buy a ticket, they often have options.

Looking at SFO-HKG (A route I fly often) for next week (out Monday, back Friday) UA is $1179 on the 3-4-3 77W, CX is $1830, and SQ is $2255. That price delta is huge: United's product is simply not competitive in Y with this plane, and as more people figure that out, it will put more and more pressure on last minute pricing.

coolbeans202

I agree that the seats are just a little tighter, but for whatever reason, that "little tighter" means a world of difference with my body frame. I am fine flying EWR-HKG in Y on a 9-abreast 777, but I had physical pain in one of my legs and lower back from not being able to sit up straight on a 10-abreast 777 flying ORD-SFO. I will avoid 10-abreast at all costs.