cerealmarketer

I was reading a puff piece about Virgin Atlantic's 787 in Economy and how cushy it is.

https://www.yahoo.com/travel/mood-li...760799312.html

Then saw it is 9 abreast.

Someone commented "it's no wider than a 737".

Which got me thinking (maybe not good, since I cannot spell headlines correctly)...

I have glossed by the many complaints about the 787 9 abreast configuration, how it's absurdly tight and skimping on width.

And I was under the impression it set a new low for seat width only matched by the 10 abreast 777, and worse than a garden variety 737. Which is pretty bad.

Then I did some homework...

I was surprised to see the 747, at least on United, has only 17" of seat width.

And at least the claim is the Dreamliner has 17.2".

Neither are anything to boast about, and terribly uncomfortable.

But we've been putting up with that 747 seat width for over 25 years now on the longest routes possible.

If that width is true - just 17 or so inches...then in that regard I have some sympathy for the execs who chose 9 vs 8 abreast on the Dreamliner.

Maybe it's that the aisles are so narrow on the 787?

skidooman

Quite honestly, I actively avoid both the 747 and 787. In that last case, because of the width problem.

I just don't see the point flying the 787 in a 9-across config.

sbm12

Don't forget that seat width does not have an industry standard metric the way pitch does. Even within the same company the published numbers could be looking at different dimensions.

For the 787s currently flying 9-across there are seat width numbers published ranging from 16.9" to 18" and they're mostly all using the same seats.

mduell

Yep, they're just as narrow, and with even less padding on some airlines.

emcampbe

Which is why I prefer Airbus aircraft. I must admit that I'm no expert on aircraft design, etc. but believe the fuselage is wider and so the seats tend to be wider on Airbus then similar sized Boeing aircraft. I think most or maybe even all Airbus aircraft are pretty standard at 18" wide for Y seats, and were designed to be that way. Airbus even suggested a year ago that should be the standard for long-haul flights in Y.

jacknyoc

Related question, please. I've read some of the related posts about 787 seat widths. My wife and I are flying UA Econ. IAH-London. I've read there isn't really much comfort difference between Econ and Econ+. We normally don't have too much trouble with UA's 757, 767 and even 777 seat configurations. But this is first 787 experience and curious based on high number of posts about its seats. Many thanks.

timfountain

It's economy, it's going to suck. E+ gives you more legroom and that's it. If you are a 6'8" tall, 6" wide stick insect you will appreciate it. Otherwise it is the same surly E- service and an equal opportunity for thrombosis. More on point, I did not feel the 787 was any different to any other aluminum (or composite) tube, 6 miles above the earth and hurtling along at 500MPH.

State of Trance

I flew on a UA 787 not too long ago and it really wasn't noticeably different compared to your typical UA Y seat.

Here's a legroom shot I took (in Y-):


If anything, the Y experience was improved by the new IFE equipment installed in the 787 seats. Since y'all seem to do fine on the rest of UA's fleet, I wouldn't worry about it.

chris19992

A lot of the airlines that have bought 787's seem to be running them in extreme economy configs for some reason, take Quatar for example, they offer well over 18" on their 777's but only a miserable 17.2" on the 787 AND they have a weird IFE box protruding from each seat taking up leg space.

Dreamliners were not built for comfort it would seem and I for one will not be flying in one again.

tonywestsider

Agreed. When Boeing initially marketed the 787, they designed the economy class cabin to be optimized for eight abreast seating. The "high density" nine across configuration came later. There are some carriers that are flying with eight abreast seating in economy, which are some of the Japanese carriers. NH and JL would offer these versions on their long haul routes.

JDiver

AA was stuck with the legacy design issue - all narrow body fuselage tubes are essentially 707 diameter; 707, 727, 737 regardless of generation, 757. Airbus began with a de novo design for the A320 family, and the fuselage tube diameter is indeed slightly more than the 707 tube; this means Airbus customers can have coach seats with a bit more width, and Airbus will, of course, take every opportunity to put Boeing's face in it.

But the differences in seat width are less than amazing, shall we say.

jrl767

the fuselages of all Boeing narrow-body jets (707, 720, 727, 737, 757) have the same interior diameter since they were built on essentially the same tooling

as JDiver stated, Airbus established a slightly larger fuselage diameter for the A320 series (A318/319/321)

**HOWEVER** both airframers provides only the seat tracks as part of the fuselage; the seats themselves are Buyer-Furnished Equipment (BFE) ... seat designers and manufacturers of course work with the interior fuselage dimensions when sizing their products, and the airlines select particular seat configurations/layouts to optimize whatever they choose to optimize on their various aircraft

Cloudship

An example of this is the a320. some airlines got seats which were 18in wide, taking advantage of the extra width of the A320 cabin. Some airlines, however, went with 17in wide seats, standardizing across their other (Boeing) aircraft, for extra cost savings. The extra room went into the aisle and between the seats and the wall.

Bear4Asian

The difference between a 747 and 787 couch seat is minimal. Both pretty narrow. BUT two things make the 787 seat a bit better. More aisle-side armrests lift up which gives one a bit more "room" and the armrests themselves are a bit narrower ( it seems to me).

I also look to fly Airbus beacause the seem to be @ 18". And that makes a difference to my wide body.

jrl767

what airlines are you flying that offer "couch" seats?