Originally Posted by
dmsdfw
Sad thing is, I think he's probably right. I was in 19K the other day, which is a middle bulkhead seat that has effectively unlimited legroom but no room width-wise at all. I spent the whole journey feeling squeezed from both sides, and the other people in the row were not overly large by any means. I'm not sure the window or aisle would have been much better, especially given the narrow aisles.
It was bearable for a two hour domestic flight, but I will definitely try and avoid this plane in Y for anything international.
It's been said numerous times: 2-5-2 economy seating is far superior to 3-3-3 and is preferred by passengers. That middle seat in the block of five isn't occupied until the load factor exceeds 89%. With 3-3-3, someone is stuck in a middle seat once the load factor exceeds 66%. Everyone agrees that the 2-3 arrangement of the MD-80s is a plus (on the two-side, AB on AA), and yet AA has abandoned its long-standing 2-5-2 preference on its widebodies. With 2-5-2, there just aren't that many mandatory middle seats, and middle seats just plane suck.
I understand that blocks of two don't work in the back of the 777s where AA is going 10-across, but there was no reason to abandon 2-5-2 for the MCE sections. It's nice of AA to keep the wider seats for MCE on the 777s, but arranging them 3-3-3 is just plane stupid.
AA's joint venture partner across the Pacific is sticking with its more humane 2-4-2 econ seating on its 787s even as they're reconfigured with the lie-flat J seats (replacing the slanty J seats). If AA wanted to be a leader, it should have arranged the 787 MCE in a humane 2-4-2 configuration.