JonNYC

Can't say that I do-- I bet some here that follow the industry will have a better idea than I would, I think these things are relatively public. Hopefully someone more familiar with Boeing production/delivery will chime in.

And, on this one, 787-8 just a reminder, this is what I believe the seat set-up to look like:

ccengct

Which implies 9-abreast in both MCE (assuming there is any) and Y. Would be nice to see 8-abreast in MCE, in the same way that AA retained 9-abreast on 77W/77D MCE, but I'm not counting on it.

DiegoSan

9 abreast in Y is a disaster in this aircraft......it achieves new levels of discomfort ...especially at the window seats for anyone delusional enough to think they can prop a pillow against the wall and nap.

JonNYC

This from the TB thread, was passed on to me authoritatively:

HOWEVER, I wasn't sure if that comment applied to -900 version only or -800 and -900.

I lost track a bit of what goes on with the economy section of this config, so, for now, assume TB's seating chart above only meant to accurately depict the business class cabin. Apologies for any confusion caused.


Seat count on -800 is:
28 business
48 MCE
150 economy
and: "8-18 Y before door 3, then 19-30 after door 3."

On -900 is:
28 business
51 MCE
210 economy

nkedel

I wouldn't go that far; it's disappointing, but most non-East-Asian carriers are going with 9-across, and the seat width is (roughly) the same as the 767 with 7. 2-5-2 would have been a much better layout for window seats, but has become broadly unpopular.

8 across for MCE would be very welcome, and its absence is bummer but not really surprising (wasn't it at one point going to be absent on the new 2-class 772? Fortunately, they backtracked on that, or the rumor was false.)

roadwarrior84

Here are some pictures of the interior I found online:

JonNYC

(Airliners.net images)

Very cool, thanks for posting!

Anyone remember who informed the community many months ago-- LONG before it was public knowledge-- that AA was using these seats on its 787's? Yep.

Longboater

Wow these look fantastic, except for the 3-3-3 seating in the back. Unfortunately I think every airline operating the Dreamliner, save JAL, is doing 3-3-3 in economy. As long MCE still has 36 inch pitch, I'll be ok with it.

DiegoSan

That "everyone is doing it" doesn't make it OK. And seat width is only part of my complaint. Distance to the wall from the window seat is a huge factor as is the IFE box.....it's truly pathetic. I won't spend my money on it again after doing it once.

JonNYC

But it does make it a pesky little thing called "today's reality."

DiegoSan

Not for me. I have a choice. BA 777s are still 9 across but the across is much wider! I guess if they go to 10 across in the 772 I'm in trouble. Going to India from California is basically 2 back to back overnight flights and comfort is key. It's a hellish trip as it is.......I'll choose comfort over being surrounded by carbon fiber and rainbow lighting.

UA-NYC

Wow - same biz count and virtually same MCE count on the much larger -900 is pretty rough. Esp. since the -900 is fairly close to 772 size (IIRC), but this -900 config has about as many biz seats as a 767.

Speedracer2

If they added one more row of J the % would be more in line with the other planes.

nkedel

I take it you've tried 9-across on the 787 on another carrier?

I was going to give ANA as the other example, but it looks like they've got a mix of configurations and unless the 9-across is only domestic, I imagine they'll be moving over to all 9-across.

Most of my flying (by miles) is transpac, and this is likely to be a light year for me. Right now my plan this year is to take both trips I have planned on Premium Economy (first definitely on CX, second TBD and might be JL); it's not that much more expensive, and the CX seats are miles ahead of the extra legroom Y seats on AA if I don't do a miles+copay upgrade... the JL seats look even better although I've only seen them walking though the cabin or looking back from J.

It's likely to be the first year I qualify on points rather than miles -- the COS multiplier on EQP is really nice there! I'm sure AA won't miss my $4000-5000 in spend very much, and I should have enough domestic flying that I should be able to get the minimum 4 flights on AA proper without any trouble. The equation might be different if I were keeping EXP for next year, but I'm not and don't anticipate that much flying in the next year either (indeed, on a regular year flying AA on miles, I'd be doing crazy itineraries to get enough EQM rather than flying the direct flights out of SFO.)

Having been lucky enough to upgrade both ways on my one pair of 773 flights, my own experience with the MCE and Y- seats was checking them out briefly on that flight, but it was enough to convince me that 16A/L were a downgrade from my usual 772 31A/L (although a tolerable one, if I can get it), and avoiding Y- was worth the cash and inconvenience.

With Y-to-J upgrades likely getting harder, and Y- becoming the rule on all the long haul aircraft, really my hope at this point is that AA will decide to switch from MCE to a real Premium Economy class on it's international products. I'm happy to pay for it now on CX at present fares, and I'd be willing to pay for it or upgrade using miles on AA if the hard product was at least as good as CX.

JonNYC

Off hand, I don't think I'd agree-- even the 77D once it's brought down to it's lower # of J seats will be: J37 Y252 vs. J28 Y261 on 787-900. Add 4 seats of J to that 787-900 and it's still not close to the same ratio. (and isn't remotely close to the current 77D.)

Of course, that's by design, 77D serving different kinds of routes, but the math is still pretty stark.