MPH1980

Does the -9 have a bigger cross section? BA are claiming wider seats in Y - but it's still a 3-3-3 arrangement.

GF2B

I was thinking that, too! 17F to 8F is quite the capacity decrease.

destere

Same cross section - Boeing would be nuts to do otherwise!

There have been mentions of BA attempting to address the issue. Maybe slimmer armrests, aisles etc. Can't see how they can squeeze anything that significant out of what is already in the -8 though.

PropWasher

Is PE considered Y? Trying to do the 3-3-3 math.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-787-9-414554/

TravellerFrequently

Indeed, so have I, although about half that number were upgraded into F on my last trip to AUH earlier this year.

Sigwx

Whilst F sees a decrease in capacity, the overall capacity versus a ZZZ 777 is only -3 seats in total. ZZZ are 219 and 789s 216. Perhaps just fewer avios upgrades to F available on the route

jcm9000

Spot the error on their page. Or maybe not, it is like they are introducing a big brother. Aww.

1010101

I didn't know BA had cancelled their other 21 orders

djsflynn

That's really the case, according to what BA PR told me (I'm the author of the linked AusBT article). And yes, it struck me as odd as well, but they say the 787-9s are needed to handle peak travel periods before F goes in.

simons1

F full of people actually paying a F fare?

A P Yu

Ah yes, that well known October Peak

msm2000uk

I'll have to try and get in early using a Joker!

Rome12xaDay

At the BA engineering open day they did just over a month ago I pestered the interior team with questions on the -9 so I have a few little nuggets.

The Y class seats are confirmed to be wider. Being able to compare apples to apples with the new WT on the 77W vs. the 787, it's clear that the seats have been designed in different widths for different aircraft. Staff said they received so many complaints about the narrow Dreamliner seats that they've decided to narrow the aisles in favour of more seat width. Personally, I think wide aisles are increasingly important these days as load factors increase and more and more luggage moves up from the hold to the cabin. Additionally, the 78's windows mean that hemmed-in feeling you get with tight configurations is abated a bit, especially for window and middle passengers. It's hard to choose which, but I suppose for the longer routes these -9s will (eventually?!) operate this will be a better config.

The second thing is on the initial no-First config. Judging from the what was said, it seems the number of F seats took a lot longer to firm up than they expected. If this is the case then perhaps the seats indeed won't be ready until the winter schedule. A few staff said they thought they may be going with 12 / 3 rows, but the issue here was with the Club seats behind. Demand aside, 3 rows of First would have only left space for 1 row of club - compared to the exclusive 2 rows in the final config, this would probably have become a cramped single row. The reason being - which is clearly shown in the BA seat map - is that they've decided on a very substantial cabin divider in forward cabin. BA have never had to deal with separating F from Club as F traditionally has had it's own cabin, so the interior guys were saying they'd been looking at lots of different ways to do a proper bulkhead divider rather than a flimsy wall. I would have said this now looks like a wardrobe on the seat map, but as F gets personal ones I'm not sure. So overall I think it could also be that this decision hasn't been made, or that this bespoke furnishing isn't ready, hence the delay for the first cabin.

One last thing, moving the TV to the fixed position apparently means dining for 2 will no longer be an option on the -9. I thought this would be a result of switching to a long slim ottoman as well as not having the guest lean against the screen, but the seats do still intersect so we'll have to wait and see what killed that one.

michaelma

could this be a sign BA is going to upgauge the other flight to Delhi to an A380? As the flight BA is changing to a 787-9 is aimed for TATL connections, whereas the other daily flight is more likely to be aimed at O&D. This could result in more higher yield J&W TATL connections to India on the 787-9 flight, since this aircraft is more premium heavy. Whereas the A380 flight could be used for lower fare, higher volumes, with the this flight timed to be more appealing to O&D and VFR.
Just my 2 cents.

Can I help you

The 787-9 has been put on the DEL route as there is strong competition for 3 other airlines including Virgin who also intend to use their 787-9.