Here's the seat map for the 8F Boeing 777-200ER

http://prospelicious.com/wp-content/.../BA_772_8F.png

I think that, on the 77W, they had their own loo, so when those birds will get their refurbishment said private loo will go. A friend's partner is a 777 pilot and, on a recent evening out, he moaned about that, to the point of saying that there'll be big queues and it'll be a mess. I wanted to point out that I've done LHR-SCL - and back - in First, on a 789 with 8 taken seats, 4 pilots and one loo and no one got murdered (in fact, come think of it, there was only a little bit of queueing at the very end of one of the flights), but the guy was paying for drinks and I chose free drinks over contradicting him. Cheap morals I know. :D

guess the F pax can always nip through the mini CW cabin for the loos.

I wonder why they chose not to fit the 787 seat to provide some more differentiation at ‘relatively’ low cost? Presumably the whole cabin was gutted as part of the refurb.

My guess is, as the 787 suite was designed to fit within the 18'-0" fuselage, it doesn't transfer particularly efficiently into the 19'-3" wide floor plate of the 777, or not least without extensive modifications. My observation is cabin designers work to fixed dimenions, which in this case is the distance between doors 1 and 2 so fitting two rows of the longer and narrower 787 suite into the forward space would effectively move the cabin division aft and consequently causing a loss in CWS count

Interesting... so those that say J class is 2-4-2, would you agree that F is 2-2-2? :)

But the fact it was not a frustration on your two flights does not mean that it won't be on many others. I've no doubt it will make for a poor experience at least some of the time.

You're absolutely right. My three flights have an overall statistical value of diddly squat. It'd be different if that toilet had been relocated to another part of the plane, but I'm ready to bet that it hasn't.

To make amends here's a potentially more accurate bit of trivia. If memory doesn't deceive me, the non-CS 77Es (say, for instance, G-VIIJ) have 226 seats. G-RAES has 235, if my maths is correct. G-VIIJ has 9 loos, G-RAES (if the F loo hasn't been moved) 8. There are, therefore, 25 seats per toilet on the older version and 29 in the newer one. +16%. +15% if we just look at premium cabin (62 seats for 5 loos vs 57 for 4).

That's entirely missing the point though (as discussed in other threads) that the seat:toilet ratio is essentially irrelevant when you only have one toilet, because that means a single point of failure.

It just takes one guy (or lady) doing a massive poo and it then becomes a complete sh*t-show for the rest of the cabin.

:D:D

Didn’t realise sit was longer and thinner. Can’t say I noticed between the 787 and 777. Given these aircraft are presumably going to stay in the fleet a while it just seems a bit short sighted. But maybe they plan to just retrofit the F cabin with a new seat at a later date. Easier with just 8 seats I guess.

Even if they are not this must be part of the reason why they weren’t changed. The seats are expensive and there isn’t sufficient difference between the two generations to justify the cost of changing them.

Just to confuse things further and I’ll try to add clarity before I finish what I’m saying, the 777 bed is actually longer than its 787 counterpart but as it rotated in plan view it manages to fit inside a fatter and squatter footprint. Does this make sense?

1 lav for 8 pax is pathetic. Better than no F, I suppose.

Even 2 lavs for 8 pax in UA F on the 772 could be a problem as flight crew shared the lavs and access would be blocked when the flight deck door was open.

Is this any worse than on the 789?

Sorry, does it matter?