From Tuesday's WSJ "Middle Seat" column. It sounds like they've decided on nine across, but it's not a "public" decision.

Damnit

Any ideas on how to sway the boys and gals in Smith to go for 8 abreast?

Oil at $30 a barrel?

I don�t know if Boeing has changed things, and the article was only speaking of "eye level", but in a May 2, 2005 Post I said -

If 8 across in coach, will CO have 2-4-2 or Boeing's suggested 3-2-3?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just ran across a special promotional section in the March 14, 2005 edition of Aviation Week. On 787 coach seating it said:

�Thus Boeing targeted an inside width of 205.6 in. at 50 in. above the floor, a number that makes the aircraft 14 in. wider than competition at seated eye level.
����������.

Finally, the interior was designed to maximize the potential for passengers to have an empty seat next to them�a phenomenon that makes people perceive their seats are 4.25-in. wider than they really are, and this has a huge impact on customer comfort and satisfaction, says Klaus Brauer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' director of passenger satisfaction and revenue. The mock-up of the eight abreast economy cabin shows a 3-2-3 seat arrangement that maximizes the use of empty seats. Airlines can opt for a 2-4-2 arrangement in the eight-abreast section, says Brauer, but at a load factor of 70%, there will be 12% more passengers seated next to empty seats in the 3-2-3 arrangement than in the 2-4-2 arrangement. The 787's nine-abreast economy-class cabin layout has 3-3-3 seating, which, says Brauer, is the most effective configuration in using empty seats.�

Considering that CO intends to deploy the 787 on its EWR-Hong Kong, Delhi and Beijing routes first, a high density ( 9 abreast ) configuration is a must assuming that the competition will fly bigger aircraft into those markets as well pushing the average fares down.

The question however remains, if CO is flying as an independant carrier when the 787 comes online and if CO is still focussing on niche markets at that point.

I know what we want to see, but did we ever seriously doubt that airlines would do anything other than cram as many seats as could fit inside of these things?

No � we only had a fools hope.

On that note, I'd guess CO will do what their competitors/partners are doing. If other 787 operators on the route go the way of 9 abreast than I'd be hard pressed to think of why CO would not.

But, on the other hand, they can have their cake and eat it too - as others have suggested before me, why not leave 1 or 2 rows in the 9 abreast configuration and restrict access to it. CO gets more seats and Y/H/elites get a tad more space.

...and besides, the competition is doing it.

Oh well. Time to (re)start the diet I suppose.

SOURCE???????

Everything we heard at the Houston DO indicated that the most likely initial routes would be out of Houston, with Europe (at that time) more likely to get the first flights. The problem with the Asia flights is that they take 2 aircraft to operate with the aircraft sitting many hours there ( 20 hours in HKG) doing nothing.

I would be willing to bet a beer that CO will go for the 3-3-3 configuration. As Larry said, you cannot make money if you do not have the seats to sell. With oil ~$70/bbl, I don;t think they will even think twice about this.

Maybe they will have those stand-up seats in Y that Airbus offers with the A380 .

Another interesting tidbit in that WSJ article:
For me personally, I think the break-even would be closer to 5 or 6" as I really hate sharing the armrest and unless my seatmate is on the small size, I am very uncomfortable in coach...

who cares? as long as BF is nice, its all good!

If over 60% of the airlines go for the 3-3-3, then I suspect CO will as well. But I really would like to have seen the 2-4-2 with a double arm rest in the center 2-2/2-2.

CO did once have 2-4-2 - that was on the A300. That was a nice configuration. F had 2-2-2, 4 rows on the A300.

I agree that not having someone next to me while seated in Y is more comfortable than having additional legroom only - I'd rather sit in a regular AB, DF, or KL seat on a 767 with no one next to me than in a bulkhead with someone in the adjacent seat.

I recently saw a website for an airline seat manufacturer that had designed a 3-3-3 configuration, with a seat width of 18 or 18.5 inches and 33 inches of pitch. The increased pitch and width were created by placing the seats at an angle. The angle also allowed each passenger to have two armrests. If I can find the website I'll post it.

I think you mean these guys:

http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/

The seats aren't really angled - the rows are offset/staggered.

I am sure they'll do 3-3-3. According to the WSJ article, majority of airlines have decided to do it that way, with only about 10% committed to 8-abreast.

Going from 8 to 9 give them 12.5% more seats to sell. That's a significant increase. CO may want to give it 32-33 pitch instead of 31. Going from 31 to 33 will cut seats by only about 6%. So, they'll still ahead.

Also, people usually pay more attention to seat pitch than width on paper. Airlines can more easily "sell" their increased legroom than increased width.