The 787's
 

After cerealmarketer’s posting regarding NW’s 787’s I thought I start one over here for us OnePass’ers to discuss.

CO’s getting in these new birds circa 2008/2009 (does anyone know the exact date?) and as such, do you think they will announce any new routes prior to their arrival?

If so, where do you think the 787s will fly out of: EWR, CLE or IAH – and where too?

Will MBM3 get his CLE-CDG/AMS flight? Will punished-edmonton be blessed with a YEG dreamliner on the route? Perhaps Vincom will get his EWR-GUM n/s or entropy his 3rd daily EWR-TLV flight? Can LawFlyer look forward to charming FRA gate agents for a new n/s service to IAH? (Or perhaps they’ll run a jet down I-10 to take J.Edward to school every morning :D)

NW is configuring the 787’s with 35J/185Y (about 16% premium seats) for comparison CO’s 777 have a 48J to 235Y (about 17% premium seats). Moreover, it is speculated NW will send these birds on their high yielding Asia routes.

If CO want’s to use these birds on the long, thin Asia runs and as Larry commented the 777’s don’t have enough seats (and by that I mean a J to Y ratio) for Asia should we expect a 787 with a higher percentage of BF seats? Or should we expect a similar configuration to the 767s?

Do you think any routes that are currently 777’s will be downsized to the 787? If so, what routes and where will the displaced 777’s go to? Or, on the flip side of the coin, will current 767 routes be upgraded to 787 service?

Your thoughts?

uh oh. From today's USA TODAY..

Airlines are choosing to cram more seats into Boeing's hot-selling new 787 Dreamliner than the company expected, giving the plane a potentially decisive advantage over its Airbus rival..
"But 65% of our customers are going for nine abreast, and we think that (ratio) will probably go up."
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...er-seats_x.htm

Let's hope CO is not in this 65%.

I hope CO *is* in this 65% - means that the airline is likely going to feature a bed-type seat in the 787 BF cabin. ;)

Bet you a CO currency coupon they are. When CO doesn't have E+ when some competitors do, why should they not go 9 across in a 787 when everyone else is?

Boeing's 3-3-3 layout may be better for the airlines finances, but Airbus' 2-4-2 is much better from this passenger's perspective (even with the same width seats). I have never understood why Boeing has never built a 2-4-2 aircraft. And how in the world would anyone expect the airlines to NOT cram as many seats in as humanly possible--have they not learned from history? Or seen the current state of the industry?

It's an interesting call...

The article says an 8-abreast has 19" width, and 9 abreast is 17.2" width.

Continental has 17.9" on its other widebodies (777 and 767), and 17.2" on its narrow bodies (757, 37).

They love to talk about "consistency" across the product. Either way, they will be about 1" wider or 1" narrower than the current widebody coach product.

Here's where it gets more confusing...

A 777 can be configured 10 abreast in coach (a la Emirates) and have 17" width. However, CO opted to stick with 9 abreast and the wider config.

Question is will they want to maintain consistency across widebodies (which implies 8 across), or a bare minimum consistency (which implies 9 across).

3x3x3 at the 'Do?
 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but at the 'Do, didn't they say the 787 would be 3x3x3 coach seating and 2x2x2 seating in BF with a new BF chair and new IFE throughout?

With the cabin comfort the way Larry talked about it (with better pressure/humidity levels), it sounds like it'll be an enjoyable experience wherever it goes.

As far as where, I'd guess EWR and IAH to/from China service...and perhaps some other new Asian destinations.

The failure of airlines to successfully market themselves is IMO why you see them resorting to cramming planes to the gills with seats. The airlines as a whole have not come up with a way to differentiate themselves to the average leisure/twice-a-year traveler, it's just "who can get me there cheapest" for most of these people, comfort and amenities be damned. An educated consumer really would be a smart airlines best consumer. I doubt that the CO or any airline wants to PACK people into a plane, it's bad for everybody, but if customers are unable to distinguish a comfortable coach class experince from a miserable one prior to booking what choice do they have?

What's average American butt these days? 27.6? :)

And, are butts in some places smaller? For example, Southeast Asia? And, if so, then what would that mean for J. Edward's pals? Definitely no 787s going to Edmonton (honk, honk, butt coming through...) and new nonstops EWR-SIN and EWR-KUL?

I'm just joking people... no flames about butt sizing, please...

I don't think there's any chance of this - period. CO has no interest in retro-fitting the rest of the fleet with such a product, and as someone else pointed out, they strive for consistency.

I asked a few execs about this at the DO, and heard 8 abreast. If Larry mentioned it, I guess I forgot. It will be very interesting to see. It wouldn't surprise me if they start out with the roomier config and then change their minds..

what is the width of the 787 in comparison to the 777? if its the same, i dont see the big deal in going with nine across.

If that were true, then I'd agree - no problemo.

Problem is, the 787 interior width is 217.5 and the 777 is 231; so passengers can forget about those highly touted 787 (by Boeing) 19 inch wide coach seats if airlines go nine across. Nine across works (as pointed out in the USAToday article) with 17.2 inch coach seats.

If anything, the trickle down effect from the 787s will allow CLE to get more long haul flights and perhaps relieve some of the congestion at EWR. I think the 787s will be placed on some of current and proposed Asia flights which will in turn free up 777s which will in turn free up 767s that could be used in CLE (HNL, AMS, CDG, TLV come to mind, but not all on a daily schedule).

I think we're going to see a lot of IAH-Europe and EWR-South America flights with the 787.. it's a real hub-buster, so to speak. I think CLE is going to be downgraded even more, possibly in favour of a focus city on the west coast for asia traffic. Wish I could be hopeful for an expansion in IAH-Asia flights, but it makes it inconvenient for the entire west coast, where I think CO could make some serious inroads when the new metal comes online.

It would not surprise me if LA becomes more of a focus city for CO in terms of asia flights...

Of course if they do so, they'll also be adding LAX-TLV on a 787... along with CLE....
(and I know you guys all talk about this in PMs...)