Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles
Reload this Page >

Delta's revamped 777s will have just 28 J seats

Delta's revamped 777s will have just 28 J seats

Old May 9, 17, 8:56 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta PM, Hyatt Discoverist, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,242
Delta's revamped 777s will have just 28 J seats

In a recent filing with the FAA, Delta sought approval to install their Delta One Suites product on their 77Es and 77Ls. That's not much of a surprise what is a surprise is how much they're cutting the J cabin.

According to Delta's filling, both 777 models will move from 37 J to 28 J.

The 777s will also have 48 Delta Premium Select seats and 220 economy seats, for a total of 296 seats. Today, the 777s seat 291, so a net gain of five seats.

I suppose its not all bad news, as that configuration appears to mean that Delta will remain at nine-abreast in Y. Why do I think that? Because there are 218 Y seats today, and I think they can pretty easily get 28 suites and 48 premium economy seats out of the space currently going to J and Comfort+. And the numbers line up pretty Nicely.

Seven rows of 1-2-1 in front of 2L door, six rows of 2-4-2 in the former mini cabin and current Comfort+ space, and then 25 rows of 3-3-3 Y, with the last two rows being 2-3-2. There's still one other seat that can be removed as well.

Of course, 220/10 is 22 rows at 10 abreast, but I just don't know how that would work for those last couple rows of Y. So I suspect it's staying. I assume we'll find out for sure soon.

Here's the document that got me doing the math:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...2017-0414-0002

Last edited by jrkmsp; May 9, 17 at 9:07 pm
jrkmsp is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:12 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ATL
Programs: AA GLD Skymiles DM, a+ rewards lifetime elite, AS, Marriott plat, PC plat, HH gold
Posts: 1,237
Very interesting read, it seems like Delta does not really care about the safety of Y pax unless I have been truly brainwashed to the definition of enhancement.

Other takeaway, J seat must generate more than four times the revenue of a Y seat to be optimized.

finally "continuing to provide a high level of comfort" is an outright lie.

Last edited by turkeyRIOO; May 9, 17 at 9:22 pm
turkeyRIOO is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:14 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA Gold, DL PM, UA Silver, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 5,935
Originally Posted by turkeyRIOO View Post
Very interesting read, it seems like Delta does not really care about the safety of Y pax unless I have been truly brainwashed to the definition of enhancement.
DL probably doesn't see a need for 10x 777s in their fleet. Keep in mind that the addition of seats means more weight and fuel burn. If those seats regularly go empty, that's a problem. It's foolish to add unneeded capacity.
KDCAflyer is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:21 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hands of Fate
Programs: MR LT(!)TE, DL PM MM, HTZ PC, 2V Fanboi, CBP GE, Uber Gold
Posts: 4,842
While I don't question the analysis, 28J/48W just seems out of line with most of the rest of the industry. If they do roll that out, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of subsequent reconfiguration.

For comparison, AF has 772s with 49J/24W, 35J/24W, and 40J/24W (ignoring the COI config, and P seating). VS doesn't operate the 772, but their 789 is 31J/35W and their A346 is 45J/38W. Other carriers follow similar patterns.

Of course 28J means your GUCs won't clear and today's ridiculous J award pricing will seems cheap.
bennos is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:21 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Programs: DL, HH
Posts: 34
Really not too surprised here. I think I've seen a few guesses on the A350 layouts, and those will have more more J seats.

For me, D1 is usually too much for me to buy, but PE should be doable, I think a lot of people will fall into this category.
Striple is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:21 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by turkeyRIOO View Post
Very interesting read, it seems like Delta does not really care about the safety of Y pax unless I have been truly brainwashed to the definition of enhancement.

Other takeaway, J seat must generate more than four times the revenue of a Y seat to be optimized.
Maybe I misread, but I don't see where the doc even applies to Y pax? As I read it, the FAA has rules about walls in between passengers and an exit. To "wall in" the suite DL is applying for an exception. I'm willing to be EK, KE, MU SQ, et all with real suites, had to apply for the same exception.

Keeping Y 9 across would seem to enhance safety as opposed to going x10 wide.

If I'm mistake please point it out, but from my reading of it, it sounds like you're jumping to a hasty and mean spirited conclusion.
kop84 is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:29 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ATL
Programs: AA GLD Skymiles DM, a+ rewards lifetime elite, AS, Marriott plat, PC plat, HH gold
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by kop84 View Post
Maybe I misread, but I don't see where the doc even applies to Y pax? As I read it, the FAA has rules about walls in between passengers and an exit. To "wall in" the suite DL is applying for an exception. I'm willing to be EK, KE, MU SQ, et all with real suites, had to apply for the same exception.

Keeping Y 9 across would seem to enhance safety as opposed to going x10 wide.

If I'm mistake please point it out, but from my reading of it, it sounds like you're jumping to a hasty and mean spirited conclusion.
"All other things being equal, the reduction in the total number of occupants in a
given part of the cabin is an enhancement to safety." so reduce occupants to improve safety in the J compartment without any consideration to Y pax. The whole premise of the submission to the FAA is an improvement in safety. As a Y pax, this kinda gets to me enough to read and post.
turkeyRIOO is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:32 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: LIT
Programs: Blinged Out
Posts: 584
Originally Posted by Striple View Post
Really not too surprised here. I think I've seen a few guesses on the A350 layouts, and those will have more more J seats.

For me, D1 is usually too much for me to buy, but PE should be doable, I think a lot of people will fall into this category.
I have issues sleeping on a plane anyway, so having 48W seats, especially if a mass of them go unsold, could potentially be better for op-up chances. If they are like domestic F with meal service, I'll ride.

Hopefully, DL will do the right thing and allow RUCs (or equivalent instrument) to be used for Y-W or W-J and GUCs be used for Y-J - I'm not holding my breath, though.
SeaHawg is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 9:54 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,350
Originally Posted by turkeyRIOO View Post
"All other things being equal, the reduction in the total number of occupants in a
given part of the cabin is an enhancement to safety." so reduce occupants to improve safety in the J compartment without any consideration to Y pax. The whole premise of the submission to the FAA is an improvement in safety. As a Y pax, this kinda gets to me enough to read and post.

I read it as a trade off. The walls in J will slow the process, but the reduction in seat count will offset that.

I just read your post as very cold to think that because of something in the J cabin that has nothing to do with the Y cabin, DL doesn't care about Y pax safety....I'd say they care a ton more than the airlines with x10 across.

I don't see DL doing the super high density Y like UA on their Hawaii configuration you're looking at 312 Y/Y+ seats! If you have a beef with an airline not caring about safety in Y, you've got much better targets to go after.
kop84 is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 10:04 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,879
Originally Posted by turkeyRIOO View Post
"All other things being equal, the reduction in the total number of occupants in a
given part of the cabin is an enhancement to safety." so reduce occupants to improve safety in the J compartment without any consideration to Y pax. The whole premise of the submission to the FAA is an improvement in safety. As a Y pax, this kinda gets to me enough to read and post.
Are you saying that any time an airline does not reduce cabin capacity, they are actively working against safety? Delta One Suites and the premium cabin size change has nothing to do with Main Cabin if I'm not mistaken.
Widgets is offline  
Old May 9, 17, 11:10 pm
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 28,370
Originally Posted by turkeyRIOO View Post
"All other things being equal, the reduction in the total number of occupants in a
given part of the cabin is an enhancement to safety." so reduce occupants to improve safety in the J compartment without any consideration to Y pax. The whole premise of the submission to the FAA is an improvement in safety. As a Y pax, this kinda gets to me enough to read and post.
What exactly do you think is unsafe about the coach cabin?
readywhenyouare is offline  
Old May 10, 17, 12:07 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: Delta GM, Hyatt Plat-ist, Food Lion MVP
Posts: 928
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
What exactly do you think is unsafe about the coach cabin?
All the kettles, with all the scalding water that might be spilled during turbulence...
ekozie is offline  
Old May 10, 17, 12:12 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: midwest
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 893
Originally Posted by bennos View Post
While I don't question the analysis, 28J/48W just seems out of line with most of the rest of the industry. If they do roll that out, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of subsequent reconfiguration.

For comparison, AF has 772s with 49J/24W, 35J/24W, and 40J/24W (ignoring the COI config, and P seating). VS doesn't operate the 772, but their 789 is 31J/35W and their A346 is 45J/38W. Other carriers follow similar patterns.

Of course 28J means your GUCs won't clear and today's ridiculous J award pricing will seems cheap.
Somewhat comparable to Air New Zealand's 772s at 26/40/246, though (hopefully!) without the terrible 3-4-3 Y class. Is this for all the 777s, or just Delta's LRs? A large PE cabin could be a good offering on long TPACs.
RaflW is offline  
Old May 10, 17, 2:36 am
  #14  
C W
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
I agree with OP's calculations about the distribution of seats if Delta One is completely between doors 1 and 2. It sounds as though they will be installing the same number of rows as currently exist in that space. It also sounds from the safety arguments that they make as though their evacuation rational is based on the notion of exclusively having the Delta One cabin in one "cabin" or between two sets of doors.

I would love to see the 777 stay at 9 across. This would be a true differentiator and a big consolation prize for losing C+.

I am also somewhat surprised by the J/W ratio. Perhaps the W pricing will be more aggressive than we are anticipating, they will certainly be trying to fill the cabin. Indeed with 2-4-2 W and only "up to" 38" of pitch the 48 seats of W will only occupy in terms of cabin real estate the space of about 63 Y seats at 9 across. Of course in reality the W section will pull real estate from from J and C+, but I make this point to illustrate that Delta's per passenger cost for W isn't much higher than Y. About 30% higher in cabin real estate and a small premium for better catering.
C W is offline  
Old May 10, 17, 2:54 am
  #15  
C W
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by RaflW View Post
Somewhat comparable to Air New Zealand's 772s at 26/40/246, though (hopefully!) without the terrible 3-4-3 Y class. Is this for all the 777s, or just Delta's LRs? A large PE cabin could be a good offering on long TPACs.
(246/10)*9 = 221 @:-)

If indeed the J and W configurations are similar to NZ's, and looking at the seat maps I think they should be, this is very strong evidence for 9-across!
C W is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: