|
Originally Posted by username
(Post 26890982)
The Taiwanese newspapers are reporting that:
1 - this is a trial basis for 1 aircraft to be delivered in September - of course, we know where things go from here... 2 - this decision was made a year ago when they ordered the new 77Ws 3 - it says 20 more seats per aircraft - aren't there more than 20 rows in Y? http://udn.com/news/story/7241/18120...95%86%E6%A9%9F The claim of "trial basis" is somewhat nonsense. |
Originally Posted by username
(Post 26890982)
The Taiwanese newspapers are reporting that:
1 - this is a trial basis for 1 aircraft to be delivered in September - of course, we know where things go from here... So we might possibly see the same happening with BR; but I wouldn't get my hopes up. |
Originally Posted by jimyvr
(Post 26894261)
Based on comparison with 77A (333-seater) Row 45 - 69 will be 3-4-3, instead of 3-3-3. Row 70-73 is 2-4-2, instead of 3-3-3.
The claim of "trial basis" is somewhat nonsense. But that imply row 70 might be a decent choice if you are forced to fly this 777ET (ET for Extra Tight). |
|
Originally Posted by longliveKA
(Post 26882342)
After KE, AF, KL, LX, CI (for my own safety's reason) and also for 10 abreast, and 787's also on no fly list, running out of options...
I'd much rather have extra seat pitch than width- there's just more usable/habitable space for legs and items. Much of the rhetoric around seat width is from a certain aircraft manufacturer's marketing- that magical single inch won't determine whether you suddenly feel cramped or borderline comfortable. |
Originally Posted by Enhancements
(Post 26998323)
KE is still fully 9-abreast. So is CA.
I'd much rather have extra seat pitch than width- there's just more usable/habitable space for legs and items. Much of the rhetoric around seat width is from a certain aircraft manufacturer's marketing- that magical single inch won't determine whether you suddenly feel cramped or borderline comfortable. I can survive TPAC on BR's 2-4-2 PE seating. If I was in the back (3-3-3), I would almost certainly be arriving in physical pain from having to force my arms in to my body. Sometimes happens to me on shorter flights. 3-4-3? I would walk of the plane. Room is not fungible. Having place to put some random crap does not make up for the fact that the width is far narrower than my natural elbow-to-elbow width. As CI jumps ahead of BR with their newest metal, BR slips backwards. |
Originally Posted by Enhancements
(Post 26998323)
KE is still fully 9-abreast. So is CA.
|
Indeed, I meant KL, not KE.
Cheers! |
Additional bad news, 10 abreast extending to more routes
http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/...or-w16-update/ |
The fact CI went 3-4-3 on the 77W made it an no brainer for BR to follow.
Think on the bright side that's why they have PE. CA going 10 abreast is just an disaster because they have E+ not PE. Unless you fly J, it will be as tight as LH's slim seats on their longhauls. |
For those who think 3-4-3 is OK: average male shoulder width is apparently 17-18 inches. Yes, the average is larger than the width of these new seats. Guess what happens when you have 3-4 average males sitting side by side? Never mind personal space, we just don't fit without contorting ourselves.
|
Originally Posted by erics2356
(Post 27000243)
Additional bad news, 10 abreast extending to more routes
http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/...or-w16-update/ |
Originally Posted by jimyvr
(Post 26998616)
CA will begin 10-abreast economy 777-300ER service in NW16/17 season.
|
Originally Posted by mkjr
(Post 27014014)
CX still 9...no? AC went to 10 also...yikes.
|
Originally Posted by payam81
(Post 27017745)
CX 10 abreast is coming soon. Enjoy it while it lasts.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:57 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.