KLM's 777-200 vs 777-300

Old May 31, 12, 6:01 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Programs: KL Gold, SQ KF Gold, CX Green
Posts: 8,807
KLM's 777-200 vs 777-300

I just returned from a AMS - SIN / KUL - AMS return in economy class. The outbound flight was on a B777-200 and was fine. I slept quite well and seat comfort seemed reasonable.

The return, however, was on a completely full B777-300 and was a disaster. Seat comfort seemed to be much worse, and the aisle was so narrow that throughout the night the flight attendants and the other passengers kept on bumping into my shoulder and arm. I am a rather big guy although nothing extraordinary.

I have been very often on the KLM747s, and regularly on the A330 and the MD11, but haven't had as bad an experience in KLM's economy class as on the 777-300 which I will try to avoid in the future.

I was just wondering if objectively the seat (itself, the pitch, ....) or the aisle width are worse on the 777-300 as compared to the 777-200?
Sjoerd is offline  
Old May 31, 12, 6:11 am
  #2  
Moderator: Flying Blue (Air France & KLM)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Programs: Flying Blue (AF/KL)
Posts: 4,664
Not having experienced it myself, my impression (from photos) was that the aisle of the B77W with 10 abreast is quite narrow. Various reviews of 10-abreast seating on the B77W all seem to share this opinion.
Gajan is offline  
Old May 31, 12, 7:38 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Delta Silver, BA Bronze, HH Diamond, Accor Gold,, IHG Plat
Posts: 5,231
Yes, the 10-abreast certainly has an impact on isle width.
Having said that, out of personal experience I prefer the 77W's comfort.
KLflyerRalph is offline  
Old May 31, 12, 3:20 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geneva
Programs: LX HON, AFKL Platinum, BA Gold->Blue again
Posts: 3,546
3-3-3 versus 3-4-3. Narrower aisles and narrower armrests - so narrow that the IFE handset doesn't fit and is installed in the headrest of the seat in front. Which, by the way, AF are now advertising elsewhere as a world first for 'convenience'...

The rule is: KL B77W in Y = avoid at all cost!
MichielR is offline  
Old May 31, 12, 11:25 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Delta Silver, BA Bronze, HH Diamond, Accor Gold,, IHG Plat
Posts: 5,231
KLM's 777-200 vs 777-300

Again, in that aspect I like the 77W more. You don't have to grab out the controller and also can't bump into it on accident. For me, a real concinience. :P
KLflyerRalph is offline  
Old Jun 1, 12, 9:29 am
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,897
Originally Posted by MichielR View Post
The rule is: KL B77W in Y = avoid at all cost!
Any KL 777 as far as I'm concerned. I arrived at that conclusion after one flight many years ago, which was more than enough.

I also avoid it in WBC. The introduction of the 777 on my most frequent longhaul route, along with the April Fools' Day changes, drove me straight into the arms of the competition.

Johan
johan rebel is offline  
Old Jun 4, 12, 7:19 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ecosse
Programs: Flying Blue Platinum for Life, BMI Gold, EK Skywards Gold, BA Gold, IC Hotels Platinum Ambassador
Posts: 704
I try and avoid 777's on any carrier (getting difficult) if possible but the 772 of AF and 77W of both AF and KL are horrible down the back.

At least EK give you more legroom when squeezing in 10 abreast. I have been on the KL 772 with 9 abreast and found it ok, but give me an 8 abreast airbus any time.
chunk73 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 12, 3:45 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: DL, QF, QR Gold, MR Lifetime Gold
Posts: 6,488
I flew AMS-KUL-CGK on 77W in Y and found it ok. The aisle is indeed narrower but the seats, IFE, etc were reasonable (although I should say that I'm on a smaller side and generally don't have issues with seat pitch or width). I guess that if the flight is packed then you probably really feel the difference, but if you're lucky to get a lighter load it's ok.
florin is offline  
Old Jun 5, 12, 7:05 am
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,897
Originally Posted by chunk73 View Post
I try and avoid 777's on any carrier (getting difficult)
Airlines love the 777, as it is a reliable and economical workhorse. Unfortunately, it is not as good from a passenger perspective. The cabin is relatively noisy, and when Boeing designed the plane they presumably never imagined that airlines would squeeze in seven seats abreast in J, and 10 in Y. The cross section of Airbus' widebodies just doesn't allow configurations like that.

Johan
johan rebel is offline  
Old Jun 5, 12, 7:41 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Programs: FB-LTPE
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by KLflyerRalph View Post
Yes, the 10-abreast certainly has an impact on isle width.
Useful thread - I just checked an upcoming trip to Sao Paolo and outbound it is indeed a 777-300. Changed my seat from 11H to 10J. The extra leg space does not weight against the narrow aisle.

10J+K have a galley in front of it; anyone knows what is in front 9A+B (not a bathroom like in the 777-200)?
NB00 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 12, 8:24 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Delta Silver, BA Bronze, HH Diamond, Accor Gold,, IHG Plat
Posts: 5,231
Originally Posted by johan rebel View Post
Airlines love the 777, as it is a reliable and economical workhorse. Unfortunately, it is not as good from a passenger perspective. The cabin is relatively noisy, and when Boeing designed the plane they presumably never imagined that airlines would squeeze in seven seats abreast in J, and 10 in Y. The cross section of Airbus' widebodies just doesn't allow configurations like that.

Johan
From an aviation geek perspective, those engines and sound are just gorgeous!
KLflyerRalph is offline  
Old Jun 6, 12, 7:11 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ecosse
Programs: Flying Blue Platinum for Life, BMI Gold, EK Skywards Gold, BA Gold, IC Hotels Platinum Ambassador
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by KLflyerRalph View Post
From an aviation geek perspective, those engines and sound are just gorgeous!
This as maybe but they are just too damn loud! I frequently get off a 77W to connect onto a 380 and the difference is staggering. 10 abreast seating in a 777 is just plain wrong.
chunk73 is offline  
Old Jun 6, 12, 11:35 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: DL, QF, QR Gold, MR Lifetime Gold
Posts: 6,488
Originally Posted by chunk73 View Post
This as maybe but they are just too damn loud! I frequently get off a 77W to connect onto a 380 and the difference is staggering.
I had a 772 to 333 connection (and the other way around on the return) and indeed the noise difference is HUGE.
florin is offline  
Old Jun 6, 12, 1:23 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,897
Originally Posted by KLflyerRalph View Post
From an aviation geek perspective, those engines and sound are just gorgeous!
Aah . . . . give me an Electra any day!

Johan
johan rebel is offline  
Old Jun 8, 12, 8:51 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ecosse
Programs: Flying Blue Platinum for Life, BMI Gold, EK Skywards Gold, BA Gold, IC Hotels Platinum Ambassador
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by johan rebel View Post
Aah . . . . give me an Electra any day!

Johan


The first long haul flight I ever took was a Gulf Air TriStar from Heathrow to DXB via BAH in 1981. At the time I don't recall it being that loud (mainly because we connected to it from what I think may have been a BA Viscount from Inverness) but stepping on a 777 reminds me of flying in the 80's on beasts like the tristar and DC10.

Whilst interested in planes, my interest doesn't stretch to being excited by the noise of the engines.....quieter the better. As long as they are still working....
chunk73 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread