Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

Are aircraft Y seats really shrinking ?

Are aircraft Y seats really shrinking ?

Old Oct 13, 2016, 3:05 am
  #16  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,567
Originally Posted by weero
I am very disappointed in Boeing that they didn't offer a reasonable amount of resistance against that vandalisation of their product image.
Why would they? Their customers are the airlines, not the flyers. The only people whose opinion of their product is relevant to them are the airline's buyers.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 3:08 am
  #17  
nux
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: BA Gold, QF WP
Posts: 12,551
Originally Posted by airsurfer
SK (Scandinavian does not exist anymore, to NBO in D10, 1978)
LG (LUX-NBO-JNB, Luxavia a SA derivative allowed to fly over Africa, a 707 in 1984)
VS (LHR-JNB in 340, 1997)
BA (LHR-NBO in 744, 1993) but not sure
KL (still in 2012, KUL-AMS on a 772 was a codeshare of MH operated by KL) way less comfortable than AMS-KUL on MH17 (772).
Why do you think those aircraft had 29" seat pitch?
KLM 772s for example have 31" pitch, and the other airlines you've listed could not have had 29" pitch with the older style thicker seats used at the time.

I think you are still confusing seat pitch with leg/knee room.

And comparing 3-4-3 on the 777 and A380 or 3-3-3 on a 777 and 787 is pointless as the aircraft interiors have different widths.
nux is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 6:46 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K(until 2024), MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,194
Originally Posted by nux
And comparing 3-4-3 on the 777 and A380 or 3-3-3 on a 777 and 787 is pointless as the aircraft interiors have different widths.
You can certainly compare 3-4-3 and 3-3-3 on a 777, and 2-4-2 and 3-3-3 on a 787. In both cases, the latter is much more cramped.

You could also compare 3-3 between the 737 and the 320 series - the latter offering slightly more space, albeit usually in the aisle.
lhrsfo is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 1:39 pm
  #19  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 542
Originally Posted by nux
Why do you think those aircraft had 29" seat pitch?
KLM 772s for example have 31" pitch, and the other airlines you've listed could not have had 29" pitch with the older style thicker seats used at the time.

I think you are still confusing seat pitch with leg/knee room.

And comparing 3-4-3 on the 777 and A380 or 3-3-3 on a 777 and 787 is pointless as the aircraft interiors have different widths.
It was in 2010, not 2012 with KL810 KUL-AMS (777) with the cramped seats, compared to an MH 777. It may indeed be the older style seats. It was somewhere in the 50s seat numbers (i.e. the rear) in the center rows (D-E-F-G).

In 2014 I flew KL again to CPT but got the 40K seat which has slightly more legroom as it is in the curve of the hull.

I am curious to the 350 and hope that it is wide enough for 3-3-3 to call it 'XWB'.
airsurfer is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 5:04 pm
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by weero
I am very disappointed in Boeing that they didn't offer a reasonable amount of resistance against that vandalisation of their product image.
Economy customers don't blame Boeing for a painful seat / flight, they blame the airline. Boeing doesn't even design the seats. Companies like Recaro and BF Goodrich do. Boeing has literally nothing to do with this.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 6:16 pm
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Originally Posted by BearX220
Economy customers don't blame Boeing for a painful seat / flight, they blame the airline. Boeing doesn't even design the seats. Companies like Recaro and BF Goodrich do. Boeing has literally nothing to do with this.
Except that Boeing does now have an "in-house" option for the 737s. It is OEM hardware but Boeing sells it direct so the airline doesn't have to deal with the seat manufacturer separately. So Boeing does have a lot to say about the seat design.

Also, I don't believe BF Goodrich is in the market. B/E Aerospace is the dominant player with Zodiac and Recaro following.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 7:37 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: AMS
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by airsurfer
KL (still in 2010, KUL-AMS on a 772 was a codeshare of MH operated by KL) way less comfortable than AMS-KUL on MH17 (772).
KL only has only one type with 29" pitch and they didn't have that back in 2010 (E 175). They say that legroom shouldn't be impacted as they use slim seats, but I haven't managed to get on one of these yet so I can't say much about it.

Other than that, their long-haul Y pitch is 31" and for short-haul it is 31" or 30" depending on plane and position.

Also, yes, that will have been a little more cramped compared to MH who fly with a 32" pitch in Y.
CyBeR is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 7:51 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,250
Originally Posted by cbn42
Why would they? Their customers are the airlines, not the flyers. The only people whose opinion of their product is relevant to them are the airline's buyers.
&
Originally Posted by BearX220
Economy customers don't blame Boeing for a painful seat / flight, they blame the airline. Boeing doesn't even design the seats. Companies like Recaro and BF Goodrich do. Boeing has literally nothing to do with this.
That is a very business-only view on the matter. People who have a choice will - at the very latest - learn to avoid Dreamliners and soon 777s when they pick a flight.
As SQ is our house carrier we were even admonished to educate our staff that SQ's 777 are not like the evil 777s out there as the most common staff request is now "not to fly Boeing".
I don't fly 3-3-3 Dreamliners and 3-4-3 777s but there is always a substitution risk (say on AA or LX).

Airbus also markets itself as the manufacturer out there who cares about the passengers. I have no idea how well that is working - nearly all Americans I know are still not afraid of riding Dreamliners even on longhauls, so of course there is also a patriotic element.

Now on their own dime the situation is of course very different. But I was asked several dozen times how to find a cheap itinerary that does avoid Boeings (and/or EK or QR) and I had to explain to many that BA's 777s are not the evil kind and that all JL's birds are 'safe'.
weero is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 7:57 pm
  #24  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,567
Originally Posted by weero
That is a very business-only view on the matter. People who have a choice will - at the very latest - learn to avoid Dreamliners and soon 777s when they pick a flight.
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people, at least in the US, don't know the difference between a Dreamliner and a CRJ, and will not even notice what kind of equipment they will be flying on until they actually board. At that point, they might think "this plane is big" or "this plane is small", but that's about it.

We Flyertalkers are not representative of the public at large. Boeing and the airlines have probably figured that putting more seats on every plane is worth the loss of a few of us.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Oct 13, 2016, 9:19 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ATL
Programs: DL DM, Hyatt LT DM, Wyndham DM, Hertz PC, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,038
Originally Posted by cbn42
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people, at least in the US, don't know the difference between a Dreamliner and a CRJ, and will not even notice what kind of equipment they will be flying on until they actually board. At that point, they might think "this plane is big" or "this plane is small", but that's about it.

We Flyertalkers are not representative of the public at large. Boeing and the airlines have probably figured that putting more seats on every plane is worth the loss of a few of us.
Completely agree. Most when booking don't even check what aircraft they are supposed to be on. "I want to fly around 10am". Could be a CRJ, A320, B777 or even a 747 on a reposition. They don't care and don't know.
dinanm3atl is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2016, 8:34 am
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by sbm12
I don't believe BF Goodrich is in the market. B/E Aerospace is the dominant player...
Yup, you're quite right, my mistake. I was typing in a hurry.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2016, 10:41 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,250
Originally Posted by cbn42
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people, at least in the US, don't know the difference between a Dreamliner and a CRJ, and will not even notice what kind of equipment they will be flying on until they actually board. At that point, they might think "this plane is big" or "this plane is small", but that's about it.

We Flyertalkers are not representative of the public at large. Boeing and the airlines have probably figured that putting more seats on every plane is worth the loss of a few of us.
All the people I reference have never heard of FlyerTalk. They can tell the difference between the regional jet and a widebody. They usually don't see the type difference between a Dreamliner and a 777 and generically adopt the notion "Boeing=bad" and/or "Qatar=bad".

I also had a direct subordinate of mine refuse to fly Qatar despite it being on an A350, simply because she had once been on the 787 of QR. So that happens too.
But passengers do notice the degenerate planes very strongly and react in somewhat diffuse ways to them.
weero is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2016, 12:25 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,400
Originally Posted by weero
I don't fly 3-3-3 Dreamliners and 3-4-3 777s
Window seats are more comfy on the 787. Thanks to the larger windows, chances are, that you have more shoulder space. On the 777, you could end up with seat, where the windows doesn't align properly with the row and shoulder space is reduced due to the "pillar" between the windows.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2016, 2:05 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,250
Originally Posted by WorldLux
Window seats are more comfy on the 787. Thanks to the larger windows, chances are, that you have more shoulder space. On the 777, you could end up with seat, where the windows doesn't align properly with the row and shoulder space is reduced due to the "pillar" between the windows.
You can have misaligned seats on the 787 .. I have seen them on Scoot. But yes, it usually isn't a huge issue.

Unlike the butt and shoulder space.
weero is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2016, 11:50 pm
  #30  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 41,821
Originally Posted by cbn42
Why would they? Their customers are the airlines, not the flyers. The only people whose opinion of their product is relevant to them are the airline's buyers.
It matters to some manufacturers - Embraer made a big fuss about it's double-bubble cabin design in the 17x/19x with much larger coach seats, and the dimensions of the cabin made it impossible to go with a 3x2 configuration with a much narrower seat.

Boeing could have easily modified the fuselage size on the 787 to allow 2x3x2 with the absolute minimum aisle size, making 3x3x3 physically impossible without a 16.5" seat....and same with the 777 at 3x3x3 with the minimum aisle size.

At least the 319/20/21 were designed with just a little extra width to allow 18" coach seats vs the 737 that barely allows for 17.1".
bocastephen is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.