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

Are aircraft Y seats really shrinking ?

Are aircraft Y seats really shrinking ?

Old Oct 25, 2016, 12:20 am
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
Originally Posted by bocastephen
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".
Likewise I believe both the A350 and CSeries were designed so that airlines were stuck at 3-3-3 and 2-3 respectively while providing just a tad more width than their competitors (787 and 737/A320 respectively) but not enough for airlines to put in an additional seat.
Duke787 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2016, 12:43 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: CRK MNL
Programs: CX Gold
Posts: 1,245
Can the airline industry or regulatory agency make a rule on allowable minimum seat width and pitch? I think they should regulate this.
boybi is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2016, 1:00 am
  #33  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
Originally Posted by boybi
Can the airline industry or regulatory agency make a rule on allowable minimum seat width and pitch? I think they should regulate this.
The regulatory agencies could...

...but that would require them to grow a spine - not going to happen in the present environment where the lobbying efforts from industry far outweigh those from consumers (no chance airline industry would ever agree to this willingly - decreased seat pitch ---> more seats ---> more revenue).
Duke787 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2016, 3:25 pm
  #34  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,441
Originally Posted by boybi
Can the airline industry or regulatory agency make a rule on allowable minimum seat width and pitch? I think they should regulate this.
Why would they do this? They get their marching orders from the airlines via industry lobbyists, and I don't think airlines are out there advocating for bigger, roomier seats.

As for airlines of yesteryear that flew really cramped seats, I seem to recall America West as particularly uncomfortable...in the 29-30" range. (Not that I ever boarded with a tape measure...)

Also flew an occasional vacation charter that would be an ancient (even then) 727 with 29-30" seats, but I guess those are a separate category...
pinniped is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2016, 5:12 am
  #35  
cur
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: fwp blood diamond, dykwia uranium
Posts: 7,251
Originally Posted by CyBeR
Absolutely. Many carriers are reconfiguring their 777s to 3-4-3 (10-abreast) seating where 3-3-3 (9-abreast) was the norm, and the 787 was designed to be outfitted 2-4-2 (8-abreast) but most carriers are choosing to put 3-3-3 in them.

Given that the airframe doesn't stretch that extra space has only two places to come out of: the seats and the aisles. And since you can't squeeze the aisles beyond a certain point, the seats have to necessarily shrink too.

All of this because we want slightly lower fares.
i thought 87 was configured for 3 3 3. the 87 is 777 wide but 767 short. that is kinda what it's draw was (high cargo payload, moderate pax payload, unlimited range)

but if going to 3 3 3 from 2 4 2 doesn't that make the 87 unable to go point to point anywhere in the world?
cur is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2016, 7:20 am
  #36  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 41,497
Originally Posted by cur;273988 87 was configured for 3 3 3. [B
the 87 is 777 wide[/B] but 767 short. that is kinda what it's draw was (high cargo payload, moderate pax payload, unlimited range)

but if going to 3 3 354]i thought from 2 4 2 doesn't that make the 87 unable to go point to point anywhere in the world?
Um, no it's not 777 wide.
moondog is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2016, 11:47 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,400
They've slightly shrunk and I have "slightly" gotten fatter....

Last edited by WorldLux; Oct 27, 2016 at 4:10 pm Reason: whupps
WorldLux is offline  
Old Oct 27, 2016, 4:03 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,250
shrunk


the Grammar Bolshevik in me shines through....
weero is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2016, 7:37 am
  #39  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 542
Indeed, the main reason that seats appear to be 'shrunk' is that actually most pax are grown in size. Not only in height (average Western man = 1.8m) but also in width (weight), and the latter affects the space.
airsurfer is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2016, 8:46 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Mass
Programs: Independent
Posts: 4,823
Originally Posted by airsurfer
Indeed, the main reason that seats appear to be 'shrunk' is that actually most pax are grown in size. Not only in height (average Western man = 1.8m) but also in width (weight), and the latter affects the space.
Seats have changed, though. 737/757 less so, A320 series in many cases lost an inch as airlines decided to standardize on the 737 seat unit instead of the slightly wider A320 unit. Wide bodies much more pronounced - almost every wide body airliner that came out, airlines eventually squeezed in an extra seat per row. But not all airlines did this, nor at the same time, so everyone has a different experience.

In the end, though, I really feel this should be regulated.
Cloudship is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2016, 9:29 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
Originally Posted by airsurfer
Indeed, the main reason that seats appear to be 'shrunk' is that actually most pax are grown in size. Not only in height (average Western man = 1.8m) but also in width (weight), and the latter affects the space.
Width isn't solely determined by weight, the average American male is now wider at the shoulders which is determined by bone structure. I have plenty of butt room in a 9 across 787 coach seat but I am tight at the shoulders.

The seats are getting smaller and people are getting bigger.
ROCAT is offline  
Old Oct 29, 2016, 1:14 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Castro, San Francisco, California
Programs: UA, DL, AA, Aegean Air, Cal Alumni (go Bears!)
Posts: 594
World Airways 747-100...1981

When I was a kid, my brother and I flew from Oakland to Hong Kong via Anchorage and Tokyo. It was a one way flight to visit my uncle. (We flew home via Cathay Pacific to LHR then BA to SFO.)
Anyway, one ways were the only option as these jumbos were chartered by the US Government to bring Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees back to the states.
There were about 30 passengers on our flight and we thought it was so cool as we got to sit in the front row in the nose in Economy seats. The flight attendants told us that there were 490 seats for passengers on the 747. But on the return from SE Asia there were likely 575 passengers as there were so many babies. The seats were so close together it was insane. Nothing but Economy class. Much smaller than today's seats.
x1achilles is offline  
Old Oct 29, 2016, 4:32 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Posts: 9,406
I don't mind (relatively) narrow seats - I'm fine with 3-4-3 on A380 (or even B777.. when I'm in exit row and seat neighbour can't squeeze over) but the problem is leg room.. imho, 32 inch was the minimum in the past.. now, airlines are going for 29'' or other crazy tight setup.. I remember when you had the choice between 32'', 33'' and 34''.. when Economy was perfectly fine when you had a day flight..
YuropFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 30, 2016, 1:35 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,250
Originally Posted by airsurfer
Indeed, the main reason that seats appear to be 'shrunk' is that actually most pax are grown in size. Not only in height (average Western man = 1.8m) but also in width (weight), and the latter affects the space.
Did you not ready your own thread ?

Compare first generation 787s with the current models. Compare pre 2013 777s with the configs popular today.

Google Air Asia X' struggle to get 2-5-2 A340s certified etc etc etc.

Yes pax may get wider but airplane seats also definitely are shrinking.
weero is offline  
Old Oct 30, 2016, 5:49 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,250
Originally Posted by YuropFlyer
I don't mind (relatively) narrow seats - I'm fine with 3-4-3 on A380....
3-4-3 on an A380 isn't narrow mate! That's more than 18 inches per gluteus.
... I remember when you had the choice between 32'', 33'' and 34''.. when Economy was perfectly fine when you had a day flight..
Here I agree. This is why the violation by LX, AF, or KL is much worse on the 777 than on EK where the seat pitch is significantly larger.

The Nightmareliner, however seems to always bring out the worst in its operators.
weero 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.