ung1

Interesting C configuration, certainly good for eavesdropping. I don't get why all four center seats are forward/ rear facing. Wouldn't a staggered configuration a la BA allow for more shoulder space and greater privacy?

AirForce915

According to the Boeing website the 777 cabin width is 19ft 3in. The 747 cabin width is 20ft 1in.

Charles847

traveling in pairs or traveling single, with a little pre-planning, a 2-5-2 gives a much better flying experience than a 3-3-3.

John Thacker

Surely not "guarantees." A 2-5-2 configuration *allows* 4 couples to sit next to each other, but certainly in practice sometimes single travelers book first and take one of the 2 seats. I've definitely seen seatmaps where nearly all of the 2 seat groups in E+ have exactly one seat occupied, along with both aisle seats of the 5 group. Each single traveler preferred not sitting next to an existing passenger when booking, even if eventually the flight will fill up.

When you have a lot of singles, the row can fill up like this on booking:
XO XOOOX XO
with 4 of the 9 seats occupied before people newly booking abandon that row and book open rows.

With a 3-3-3 configuration and lots of singles, the row tends to fill up like this:
XOX XOX XOX
with 6 of the 9 seats occupied before people refuse to book the row until other rows are nearly filled.

If you're a couple booking when the plane is partially filled, then 3-3-3 can increase your chances of getting two seats next to each other (and not in the middle of the 5), though it depends on how many couples versus how many single travelers have booked before.

It doesn't matter that most couples prefer to book the 2 seats. It matters whether most 2 seats are booked by couples. That's different, and depends on what proportion of travelers are couples.

Quickly doing a dummy booking and looking at flight 804 NRT-IAD on May 16, in E+ I see 9 two seat groups double occupied, 10 two seat groups occupied by exactly one person, and 1 two seat group unoccupied (row 23, near the back). In the 5 seat groups, only one seat not an aisle is occupied. Even if we assume that all the double occupied two seat groups are couples, that still means that less than half the two seat groups are occupied by couples, whereas the other half are occupied by singles who prefer not having a stranger next to them.

Conclusion: You certainly can't say that "few are angry" and that "everyone is happy" when there is six seat occupancy on 2-5-2. In this one flight, at least half the two seat groups are occupied by passengers who are not part of couples and who would be happier in 3-3-3.

Even worse, there are multiple rows, like 19, 20, and 25, which filled up to 4 person occupancy and then no one booked in that row again, preferred to fill up extra rows. Couples booking later face the problem of only being able to book together in the middle of the 5. With 3-3-3, those rows would have filled up to occupancy six initially, saving better open seats next to each other in other rows.

It doesn't *just* matter what the load is when the plane takes off. It also matters what the load is at the time of booking, since people select their seats then.

If you're a couple, and you're booking when load is close to 55%, then in 2-5-2 you're extremely unlikely to find a pair of seats next to each other except for the in the middle of the 5. If you're booking when load is close to 55% in 3-3-3, then you are guaranteed to find a pair of seats next to each other. (You will have to worry about whether to take seats next to each other or gamble on taking aisle/window or aisle/aisle and asking someone to switch later one.)

cesco.g

Want to join in thanking you for long anitcipated, great fist pix! ^

Center section in C looks similar to the one in the 744 LD. Assuming the aisle width is identical to the 744, there is 1 1/4" less width space per seat. Will be interesting to learn from the first FT who evaluates the cabin with his measuring tape. IIRC there were 2 widths: 22" and 23.75". Given the narrower body of the 777 all seats mght be 22".

sunil

CaptainBilly ,you are freaking awesome !!

bniu

Wouldn't this work? For the 2-5-2, have the seats assigned AC-DEFGH-JL and the 3-3-3 assigned ABC-DFH-JKL, this way only B and K would get remapped to E and G. As far as anyone else cares, CDHJ are always aisle seats.

I think UA uses the same seat on the 747 as they use on the 767, thus all of them are narrow. The seats only come in pairs as well. Thus, the only "excuse me" free seats in C would be on the 767

uastarflyer

Good luck finding that configuration beyond 2yrs from now.

UA was the launch customer and chose the 2-5-2, but the market has spoken.

Now I'd prefer they upsized the bins on the sides to match the 747 - a 22" roller doesn't roll in flat wheels in/out - very inefficient. And a longer reach.

goalie

thanks for the great pics ^^ and in the back of the bus it looks like 21c and its counterpart on the other side have a ton of extra legroom and 33a and it's counterpart on the other side are gonna have "feet and slide issues"

FriendlySkies

I echo what Goalie said, Thanks for the great photos, CaptainBilly!!!

I like 20AB in E+. They look like pretty nice seats to be in, as you still get the 2 seats, instead of three...

Azmordean

I think this looks quite nice for economy. I also don't get the hate for 3-3-3. People need to remember MOST passengers in Y, the vast majority, are not elites and cannot cherry pick seats at booking. Given that, and assuming fairly full flights (90-100%) which seems to me to be the new norm, for most passengers 3-3-3 will be preferable because there is no chance of a true "hell seat."

why fly

I have done a lot of flights on the 747 and 767 and these new C seats are GREAT the huge VOD screen and drop down armrest give you lots of width. Oh and check seat guru out UA seats 23.5 and thats comparable to a lot of Airlines.
the POD seating on AC NZ are not as wide and I have been on CX and it was tight also... So from the specs at Seat Guru UA seems to have the same width.

mahasamatman

I don't see it maving a great effect on single travelers, and it will help the trios somewhat, but it really hurts the couples, which is probably a significant population of leisure travelers (I wonder if there's data on this). With 2-5-2, you can fit four couples across and make all of them relatively happy. With 3-3-3, you can only fit three couples across, and pretty much only make one of them happy.

RichardInSF

Yeah but except for the 10 inches divided among 8 seats, the interior in C pretty much looks identical to the 747. However, I'd guess that 1" width per seat will be missed.

And the new config is WAY better than the old one in my book. The lack of personal storage is a small pain but I still see no reason to pay any non-trivial difference for first -- certainly not $500.

gengar

The problem with the seatguru figure is the reference metric for seat width. Seatguru's 23.5" figure for UA C is with armrests down - in other words, the width of the seat from the outside of the armrests. With armrests up, the new C seats are only 19" wide. If other carriers are measuring their C seat widths by the typical inside armrest convention (which is the convention used for every other UA seat), then using the 23.5" figure will not give a relevant comparison. For example, measuring the old C seat width using the outer armrests would give something 27"+.

I'm definitely with flyinbob and others in this thread, and the legions of FTers who have posted elsewhere, in agreement the narrow seats get a big and it is a major contributing factor in why I switched my TPACs away from UA.