spin88

Actually NH took several 77Ws in 3-4-3 (but with 34" pitch) and for whatever reason (I can speculate it is lack of customer satisfaction) it has taken subsequent deliveries in 3-3-3. Part of this may be that JAL has surpassed ANA in customer satisfaction and is running a "fly wider" campaign.

AA's 77Ws are 3-3-3 in E+, but Parker is intent on finding a low spot to lie in...

The point of my post was that while some argued that eventually everyone would go 3-4-3 because people don't care, well that is just not correct. There are airlines like AirCanada (which now has the worst JP Powers Scores of any NA airline, except Frontier) that went early to these configurations, and I think are properly paying a price in reputation. BTB, the 2017 scores are:

SWA 807
B6 803
AS 758
DL 758

AA 736
WestJet 736

UA 716
AC 709




Yeh, but with an assembly line J, and the worst, least comfortable Y, and the same horrible narrow seats in E+, United it appears is just pleasing people who want to try to score a cheap buy up to J.

fly18725

Like I said, it might be impossible for United to please anyone.

I guess assembly-line J is better when you can't upgrade.

spin88

The real issue is that United has chased away much of the high value traffic that it used to have that would actually pay for a C seat, and now fills up J with deeply discounted (40+% off) corporate sales and then cheap buy-ups.

United was forced in some ways to go high density due to not having as good of a FF/traveler base after 5 years of Jeff's mismanagement.

I think the problem is that the 777 forces "non-managed" travelers to either pay the same to fly in a sub-par J product (since UA has to keep its prices high due to corporate discounts) when they could go with another better airline for the same $$$$, or due to the lack of a PE product, fly in a horrible coach experience. Neither are good ways to retain traffic.

YMMV

minnyfly

You may not be sitting there, but plenty of people will. I've done it. I'll do it again. I've felt much more uncomfortable before in an 18" 717 seat than a 10-across 777.

The economics are still there for 3-4-3. What I've seen mentioned recently and makes total sense is that DL may have an operational need for 3-3-3. JNB-ATL pushes the limits of the 77L. It's highly likely that DL could not add 25-30 passengers if it wanted to. So that means the 77L isn't going 3-4-3. And if the 77L isn't going 3-4-3, then it makes less sense to switch the smaller 77E fleet.

So it's quite possible that the reason that DL is staying with 3-3-3 has nothing to do with customer comfort or 3-3-3 being superior economically.

Sources? It makes no sense. If they chased away J traffic as you say, they should be leading the charge with shrinking their J cabins. Instead they're the lone holdout.

spin88

Atl-jnb is 8425 sm, the 777lr (in a heavier 317 configuration) has a range of 9844 sm.

Delta did not made this decision due to operational reasons. They clearly ran the numbers, but likely more deeply than Ua's spreadsheet analysis, and realized having a good reputation, and avoiding book away was more important than a theoretical extra few y passengers.

halls120

Not true. Had they kept 9 across in Y on the 777s, I'd have been very happy.

maybe the economics are there, but when it comes to comfort, 10 across doesn't cut it.

Once the 9 across is gone on UA, I will only fly UA long haul when I can upgrade to business. Otherwise, my business will go to DL and the airlines that have real PE.

fly18725

I personally agree with your position. With 60J, the 777-300ER should (hopefully) have better upgrade percentages for those that can't buy J. While Delta will offer PE, there will be few, if any upgrades to J. I think that 1" more width is a poor offset for no upgrades.

I think PE will come to United. It is a question of when.

minnyfly

Your range figure isn't close to reality. Range at full payload is much lower. JNB-ATL is the 5th longest route in the world, and JNB is a hot and high airport. DL's 77L is routinely "payload optimized".

Everything that's public indicates it's a lucrative route for DL, and that would absolutely affect their 77L configuration decision. A 5th of their 77L fleet is flying it every day. DL's 777s are already very dense, and they are flown on some very long sectors (the 77Ls will soon be flying three city pairs over 7,000 miles long). Performance for all of them would be affected with another 25-30 seats. It could easily tip the spreadsheet back to show keeping 3-3-3 as being more economical.

halls120

Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back up this claim?

spin88

I would not hold my breath.... . Searches don't turn up anything on an issue, and since DL has been using the 777lr on the route since 2010 (before then they did a fuel stop in Dakar, and flew with a 763) I think we would have heard if there were issues.

The published range with a configuration with 317 (about what it would be if DL had gone 3-4-3) is 1425 miles longer than this flight. Any "issue" is going to be going to JNB as the trade winds flow west, and there are reports that the flight can sometimes take up to an hour longer to get to JNB when the winds are strongest.

The runway at JNB is 14,500 feet, and even in winter (their summer) they ought to be able to go at MTOW, but because they have the winds with them for much of the trip, and have another 1425 of range in any event, they will not need the full MTOW of the airplane.

Bottom line is that claims that Delta was some how forced into sticking with 3-3-3 on their 777 fleet due to a single route are bogus. The reality (perhaps uncomfortable for those who continue to hawk the trope that "airline travel is a commodity" and the economics of 3-4-3 were self evident) is that Delta, having sat back and watched the response over the last year/year and a half to United using 3-4-3 on its HD and now 77W product, and AA using it in Y- on its 77W, and on its few rehabbed 772s, made a choice to not go with this ultra-tight/uncomfortable configuration.

This sets Delta up to market itself as the "premium" comfortable airline, and this move was in some ways presaged by Delta running ads in their inflight mag touting that unlike other airlines they were using the "comfortable" 3-3-3 configuration.

Don't be surprised to see this message start to show up in Delta's advertisements.

halls120

They would be crazy not to take advantage of their wider seats in their advertising.

minnyfly

What I said wasn't an opinion. It's a factual statement that's either right or wrong.

What I said is what DL says. You can take their word for it nor not.


Search again. Google shows a lot actually. If in doubt, ask DL employees.

You can't simply look at a range chart and runway length and determine aircraft performance. In high and often hot conditions like JNB or DEN, the air is less dense and produces less lift. JNB-ATL is a very tough route for the 77L in the South Africa summer. Heck even ATL-JNB isn't a piece of cake when it's hot.

Runway length isn't a savior. There are occasions when a 20 mile runway wouldn't matter at DEN. Wheel speed is also a limiting factor.

No, your counter-argument was factually wrong and without merit. The bottom line is that we don't know. It's plausible that aircraft performance tipped the scales in the direction of 3-3-3. Soon there will be three very long routes for DL's 77Ls--60% of their 77L fleet. More seats on an already very dense aircraft is a factor. No one here knows for certain how much.

It pretty much already has. And I would expect it. We're talking about an airline that sees no problem lying to its customers for fraudulent purposes. Absolutely they will try to advertise a comfort advantage. Whether the reasoning is true or not, they won't care.

halls120

Could you provide a link to where DL says this?

DLs seats are going to be wider than UAs on their widebody aircraft once UA goes 10 wide in the 777s. How is DL lying?

spin88

They can follow JAL, which did this when ANA went with 3-3-3 on the 787 and took a few (which again they stopped) 77Ws in 3-4-3.

Here is a link to their web-site on their seats: https://www.jal.co.jp/en/inter/servi.../skywider.html

They also run ads touting how much better they are than ANA.

Not sure why the When you make a statement, and its is backed by nothing what so ever, and when it is pointed out that it is backed by nothing you post nothing, then it is an opinion; an "internet opinion"

fly18725

JNB-ATL is often weight restricted, requiring seats be blocked. I don't think there is a link where Delta says this. Delta has not commented publicly on its 777 reconfiguration so I doubt a link can be sourced for that.

We can put several pieces together to understand that Delta can't increase the empty operating weight (OEW) without impacting performance on JNB-ATL, and possibly other routes. This may prohibit a densification of Y. Delta could also be saving money by not reconfiguring Y at all. Regardless, I think we can agree that United is not Delta and that the airlines are pursuing different international strategies: United with a large J cabin supported by a denser Y and Delta with a smaller J that will be sustained without upgrades, enabling Y to remain unchanged on 11 airplanes.