Airlines cramming more seats into Dreamliner than Boeing expected

AJC wrote:
You've just made the point yourself. To say legroom = seat pitch is
nonsense. Try saying that there is generally a relationship between
the two.

While seat thickness may provide the illusion of extra legroom, you need
to consider that the real showstopper is not the thickness of the
seatback, but the structural and mechanical structures around the seat
and where the seatback joins the seat. Also, often, any advantages of a
thinner seat back have been negated by the addition of IFE display in seatbacks.

Seat pitch will definitely dictate the amount of space between the
forward end of the armrest and the seat in front of it. And that
dictates how much of a contortionist you need to be to get into the seat.

So in effect, usable seat space might be better increased by reducing
the depth of seats since that would give greater clearance between the
the forward edges of the seat cusshion/armrests and the seat in front of
it. It would make entry and egress easier. But it woudln't actually give
you more legroom since distance between seatbacks would remain the same.


As for the 787, it is a fair bet that while default economy will be 9
across with perhaps 28" seta pitch, the airlines will be pitching a
premium economy section with 34" seat picth and 8 across. The terrible
conditions in the back will push people to pay the surcharge to have a
decent seat.

But this will still label the 787 as a bad plane where passengers are
crammed in like sardines.

The big question is whether Airbus will be selling its 350 with 9 across
as a possible config. Airbus had repeatedly stated that its 330/340 had
been sized expressly for dissuading airlines from cramming an extra
seat. But when airbus announced that it had managed to widen the 350's
cabin by 3" by thinning the walls, is this enough of a widening to allow
9 across seating as "standard" ?


Imagine if you are one of the first ones to order the 787 with every
intentios of making it a comfortable plane and using all the marketing
about the 787 being very comfortable to attract passengers to your
airline. Then, you find out that the 787 will get an image of a "crammed
in uncomfortable" aircraft because Boeing has been selling it as 9
across to most customers. You ended up buyiong an aircraft whose image
has been tarnished and which will no longer be an asset to help you
convey the image that you are a comfortable airline.

*IF* Airbus really sticks to 8 across seating, then it can promise its
customers that the 350 will maintain the image of comfortable aircraft
and that Airbus will advertise it as a more comfortable aircraft than
its competitor. This might help alleviate any economic disadvantages of
flying fewer passengers.

What is interesting here is that Boeing had worked so hard to showcase
its 787 as the most comfortable aircraft in the world, and this was
shattered with that announcement to a point where the 777 will now be
seen as the more comfortable one and the 787 the one to be dreaded.

Good post.

The terrible
conditions in the back will push people to pay the surcharge to have a
decent seat.

Which isn't really a bad thing, as it gives people a choice.

the 787 will get an image of a "crammed
in uncomfortable" aircraft because Boeing has been selling it as 9
across to most customers. You ended up buyiong an aircraft whose image
has been tarnished and which will no longer be an asset to help you
convey the image that you are a comfortable airline.

I wonder about this. The "average" member of the flying public doesn't
really know or care what aircraft they're booking themselves onto.
Once they board they may know they're on a 747, particularly if they go
up the stairs, but if a customer enters a route on Travelocity, picks
"sort by price" and picks a flight they won't know / care what air
frame they're on, and probably couldn't / wouldn't tell the difference
between an A-330, A-340, 767, 777 or 787. They might be pleasantly
suprised to find seat back video and an extendable headrest, but that's
probably it.

Cheers,
Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada