787 - most uncomfortable long-haul aircraft ever?

[DISCOKID]

Just returned from my first 787 economy flight across the pond with the 10 abreast seating in economy. I really can't believe how uncomfortable this aircraft is in economy.

I have never experienced such narrow seating and ridiculously thin armrests.

I have no idea what Boeing were thinking allowing 10 seats. Both myself and the lady next to me were quite thin and yet we spent the whole flight practically on top of each other. Impossible to move in your sleep without waking the person next to you and impossible to sleep in an aisle seat without being bumped repeatedly by people passing in the narrow aisles.

Given the average size of people in the USA I wonder how this seating is going down in the states! I will actively be avoiding any route using 787 from now on.

[TightSlot]

Seating is neither manufactured nor supplied by the aircraft manufacturer, in this case, Boeing. It is specified, sourced and purchased by the Airline, in accordance with relevant national legislation. Your issue is not with the aircraft, but with what the airline has done to it.

[DISCOKID]

(Sorry should have said 9 abreast above rather than 10!)

Boeing designed the plane expecting a 2-4-2 configuration to be used in economy. I realise its the airlines choice but Boeing shouldn't have agreed to squeeze that many in. It reflects badly on the Boeing and the aircraft and it was amazing just how unhappy the entire cabin was.

BA have to their credit acknowledged they have a problem with 787 seating following terrible customer review scores from their 787 flights. Its time other airlines did the same.

[ExXB]

Boeing didn't agree (or not) to anything. The aircraft is certified for a maximum number of seats and the operators are free to use any configuration they wish, provided they don't exceed the maximum (and meet other regulations)

Your issue is with the airline, not Boeing.

Not all B787 operators configure their aircraft the same as the one you were on. Use Seatguru or similar web-sites to check before you pay.

Oh, and you could pony up and sit in Business or First class if you really want a comfortable flight.

[mixture]

DISCOKID,

Well, you flew cattle class ... what sort of comfort do you expect ? :cool:

[BlueTui]

I'm at the larger end of the scale width wise and have travelled a few times in economy on the 787 in 3-3-3 config and do not have any issues with the seat, yes it could be wider but for an economy seat it's fine. Certainly no narrower than some others I've been in. I think this issue is wanting a premium seat for economy money. You only get what you pay for in life. All but one operator so far has gone(or going) to 9 abreast seating so it can't be too bad.

[Andy_S]

So let me get this straight.

The airline decides on the seating configuration, the seats themselves, the pitch and the width of the seating.

Yet if you find that uncomfortable apparently it's Boeing's fault.......:ugh:

My own experience of the 787 was with Thomson in PE, and I have to say it was perfectly comfortable. There is an issue with the seats whereby if the passenger in front of you reclines their seat you have difficulty getting out, but that's an issue for the airline rather than Boeing.

[VS-LHRCSA]

I'd take 3-3-3 in a B787 over 3-3-3 in an A330 any day!

[WHBM]

The issue for Boeing is they are doing all the Tra-La-La about the 787 being the "most comfortable ever" when they full know that it is replacing, commonly, the 767, which apart from charter operators always had a 2-3-2 7-across layout, with the 787 being 3-3-3 in a 9-across layout in a cabin just inches wider than the 767.

It is quite true that airlines, not the airframe manufacturer, determine what the seating density is. It is therefore somewhat ingenuous of the manufacturer to do extensive publicity of their own (which Boeing have done) about it being "more comfortable" when they know full well that what their customers have done with it leads to it not being so.

[tdracer]

WHBM, the 787 interior is 2.5 ft. wider than a 767.

However you are correct, Boeing designed the 787 for 8 abreast in economy - in much the same way the 777 was designed for 9 abreast. But as everyone else has noted, seating configuration is up to the operator, so long as it doesn't exceed the max rated count (which is based on the evacuation capability, not anything to do with comfort).

[Andy_S]

It is therefore somewhat ingenuous of the manufacturer to do extensive publicity of their own (which Boeing have done) about it being "more comfortable" when they know full well that what their customers have done with it leads to it not being so.

I think Boeing's claims in respect of comfort have more to do with cabin pressure, humidity, air quality, lighting and turbulence damping than seating. At the end of the day, if the airlines want to configure economy in the 787 as 2-3-2 then there’s nothing to stop them doing so.

Sadly, cramming as many people as possible in seems to be the way the industry is going.

[mixture]

Sadly, cramming as many people as possible in seems to be the way the industry is going.

They are only responding to the demands for ever-lower ticket prices from those who sit down the back of the aircraft. :cool:

Add to that the fierce competition, the advent of the internet that has made price comparison easy....

And the fact that there are only so many costs you can cut in the airline industry....

[PAXboy]

In their advertising, I suspect Boeing would say they are talking about the air filtering and humidity, which are different to the previous generations.

(Not yet been on the 787 and not bothered)

[Avionker]

Ah the old blame the manufacturer not the airline card. Sometimes the manufacturer does have to take some of the responsibility of course. But it always pays to do a little research before throwing criticism around. Let me give an example, slightly off-topic maybe but....

Several years ago I was employed as one of several contractors by an IFE manufacturer. They had recently introduced an new system and it was experiencing a higher than anticipated number of software failures. Our job was to monitor the IFE system in flight, recording all failures for fault trend analysis, and assist the cabin crew with re-setting any failed units where possible. This inevitably led to interaction with the passengers and of course we attempted to portray both the IFE manufacturer and the airline in the best possible light.

On a trip from New York to Paris my usual polite and helpful demeanor was tested beyond breaking point by one particularly "demanding" passenger.

In all fairness to the lady in question her seat was been quite troublesome. I had reset it three times and still had not been able to restore it to full functionality. She could watch movies, listen to the "radio" and see the Airshow map display, but could not load and play games.

Unfortunately the flight was full and there were no empty seats to which the crew could move her, not in economy anyway.

Software resets were done remotely from a terminal at the Pursers station so I had not actually met the lady. I had been informed of her difficulties via the cabin interphone and had noted the fault symptoms and re-set her seat accordingly. After the meal service was finished I was asked by the Purser to go back and check the seat and see if there was anything else I could do, as the passenger was by now giving the cabin crew a very hard time.

I set off for the back of the aircraft secure in the knowledge that there was very little chance of me been able to get the seat working correctly. We carried no spare parts as we could not legally change any components in flight. Software re-sets were pretty much the limit of our powers or, in extreme cases if a widespread failure occurred, maybe cycling a circuit breaker having first discussed it with the Captain and obtaining their permission.

Anyway I introduced myself to the passenger and asked if I could check the system out for her. Having confirmed that the symptoms were as described I explained to her that I had done all I could and that every time we re-set the seat there was a possibility that it would degrade further. I sympathized with her and suggested that, rather than risk losing the system at her seat altogether, maybe it would be better to watch a movie and accept that the games were not available.

She declined, quite forcefully.

With a heavy heart and a sense of foreboding I made my way back to the front of the aircraft and re-set her seats software for the fourth time. It took about a minute for a seat box re-set to run it's course and I had returned to her seat by the time it finished. This time the Purser accompanied me, I would like to think for moral support, but more likely to smooth things over with the passenger if required.

Anyway the re-set did not finish well.

Now, rather than been able to watch the movies, or listen to some music or see where exactly we were over the Atlantic, the passenger could do nothing with the IFE system. The Welcome screen was staring her mockingly in the face. Promising all sorts of entertainment possibilities, a veritable cornucopia of In Flight delight you could say, and absolutely refusing to respond to any kind of control inputs. Nothing, nada, zip.

I looked at the lady, keeping my "I told you so" look carefully suppressed, and apologetically informed her that there was nothing else I could do.

She let rip.

Time and distance preclude me from quoting her verbatim but it went something like this:-

"Goddammit, I knew I should have flown with an American airline. If this is what Europeans think is acceptable I should have stayed at home. The goddamn games don't work, the seat is uncomfortable, the airplane is noisy and the meal was lousy. I thought French food was meant to be good." (the airline in question was indeed Air France).

"If this is what Europe is like it's going to be goddamn long 2 weeks. I should have stayed in the states, at least things work there!"

On every flight I was very aware that the Air France crew would report any inappropriate response or actions I made, and that my continuing employment on the contract was at risk if I lost my cool with passengers. So I took a deep breath and replied as follows:-

"Madam, once again I apologize on behalf of Rockwell Collins. We are doing everything we can to improve the IFE system, although I realize that is of little consolation to you at the moment. I have done everything in my power to help you and I'm sorry that I couldn't get the system working to your satisfaction"

I probably should have left it at that but.......

"And as for your other complaints, the aircraft is a Boeing 777, that's an american aeroplane. The engines which you find so noisy are made by General Electric, an american company. The seat you are sitting in is made by B/E Aerospace, that's an american company. The IFE system is made by an american company. And the meal, well that was on-loaded in JFK not Paris, therefore it was prepared by an american company using, I suspect, american produce. I do hope that your holiday improves and Europe is not too much of a disappointment to you."

I left at that point, without a backward glance.

A few minutes later I was standing in the business class galley having a coffee and in walks the Purser, with a huge grin from ear to ear.

It appeared that I had just said what had been on the mind of every crew member in the cabin, but they of course could not say it.

I left the aircraft in Paris with 2 bottles of wine and several hugs and kisses from the cabin crew. Some days you just have to love your job.

[Basil]

Avionker,
"Madam, once again I apologize . . . I do hope that your holiday improves and Europe is not too much of a disappoint to you."
Heroic! :}:ok:

[chrissw]

Avionker,

That made my day!

<wipes spluttered coffee from screen and keyboard>

[PAXboy]

Thanks Avionker, for taking the time to write that story out in full - a great story with many illustrations for people at every level in the airline world.

[Smoketrails]

Always love those kind of stories! Epic Avionker!

[glendalegoon]

on a trip from new york to paris, all that was available to eat were cold sandwiches, lukewarm coffee, a little water. bathroom unavailable. no in flight entertainment except my own imagination. poor visibility meant nothing worthwhile to see except an odd iceberg.

seat was uncomfortable, would not recline. felt like a cheap whicker basket.

cost to transport my luggage was too high, didn't even take a toothbrush.

noise from engine was deafening, had to put cotton in my ears for the whole flight.

heater didn't work

was lucky enough not to have aisle seat.

WE did arrive ahead of schedule, though massive traffic jam at airport. Cleared customs with no problem.

Decided to take ship back to the USA. Treated like a king aboard ship!

C.A.L

[Avionker]

Well, if you will insist on using Ryanair......

[ExXB]

I'm not surprised the bathrooms were unavailable. I've heard of showers, but never a bath at 37k feet. Perhaps the crew were using it as a jacuzzi?

[rog747]

did Amelia take sandwiches as well like as CAL?

[eastern wiseguy]

As has been stated before,the RESPONSIBILITY for the seats is the airline. I recently travelled on an airline whose name may not be spoken aloud here. The economy seats were narrow,hard and very uncomfortable. Pony up for business you say........well I did that on the return leg. Full bed...narrow hard and unpleasant. Never again.

Later that month Business class transatlantic on United 757 (the ONLY upgrade I have ever received) It was night and day. Stretched out COMFORTABLE and able to relax. Returned Y and that was tolerable.

As I am not wealthy and do not have a company to pick up the tab I will always try to at least find a Premium Economy product. Seat Guru is excellent as is Airline Quality dot com.

Some research will pay dividends......

[glendalegoon]

amelia forgot (or removed) an RDF set up that would have helped. Amelia isn't in the same league as C.A.L.

[Davef68]

on a trip from new york to paris, all that was available to eat were cold sandwiches, lukewarm coffee, a little water. bathroom unavailable. no in flight entertainment except my own imagination. poor visibility meant nothing worthwhile to see except an odd iceberg.

seat was uncomfortable, would not recline. felt like a cheap whicker basket.

cost to transport my luggage was too high, didn't even take a toothbrush.

noise from engine was deafening, had to put cotton in my ears for the whole flight.

heater didn't work

was lucky enough not to have aisle seat.

WE did arrive ahead of schedule, though massive traffic jam at airport. Cleared customs with no problem.

Decided to take ship back to the USA. Treated like a king aboard ship!

C.A.L.


Was that a military flight? Transatlantic without a working toilet?

[Avionker]

Well done glendalegoon. Despite my Ryanair remark I did actually get where you were coming from with your post. Apparently not everyone did....

[joy ride]

Ah, I get it now, Ryan monoplane. First time I read it it went right over my head, pun intended.

[glendalegoon]

thank you avionker

ryanair isn't on this side of the pond, but I thought it a clever remark. and I think you are right, some didn't get it.

[joy ride]

I guessed you were referring to flying in earlier times, but had failed to notice that you were referring to this specific flight! Good one, subtle!

Can't help thinking of Alcock and Brown's earlier Trans-Atlantic flight in an open-cockpit bi-plane, that would give a huge bit of perspective to contemporary passengers, it is always so easy to complain and forget what progress has done for us!

[rgsaero]

I am always mildly entertained by the complaints about comfort and particularly, noise.

Anything, repeat anything presently in commercial service is just so much better than even 30 years ago particularly with regard to noise. The advent of high-bypass turbines has reset the scale from the early turbine jets.

And if you want noise, try a Canadair Argonaut Singapore to London - a three day journey and you're sitting in between two pairs of V12 Rolls Royce Merlins - without silencers! The Pratt and Whitney radials on the Constellation on the way out were silent by comparison!

[pax britanica]

Noise on airliners is an interesting topic.
I only ever ehard the big props from the outside and the comment about the Argonaught was spot on-what that must have been like (even for Merlin lovers) for hours on end I cannot imagine.
But have things improved in the jet age??
Well I went on my honeymoon on a 707 436 and sitting behind those four conways was like the world ending. And the same engines ona DC8 40 seemed noisier yet despite the huge retractable 'silencer' thingy hung on the back

On the other hands sitting in front of four Conways on a VC10 was the complete opposite with the engines really only audible at all on take off.
Same thing with all rear engine craft- the MD80s were for me the best shorthaul plane ever in that respect.

Now along come the really big fans and things do get better at first but s the fans get bigger and mask the actual jet efflux noise the frequency of the fan noise gets lower and lower and more intrusive until you to get to the in my view horrid triple & with its weird collection of groans and whines as the fans
seem to struggle to keep a consistent power setting and set up what to me are very unpleasant low frequency noises all through a long night.

And then along comes the A380 and that beast may not be pretty but it is fantastic to fly on and seems like it is powered by fan engines of the electrical office fan type with very little cruise noise at all.

And a final comment on comfort-airline travel is a reflection of the world we live in -first class gets better and better and the lot of the great majority gets worse and worse. For me personally premium economy works very well but not many airlines do it and those who do limit the number of seats.

I am not really sure I buy the 'we are forced to do it ' line since in many many industries there is a sophisticated analysis of price versus value . In Europe Easy jet which cut out some frills has prospered while Ryanair which cut out some of the basics as well struggles in a the real bottom end of the market and especially now people have wised up to their various 'scams'.

It gets back to the fact that today too few influential people fly the airlines- if the corporate jet folks ahd to fly through hub airports service would improve on the ground overnight- if they had to travel the way they force many of their employees to so would onboard service.

[PAXboy]

... if the corporate jet folks had to fly through hub airports service would improve on the ground overnight ... Plus:


access to the airport
parking
check in
blöõdy shops
so called security (not their fault but the people who do it - are)
walking for miles because they were too cheapskate to put in travelators
travelators not working
loading a 744 ONE-person-at-a-time through ONE-dæmm door
<feel free to continue the list>
:mad:

[thing]

And then along comes the A380 and that beast may not be pretty but it is fantastic to fly on and seems like it is powered by fan engines of the electrical office fan type with very little cruise noise at all.

I'll second that. The first time I took off in one I was in the upstairs section and I thought we were just taxiing quickly. It's eerily quiet.

[rog747]

cabin/seat comfort is airline dependant - we all know that - if BA just improved their Y leg room to 33/34 inches on all long haul a/c iso a measly 31 and served a decent meal then that would definitely make them winners

not many Y cabins left on long haul airlines where comfort, decent meal and service is a priority whether 787 or not

pals went on air India 787 recently on holiday to Oz in Y and was very impressed - very good leg room, lovely meals and nice crew
also the airline gave them a night free in a good hotel as the India stopover was more than 12 hours

[WHBM]

Anything, repeat anything presently in commercial service is just so much better than even 30 years ago particularly with regard to noise. The advent of high-bypass turbines has reset the scale from the early turbine jets.
No, the VC-10 was very quiet throughout.

Come the new designs of the 1990s and the A330/340 were indeed pleasantly quiet inside. Not so the equivalent 777. I've had different reasons given for why the 777 is so noisy inside, some that it's an air-con noise, others that the engines are set close in, or Boeing doesn't put enough soundproofing in. The A380 appears to be continuing the Airbus lead in this area

And if you want noise, try a Canadair Argonaut Singapore to London - a three day journey and you're sitting in between two pairs of V12 Rolls Royce Merlins - without silencers!
Many Argonaut crews suffered hearing loss in later life.

[thing]

Many Argonaut crews suffered hearing loss in later life.

Pal of mine was a Flt Eng on C-130s. His leaving present was a hearing aid. Joke leaving presents aside I have a few hours on Fat Albert and although it isn't an excruciatingly loud aircraft it does have constant very high ambient noise; I can imagine 30 years on one would leave some pretty serious damage.

[PAXboy]

One can imagine that, with the 380, the top deck is simply further away from the engines. Which is why the upper deck of the 747 has always been the best place to be on that machine - all variants.

[thing]

One can imagine that, with the 380, the top deck is simply further away from the engines.

True. If you go to the back of the top deck you reach the staircase for the lower deck; as you take each step down you can hear the noise increasing. It is noticeably louder downstairs but only by degrees. I would say that the lower deck on a 380 is still far quieter than a 330. I have a fair few hours on both and the 330 although quieter than the 777 IMO (the 777 at the back is like sitting in a dishwasher, noise cancelling headphones a must) it is still noticeably louder than the 380 especially on take off.

[joy ride]

By about 8 years old I had flown on a Comet 4, several 707s and DC8s, then my older brother and I (unaccompanied) had our first flight on a VC10 in the last row of seats and able to see 2 of the engines outside our window. I remember us being knocked out by the acceleration and steep climb and an impressive roar from the engines, but once cruising the engine noise was well masked by wind noise and we reckoned it was noticeably quieter than previous flights. We both still love the VC10.

[SMT Member]

Having been on the 787 quite a few times, by experiences as as thus:

* It's just another tube with wings. Does have rather tall windows
* Boeing has finally made an aircraft that's almost as quiet as an Airbus
* Felt no different walking off the aircraft than any other aircraft (i.e. didn't fell any effects of lower cabin altitude and higher humidity

From a passenger perspective, nothing to write home about then. But I'm sure the bean counters love it, when it's actually flying that is; some friends of mine have just suffered a 24-hour tech delay on QR. Of the 6 legs I've done, only 2 were on time and 1 was 4+ hours delayed on technical grounds. All with the same operator (QR).

[Sober Lark]

"ryanair isn't on this side of the pond"


In one respect yes but in another don't you make all their aircraft?

[Radix]

...........

[Heathrow Harry]

I've always liked the 777 but it IS noisy - especially cp an A.330

the A380 is jsut in a totally different class to both noise-wise

[Andy_S]

What worried me was the state of all the trim in the toilets. The accessories door under the sink idn't lock, exposing the internals of the aircraft, a number of decals, or buttons were loose or missing. The toilet lid didn't want to stay up. It all felt very flimsy. Makes me wonder what other parts of the aircraft are flimsy. For an aircraft that has only just been introduced in service...

The seats were very comfortable. The IFE system crashed multiple times during the flight, and with other pax as well.

You realise that most of the above is down to how the operator specifies the aircraft fit out?

[Gonzo]

I recently flew A380s from London to Sydney and back, and I certainly noticed how much quieter it was when compared to a 747 and 777. However, the downside to that was that all the incidental noises, such as cutlery clinking, oven doors and trolleys banging in the galley and passengers moving about were therefore far louder in relative terms. My wife found it more difficult to sleep for some of the trip due to this, than on louder aircraft.

[El Bunto]

Boeing are entirely responsible for nine-abreast in the 787.

1. They reinforced the cabin floor to accept the additional loading, which added a couple of tonnes to the empty weight
2. They provide looms and plumbing for overhead amenities suitable for nine-abreast.
and of course..
3. They performed certification evacuation testing using nine-abreast seating.

This isn't just a case of Boeing plucking a seating-count out of the air and airlines being 'smart' and using nine-abreast to achieve it. The entire aircraft was tailored for it.

I'm never one to defend airlines, but in this case Boeing handed them revenue on a platter and of course they accepted it!

Had Boeing declined in one of those three areas then airlines wouldn't have been able to do so.

[Mr Mac]

I have to agree with everyone re the A380, it is noticeably quieter than anything else around at the moment by some distance. The 777 I find a little noisier, but I am lucky to do most of my flying from up stairs or by turning left on long haul (over 5hrs in my company) so it is not as bad as from behind the wing. 330 I generally find to be quieter than its Boeing counterpart, however most of my 330 time has been with EK who's seating even in Business is a little parsimonious shall we say, so not a favourite, and 340 are much the same, although I do like the way they look. As for 787, I flew on an early one Tokyo - HK and apart from the size of the window, it was not a game changer for me, and I have not flown in one since. Mixtures post on the economics I found interesting, and sheds some light on how much say the bean counters have compared, with their clients !

[ZFT]

During the transient phases of flight, taxi, take-off, climb, descent, landing there are loud high pitched whines that are very uncomfortable to the ear. It feels as if there is hardly any noise insulation (weight saving?)

4 times on it now and totally concur. Also the flap buffets seem far worse than on most other comparable aircraft.

All in all, just another aircraft - nothing special for the pax - probably great for the operator.

[pax britanica]

Maybe it is time for regulators to step in on health and safety grounds and mandate minimum seat width snd aisle width. History shows that in Y airlines will cram in as many seats as they can and some-BA comes to mind with its very poor 8 abreast Club, do the same to a degree in premium cabins.
With long haul travel now common lace I think a passenger ought to be assured of a safe comfortable seat of reasonable size and pitch. I do not agree it is purely pressure from pax for cheap fairs that airlines go for the sardine option, I think they want to do that and like to shift the blame a bit , not every passenger buys purely on price otherwise all TATL traffic would go via Iceland .

I don't blame Boeing over the seating but tout the 787 as the 'dreamliner' is a bit of a joke as the aircraft is no game changer from a pax experience viewpoint , certainly not like the 380 which most find vastly more comfortable and a recognisably different experience even for the much (on here) derided Y class.
Sadly the way of the modern world-who cares if its crap its cheapest and people should remember that its accountants who buy airliners and that is their mantra the world over.

[TURIN]

-BA comes to mind with its very poor 8 abreast Club

Disagree entirely. Having sampled Business seating on a few airlines I prefer the BA option. Especially the inner group of four. Great for an average family. Snug, cocooned and flat.

[WHBM]

Let's make a few corrections here.

the 9-abreast 787 allow the airlines to do is to operate "long thin" routes profitably instead of having to operate the traditional "hub and spoke" model.
Just about all 787 operators are using the aircraft from a hub to a spoke, including some decidedly heavyweight spokes.

It has also replaced some notably larger aircraft on established routes. Plenty of 787 operations have replaced the 777, and Virgin Atlantic are using it to replace the 747-400.


And because its high density seating, they can sell off the seats at lower prices.

No difference in price has been noticeable on 787 routes compared to say the 747. In fact fares since it was introduced seem to have risen ahead of inflation.


The degree of price sensitivity determines whether or not you fly via Iceland
That market went a generation ago. Nowadays the Iceland transatlantic market is a little bit a novel stopover, and more connecting minor points in Europe and the US that could never justify non-stop, without some of the operational downsides of connecting through places like Heathrow or JFK. In other words, we're back to hub-and-spoke.


Sadly the way of the modern world-who cares if its crap its cheapest
Not so. If it was, everyone would buy cheap Fiats, and Mercedes would have got nowhere, while decent restaurants would all be gone and everyone would eat at McDonalds. Doesn't happen.

Remember that Y-class is 80% or more of the seating on an aircraft. It's far and away the standard way to go. Business or personal travel, the normal differential between seat prices is way more than I feel can be justified. We are also going the way of de-speccing premium class as well; in the US, First Class now provides notably less in the way of food/drink than economy used to over there a generation ago.

[deep_south]

The evidence speaks for itself. About 10 (or 15?) years ago, American Airlines introduced "more room in coach"; removed some rows in Y and gave everyone in Y more leg room. I used them and it was significantly more comfortable than BA, etc.

However, this did increase their costs, and they didn't get an real improvements in their load factors, so after a couple of years they went back to "normal". So the evidence is clear; many Y passengers are driven primarily by the price of the ticket, and airlines are pretty much all minimising costs while maximising revenue.

That's today's airline business; if the 787 does reduce costs it will not lead to lower prices per se but to increased profits / reduced losses. And the airlines will (somehow) all continue to charge pretty much the same prices, unless you are prepared to do some fancy routings, where you trade your time against the price of the ticket...

[ExXB]

Airline pricing is not, and has never been, based on costs. (Well perhaps pre-deregulation domestic in the US, but not really even then.)

The airlines price to get the maximum revenue per passenger km. So fuel costs come down and (some) reduce or remove fuel surcharges, fares go up - total price about the same. They are constantly tweaking their models to give them the perfect price - the one that you are willing to pay.

Want a cheaper price? Take connecting flights. That's about the only magic out there.

Well, try and avoid any airline you are a FF member of. They know they can charge you more than a non-member, and they do.

But remember, in one of their most profitable years ever (2014) the average profit per passenger was just over $8.

[ExXB]

Both KL (via AMS) and SN (via BRU) often offer cheaper prices than U2 from BRS to GVA.

Not on all flights all the time, but often

[WHBM]

The evidence speaks for itself. About 10 (or 15?) years ago, American Airlines introduced "more room in coach"; removed some rows in Y and gave everyone in Y more leg room. I used them and it was significantly more comfortable than BA, etc.

However, this did increase their costs, and they didn't get an real improvements in their load factors, so after a couple of years they went back to "normal". So the evidence is clear; many Y passengers are driven primarily by the price of the ticket, and airlines are pretty much all minimising costs while maximising revenue.
There are many who recall American's More Room Throughout Coach (MRTC) for a few years in the early 2000s. It was a significant discussion point among us passengers seated in the aircraft, all of whom appreciated it, and for a number it was a key reason to have chosen AA.

As I recall it reported, there was a significant political fight inside AA headquarters between the "for" and the "against" factions about it, each side presenting selected facts. There is a strong drive to "minimalism" in US airline management (apart from top executive salaries); less legroom, less catering; never free drinks in coach; less extras for premium fare passengers, etc. This was just part of that.

[PAXboy]

In my experience, connecting routes are not always cheaper due to the delights of Yield Management.

[Hotel Tango]

Absolutely. Although living in NL I have both BRU and DUS an hour's drive closer to me than AMS. Depending on destination etc., I can save anything between €1000 and €1500 on an already discounted (i.e. early booking) KLM C class ticket simply by departing from BRU/DUS via AMS. Win win situation for me.

[nebpor]

What worried me was the state of all the trim in the toilets. The accessories door under the sink didn't lock, exposing the internals of the aircraft, a number of decals, or buttons were loose or missing. The toilet lid didn't want to stay up. It all felt very flimsy.


Funnily enough, it was the flimsy and cheap toilets that I noticed when I took a LAN SYD-AUK recently on their 787 - the whole cabin felt a bit plastic, I was really disappointed after looking forward to my first trip in the latest plane.

Surely all of that is common trim and only really the seats are going to be on a per-specified basis?

[ExXB]

... ah, there is a web-site for that Toilet Guru! (http://toilet-guru.com/aircraft.php)

or
http://asiaspirit.com/ptv/lv-plane.jpg


Asiaspirit (http://asiaspirit.com/)

[Rwy in Sight]

the whole cabin felt a bit plastic

Isn't that normal on such an aircraft (sorry couldn't resist)

Rwy in Sight

[SLF3]

Has anyone noticed the remarkable similarity between the layout of BA business class and a slave trader?

I've always assumed (without any evidence) that Airbus, aim to have more seat width than Boeing as a marketing feature. The 320 is wider (noticeably) than a 737, and the A330 and A340 seem to be immune to the kind of seat widths commonly found down the back of the 777 and 787. Among frequent fliers they get recgnition for it.

I think people will pay for quality, but most passengers don't fly often and are blissfully unaware of the difference between the airline offerings. Freqent flyers are well aware of it: my experience is SQ (in business) typically charge £300 more for the A380 flight to London than the 777 flights, for example. And I generally go for the A320 over the 737 if the timings are similar.

I think it is high time minimum seat widths and spacings were required by regulation. The remorseless drive to the bottom is becoming a health risk.

[El Bunto]

and the A330 and A340 seem to be immune to the kind of seat widths commonly found down the back of the 777 and 787.

Amongst Big Airlines yes, but Air Transat currently holds the Trans-Atlantic Crush Trophy with nine-abreast in its A310s and A332s.

I believe they are now 'upgrading' their A333s to nine-abreast as well but fear not, this will have 'no impact on the customer experience'. How do executives look people in the eye and lie like that?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/business/air-transat-plans-more-seats-in-bid-to-save-money-1.2991951

[Heathrow Harry]

"this will have 'no impact on the customer experience'

Well if it was bottom of the barrel before they're saying it'll be just as awful going forward................

[ExXB]

I believe Boieng's widebody aircraft width has been driven by the size of the standard cargo containors. Two LD3 containers fit nicely side by side in the B747, 767, 777 and (I think) the 787.

[Rwy in Sight]

ExXB,

I am not sure that a 767 is able to carry two containers (at least LD46s). I vaguely remember that from an Airbus brochure back in the early 1990's (with a nice drawing) but for the time is inaccessible.

Stand to be corrected of course.

Rwy in Sight

[DaveReidUK]

I am not sure that a 767 is able to carry two containers

767 takes two side-by-side LD2s, but LD3s won't fit.

[ExXB]

Thans for the clarification.

I'll rephrase my point to be that fusalage width, which affects cabin width and seat density, is driven by the size of the baggage/cargo containers on the lower deck.

[DaveReidUK]

I'll rephrase my point to be that fuselage width, which affects cabin width and seat density, is driven by the size of the baggage/cargo containers on the lower deck.Or, as in the case of the 767, vice versa.

[ExXB]

Ah yes, the B77W (-300ER)

Business 36 flat bed seats with 180 degrees recline
Premium Economy 24 standard seats with 8 recline
Economy 398 standard seats with 6 recline

458 seats ...


http://cdn.seatguru.com/en_US/img/499/seatguru/airlines_new/Air_Canada/Air_Canada_Boeing_777-300ER_77W_new.jpg

[Rwy in Sight]

DaveReidUK, thanks for correcting the post about the containers. I meant LD3 - the LD3-46 is for the A320 family.

By the way when does container baggage handling was first used?

I flew on a 757 of well known charter operator and about a year later I flew on a C-130H. The bench seats of the C-130 were much more comfortable.

Rwy in Sight

[DaveReidUK]

I've been told that AC have 777's with over 400 seats on, they must be in with a shoutI've seen a layout published by Boeing for the 777-300 with 550 seats (the maximum certificated capacity) at 30" pitch.

Though AFAIK, nobody actually operates that configuration ... :O

[PAXboy]

The most interesting facet of the seat map helpfully posted by ExXB is the number of toilets ... Even though the two right in the tail will be double units, the ratio to Pax is terrible. Remind me not to travel in the 77W in Y. :ouch:

[V800]

I have just rubbed shoulders with the plebs on a BA 787. Sitting in the aisle seat gives a whole new meaning to the term getting trollied.

[El Bunto]

I've seen a layout published by Boeing for the 777-300 with 550 seats (the maximum certificated capacity) at 30" pitch.Corsair are currently scouting for second-hand B77Ws to replace their B744s.

They don't want to take much of a cut below the 580 seats they have on the big old quad, so I think we can all guess at their preferred layout.

Correction to self: currently 582 seats including a business cabin!

http://www.seatmaestro.com/airplanes-seat-maps/corsair-boeing-747.html

Edit2: current 777 record holder is ANA with 525 seats in the domestic configuration. 19.3 grams of CO2 per seat-km, they say, compared to 22 for their DHC-8-300!