Widebody good, narrow body bad - why ?
It is an interesting point. A 737/757/A320, 6-across, can seem cramped when full, whereas a 767, just one more seat across but with an extra aisle, seems much more spacious, and much nearer to a full-sized 10-across 747.
Just as an associated point, widebodies do, on average, have a greater seat pitch as well, as most widebodies are pitched for long-haul, and most narrowbodies for short-haul, which probably adds to the aura. I know there are exceptions both ways, but they are exceptions.
There haven't been many operators with standard-pitched economy seats on the 747 upper deck, but there have been a few. Wardair of Canada had their 747-200s (so smaller upper deck) laid out in this way. Although they were a charter operator and the seats pitched exactly the same way, this was definitely a cut above the main cabin down below.
Just as an associated point, widebodies do, on average, have a greater seat pitch as well, as most widebodies are pitched for long-haul, and most narrowbodies for short-haul, which probably adds to the aura. I know there are exceptions both ways, but they are exceptions.
There haven't been many operators with standard-pitched economy seats on the 747 upper deck, but there have been a few. Wardair of Canada had their 747-200s (so smaller upper deck) laid out in this way. Although they were a charter operator and the seats pitched exactly the same way, this was definitely a cut above the main cabin down below.
Paxing All Over The World
The counter to this is a feeling I have when well down the back in a wide bodied Y cabin. I find the vast expanse of cabin in front of me off putting. I can see too much going on and people to and fro. This is not snobby about being in the large cabin rather than the smaller ones - it's just less restful. In a narrow, there is less happening and so the whole cabin is less busy and quieter. That is more restful. Some of the medium haul distances I would rather do in a long range 75 than a standard 76.
Regarding the 2-5-2 or 3-3-3 alternatives in the 777, because there are contadictory views on which is better, I wonder if carriers have ever considered laying out the two main economy cabins in these aircraft with one configured one way, and one the other. Then there would be a good range of alternatives for various group sizes and passenger preferences.
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM
there were some airlines that considered a 3-4-2 or 2-4-3 to be ideal for 9 abreast. Unfortunately the beancounters have won since 3-3-3 means chepaer seats (in the sens of buying them). Who cares about the passenger...
there were some airlines that considered a 3-4-2 or 2-4-3 to be ideal for 9 abreast. Unfortunately the beancounters have won since 3-3-3 means chepaer seats (in the sens of buying them). Who cares about the passenger...
747s were originally nine abreast on the early 70s thanks to an IATA agreement. The airlines probably realised that they would not fill their 747s anyway. How times change. As Hunter 58 says, most were the unsymetrical 2-4-3 which made good sense. Who wants to be two seats away from an aisle without a window view? The 3 abreast could be OK for families.
One argument for 3-3-3 is that as long as the load factor is not above 67% you will have the seat next to you free and either a window or aisle seat. Unfortunately, at least from the passenger viewpoint, load factors in the back usually average close to 90% over the year.
One argument for 3-3-3 is that as long as the load factor is not above 67% you will have the seat next to you free and either a window or aisle seat. Unfortunately, at least from the passenger viewpoint, load factors in the back usually average close to 90% over the year.
Last edited by Peter47; 18th Apr 2010 at 16:14.
