Delta 777 9 abreast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delta 777 9 abreast
https://www.chron.com/chris-mcginnis...photo-15815198
Seems like Delta is killing it with their new business class suites, A350, and now retrofitting their 777's with 9 abreast seating in economy. MAGA!
Seems like Delta is killing it with their new business class suites, A350, and now retrofitting their 777's with 9 abreast seating in economy. MAGA!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right but 9 abreast on the A350 is what Airbus built it to be, when the 777 came out it was supposed to be 9 abreast but airlines got greedy and wanted high capacity so 10 abreast it went. When you fly on a 777 10 abreast you know immediately that the plane wasn't designed for that capacity. I haven't flown on an A350 yet but from what i've read the 9 abreast is wide enough, compared to the 787 9 abreast (a plane that was designed to be 8 abreast).
As I understand it, Emirates was the first with 10-across in the 777, but with increased seat pitch (35" ?), so the overall seats per square foot remained the same. Other operators then introduced the same width, saying "same as Emirates". but with their existing lesser pitch.
The 777X is having a substantial re-engineering of the cabin walls and insulation to reduce their thickness (this on an aircraft already well known for being the noisiest in cruise). Airlines seem happy now with 10-across, so the only reason they can be doing this, which apparently gives another 6" cabin width, is to shave another inch of all the seats again, as well, and go for 3-5-3 11-across.
The 777X is having a substantial re-engineering of the cabin walls and insulation to reduce their thickness (this on an aircraft already well known for being the noisiest in cruise). Airlines seem happy now with 10-across, so the only reason they can be doing this, which apparently gives another 6" cabin width, is to shave another inch of all the seats again, as well, and go for 3-5-3 11-across.
I was recently in Premium Economy on Cathay Pacific, 8-across, and that was still feeling constricted. Not as bad (or as noisy) as those further back, but really makes you feel we are already at the bottom.
Footroom already half gone due to the IFE box for the seat unit ahead getting there first, and having the tray table come out from a housing between seats rather than a drop-down from the seatback ahead knocks another inch off actual seat width.
777 was initially contemporary with the A330/340, which if you did two sectors, first the 777 and then the Airbus, made it very evident just how quiet the Toulouse product was. I recall there was actually Airbus advertising in the 1990s on this very point.
I've pondered before just why the 777 is so noisy, especially aft of the wing. Engine noise or air conditioning ? Are the engines set further inboard than the A330 ? If it's lesser insulation, moves on the 777X to reduce this further are lamentable.
Footroom already half gone due to the IFE box for the seat unit ahead getting there first, and having the tray table come out from a housing between seats rather than a drop-down from the seatback ahead knocks another inch off actual seat width.
Interesting, I never knew that. How well did it fare 'in the day' rather than when compared with more modern aircraft out of interest ?
I've pondered before just why the 777 is so noisy, especially aft of the wing. Engine noise or air conditioning ? Are the engines set further inboard than the A330 ? If it's lesser insulation, moves on the 777X to reduce this further are lamentable.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely Delta doing this is good news...could it be a sign that the race to the bottom is coming to an end? My most comfortable economy flight was on an Air Canada 77L, when they were 9 abreast. We were forward of the engines from memory, and it was a very relaxed journey.
I for one would pay a little extra if I was assured of flying on a 9 abreast (rather than 10) 777, or an 8 abreast (rather than 9) 787.
As for the Airbii being quieter, my gut feeling is that seat location is as relevant a factor as aircraft type. I'd take a Boeing seat forward of the engines before an Airbus seat aft!
I for one would pay a little extra if I was assured of flying on a 9 abreast (rather than 10) 777, or an 8 abreast (rather than 9) 787.
As for the Airbii being quieter, my gut feeling is that seat location is as relevant a factor as aircraft type. I'd take a Boeing seat forward of the engines before an Airbus seat aft!
The 777X is having a substantial re-engineering of the cabin walls and insulation to reduce their thickness (this on an aircraft already well known for being the noisiest in cruise). Airlines seem happy now with 10-across, so the only reason they can be doing this, which apparently gives another 6" cabin width, is to shave another inch of all the seats again, as well, and go for 3-5-3 11-across.
The 777X is not being provisioned for 11 abreast so there is little chance that will happen, but 10 will be more comfortable.
I've pondered before just why the 777 is so noisy, especially aft of the wing. Engine noise or air conditioning ? Are the engines set further inboard than the A330 ? If it's lesser insulation, moves on the 777X to reduce this further are lamentable.
Hopefully the ECS noise is being addressed on the 777X.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 777 was designed for 9 abreast, provisioned for 10 (similarly the 767 was designed for 7, provisioned for 8 - the difference being very few operators used the 8 abreast).
The 777X is not being provisioned for 11 abreast so there is little chance that will happen, but 10 will be more comfortable.
It's mainly ECS - I've even heard Boeing test pilots comment on how much quieter the Airbus ECS is compared to Boeing and wondered how they did it.
Hopefully the ECS noise is being addressed on the 777X.
The 777X is not being provisioned for 11 abreast so there is little chance that will happen, but 10 will be more comfortable.
It's mainly ECS - I've even heard Boeing test pilots comment on how much quieter the Airbus ECS is compared to Boeing and wondered how they did it.
Hopefully the ECS noise is being addressed on the 777X.
If this is so, then the solutions are basic and well known from ground installations. Ductwork of optimum size for the airflow. No sharp corners or square sections in the ductwork. Fans with assymetric blades to reduce harmonic noise. It's all stuff that Boeing must surely be aware of, and it's been an issue since the 777 first came along.
Nah, it's not the GE90's - the PW40xx and Trent 900 777's are just as bad (before the GE90-115B was introduced on the 777-300ER/200LR, the 777 fleet was roughly evenly split between the Rolls, Pratt, and GE engines - it's since the introduction of the GE90-115B that GE has had nearly 100% market share). I think ECS noise simply wasn't a priority during the 777 development - they didn't think that the 'white noise' of ECS was that objectionable. It was the super quiet A380 that really brought the subject to the forefront.
You're right but 9 abreast on the A350 is what Airbus built it to be, when the 777 came out it was supposed to be 9 abreast but airlines got greedy and wanted high capacity so 10 abreast it went. When you fly on a 777 10 abreast you know immediately that the plane wasn't designed for that capacity. I haven't flown on an A350 yet but from what i've read the 9 abreast is wide enough, compared to the 787 9 abreast (a plane that was designed to be 8 abreast).
The 777x needs to be significantly quieter than the classic if it's going to challenge the Airbus airliners. With thinner walls it's going to require some pretty exotic sound insulation, = heavy.
I'd heard that the sound insulation on 787 was optional, and has never been ordered. The demo aircraft originally shown off to the aviation press did have it...
Despite not liking the 777, it's encouraging to see a US airline give a thought for passenger comfort. Delta are buying C series too, which is also comfortable according to many accounts.
If Delta start picking up market share by being a little bit nicer to their passengers than the others, that idea might become the new vogue. So if demand for more comfortable aircraft picks up , who is selling those at the moment, and more pertinently who is not? A320/C Series vs 737? A350 vs 787/777x (at 9 and 10 across)? A380 vs nothing?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this on an aircraft already well known for being the noisiest in cruise
Interesting, I never knew that.
Interesting, I never knew that.
Any reliable source ?
Compared to the A350, which has a remarkable quiet cabin, Boeing is facing a real challenge for the 777X !
which apparently gives another 6" cabin width
it's encouraging to see a US airline give a thought for passenger comfort.
I am afraid it will be the opposite, and the 3-4-3 A350 and 777 as well as the 3-5-3 A380 and 777X will become the standard.
On the other hand, given a fixed passenger load, I would probably prefer a 3-5-3 configuration with an empty middle seat at my side, compared to a 3-4-3 with an occupied one at my side...
I would have thought that if Boeing had fundamentally redone the air con for the 777X they would have mentioned it extensively, just like they have announced the cabin wall insulation reduction. But nothing.
I wish there was more discussion about noise levels, for me it's one of the worst things (along with narrow seats) about modern air travel. I flew on 738s yesterday for 6 hrs and they're noisy, not as noisy as a 747, worse than a 777, IMHO. But A380 and then A350 are way quieter, to my ears.
This is in economy.
This is in economy.