Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.209@ohare.Chicago.COM> Niels Sampath (email@example.com) wrote: > >I do agree that nine abrest and ten abreast are less ideal than eight > >abreast when the flight is *full*. Airlines do hope every flight is > >full, but most airlines can realistically fill their planes 60-70% full, > >annually. Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 > > configuration is not an issue. > > No. It is an issue to the poor sap who is in the centre > seat and won't be a repeat customer. Don't forget 2-5-2 is not the only configuration available, there are 2-4-3 and 3-3-3. Yet, most of the airlines opt for 2-5-2. Also, in a full flight, an airline can assign most of the middle seats to passengers who are travelling with a party of three or more. Thus, the ones who sit in the middle may not feel as dreadful. >I can't see Boeing saying to > airlines: `you'll only have 60-70% capacity, don't worry about that > centre seat being occupied(!)' That's not the exact words Boeing uses, but it actually does use the fact that most of the flights are 60-70% full as one of its marketing "ploys". Go visit Boeing's homepage. I believe they say on a B747 flight with 60% seats filled, everyone will be sitting next to an empty seat. (To have an empty seat next to you on an Airbus widebody, the load will be at 50%. For the B777, it will be 55.6%.) > Tho I suppose this may become true > after they lose all those initial centre seat customers. > > >According to Boeing, the standard economy > >seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard > >economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. > ^^^^^^^^ > Oh? Nice of Boeing to skew the figures with all those short range 300s/310s Tell me one manufacturer that doesn't "skew" the figures to sell its products. Boeing does it, so does Airbus. Nevertheless, as Karl pointed out, the A300-600R and A310 are hardly short-range airplanes. Many trans-Atlantic, Europe-Middle East/India, Europe-Africa, SE Asia-Japan flights are operated with the A300/310. > especially when airline interiors are set by -airlines-. Ever been on a > Tower Air 747? They seem to have lost that extra 1.5 inches.<g> Seat pitch is a strong function of airlines. However, seat width is usually not. If you use a charter operation as your example, then you should really compare it with Airbus planes with nine-abreast seatings. Then, I believe Boeing's widebodies still have the advantage. Given the same seat pitch, I do find the wider economy seats on the B747 and the B777 are very desirable on a long flight. > > >Nevertheless, comfort is a very subjective thing. Also, some people will > >believe what they are told to believe. > > Your last comment is unclear. > Some people won't assimilate the information that are given to them. They are told Airbus's 2-4-2 economy configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-5-2. They are also told Airbus's 2-2-2 business configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-3-2. Some will accept these statements without even analyzing the information. That's what I meant by "some peple will believe what they are told to believe". IMHO, Airbus's claims are true only when the flight is more than 85-90% full. Otherwise, the wider seats should win.