If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 02/21/2006 7:04:13 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
SINGAPORE, Feb 21 (Reuters) - Airlines are choosing to cram more seats into Boeing's hot-selling new 787 Dreamliner than the company expected, giving the plane a potentially decisive advantage over its Airbus rival.
Senior Boeing (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) sales executive Randy Baseler said typical seating in the 787-9 version of the aicraft would rise to about 280 from 259 if airlines switched to having nine seats per row in economy class rather than eight as Boeing had expected.
Two-thirds of 787 buyers have decided to fit nine seats in each row in economy, executives from the Chicago-based manufacturer said at the Singapore air show on Tuesday.
In doing so, they have improved the ratio that is the Holy Grail of aircraft economics: the cost per seat on each flight.
"When we initially started to bring the 787 to the market we felt the market would be for eight abreast and more comfort" than earlier planes, Boeing's sales manager for the project, Marty Bentrott, told reporters.
"But 65 percent of our customers are going for nine abreast, and we think that (ratio) will probably go up."
The 787 is due to enter service in 2008 and is competing against the A350, which Airbus (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) launched in response.
While the narrower seats will disappoint travellers who had hoped the 787 would take another step towards giving economy travellers a little more room -- at eight abreast, the seats will be 48 cm (19 inches) wide, compared with 44 cm (17.2 inches) in the 1960s-designed 747 -- the greater seating gives Boeing a big lift in its battle against the A350.
The A350 is constrained by its narrower fuselage, which is based on a 1960s design, although a little extra width has been found by thinning the walls. Its predecessor, the A330, is rarely fitted with nine-abreast seats.
"The surprising popularity of nine-abreast seating in the 787 could turn out to be decisive," said Gerard Frawley, editor of industry monthly Australian Aviation.
Aircraft and aero-engine makers struggle for every tenth of a percent of aircraft efficiency, but Boeing's figures suggest costs per seat could fall by a whopping 7.5 percent if airlines opt for the tighter seating format.
Baseler said that while Boeing had originally expected the roomier seating arrangement to be popular, the 787 cabin had been sized precisely to fit nine 747-size economy seats.
"Some airlines found passengers were not willing to pay for more space," he told Reuters.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
One more reason why I avoid flying if at all possible. Being stuck next to a fattie who spills over into my seat is no way to travel.
If they made seats for "average" sized people to start with it wouldn't be so bad. However, GREED is the "mot du jour," so anything goes. Airlines are only interested in their bottom line, not ours. If we all decided not to fly for one week, they might listen.....
They should just forget the seats, give everyone a knockout pill as they board and stack em like cord wood.
Well, how 'bout that. They just fit right in there all nice and perfect. Who'd a thunk it?!?
"Some airlines found passengers were not willing to pay for more space."
They obviously have never asked that question immediately after an 8+ hour flight.
I've never flown for a week. A few hours each time is more than enough to get me where I'm going.
Those seas are designed for short skinny people. Thankfully, I am the type of person those seats are designed for. Unfortunately, my husband is not short, and not what I would describe as skinny, so he tries to get the aisle seat when he travels.
Why is it always "GREED" just because a company wishes to make money? Why else would a company be in business? Yes, I'd like to have a business please. Yes, I'd like it to fail too!!!!! GEEZ!
Try 14.5 on an Atlanta-Tokyo flight!
My doctor doesn't think I am fat, but I do feel like I spill over into the next seat in coach class.
I wonder - do all planes fly full? Or would they do better if they enticed people like me to fly more often than I do? (I used to love flying. I never loved squeezing myself into a space scarcely sufficient for my cat)
Something along that line was half-way considered for Japan Airlines, who wanted their 747s to carry more than 600 passengers.
The passenger space was to be filled with transverse honeycomb cells with mattresses and the passengers were to ride in the prone position.
Believe it or not, you can get a lot more than 600 passengers on a 747 that way.
(The idea never made it to the prototype stage!)
I believe you and it probably will someday. It'll surely happen in an Asian country too.
It doesn't matter, the number of seats will be decided when they do the evac test, and that is a long ways away.
Airbus will be doing a maximum number evac test late next month with the A380.
Here is the deal, they will load 853 passengers (don't worry, that is the max number of seats it can hold, no way will it ever be that high) on a plane in a hanger. The passengers will not see the outside of the plane, and will be seated in a semi darkness. The call to evacuate will come, and half of the exit doors will not work. Then, its a 90 second free for all. Everyone that makes it out without being hurt will count. Most likely, the max range will be in the 600's, the brave folk that use the top slides should be commended, its gonna be a tough test.
But, they have the right to do 3 tests I believe.
Japan Airlines forced the creation of the 747-SR which was a high capacity, short distance plane.
Very few were made, and it looks no different than a 747-200.
I did Miami-Capetown, about 16.5 hours, and did LAX-SYD, about 15.5 hours. I really want to do JFK-Bangkok, 17.5 hours!
At least in the MIA-CPT flight, I was in the upper deck, still in coach, but up top is cool.
How many of them will be small children, pregnant women, morbidly obese, or elderly? I bet everyone of them will be wearing atletic shoes too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.