Narrow seats on QF B789

[eminere]

the problem with QF's seat width is they are lauding this aircraft for ULR routes which most other 787 carriers wouldn't be operating.

ie 14+ hours in a seat that will for the majority of australian adults will induce pain and suffering, this may be another disaster in fleet planning in the making

Tell that to UA with their SFO-SIN service - 16hr20m westbound! :shock:

 

[Melburnian1]

Simply, Qantas would've never put in 8 across for economy. That's all there is to it.

Qantas width: 17.4

JL: 18.9

The true comparison is with JL, which similar to QF does not normally price its economy fares at the bottom of the market.

I can't see QF matching the CZ offer (March to May 2017) of Y return fares from Oz east coast to LHR of about A$905, nor the higher priced but still good value PR offer of about A$1240 - 1300 return, along with other carriers in a similar fare 'space.'

So if QF charges more - and granted, its costs per kilometre are probably higher tyhan many other airlines due to Australian wage rates and general costs in this country - shouldn't passengers 'get more?'

Doesn't the B773ER that VA flies offer wider economy seats? If so, why is QF touting that its B789s will be 'comfortable' when for many Australians they'll be 'cramped' in Y class?

 

[yohy?!]

Tell that to UA with their SFO-SIN service - 16hr20m westbound! :shock:

the very thought of QF in the same league as UA should be ringing alarm bells for QF management!

 

[docjames]

Was at the launch today and while I didn't get to sit in the Y seat those that did didn't feel like it was squashed..

And how long did they sit in it for? :shock:

 

[yohy?!]

And how long did they sit in it for? :shock:

and have they ever sat in a Y seat before! but seriously without the feeling of being pinned into the window at your shoulder and no space to stretch into the aisle it's impossible to get a true sense in this marketing format.

 

[JohnK]

As I have mentioned before I have sat in 9 across economy on 787's with RJ and SQ. Admittedly they were only ~2 hour flights but I didn't notice any difference compared to QF A330's or SQ A330's. And if you know me and you are not as large as me then you won't have any issues.

I'd like to wait and see before I comment.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

the very thought of QF in the same league as UA should be ringing alarm bells for QF management!

Why so? I'm sure QF management would love to be making the type of money UA does....

I like the new branding and the defined roo without paws. Looks clean and gives the iconic brand a new feel.

A few observations...

Seats: I posted last year on how Qantas had the least pitch of any full-service international carrier flying out of Australia.
The move to 32 inches only brings QF into line with a few carriers. Many more still offer 33inch+.

Inflight wifi: "But as advanced as the Dreamliner is, Qantas hasn't yet decided if it will include inflight Internet."
I mean what the ****? Even Scoot has had wifi on their Dreamliner for the past 3 years. Emirates has live satellite TV, free inflight internet, and mobile roaming towers on the entire fleet!

And the most notable takeaway was the reference to 787 being a flagship product. To me, this says A380 isn't flagship, and QF won't be investing in more 380s. Winter is coming

 

[lathiat]

17.5 is fairly standard-ish, 17 is bad, but 18.0 is much nicer.

Emirates A380 claims on SeatGuru to be 18" versus 17.5" for Qantas A380. Be interesting to get out a measuring tape and find out where the difference is. Also be interesting to measure most of the major airline and equipment widths and figure out if they are consistently based on say the seat cushion, or the width between each side of the armrests, etc and what the width of the aisles is. Or maybe someone knows already, or has done it?

In any case, this 17.5 number seems to be super common on even newer aircraft -- I can't help but think they could have designed an extra 5" into the new airliner design widths. Having had that thought, I discovered that Airbus did exactly that with the A350.

From Wikipedia on the 787 "Cabin interior width is approximately 18 feet (550 cm) at armrest level.[SUP][221][/SUP][SUP][223][/SUP] The Dreamliner's cabin width is 15 inches (38 cm) more than that of the Airbus A330 and A340,[SUP][224][/SUP] 5 inches (13 cm) less than the A350,[SUP][225][/SUP]and 16 in (41 cm) less than the 777.[SUP][226][/SUP] The 787's economy seats can be up to 17.5 in (44.4 cm) wide for nine-abreast seating[SUP][227][/SUP] and up to 19 inches (48 cm) wide for eight-abreast seating arrangements."

Singapore, Cathay and Qatar A350's all claim to be 18.0" in Economy. So the B787 is actually behind here.

You might think therefor they went for extra pitch to make up for it, but by my calculation:
(166 Economy Seats / 9 ) = 18 rows * 32" = 576 inches.

If they went for a 31" pitch it would use 18 less inches which isn't enough room for an extra row. Having said that if you max the plane out with Economy like JetStar did you get (314 / 9) = 34 - an extra row per inch of pitch reduction. Jetstar has 30" pitch so two extra rows (18 seats) or 5.7% more yield than 32". Qantas could have got an extra row on 30" pitch but then there would be no differentiation to JetStar and a generally worse product particularly for the long-hauls they are planning.

This obviously doesn't take into account other design considerations like spacing to galleys, emergency exits, etc, etc, etc.. but it's a good rough idea to say that 32" was the obvious choice given the Business & Premium Economy configurations. Infinitely more combinations if you adjust the number of those seats though, but I'm sure they did the math there.


End of rambling...

 

[trooper]

I was very interested to hear from some non FF friends who flew in Y on NZ's 77....10 abreast....
They had NO preconceived notions.... and made very few comments about the seat..said it was fine..... but raved about the IFE!

I'm with JohnK on this....

 

[lathiat]

Inflight wifi: "But as advanced as the Dreamliner is, Qantas hasn't yet decided if it will include inflight Internet."
I mean what the ****? Even Scoot has had wifi on their Dreamliner for the past 3 years. Emirates has live satellite TV, free inflight internet, and mobile roaming towers on the entire fleet!

And the most notable takeaway was the reference to 787 being a flagship product. To me, this says A380 isn't flagship, and QF won't be investing in more 380s. Winter is coming

Writing was stuck on the wall some time ago for the A380s, they cancelled their 8 options earlier in the year:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-qantas-doesn-t-want-the-last-eight-on-order


The Wi-Fi side of things I imagine is highly dependent on the routes they are flying... firstly based on what the competition has, and secondly as the equipment and cost is wildly different with LTE air-to-ground versus Satellite for ocean journeys.. and I believe the particular area of ocean you fly over also changes things as they are different satellites but I'm not familiar with the precise details of that and the costings probably aren't super-public.

 

[pauly7]

The true comparison is with JL, which similar to QF does not normally price its economy fares at the bottom of the market.

I wouldn't be comparing JL's viability as an airline though with QF.... maybe they are too generous?

 

[yohy?!]

I wouldn't be comparing JL's viability as an airline though with QF.... maybe they are too generous?

Think it more highlights the design shortcomings of the Dreamliner - like the A380 it's the wrong sized aircraft for the wrong time (ie low macroeconomic growth, falling yields and heavy competition/discounting)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Think it more highlights the design shortcomings of the Dreamliner...

Maybe I'm being simple here... but you really wonder why - when 9 abreast seams logical - that Boeing didn't make the cabin a few inches wider?

We were promised a revolutionary new premium economy - I'm expecting some sort of flat (angled) bed... no news at all?

 

[dajop]

To be honest I've been on JQ, TG, UA and TZ in the 9 across configuration. Curiously all of them felt ok, except TG. I don't know if they have narrower seats or wider aisles - or simply that I flew them the day after flying back from LAX to SIN on two of the aircraft/airlines with the widest seats - OZ A380 and SQ 77W and it felt tight in comparison.

 

[juddles]

....But seriously, there is very little about the 787 fit-outs that are done to benefit PAX....

IMHO, WRONG!! The single most important thing to pax is price. I dare anyone to contest that. And an 8 across layout would up the price.

 

[downgraded]

Happy too. i frequently pay a premium to take a qf a380 over a closer airport with ek option to avoid ek 77x, benefit from wp status etc etc

However, equally offer people what they want and they will pay for it, do nothing to differentiate then price becomes the only discriminator and it becomes a rave to the bottom.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I wouldn't be comparing JL's viability as an airline though with QF.... maybe they are too generous?

Totally different markets and can't compare the two.

 

[TomVexille]

As I have mentioned before I have sat in 9 across economy on 787's with RJ and SQ. Admittedly they were only ~2 hour flights but I didn't notice any difference compared to QF A330's or SQ A330's. And if you know me and you are not as large as me then you won't have any issues.

I'd like to wait and see before I comment.

SQ don't have any 787s. Perhaps you mean Scoot?

 

[farstar]

To me width is paramount, pitch is ok as it is at the moment without any extra. We all know it is just "enhancement" QANTAS style.

 

[decs]

Happy too. i frequently pay a premium to take a qf a380 over a closer airport with ek option to avoid ek 77x, benefit from wp status etc etc

However, equally offer people what they want and they will pay for it, do nothing to differentiate then price becomes the only discriminator and it becomes a rave to the bottom.

On this note, what are the chances the new planes will get used on domestic legs and to what extent? It would enable some of the market to try before the buy and win them over on the comfort vs price proposition. I would certainly find that appealing to assess a potentially 16 hour non-stop journey (or thereabouts).