earthman wrote:That's a load of nonsense on that page. Seated eye height width!? Piece of Boeing marketing blurb. I don't sit on my eyes. I'm not talking about which cabin feels bigger when you look around, it's about whether you are pressed against the shoulder of the person next to you or not. I think I'll start to measure lateral seat pitch and distance to wall next time I fly.
So you must be hypersensitive to tell that 2" across 12' of cabin. You think there is a difference because people have told you there is. US' A320/A319s are much better inside than the 733/734s because of the age of the aircraft. When I'm on a new US A319 and a WN 73G, I can't tell the difference at all (other than Southwest has much more seat pitch than we do). Yes I can point out all the differences, but it isn't enough for the average fly to even know what aircraft they are on.
Most comfortable seats I've been in so far are on the E-170. Nice and wide.
Now that I agree with. I've been on B6's E-190s and they feel so much more comfortable than almost any aircraft I have flow in coach. I haven't flown on one of our new E190s, but I've sat it in on the apron. Wonderful aircraft.
And don't get me started about the windows in the 737 where taller people have to practice yoga to look anywhere else but down.
At 6'4" I feel that way no matter what aircraft I'm on.
That extra 2" of hip room on the a320 (spread between 6 seats) really does not make me feel much more comfortable. Boeing's 737 (especially the NG variants) have greater room at the shoulder which is important to me - I do not hit my head on the side wall when I turn around!
smokejumper wrote:That extra 2" of hip room on the a320 (spread between 6 seats) really does not make me feel much more comfortable. Boeing's 737 (especially the NG variants) have greater room at the shoulder which is important to me - I do not hit my head on the side wall when I turn around!
Thanks for proving my point. The width difference we are talking about is so small that in reality the usable space is exactly the same.
But back to my point about these older aircraft. The 737NGs are wonderful compared to the A320s, and the 748i will do well against the A380 (though the marketplace for VLA is so small I'm not sure how impressive sales will be) and a enhanced A330 would have done well against the 787 especially in the short term. Long term Airbus needs a new 777/787 competitor much like Boeing needs a new VLA. I think sales wise, Boeing is in a better position, but as long as Airbus doesn't fumble the NSR they will be fine.
Airbus won the battle for the first "new" VLA, but Boeing will win the battle for the mid-sized widebody and the narrowbody lines because they were there first. Of course as Airbus proved that anyone can fumble a sure win so Boeing should be on their feet.
smokejumper wrote:That extra 2" of hip room on the a320 (spread between 6 seats) really does not make me feel much more comfortable. Boeing's 737 (especially the NG variants) have greater room at the shoulder which is important to me - I do not hit my head on the side wall when I turn around!
Thanks for proving my point. The width difference we are talking about is so small that in reality the usable space is exactly the same.
But back to my point about these older aircraft. The 737NGs are wonderful compared to the A320s, and the 748i will do well against the A380 (though the marketplace for VLA is so small I'm not sure how impressive sales will be) and a enhanced A330 would have done well against the 787 especially in the short term. Long term Airbus needs a new 777/787 competitor much like Boeing needs a new VLA. I think sales wise, Boeing is in a better position, but as long as Airbus doesn't fumble the NSR they will be fine.
Airbus won the battle for the first "new" VLA, but Boeing will win the battle for the mid-sized widebody and the narrowbody lines because they were there first. Of course as Airbus proved that anyone can fumble a sure win so Boeing should be on their feet.
I think a re-engine of the A330 in the short term with a new cabin should be good enough to keep some sales coming right? When you talked about 'enhanced A330' i guess you meant the original A350? But that was much more than an enhancement itself.
smokejumper wrote:That extra 2" of hip room on the a320 (spread between 6 seats) really does not make me feel much more comfortable. Boeing's 737 (especially the NG variants) have greater room at the shoulder which is important to me - I do not hit my head on the side wall when I turn around!
Thanks for proving my point. The width difference we are talking about is so small that in reality the usable space is exactly the same.
No, not exactly.
Compare Boeing 747 upper deck with 737.
The width is comparable. But the sidewall shape is different. The upper deck ceiling slopes so fast that the aisle is much lower than on a 737, the overhead bins are tiny - but then there are floor level bins. You can seat 4 abreast Business or 6 abreast Coach either on 747 upper deck or on 737 - but the shape is different.
A320 vs. B737 is a less extreme case of the same.
If you sit in the aisle or middle seat of A320, the 6 inch extra width gives you some extra space to enjow.
But if you have a windoe seat, then the wider aisles and aisle and middle seats cause you to sit with the wall closer to your shoulder than on a 737. So, A320 could be expected to have less space in window seats, more in all other seats.
smokejumper wrote:That extra 2" of hip room on the a320 (spread between 6 seats) really does not make me feel much more comfortable. Boeing's 737 (especially the NG variants) have greater room at the shoulder which is important to me - I do not hit my head on the side wall when I turn around!
Thanks for proving my point. The width difference we are talking about is so small that in reality the usable space is exactly the same.
No, not exactly.
Compare Boeing 747 upper deck with 737.
The width is comparable. But the sidewall shape is different. The upper deck ceiling slopes so fast that the aisle is much lower than on a 737, the overhead bins are tiny - but then there are floor level bins. You can seat 4 abreast Business or 6 abreast Coach either on 747 upper deck or on 737 - but the shape is different.
A320 vs. B737 is a less extreme case of the same.
If you sit in the aisle or middle seat of A320, the 6 inch extra width gives you some extra space to enjow.
But if you have a windoe seat, then the wider aisles and aisle and middle seats cause you to sit with the wall closer to your shoulder than on a 737. So, A320 could be expected to have less space in window seats, more in all other seats.
For all practical purposes, most people can't tell the difference between the A320 and 737NG. 5.8 inches around your hips and 0.6 inches at your shoulders is irrelevant as both are cramped.
Lets get back on the topic.
The point I was making is that if Boeing can improve the 737 platform against a new competitor, the A320, then there is no reason why the 748i can't be competitive.
I do a lot of flying. In the past year, I've been on the 777 (EK, SQ), 330 (LH,AC), 340(LH), 737 800 (OS), 737 500 (PS), 320 (BMI, DONBASS) , 300 (YE), tu154 (B9), crj705 (AC), f50 (KISH AIR), md83 (KISH AIR).
With the exception of the Tu's, the greatest noticable difference in seat/cabin comfort, (at least to me), was due to aircraft configuration, not type. For passenger loading, the 154 was the best. The door is just ahead of the wing so passengers split up, forward and aft in almost equal numbers. Loading is much quicker than just from the front.
I prefer Boeings entirely because I grew up flying on the 737 and 727. It's emotional, not logical. It's like having a favorite colour. I like blue but that doesn't mean someone else can't like green.
The most comfortable seats I've ever experienced, in goat class, were on a Ukrainian International Airline's 737 300 or 500, I can't remember which it was. It was a used plane with a leather interior. The seats fit my butt perfectly. The plane was probably 20 years old.
The worst seats are a tossup between LH's older Recaro seats and the seats EK puts in their horrible 10 accross 777's. On my trip to Houston from the UAE this past week, with LH, I experienced the old ones and the newer ones. The newer ones are definitely better, but still not great. SQ's 9 across 777 seats are super.
As for the never ending 737 vs 320 debate, a person would have to be much more sensitive than I am to tell the interior space difference, and I was looking. OS has aweome, comfy seats in their 737 800's. Bmi has crap seats in their 320's, (at least the one I flew in). Does that mean the 737 is the best and 320 the worst airplane? Put the same seats or interior in both and you'd have to be an engineer to tell the difference. The same goes for the noise issue. Maybe one is noisier than the other but certainly not by much. All I can tell is the back is noisier than the front. Maybe I'm just insensitive.
I like the spaciousness of the 777 cabin but I also like the 2-4-2 seating in the 330.
I like all airplanes but I prefer Boeings. Do I have a good reason? No. Do I need one? No.
JoeCanuck wrote:
The worst seats are a tossup between LH's older Recaro seats and the seats EK puts in their horrible 10 accross 777's. On my trip to Houston from the UAE this past week, with LH, I experienced the old ones and the newer ones. The newer ones are definitely better, but still not great. SQ's 9 across 777 seats are super.
And there are airlines who put 10 abreast in DC-10-s, MD-11s and Tristars.
JoeCanuck wrote:
Does that mean the 737 is the best and 320 the worst airplane? Put the same seats or interior in both and you'd have to be an engineer to tell the difference.
Not so. If you put the exact same seats in both, like some airlines do, the 6 inches have to appear somewhere.
JoeCanuck wrote:
I like the spaciousness of the 777 cabin but I also like the 2-4-2 seating in the 330.
I've never flown on a DC10 or Tristar so I couldn't say. My point is, I couldn't see much of a difference between a 320 and a 737. My impressions, that's all. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I couldn't spot it.
chornedsnorkack wrote:
Not so. If you put the exact same seats in both, like some airlines do, the 6 inches have to appear somewhere.
If they use exactly the same seats on both, the 6 inches will typically end up as a wider aisle.
Precisely. There is a huge difference between 18 inch aisle in Economy and 24 inch aisle in the Economy. Many Business Classes have less than 24 inch aisles...
this extra space would most delight those with aisle seats.
Meanwhile, since the armrests are as close to sidewall as they are in a 737, and the width difference is just 2 inches at shoulder, the passengers at window or wall seats have no wider seats, limited access to the wide aisle 2 seats away, and sidewall 2 inches closer to shoulder than on a 737. This last might be perceptible.
You all have better memories than I have! I've flown American, United Continental, SAS, Delta, Laker, Northwest, etc. DC-10's and I don't remember any seat configurations. Generally, I fall asleep on take-off and don't wake up until after meal service.
I'n not sure whether its the cramped seats or the bad food.
smokejumper wrote:You all have better memories than I have! I've flown American, United Continental, SAS, Delta, Laker, Northwest, etc. DC-10's and I don't remember any seat configurations. Generally, I fall asleep on take-off and don't wake up until after meal service.
I'n not sure whether its the cramped seats or the bad food.
I have never flown a DC-10, so I can't comment, but looking at my DC-10 book, The DC-10-10 had indeed a 2-4-2 configuration. I find that interesting, I always though that the DC-10, especially the DC-10-40 was capable of 3-4-3 seating like the 747. When Cageyjames said that the DC-10 had a 2-4-2 configuration, I thought he was talking about the early DC-10-10.
well the airlines realized that if they ripped out the middle console and narrowed the seats and the isles a little, then they could put a ton more seats in. Of course they also realized the piano bars are not needed either.
2-4-2 in DC-10s or L-1011s was a long time ago. 
