[Anonymous]

[AMcWhirter]

Yesterday, as we reported, Airbus has called on the airline industry to adopt 18-inches as a minimum standard for long-haul economy class seat width.

The Toulouse-based plane manufacturer has now produced a video setting out its case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-GiIsk7IE&feature=youtu.be

It’s a laudable aim but will it succeed?

Cynics argue that Airbus is simply taking a swipe at Boeing, whose client airlines are squeezing in more and more seats abreast on planes like the B777 and B787.

Others claim, with justification, that Airbus is the manufacturer and the airlines are its customers. It means that airlines are free to ignore Airbus. They can specify (within reason, of course) whatever seating layout they choose.

That is why Airbus still supplies densely configured planes if customers want them.

The two leading Philippine carriers, PAL and Cebu Pacific, operate brand new high-density A330 versions with 414 seats in the case of the former and a whopping 436 seats in the case of the latter.

Air AsiaX, one of the launch customers for the new A350, will install ten-seats across on a plane originally designed for nine. Indeed, Airbus has even designed a special A350 version for budget customers.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-10-abreast-a350-xwb-would-offer-unprecedented-operating-cost-advantage-223853/

But what about regular carriers? Here, again economy cabin space is squeezed year after year as the airlines drive down their costs. It’s no surprise that over the past 20 years, business class has come on by leaps and bounds while economy has deteriorated.

And now Emirates, perhaps Airbus’ best customer, says that it may in the future go 11-across (3-5-3) in economy on its fleet of A380 superjumbos (current layout is ten-across in 3-4-3).

Quoted in Wall Street Journal online a few days ago, Emirates CEO Tim Clark said, “We’ve tried it [the 11-across layout]. It works.”

Emirates believes that customers are not so fussed about onboard comfort if they can be distracted by food and IFE (inflight entertainment).

So at the end of the day, one cannot help but conclude that this is a clever PR campaign with zero chance of success.

Alex McWhirter

[rferguson]

I think a big issue with ‘size’ when it comes to airlines is that they can use so many tricks to blur the results. We’ve seen it with leg room/seat pitch. Some airlines claim to have increased economy seat pitch when in reality that has only come from removing older well padded seats and replacing them with thinner ‘slimline’seats. The same as seat width – some aircraft/airlines have made the arm rests thinner so they can lay claim to a couple valuable centimetres of width to display in their stats.

I think overall what is most important is amount of personal space. A combination of seat width, space at shoulder level, seat pitch, amount of leg room taken up by IFE boxes and so on. I think while most of us appreciate it’s quite a cut throat industry out there, there has to be a trade off at some point. A little like Emirates 777’s. They may pack in ten abreast, but at least they compensate by more legroom (34″) whereas on the traditional nine abreast configuration (say BA) you get a slightly wider seat but only 31″ legroom.

I think what is not good is where full service airlines try and push economy passengers from all angles- seat width, seat pitch and large IFE boxes – the 787 aircraft of certain airlines comes to mind 😉

[MartynSinclair]

I can just see Brussels dictating a minimum space width….

Two hopes, Bob and No…..

[LuganoPirate]

We have with us some Italain veterinary students on our game reserve, and they calculated the amount of space a human gets on a plane is less than that allowed for the transport of animals within the EU! Makes you think there should be a minimum width set by Brussells?

[MartynSinclair]

@ LP There’s a very simple explanation why animals get more space when they travel – because the nice politicians realise humans have a choice how to travel, animals don’t!! 🙂

[capetonianm]

The width of the seat is less important than the legroom and the size of the armrests, the latter particularly.

[Edski777]

It all comes down to revenue and what travellers are willing to pay.

There is a weird, but understandable, discrepancy in the minds of travellers: pay as little as possible, but expect top notch service in space on board and other services like food, drinks and entertainment.
In genral we seem to select the lowest price and accordingly complain about cramped conditions.

Now that Airbus is coming with their XWB design on the A350 they wouldn’t mind that the EU would set a standard for seat width, but the why not for seat pitch? Seat width would hurt Boeing more than it would hurt Airbus on long haul aircraft. A bit of a very obvious marketing scheme by Airbus.

The real question would be if customers are willing to pay for extra elbow room. So far the answer is most likely to be: no. The same has happened on seat pitch. We have gone from 34″ to 31″ and happily accepted the lower cost of tickets. Well, we do complain of course.

To bank on the EU in this respect to force airlines to adhere to minimu standards seems more than a bit cheap.

[peter19]

The airbus video with the guys sleeping and all the graphs is fine but the plane is not flying? and there is nobody seated round them in the cabin or reclining back on them, nobody walking up and down the isles ( i had a guy doing laps last week on a 787!) but an inch more is better than nothing and every little helps which I’m all for.

[NameRemoved-18/12/14]

It seems Economy on regular airlines is going back to the days of charter flights.

Have you ever had a comfortable longhaul flight in Economy? In my experience they are pure torture…except when you have a row to yourself. Happy days 😉

Personally, legroom comes above seat width.

[FrDougal]

Long and short of it is as long as airlines are managed by accountants and not people who actually have a focus on customer service the seats are never going to get better unless they are made to by legislation.

The British Airways b787 is absolutely SHOCKING and provides a perfect example of how the mission to get more bums in seats takes priority over comfort and providing basic comfort!

[AMcWhirter]

Evening

Thanks for all your comments.

I hear what some of you say about preferring extra legroom but I should mention that the trend is both to install an extra seat abreast as well as reducing legroom

Yes it is true that when Emirates first adopted 10-across (3-4-3) on its B777s it softened the blow by providing 33/34 ins of legroom compared to its rivals’ 31-33 ins.

But Emirates operates four different B777 versions and some of these now offer economy passengers a reduced 32 ins of legroom.

Some carriers who have recently introduced B777-300ERs with 10-across seating have cut economy legroom to just 31 ins.

Examples here include American Airlines, Air Canada and KLM.

As we have previously reported on this website, the Air Canada B777-300ER with 10-across seating is the version with premium economy.

This particular aircraft accommodates no fewer than 458 passengers which is the highest density on any B777-300ER with the exception of those Air France B777-300ERs which serve the overseas departments. It will be deployed on routes to London from March 2014.

The layout on seatplans.com illustrates just how tight is the seating:

http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Air-Canada/seatplans/B777-300ER-(three-class)-1

[BigDog.]

Contextual analysis in DT article with BT well referenced …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/travel-truths/10415081/Are-plane-seats-getting-smaller.html

[AMcWhirter]

Evening

As I mentioned in my original posting … the airlines are Airbus’ customers and so the manufacturer must bow to their command.

At a media briefing by Lufthansa today in New York, the carrier’s executive VP Nico Buchholz said that “we don’t like the [Airbus suggestion of 18 ins wide seats] catalogue and we won’t take the catalogue.”

It also appears that 11-across Y configurations on the A380 are more likely now than was first thought.

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2013/11/05/lufthansa-does-not-support-airbus-push-to-make-an-18-in-seat-width-industry-standard/

[AMcWhirter]

Sorry … should have mentioned that the catalogue refers to the new A350 seating which were to meet Airbus’ new standard.

[Author]

Posts