• Mensagens: 1292
Negative feedback prompts British Airways to widen seats for 787-9
British Airways is installing a new economy class seat on its Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner after negative feedback from passengers, Runway Girl Network can report.

The news comes from British Airways’ internal magazine Up to Speed, “the monthly magazine for British Airways employees, focusing on the strategy and the people who make the airline”.

Kathryn Doyle, who works on product development as British Airways’ Aircraft Product Cabin Interiors Manager, is quoted as saying, “Teams have been working on the plans for the cabin interiors, and in particular the evolved First cabin, for two and a half years.” 

“Club and World Traveller Plus haven’t changed, but we’re putting a slightly wider seat into World Traveller. Front-line colleagues shared feedback from customers on the 787-8, who said the seats felt a bit tight,” Doyle says.

That’s some quintessentially British understatement there, with width a frequent complaint about 3-3-3 economy seats on a Dreamliner, and why the 787 has come to be seen by many as an aircraft to avoid.

“We listened to that,” Doyle continues, “and challenged our seat supplier to come up with a solution that would achieve parity with competitors and satisfy customers. The result is a seat that is half an inch wider, which we believe will improve customer comfort.”

It’s unclear where the extra half an inch per seat – 4.5 inches across the entire row of nine — will come from. British Airways has not yet responded to RGN’s request for information about where this extra width has been gleaned, nor regarding the measurements of the new seats. There are, however, really only a few options BA can choose from, which have all been tried in the industry previously.

The first option to discount is turning the Dreamliner into an economy class dream by operating an eight-across cabin. The seatmaps that clearly show a nine-abreast cabin (see below) dash that hope even more than Doyle’s oblique mention of “parity with competitors”, which does rather sound like “just as terrible as everybody else’s”.

The second possibility is a slimmed-down armrest. This, of course, is viewed by some as a spurious way to claim extra seat width (as Southwest tried to claim earlier this year), and is based on measuring seat width between the armrests rather than at the armrests: measurement B on the chart below.

Counting an increase in seat width based on measurement B would only be acceptable if airlines had always publicised their seat measurements that way; this is not the case.

The third possibility is that the airline has reduced the width of the aisles by 2.25 inches each. Regulatory minima for aisles are 16 inches between armrests, yet in reality anything less than around 17 involves a significant amount of hip-to-shoulder contact between passengers walking down the aisle and those seated in aisle seats. Boarding is slowed because rollaboard bags do not fit down the aisle, and service becomes more inefficient because trolleys become harder to navigate (as Air New Zealand discovered when its 2011 arrival of 3-4-3 Boeing 777-300ER aircraft, which had similar problems). This tension is not new — easyJet and Northwest both plumped for skinny seats and wide aisles on their A319 aircraft for faster boarding reasons — but neither is there an unlimited or consequence-free amount of space to slice from the aisle.

BA tried an ultra-narrow seating configuration in the late 1990s when it converted leisure 777s based in its Gatwick holidaymaker hub to a 3-4-3 layout, but was swayed to reverse its decision after customer complaints.

That BA has now had to modify its economy class in a second aircraft type suggests that it hasn’t learned from past mistakes.


  • Mensagens: 1524
Afinal nao é sonos avioes da TAp que se viaja mal


  • Mensagens: 495
Isto é um problema bastante falado dos 787, a falta de espaço em económica. Isto porque o avião foi desenhado tendo em conta uma cabine de 8 lugares por fila (como o A330/A340) para não competir com o 777, só que a Boeing deu-lhe um maior diâmetro de cabine do que os Airbus o que, não permitindo 9 lugares por fila com 18", permitiu-o com assentos mais estreitos, e o que a maioria a maioria das companhias aéreas fez (com a excepção da JAL se não estou em erro) foi optar pelos 9 lugares por fila, o que tem gerado muito feedback bastante negativo por parte dos passageiros.

Fica aqui um exemplo que achei bastante bem conseguido.

Afinal nao é sonos avioes da TAp que se viaja mal
Se a opção for B787 da Qatar ou A330 da TAP (com preços próximos) para mim a escolha é fácil...
« Última modificação: 28 de Agosto 2015, 16:05:51 por MarcoM »


  • Mensagens: 1524
Nao tinha ideia... Ate no intercidades se tem mais espaço :)


  • Mensagens: 495
Não tinha ideia... Ate no intercidades se tem mais espaço :)

Nesse caso tens aqui uma boa leitura:

Why I tell people to avoid flying on a 787

“New rule: never fly on a 787.” That’s what I found myself advising some non-aviation industry friends who were planning a trip this week, despite all the benefits of the newest generation of composite airliners — lower cabin altitude, bigger windows, power and USB sockets, on-demand entertainment, bigger bins.

I would love to recommend the Dreamliner. I truly believe that it, and the Airbus A350, are huge design and manufacturing leaps forward. Even after the fire issues it has had, I think the 787 is a safe aircraft. I know it is opening up long and thin routes that allow nonstop or fewer-stop services between cities. I know its per-kilometre costs are lower, which is good for airlines, good for ticket prices and good for the environment.

But I wouldn’t recommend that anybody sit in economy on one — and economy is where almost all of us sit when we’re paying the fare.

The nine-abreast 787 economy seating on an aircraft frequently used for long-haul and ultra-long-haul flights gives passengers less space than any other jet — even the previous lead standard of a 10-abreast 777. Nine-abreast on a Dreamliner means a seat width of 17” or below, narrower even than a short-haul 737, an aircraft for which the six-abreast cabin diameter dates back to the 1950s’ Boeing 707.

Yet the 777 brand isn’t as toxic in economy as the 787 is, not while there are still some 777s with decent nine-abreast layouts, although their number is shrinking as carriers refit or retire older models and add new 10-abreast aircraft to their fleets. With the 777 it’s possible to be more nuanced — fly British Airways, Delta or United rather than Air Canada or American.

Not so with the 787.

IFEC_ad_300x300As existing operators add more Dreamliners to their fleet, and new airlines take delivery, they’ve chosen the nine-abreast layout exclusively.

The one exception is Japan Airlines, which offers significantly better 18”+ seats in a 2-4-2 layout on its 787s, including the newer Sky Wider version, with 33” pitch. Local competitor ANA has one of four layouts with eight-abreast, yet the writing is on the wall for this configuration, and I wouldn’t recommend anybody chance getting it while ANA is in the process of removing it from service.

As ever, the story is completely different in international premium economy — not extra-legroom economy, which has the same nine-abreast seats with a few inches more legroom — where a 2-3-2 layout and spacious seats are a real sweet spot for passengers who care about #PaxEx and have the cash (or travel policy) to spend on it. But premium economy comes at a premium price, usually in the area of 35-45% over economy.

In business class, too, the Dreamliner is great. But my friends — a family of four with teenage kids crossing the Atlantic — are probably going to spend less on their entire holiday than they’d spend sending even half of the family in business class.

Boeing — and its 787 customers — have a problem. There needs to be a product at a price point attractive to flyers for whom a sub-17” seat is a deal breaker yet an 18”+ seat is entirely acceptable, but for whom a 35%+ price jump for premium economy isn’t feasible.

The other option? The 787 becomes known as an aircraft nobody wants to fly.
« Última modificação: 03 de Setembro 2015, 08:31:39 por MarcoM »


  • Mensagens: 1524
Parece que aquilo é mesmo mau... Vejam as críticas na Qatar


  • Mensagens: 292
Hum... não foi a Qatar que ganhou o premio Skytrax ou coisa parecida?


  • Mensagens: 4875
Hum... não foi a Qatar que ganhou o premio Skytrax ou coisa parecida?

Pois, mas ao que parece que o B788 da Qatar em Económica, deixa mesmo a desejar.

Resposta rápida

Com a resposta rápida pode escrever uma mensagem quando está a ver um tópico sem carregar uma nova página. Pode, ainda, usar o código BBC e os risonhos como usaria numa mensagem normal.

Aviso: este tópico não tem nenhuma mensagem nova há, pelo menos, 90 dias.
A não ser que tenha a certeza que quer responder, por favor, considere a hipótese de criar um novo tópico.

Nota: esta mensagem não irá aparecer até ter sido aprovada por um moderador.
Nome: Email:


Tópicos Relacionados

  Assunto / Iniciado por Respostas Última mensagem
30 Respostas
5886 Visualizações
Última mensagem 25 de Fevereiro 2015, 15:28:55
por dsml
4 Respostas
1176 Visualizações
Última mensagem 30 de Agosto 2015, 10:40:58
por iloper
0 Respostas
1071 Visualizações
Última mensagem 11 de Outubro 2018, 15:42:21
por jopeg
2 Respostas
1525 Visualizações
Última mensagem 22 de Maio 2019, 14:41:39
por Strangelesi
5 Respostas
893 Visualizações
Última mensagem 17 de Agosto 2019, 23:19:24
por eduopo

Total 122+0=122 ms, db 0 ms, php 122 ms