Airbus today has launched a major push for airline comfort in economy class (and no doubt a push for sales in its aircraft), with a sponsored study about seat width and a campaign for an 18″ minimum seat width.
Whilst a lot of us concentrate on seat pitch (the legroom you have on a flight), there isn’t much attention to seat width – and this matters as much as it depends how much you feel squeezed – especially down the back of the plane in Economy (although it is possible to be squeezed in business class depending how much they try to pack a plane).
According to Airbus:
The ground breaking research conducted by Harley Street medical practice The London Sleep Centre using polysomnography* to record every standard physiological sleep measurement – including monitoring brainwaves, eye, abdominal, chest and hip leg movement – on a selection of passengers revealed that a minimum seat width of 18 inches improved passenger sleep quality by 53% when compared to the 1950’s 17 inch standard. (See notes for methodology and further results**) – http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/airbus-calls-on-aviation-industry-to-set-a-new-standard-for-long-haul-comfort/
Whilst the human race appears to be getting larger, seats are getting smaller in some cases – especilly down the back on long haul routes.
This can be seen with the 777-300ER’s where 10 abreast seating is becoming the norm with new deliveries as (note: Pitch in inches/Width in Inches):
- Aeroflot (30-32″/17.8″)
- Air Canada (31″/17″)
- Air France (32″/17″)
- Air New Zealand (32-32″/17.1″)
- Alitalia (30-35″/16.5″)
- American Airlines (31″/17″)
- TAM (32″/17″)
- Etihad (31″/17.5″)
- Emirates (32″/17″)
- KLM (31″/17.5″)
(Data: Seatguru)
Meanwhile, the 787s are just as bad were all bar 1 operator (Japan Airlines), operate their 787s use 3-3-3 (9 abreast) seating in the lowest passenger class (ANA operate a mix of 2-4-2 and 3-3-3 layed out 787s).
Even some airlines who operate Airbus A330’s are packing in the tighter densities with Air Transat and Air Asia X operating densely filled aircraft in 3-3-3 (9 abreast)
- Air Asia X (32″/16.5″)
- Air Transat (32-33″/17″)
Saying that squeezing isn’t a new thing. Numerous 747-400s are configured in 31-32″ pitch/17″ widths.
So – what matter most to you when you’re stuck on the long haul plane? And should we look towards larger seats on the plane (if anything to create a bit more breathing room).
Loading ...I know that I actively avoid aircraft configured in 3-3-3 configurations (hence why I always aimed for AA’s and pmUA 777 2-5-2’s, and of course, any A330 as most are in 2-4-2).
Yes, there is a cost balance to be struck between capacity, seating and passengers, but if passengers are uncomfortable, they’ll let other passengers know about it fast enough… and that could mean a drop in passengers.
And planes do not fill themselves – no matter what some network yield managers would like to think.
Your thoughts are welcome below as always…
Want to keep up with me at GhettoIFE? Join me either by signing up for my newsletter, or follow me on Twitter @GhettoIFE for when there are posts to the blog!
That’s one reason SQ is attractive when I do need to fly economy. Their 32 x 19 on long-haul routes makes those 8+ hour legs that much more bearable as compared to being squeezed in to a 31 x 17 or 31 x 17.5 from your list above.
Couldn’t agree more – the trend to less width and seat pitch, while people are getting wider and/or taller, is frightening. 29in pitch and 17in or less width are very uncomfortable…
I guess the yield managers are hoping that it will help sell more Economy Plus and Business seats – I think it is more likely to have a plane full of grumpy passengers and fights on planes over reclining seats and oversized passengers…
While I do like more width/pitch as much as everyone else, I think Airbus had their narrow jets in mind with this marketing pitch, which coincidently have 18″ width standard vs Boeing offerings (“1950s standard” burn).