Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3818 times:
Quoting zhiao (Thread starter): From all the comments and TR it seems that this type of configuration is really uncomfortable. So I am asking, is it really that bad? Isn't it simply a 757 style seat in terms of width?
It's not just the seat cushion width but armrests are also narrow and the gap between the seats is narrower so you're closer to your neighbour. Aisles are also very narrow. Overall it's just less pleasant than 9-abreast. Put 10 people in the space of 9 and it can't help but be less desirable. Also means a somewhat higher probability of a middle seat since 40% of the seats are middle seats, compared to 33% at 9-abreast.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2552 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3586 times:
It's tighter, but it's far from unbearable. Most of the people you hear going off their heads about it have never been on a 10 abreast 777... I can tell you that I didn't notice all that much of a difference between an EK 77W and the BA 77W, aside from the width of the aisles. The seats and armrests felt identical.
BoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1011 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3572 times:
Quoting zhiao (Thread starter): From all the comments and TR it seems that this type of configuration is really uncomfortable. So I am asking, is it really that bad?
Yes it really is that bad, its noticably more cramped everyone is pushed up against the person next to them it was very unpleasent. It was only on a 3 hour flight but it was enough to put EK on my shit list.
rogercamel From Singapore, joined Feb 2012, 84 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3572 times:
It really depends who you end up sitting next to.
The extra space in 3-3-3 helps a little, but you can still get freaks next to you - earlier this week the person next to me started cutting his finger nails after take off - then moved on to his toe nails... not even 3-3-3 could rescue this! I got lost on my way back from the loo.
AngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 317 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3539 times:
Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
From all the comments and TR it seems that this type of configuration is really uncomfortable. So I am asking, is it really that bad? Isn't it simply a 757 style seat in terms of width?
Yes, it is really that bad. Also because you are flying 12+ hrs.
The 757 seat is already hell on a 6 hour flight, especially if you are used to flying 8-abreast A330 or 9 abreast 777.
And also, my shoulder width is 19". That does not fit in an 17" seat.
liftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3412 times:
I've been on two carriers with 3-4-3 77W's and I can say, as a fairly large person, It's not THAT bad. Given, anyone would rather be on 3-3-3 (or even 2-4-2), but it really isn't. EK seemed to cut more seat space as opposed to aisle space, while ANZ cut more aisle space. I have to say, getting out of the ANZ 777 was hell, aisles were cramped, and people wouldn't wait to get off.
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 5): It's tighter, but it's far from unbearable. Most of the people you hear going off their heads about it have never been on a 10 abreast 777... I can tell you that I didn't notice all that much of a difference between an EK 77W and the BA 77W, aside from the width of the aisles. The seats and armrests felt identical.
Yes, it IS unbearable! Obviously this is a personal opinion but I found my 4 sectors (2x8 hours & 2x6 hours) on EKs 10 abreast B77W to be actually painful and extremely uncomfortable. Your kilometerage may vary! I also found the cabins cramped, dark and generally unpleasant, again personal opinion. As Viscount724 said in reply1:
"It's not just the seat cushion width but armrests are also narrow and the gap between the seats is narrower so you're closer to your neighbour."
I now go out of my way to avoid 10 abreast B777. Its not just a case of who is cheapest. For my forth coming trip to North America I was disposed to fly NZ and pay the extra $A200 for newer aircraft and better service, but when the B77W was introduced I chose to go with UA, down the back on the ever reliable B744!
faddypainter From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3209 times:
Although my only experience on the 10 abreast 777 Y class is flying EK on a BHX-DXB-KIX return routing. I still say in all honesty it isn't as bad as most people on here go on about. Legroom is all that makes the difference to me. (but being 6' 4" I don't think I will ever find a comfortable Y seat on any aircraft ever!)
My only complaint would be during meal service, it's hard to use a knife and fork without ramming your elbows into your neighbours body.
Apart from that I didn't find the flights felt cramped width-wise, that's more than can be said for a 2-4-2 Thomson 763 I flew to SFB a few years back. I could never complain about 777's after that!
aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1452 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
It is bad ... but the person you sit next to makes the difference between "bad" and "that bad".
I recently flew on Emirates between Dubai and Bangkok ... and although I had a window seat, my neighbour to the left wanted to share his hairy arm with me the entire flight. Even as I nudged him several times to keep his arm on the arm rest (and not beyond into my space), it keeps returning.
The only option left (short of a shouting match) was to wrap myself in the blanket - which by the way is so thin it does nothing to keep one warm - and mitigate the feeling that my neighbour's hairy arm offers.
Earlier, I got off the Emirates flight from Houston to Dubai ... that one was a flight from hell ... there must have been at least 40 children (not counting babies) ... and their parents seem to think that once the aircraft is aloft, the entire plane is a fair ground for the visiting circus. Even in the midst of turbulence and the "fasten seat belt" sign is lit and the announcement made, many adults on this flight remain permanently fixed to the spot near the galley or emergency exit. Perhaps they did not want to return to their seat because they too hate the 10-abreast configuration.
I have previously flown on 10-abreast B777s with Thai, Air France and KLM ... yes, they too were cramped but it was not terribly unpleasant as my recent flights on Emirates. It is at the end of the day who you fly with that decides on your state of mind after the flight.
I walked off the plane feeling absolutely rotten ... even as I generally love flying.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4993 posts, RR: 29 Reply 17, posted (11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2929 times:
The worst thing I found about my 10 abreast EK experiences was the comfort, (or lack thereof), of the seat itself, no the width. I've spent 6 hour flights on a 17" wide 737 seat without a worry but after an hour or so on EK's 777's, my butt was already past numb to painful.
The cushions, ergonomics...everything just sucked...and really the least sucky thing was the 10 abreast configuration.
That being said, 9 abreast on an SQ 777 was fantastic...no need to worry about an upgrade.
MAN2SIN2BKK From Thailand, joined Feb 2009, 202 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
OK, all this moaning about 10 across on a 777; why not vote with your wallet and fly with someone that is 9 across instead. Yes Emirates or Etihad are painful on a long flight, so fly instead with Qatar - better service as well etc
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2743 times:
Any economy seat on a long haul flight is bad.
One thing I have seen is that some people have commented that the ANA 787s are only ok in comfort. They are the widest economy seats in the sky and have 33 inches of pitch which is above industry standard. Yet somehow no one says they are comfortable.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2738 times:
The only ten-abreast 777 flights have been on domestic Japan flights that last a little north of one hour. For that duration is tolerable. Not on a long-haul flight. Any carrier/aircraft combo, I stay away from even if they are cheaper.
Quoting MAN2SIN2BKK (Reply 19): OK, all this moaning about 10 across on a 777; why not vote with your wallet and fly with someone that is 9 across instead.
Except that most people do vote with their wallets and go with whoever is cheaper regardless of aircraft configuration.
Only seasoned travellers and A-net members do really care.
I agree. Having flown EK 777s many many times I really don't have an issue with it. I once flew the entire way from MAN to BNE in middle seats and it was fine. (For the record I'm 176cm and 70kg - so not that big but still about average)
25 jetfuel: It should be outlawed by the WHO. EK is a low cost economy airline. Its dangerous and terrible
26 qf002: I guess it really does come down to the individual reaction to the space. I'm tall and broad, so I feel at least a little bit cramped in any Y seat o
27 gemuser: But that is exactly what I now do! No more B77W 10 abreast, I avoid them like the plague, see reply 13. I will pay for 9 abreast on a B77W or 10 abre
28 9V-SVC: Just flown on EK's 3-4-3 77L and it was not the worst 3-4-3 777 I had flown on. While the seats were narrow, the seat pitch was reasonable. A few time
29 byronicle6: The only 10 abreast 77W flights I have been on are EK AKL-MEL & BNE-AKL which are only 3-4 hours. I didn't have any problems with it but I can see
30 planejamie: I've flown EK 10 abreast and I wowed never to fly EK again and never to fly a 10 abreast 777 again. It is awful. I consider myself "average sized" th
31 EricAY05: Here's something I don't think anyone has mentioned. I've flown two times on a T7 with the mentioned configuration. EK and KL. Both times I was seated
32 qf002: BA has 17.5" seats in Y on all their long haul aircraft (at least according to the 3 websites I've just checked that on). EK's seats are marginally n
33 longhauler: Yes, EK's seats are half an inch narrower, (big pencil), But as some mention, that is not the only issue. It is also the width (or lack of) of the ar
34 qf002: It's definitely not an ideal setup (but there's no such thing as a properly comfortable setup in Y) but its certainly not the torturous and mental il
35 Viscount724: And I remember 2-4-2 on the early DC-10s and L-1011s, comparable to 3-4-2 on the 747s. Agree, comfortable isn't the right word but at least it's bett
36 raffik: I flew on EK's 773 and 772 and I found the seating comfortable- with good leg room too. I am not thin and there was plenty of room. The 9 a breasts ar
37 ba319-131: - I myself have found the ANA 787 longhaul seat pretty good, but I'm not tall.
38 trintocan: I have to agree with those who dislike 10-abreast 777s on long-haul services. The first 2 flights of mine on 777s were on BA 777-200IGWs between TAB a
39 AirbusA6: I flew on AF to Cuba last xmas, and yes it was cramped, and yes the narrower aisle width was noticeable. It's the sort of configuration which works if