# Size of the new seats

Hi,

as far as I know, the rating of a seat depends on its size. At least, that is how it used to be... an ecoplus seat was 50% bigger than a standard seat, and if all other variables were the same, you could sell that ecoplus seat for 50% more.

Do the new seats work along the same lines ? Is there a direct correlation between size and rating of the new seats ?

Then it would be nice to know the "official" size of a seat. No information was given, so I decided to check some sizes myself. Unfortunately my findings are a bit confusing. A standard seat is a size 1. In other words, if a plane is certified for 100 passengers, you should be able to fit 100 standard seats in that plane. And if a seat is a size 2, you should be able to fit 50 seats of that type into that plane.

Obviously, if you try to fit private suites into a small regional jet, you should expect (big) differences. I mean, if a plane is 1.9 meter wide, and a suite is 1 meter wide, you can only fit one suite in a row and you loose a lot of space. So in my quest to find the size of a seat, I used 5 wide bodies*. The bigger the floor surface, the easier it is to use the available place.

Anyway, this is what I found

- standard seats

only in a 747-800 can you fit the number of seats promised by the manufacterer. In the 767 and the A330 you can only fit 80% of the standard seats.

- comfort

the size varies between 1.1 (747) and 1.53 (767). If the size of that seat is 1.1, you should be able to fit 318 comfort seats in a 767 instead of the 228 you can fit in now. That's a difference of 90 seats.

- recliner short

the size varies between 1.41 (747) and 1.89 (A330).If the Airbus had the same capacity as the Boeing's main deck, you would be able to install 261 seats. That's 89 seats less than a 747 can fit in the same space.

- lie flat

the size varies between 2.37 and 3.33 for the 140, and between 3.09 and 4.66 for the 160 version. For the Lie-Flat 160, that is a 50% difference between a 747 and a 767.

- full bed

seems to have the same size as the lie-flat 160. I wonder what the difference is... Martin ?

- private suite

the size varies between 5.83 (767) and 7.91 (A380). Although this is the biggest seat I checked, it seems the easiest one to fit in different planes. And surprise, surprise... the only case where the 767 comes out as the best.

Conclusions

There are big differences between different planes. And airlines with a fleet of 767's or A330's should look for a replacement. Well... 767 operators can fill their planes with private suites and hope to get enough bookings  :-)

But seriously. These are the biggest planes in the game. I expect to find the same differences - and perhaps even bigger differences - when I check narrow bodies and regional jets.

So I have a question for the AS-team. Is the current cabin editor a final thing ? If so, I can start looking for the best solution for my airline. Or do you plan any changes in the coming weeks ? In that case, I better wait until the dust settles. It would be silly to replace seats or planes if things are gonna change next month  ;-)

Jan

*I checked the 767-300ER, the 787, the A330-300X, the 747-800 and the A380. For the latter two I used the main deck which is the biggest deck.

I run a fleet of B767-300 and it's a headache for me right now. With my experience in Aspern, the no. of seats that I can offer is greatly reduced due to the change in cabin size, which is around having one less seat than a 787 in a row,.

Hi,

I know, I also operate a fleet of 767's  :-)

But where the 767 is a total failure, some other planes also show big differences. So there may be trouble ahead. Remember the protests when the AGEX changed ? That is why I would like to know if the AS-team plans to evaluate everything and change some stuff.

In that case I shall wait until the dust settles.

If they plan to stick with the current floor plans and formula's, I shall start looking for the best combination of planes and seats.

Jan

So, basically I am flying my airline with old cabin. Hopefully it can sustain for awhile before it goes bankrupt :P

Hi,

if you are using ecoplus seats in economy and business premium or better in business class, you won't go bankrupt  ;-)

With the old system, the ecoplus had size 1.5 and that literally meant you could install 233 ecoplus seats in a 767-300. If you install new seats and you want a similar rating, you have to go for Recliner Short and only 189 of those will fit in a 767.

The new business class seats are bigger than the old ones though. So you should be able to increase the price of your ecoplus tickets but should probably have to lower the price of your business tickets. All in all I believe you will make a bigger profit if you stick with your old seats. Not because the new seats have a low rating, but because you can't fit enough of them in a plane. Far less than you should be able in a 767.

Mind you, the 767 flights will have a low image because you will get red bars for seat spacing and flight attendants. But if your other planes have new seats, your overall airline image won't really suffer.

Jan

Great. Then I would have to restructure and use a fleet of 787 instead. It's a pity that I have to drop them all. Only around 100 of them.

I've said it a couple of times already...

The problem with the new cabin editor is that it calculates with fixed seat dimensions with fixed ratings to them.

As their dimensions are fix, they do fit one cabin well and others not.

On a quick check I got the feeling that the most desirable seats for rating in eco (ComfortPlus etc.) have dimensions exactly matching Boeing cabins. The ComfortPlus for example fits perfectly into a 737 (2+3) or a 787 (2+3+2).

Those "something in-between" sizes like 767 or all Airbus standard fuselages (A300 to 340) have a problem here. You lose at least one seat per row because of a few inch. Other seats wont help you much as you either lose capacity or rating.

In game you have to fly a 2+2+2 layout on the 333 instead of a 2+3+2 on the 788 while both seats are rated equally.

And that's the problem: On a real 333, 2+2+2 seats are wider than 2+3+2 seats in a 788. Naturally they should have a better rating.

According to manufacturer planning referrence:

on a 788 with 2+3+2, a seat-pair has a width of 50in.

on a 333 with 2+2+2, a seat-pair has 54in.

However in AS, both get the same ratings.

@Jan:

With the new cabin editor, you cannot set standard seats to "1" like it was with the old system.

What's the most important for max. capacity is the exit limit for each airframe (check FAA exit limits for reference)

In AS, there's now the "slimline" seat that is to exploit the max exit limit on most airframes.

There are some aircraft out there with exit limits being far below actual cabin capacity (mostly longhaul jets). Check the cabin tool for a 748 or a A340-600 with slimline seats for example: there's lot's of empty cabin...

And there are others with exit limits exceeding the actual cabin size like the 737-600.

The seats are not based on a specific manufacturer. We did a research about real life seat pitches and width and built cluster of seats and formed them to the current seats. But you are right - there are cabins which may have a problem. But you are in wrong in the following:

on a 788 with 2+3+2, a seat-pair has a width of 50in.

on a 333 with 2+2+2, a seat-pair has 54in.

In reality these are two different seats - and we have them in here too, and they are also rated different. If you put the same seat in the 788 and the 333 and you only have one seat less abreast, this doesn't mean that the seat is wider. The aisles are wider!

Of course there is a limit where one seat doesn't fit any more but as it was written somewhere before, the cabin width of the 330 shall be 5,20m and the 787's one 5,49m

... as you either lose capacity or rating....

Just for general understanding...can you not compromise the less good rated seats with a lower price?

If you use good seats and a littel higher price will you not end up with the same rating as with "bad" seats and lower pricing?

I run an airline with "low-quality" seats but low prices and end up with an overall "4-Bar-Product" in the ORS. My competitors are using better seats but higher prices and end up mostly with a "3-Bar-Product." So what is really the difference?

(Besides, I dont understand all the fuss about having the best possible seats... I have competitors who used Eco-Plus with the old cabin editor, even on short routes. Why would you do that? Some want to fly with Full-Beds in Business class....why? It's very far from reality afterall. My 0,02\$)

I do not run Long-haul yet and may lack some insight to this. However, the same principles apply right? If you use the 787 with better seats you charge a higher price. If you use A330 with a quality level lower, you can charge a lower price.

This new system is shit ... !!!

Have a look , this.

In old system , I could install Eco+ in 737 99pax  and 772 293pax

In new system , I can install Comfort+ in 737 105pax  and in 772 only 259pax

In this new system , in wide bodies aircraft I can install less pax than before , but in narrow -bodies a can install more

If I would install similar confiration in my 772 to make similar pax I will have to use only Comfort or Leasure+ , witch have worse ORS

But I get more pax in ma narrow fleet.

Conclusion ??? In new sys narrow-bodies are more profitable . Its mean  people will be more choose narrowbody and use it at long distans than normal. Now usage widebodies are more unprofitable !!!

This change of seats system will makes the words, more un-real than before  !!!

It's very far from reality afterall.

That's pretty par for the course.

The seats are not based on a specific manufacturer. We did a research about real life seat pitches and width and built cluster of seats and formed them to the current seats. But you are right - there are cabins which may have a problem. But you are in wrong in the following:

In reality these are two different seats - and we have them in here too, and they are also rated different. If you put the same seat in the 788 and the 333 and you only have one seat less abreast, this doesn't mean that the seat is wider. The aisles are wider!

Of course there is a limit where one seat doesn't fit any more but as it was written somewhere before, the cabin width of the 330 shall be 5,20m and the 787's one 5,49m

I think you still fail to understand my very point about the cabin editor.

Let me try once again.

I'm not wrong with what I stated above, I was just quoting official manufacturer data. Obviousely, seats with different widths are different seats. <_<

That's exactly my point. A seat fitted into a 788 is a different seat as one fitted into a 333. They don't compare 1/1 yet that's what you are doing.

Again:

Data extracted from original manufacturer planning charts:

A330 with a 2+3+2: Seat-pair width 48in., aisle 19in.

787 with a 2+3+2: Seat-pair width 50in., aisle 21in.

A330 with a 2+2+2: Seat-pair width 54in., aisle 21in.

787 with a 2+2+2: Seat-pair width 57in., aisle 22in.

A330 with a 2+4+2: 41.5in, 19in.

787 with a 2+4+2: 43in., 21.5in.

A330 with a 3+3+3: seat tripple is 57.1in., aisle 16.5in.

787 with a 3+3+3: seat tripple is 59.5in, aisle 18.in.

So, no matter which seat you'd try to fit into either one, it wouldn't fit the other.

A simmilar config in a 333 always would yield a worse rating then the one in the 787. That's obvious.

But you're rating a 2+2+2 in a 333 exactly the same as a 2+3+2 in a 787 because of the same seat. That's obviousely wrong.

Same goes for 2+3+2 vs. 2+4+2 and so on.

All I'm asking is to not only rate the individual seat, but also consider the layout for rating.

You tool apparently has cabin widths data and seat widths data. So why not program the tool in a way to rate a ComfortPlus seat (for example) with it's individual rating AND a cabin widths or layout factor?

I think this new system should be turn off , for now and try to improve it. Because the introduction of a new system , is a huge step backwards to make  server world more unreal.  I think  the world server, should support  different aricraft . Now we will see in use practically only DH8 , 737 , 739 BGW and 739 HGW , nothing else ! And this change seats system even more supports these planes. It suck !

Well, it certainly doesn’t suck.

I actually love the new cabin editor as much as I love AGEX. No kidding!

But there needs to be some tweaking to the ratings as I’ve said above.

As it is now, the new seats clearly favour narrowbodies. It never was as profitable to operate a 73J on long routes as it us now.

And there should be created an economy seat that would have approximately same width/size/rating as old "Economy" seat.

I look at it this way:

BEFORE:

Economy seat + 5* onboard + default price= 99 ORS

NOW

Comfort plus (=1.2 Economy seat) + 5* onboard + 1.15 default price = 99 ORS

As we can see I have to use 1.2 (old) economy seat for 1 new Comfort Plus, but I can only charge 15% over the default price.

So my Y class net revenue is actually 4.4% less by trying to approximate my old config/price/service ratio with the new one.

Folks, the old seats are history.

Stop trying to compare the new ones with the old ones.

The old ones are irrelevant.

You need to adust the rating for Comfort seats. Comfort Plus is just too big and the rating difference between Comfort and Comfort Plus is just ridiculous. You must improve Comfort seat rating, It will be impossible to be profitable in long-haul flights.

edit: To be fair, all the ratings must be improved. Leisure Plus rating is so poor that it is ridiculous. I’ll have to operate a 737 with 80 seats to get a decent rating. This is not real.

Hi,

I agree with AK. I like the new cabin editor as much as I like the AGEX.

And the new cabin editor does not favor narrow bodies. If you operate a Boeing 747-800, you can install almost exactly the number of seats you should be able to install. And the 747 is as much a narrow body, as the 707 is a wide body (check the manufacterer's page ;-)

@SK

I don't want to install a full bed in business long haul flights that has a size 3 in a 747 when it has a size 4.6 in my 767. And don't tell me the seat has the same size. For me, the seat behaves like a seat that has size 4.6 and gives me the rating (and income) of a seat size 3.

You could invent a seat that does fit in the A330 and the 767-300. You could cheat and make these planes a bit wider but shorter. And you can stick with the current seats and cabin sizes. Either decision is fine with me. I just want to know.

My fleet of 767 flies between Peking and major airports in Europe and the US. I cannot switch to another wide body because of different speed and turnover times, and the lack of slots in these airports.

I have now equipped some 767 with suites in business class. If business passengers are prepared to pay twice the default price for a first class seat, I can make a decent profit on these routes. I should see the first ORS results late tonight. But changing a cabin layout has become expensive, and the 767 is not a small plane. It would be silly to spend millions on experiments if you guys come up with another solution next week.

So please - pretty please - let us know what you plan to do.

Jan

@SK

I don't want to install a full bed in business long haul flights that has a size 3 in a 747 when it has a size 4.6 in my 767. And don't tell me the seat has the same size. For me, the seat behaves like a seat that has size 4.6 and gives me the rating (and income) of a seat size 3.

You could invent a seat that does fit in the A330 and the 767-300. You could cheat and make these planes a bit wider but shorter. And you can stick with the current seats and cabin sizes. Either decision is fine with me. I just want to know.

My fleet of 767 flies between Peking and major airports in Europe and the US. I cannot switch to another wide body because of different speed and turnover times, and the lack of slots in these airports.

I have now equipped some 767 with suites in business class. If business passengers are prepared to pay twice the default price for a first class seat, I can make a decent profit on these routes. I should see the first ORS results late tonight. But changing a cabin layout has become expensive, and the 767 is not a small plane. It would be silly to spend millions on experiments if you guys come up with another solution next week.

So please - pretty please - let us know what you plan to do.

Jan

We shall also consider, beside the speed, turnover and lack of slots, that by adding another plane we'll be forced to add another maintenance category, which means 15% higher maintenance costs. In the last agex drop I had managed not  to register any loss only because I had reshaped my fleet by removing one maintenance category.

I am not changing my fleet of B767 when such an uncertainty is in front of me.