Why Qantas didn't fit 2-4-2 economy seating to the Boeing 787-9
Page
- 1
- 2
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on Why Qantas didn't fit 2-4-2 economy seating to the Boeing 787-9
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on Why Qantas didn't fit 2-4-2 economy seating to the Boeing 787-9
DeepAvThroat
DeepAvThroat
Member since 21 Mar 2017
Total posts 22
There has been a lot of criticism of Qantas over choosing 3-3-3 instead of 2-4-2 for its Boeing 787-9s. It may interest some here to know that Qantas did "run the numbers" on a 2-4-2 Y cabin during the LOPA configuration stage. Here's what happened.
Dundas
Dundas
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 10 Nov 2012
Total posts 8
Great to know the "behind the scenes" aspects! My solution is simple -- I won't visit Qantas front of house in the cheap seats, and I don't fly on airlines with 3-3-3 on their 787s (tried it once). Which means I don't fly many 787s at all, but am looking forward to travelling on JAL to Japan -- 2-4-2 with 34" pitch.
StudiodeKadent
StudiodeKadent
Member since 20 May 2015
Total posts 109
So... Qantas did it because they could get more profit out of doing it?
Bob Burgess
Bob Burgess
Member since 13 Sep 2016
Total posts 49
Really interesting insight, thank you! I suppose Qantas could have kept a 2-4-2 Y config if they were will to split the 787 fleet into "ultra long-haul" and "long-haul", so the ULH would have 2-4-2 and the LH would have 3-3-3, but then the ULH aircraft would be stuck on ULH routes and so there would be a lot less flexibility in the fleet, and so high costs.
aniljak
aniljak
Member since 15 Sep 2012
Total posts 98
Would love to see how much has this decision to go 3-3-3 cost Qantas in lost economy bookings? May mean more seats on the aircraft but you need to have people wanting to fill them! All the feedback is very negative when it comes to economy passengers comfort. 2-4-2 seating and hubbing in Singapore is what economy passengers want. Unfortunately Qantas only sems to care about the premium passengers.
ajstubbs
ajstubbs
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 15 Mar 2016
Total posts 117
tm_smile
tm_smile
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 12 Jun 2011
Total posts 15
Premium pax is where the money is made, though its not like they're struggling in Y anyway. What most Y pax want are cheap fares and decent in flight product. Gone are the days when airports like SIN were the exception rather than the rule. Many transit airports between here and the EU have closed the experience gap. Pax booking on the direct QF flight are more concerned with schedule, transit times and on board experience, and there are certainly many people willing to pay the premium to fly QF.
oxy
oxy
Member since 03 May 2017
Total posts 5
I must be getting old and cynical because those calculations you shared seem way too simple to be anything close to behind the scenes information.
Packetman21
Packetman21
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 28 Jul 2016
Total posts 68
Why does Qantas always get the hammer?! All the other airlines apart from JAL have put in 3-3-3 in their 787s, and before you say, "Qantas is doing entra long haul flights", well so is United, Etihad and I guarantee that SQ with the 787-10 will be doing 3-3-3. Everyone seems to be hypercritical with Qantas. They are very good compared to the US carriers and European carriers. It is a industry wide complaint.
Another reason why this is happening is because Boeing said to airlines and the public that 2-4-2 will be the default config. Had they said 3-3-3 was default, none of these complainers would be not complaining.
MRYJDrake
MRYJDrake
Air New Zealand - Airpoints
Member since 31 Oct 2016
Total posts 206
Himeno
Himeno
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 295
How do you know this? Where did you get this information? Why should we believe you?
This is the internet where anyone can post anything and make up whatever they want. Lacking any evidence, why should what person A posts be anymore belevable then what person B posts.
Himeno
Himeno
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 295
Another reason why this is happening is because Boeing said to airlines and the public that 2-4-2 will be the default config. Had they said 3-3-3 was default, none of these complainers would be not complaining.
The other 787 9 across airlines do get complained about in relation to this. You will find that on Australian sites such as AusBT or AFF, Qantas will get "hammered" more then other airlines because it is an Australian airline being discussed on Australian sites by Australian travelers.
If this were an American site, AA and UA would be getting "hammered" more then QF.
freshthoughts
freshthoughts
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 08 Aug 2016
Total posts 112
Why does Qantas always get the hammer?! All the other airlines apart from JAL have put in 3-3-3 in their 787s, and before you say, "Qantas is doing entra long haul flights", well so is United, Etihad and I guarantee that SQ with the 787-10 will be doing 3-3-3. Everyone seems to be hypercritical with Qantas. They are very good compared to the US carriers and European carriers. It is a industry wide complaint.
Another reason why this is happening is because Boeing said to airlines and the public that 2-4-2 will be the default config. Had they said 3-3-3 was default, none of these complainers would be not complaining.
Last edited by Packetman21 at Jun 27, 2017, 01.06 PM.
Actually, all indications by SQ and the chatter on SQtalk have it looking like singapore will go with 8 across to differentiate them selves from scoot and also because they are a truly premium carrier and as they have done with their 777 at 9 across they will do with their 787's, keeping their premium pax happy is more important to them than squeezing.
Also look at flyer talk every airline that has done 9 across on a 787 is criticised, qantas is focused on here because its an Australian site, common sense goes a long way.
Lastly, has boeing said 9 across would be the default there still would have been complaints, a seat less than 17.5 inches is stupidly uncomfortable around the shoulders for a long haul, let alone an ULL
kimshep
kimshep
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 11 Oct 2014
Total posts 412
6. Another reason why this is happening is because Boeing said to airlines and the public that 2-4-2 will be the default config.
7. Had they said 3-3-3 was default, none of these complainers would be not complaining.
I have numbered each of your points, for reply clarity. My answers below correspond to each point.
1. Two reasons: they are the 'national' carrier and secondly, when you promote your business as being a longhaul or ultra longhaul carrier, you create 'expectations'.
2. Poor argument. Each / most of the other carriers have an inferior safety rating, compared to QF. Would you have QF blindly follow the rest of the industry? Personally, I wouldn't. My own feelings are that QF could have done something really, really innovative here (a la JAL) and something that would have enhanced their image as a longhaul / ultra longhaul carrier - at a marginally increased Y price. After all, it is a 'monopoly' route that no-one else is competing on. Like the price = fly in comfort. Don't like the price = suffer an additional transit stop and enjoy the extra flying time.
3. By our very nature, we seem to fly more often (and longer) than most other populations. The ability to recognise and criticize is a point to the maturity and experience of Australian travellers.
4. Don't forget to include the British (British Airways)! Agreed, but then who wouldn't be?
5. If it is an industry-wide complaint, then you have blown your own argument.
6. Boeing's suggested configuration is only a guideline. Carriers are responsible for fitting out their aircraft as they see fit. You might recall that Airbus' suggested configuration for the A380-800 is 525 - QF fitted theirs with 484 seats - acknowledging the need for greater space.
7. Err .. yes, they would.
John Phelan
John Phelan
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 28 Oct 2011
Total posts 261