3-4 seating on 737 / A320?

[americancrx]

Is there any reason that airlines do not purchase a high-density configuration for narrowbody aircraft?

The capacity of a 737 Max 8 200 is 198 people, with a 29" seat pitch and 6 17" wide seats per row.

If width were decreased to 15", and the aisle taken down the same and placed off-center, that would put in a 7th seat per row, another 33 passengers.

Reducing seat pitch to 26" would allow another 3 rows of seats to be added, another 21 passengers.

That would allow 252 people to fly. The fuel consumption would only be increased by the additional lift needed to pick up the additional 4 tons, so it would be more efficient per passenger.

Would Boeing or Airbus have to retest evacuation? Is there enough margin there that they wouldn't have to redesign the doors?

[alangla]

As much as producing such a cattle truck no doubt appeals to various low-cost airlines, as well as the exit issue, you’d also have the problem of more hand luggage in the same number of overhead lockers (I suppose limiting the “2 cabin bag” upsell could address that), the number of toilets required for the extra passengers and the ability of the drinks trolley to get through the aircraft. As much as slimmer trolleys might help, the sort of airline that would be interested in cramming more seats in is the same sort that’s relying on the ancillary revenue from the trolley. You’d also have to increase the number of cabin crew, I think it’s 1 cabin crew member to 50 seats (not passengers, which is why EasyJet unbolted the back row on their A319s just after the pandemic eased). You’d also have to hope there was enough room underneath for the extra check-in luggage. Probably ok for short flights between cities, but likely to be an issue on holiday flights.
It would also just be downright unpleasant to travel on.

The US airlines already have issues with “out of gauge” passengers needing 2 seats, this presumably would be worse with a narrower seat, but again it offers the option of more 2-seat upsells. Ryanair already do this, but are effectively charging double fare. https://help.ryanair.com/hc/en-gb/articles/1289237...

[wisbech]

Yes, evacuation regulations. There’s strict rules on number of passengers per door. So aircraft have a max seating count - eg the A330 is 440, the

[alangla]

wisbech said:

Yes, evacuation regulations. There s strict rules on number of passengers per door. So aircraft have a max seating count - eg the A330 is 440, the

The exit limit thing can be solvable though: the Ryanair spec Max 8 has the door layout of a Max 9 or 10 (3 doors and 2 hatches on each side) and the Max 10 is specced for 230 seats apparently, so presumably you could ram that number of seats into the Max 8 fuselage. Thinking more about this, did BA not do something similar to what the OP is proposing when they adjusted their 777s from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3 seating? The 777 exit limits do seem to be significantly over-specified for the actual number of seats fitted though.

[Mr Pointy]

Because it would end up being as big sthole of an a aircraft as the 787/Dreamliner. That's a vile way to travel.

[IanUAE]

Would moving to 3-4 configuration upset the lateral balance of the aircraft?

[stevemcs]

I don’t like flying on them as they are as they are cramped and uncomfortable with no space.

[demic]

IanUAE said:

Would moving to 3-4 configuration upset the lateral balance of the aircraft?

Wouldn’t have thought so. 3-2 used to be quite common (DC9/MD80).

[Simpo Two]

IanUAE said:

Would moving to 3-4 configuration upset the lateral balance of the aircraft?

Thin people on one side, very thin people on the other.

[alangla]

demic said:

Wouldn t have thought so. 3-2 used to be quite common (DC9/MD80).

Still is: the A220/Bombardier CS100/300 is 3-2, lots of smaller aircraft are 2-1.

[Cristio Nasser]

An aircraft that can only accommodate people up to a max. of 5’-8” and 75kg isn’t going to work well anywhere outside of East Asia

[americancrx]

IanUAE said:

Would moving to 3-4 configuration upset the lateral balance of the aircraft?

Not really. The moment arm is very short, as the "light spot" of the aisle is only 15" off center.

[Austin Prefect]

Cristio Nasser said:

An aircraft that can only accommodate people up to a max. of 5 -8 and 75kg isn t going to work well anywhere outside of East Asia

This

Airliners are ridiculously cramped as it is.

[48k]

IanUAE said:

Would moving to 3-4 configuration upset the lateral balance of the aircraft?

As long as it lands butter side up youre golden.

[wisbech]

Cebu Pacific are now fitting 194 seats to an A320 by removing galleys. EasyJet for comparison are 180

[americancrx]

Austin Prefect said:

This

Airliners are ridiculously cramped as it is.

Not really. Around 2/3 of passengers are women and children.

[alangla]

wisbech said:

Cebu Pacific are now fitting 194 seats to an A320 by removing galleys. EasyJet for comparison are 180

186 usually, but they’ve got a micro fleet of second hand aircraft that never get away from Gatwick and have 180. I was on one last month and it felt more cramped than the normal 186 seat planes. Thicker seats maybe?

194 would be what, 32 rows of 6 and 2 odd seats somewhere, maybe against the back wall where the current rear galley is. I’m assuming no bulkheads front or rear and the crew seats attached to the toilet doors. That sounds like the most miserable experience possible.

[captain_cynic]

alangla said:

wisbech said:

Cebu Pacific are now fitting 194 seats to an A320 by removing galleys. EasyJet for comparison are 180

186 usually, but they ve got a micro fleet of second hand aircraft that never get away from Gatwick and have 180. I was on one last month and it felt more cramped than the normal 186 seat planes. Thicker seats maybe?

194 would be what, 32 rows of 6 and 2 odd seats somewhere, maybe against the back wall where the current rear galley is. I m assuming no bulkheads front or rear and the crew seats attached to the toilet doors. That sounds like the most miserable experience possible.

Yep, that sounds like Cebu Pacific.

Here's the A32N with 188 seats.
https://www.aerolopa.com/5j-32n

They have a 321 with 236 and A339 with 459.

And it's an airline run by Filipinos. Filipinos have many admirable qualities but management skills are not amongst them.

There are fates worse than hell and one or them is flying Cebu Pac.

Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 30th December 07:17

[smallpaul]

I'm reasonably sure your theory of simply adding 33 seats would make most aircraft overweight



For a 320 neo

Dry weight is roughly 43981kg (ZFW)
+12000kg fuel
+3000kg bags
+1000kg cargo
+200kg water + waste
+800kg catering
+16700kg passengers (191 passengers and crew at 90kg)

You have 77,681kg aircraft. Can take a bit more fuel for reserve.

Weight Limit (MTOW) is 79000kg

Add your 33 passengers (90kg each including hand luggage) 2970kg
And another 33 bags 429kg
Another 300kg fuel to burn
Another 500kg in seating

77,681+2970+429+300+500

=81,880kg

2880kg overweight

Edited by smallpaul on Wednesday 31st December 22:57

[this is my username]

If I remember correctly, the aircraft would need an additional fire axe too ….