3-4 seating on 737 / A320?
Discussion
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?
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?
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...
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 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.
thole of an a aircraft as the 787/Dreamliner. That's a vile way to travel.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff