So this is something I’ve been thinking about looking at widebody seat maps: Whenever a plane is a dual-aisle 8-abreast configuration, it is always laid out in a 2-4-2 configuration, almost never 3-2-3 which would take up the same internal width, just shifting each aisle inward by a seat.
Example: 8-abreast A330 economy class:
Admittedly my knowledge on the most efficient seating arrangements is limited, but wouldn’t 3-2-3 be preferable compared to 2-4-2? It would shift the middle seats toward the edges of the cabin, to the windows in the same relative position as a narrowbody, and would turn the innermost seats into aisle seats; all of which I imagine would reduce the claustrophobic feeling of both the middle seats, which are now only one seat away from a window, as well as the innermost seats as they would now have direct aisle access.
I’d imagine this would also not make a significant impact on boarding and deboarding times, since the aisles themselves are the limiting factors as opposed to how many seats are on one side of the aisle. There would be three people coming into each aisle from the window side and only one from the center of the plane as opposed to two on each side, but that would be negligible compared to the time it actually takes to make it through the aisle to the door.
Also they wouldn’t need to separately manufacture a four-abreast seat row and can just use the three and two abreast seats they already use on narrowbodies.
The fact that we almost never see 3-2-3 seating in commercial aviation makes me think there’s a massive drawback that is completely escaping me. What do you think? Why don’t we see this more often and what are the actual disadvantages of this?
I think the main reason is that, with 3, the person farthest from the aisle needs to get past 2 other seats.
With 2-4-2, there are 4 aisle seats and 4 seats that need to pass only 1 other seat.
With 3-2-3, there are 4 aisle seats, 2 that pass 1 and 2 that pass 2.
I would guess that leads to boarding inefficiencies.
Larger mid row also contributes to effective weight distribution. When you are flying, you want to keep everything centerline.
May be because with the 323 variation you have everyone on a window seat having to get past 2 passengers if they need to use the restroom. With a 242 the most people you would have to pass is 2 and it’s more evenly spread throughout the plane. Or may be the plane designers where on heroin I don’t know
heroin doesn’t work like you think it does…
Is it very different to codeine but way stronger? Or is it completely different?
they are both opioids, so they are similar. i am lucky enough to not have personal experience, so i can’t do much detailed comparison.
but i’ll give you this gem i have stored from someone who does have that experience (and can write and how!).
Thanks it was a good read, kind of how I imagine it to be honest. Watching trainspotting and having taken codeine I can imagine without really knowing. In my comment I imagined the engineer trying to solve for the problem and then becoming benign to it and thinking something like “whatever the seating arrangement is it will be fine.”
I feel like the vast majority of those decisions are based off of safety. I wonder if it has something to do with having less people in the way of exits in case of emergency?
2 4 2 means everyone is at most 1 seat away from the aisle. This is convenient for the staff providing food etc, for people using the bathroom, and for safety in the case of evacuation. I could also see it improving safety due to the weight being more centered.
In 2-4-2 configuration, all passengers are within 1 seat of an aisle.
My guess is better centre of mass, but I know nothing about it haha.
Maybe to maximize overhead storage space
Guess: It’s to do with the galley.
The largest vertical space on an aircraft is in the middle. A 3-2-3 has only half as much space to place a “full height” galley as a 2-4-2.
