Timeline For Delta 777s With New Business Class Suites & Premium Economy

Oh, and a renewed, written, COMMITMENT on both of these two formerly great to cut out COMPLETELY the bs shennanigans of the Oligopolists (or “Triopolists” as Anti-Trust expert, Tim Wu, referred to our desperately non-competiting on anything other than who can screw passengers more [especially coach/economy pax] and get away with it) to degrade/worsen/collude with winks, nods, code-words like “Capacity Discipline”,etc., are doing that flyers know as the airline industry’s “Race to the Bottom”.

An IRON CLAD, non-revokable contract with ALL flyers to NOT DENSIFY, AND TO STOP RIPPING OFF AND ABUSING FLYERS is a MUST for any deal to fly.

A great way to earn flyers trust would be to bring back the dynamic duo of David Neeleman and Dave Barger to pilot any merger between Alaska Airlines and Jetblue!

Offer Tilden and Hayes golden parachutes, and bring in a team that has some real cred at having flyers’ backs, and who, can be believed when they say their mission is to “Bring Humanity Back to Flying”...

...not the let’s fudge the facts folks that say that they’re increasing legroom in a press release when they’re actually CUTTING 2” & 3” of pitch from rows as they densify their Airbus A320s!

What a load of crap that pap is!

Seriously...big time eye roll! ;)

@Johnny,

I do respect your difference of opinion.

However, I also specifically noted:

1.) I was not convinced of the safety of the densified cabin configurations for the 777s and 787s because they have relied upon computer simulations using obsolete criteria that dates back decades, instead of using updated criteria to reflect both real world demographics for passengers (elderly, infants, disabled, etc.), as well as the real world habits of human beings that now often seek to bring as much carry-on baggage as possible aboard with them to avoid additional charges for checked bags, as well as the proliferation of all manner of electronic devices and cables, many of which stretch across rows from the seats in front of them.

Further, while I am very much aware of EK 521 at DXB, one need not look any further than last week’s emergency evacuation of a smoke filled Delta Air Lines flight, where flight attendants and others specifically mentioned that there were numerous instances of passengers taking personal belogings with them as they were exiting the plane.

Finally, while I did note that I remain skeptical of the validity of computer simulations using long ago obsolete criteria/parameters to certify safety in the present versus real world tests using humans in conditions that better reflect the habits of today’s flyers, I ONLY said, I’m not convinced yet, if only because I believe flyers should have every reason to be concerned that tests that have been used to date are woefully out of date, and quite frankly, that alone should be reason enough for ALL of us to be concerned.

Would we still use antiquated criteria for building codes and fire suppression to issue Certificates of Occupancy for newly constructed skyscrapers?

Would we still be using the same criteria and safety parameters from the 1960s, 70s and 80s to establish automobile (or other motor vehicle) safety as is being done for aircraft evacuations done by computer simulations where conditions can be manipulated while real world unintended/unforseen consequences cannot necessarily emerge as they might during an actual emergency?

Fact is, we don’t for those two examples. So, why do aircraft enjoy preferential treatment, and get a free pass from being subjected to updated tests using contemporary parameters and current social/travel habits?

And this is not subjective opinion.

Fact is, Flyers Rights (an advocacy group), and others, including at least two Federal court rulings (this month for the most recent one), also believe updated tests must be done to determine the safety of seat sizes, row pitch, demographics, current travel habits, etc., towards determining the safety of current aircraft.

If such tests are done, and they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt these densified cabin configurations are safe - then so be it - densify away, I guess.

But they have not been done. And we should all be wary if the industry is unwilling to do just that - or runs an obfuscation campaign to drag and stall, say the way tobbacco companies did with smoking for decades, or the way the automobile industry did for decades, too, first for seat belts, and later for air bags, just to name two prominent examples where industry “dragged and stalled” because it knew if definitive tests were done, and the truth was known, they’d have to do things differently, and better, for consumers.

2.) I did specifically state my concerns regarding the safety of densified aircraft in general, and Boeing’s 10-abreast 777s and 9-abreast 787s in the original comment above, were a personal opinion, and NOT a documented fact.

So, again, I never made any claim whatsover I was speaking with force of authority as that of an expert in civilian airliner safety, and indeed, was just expressing a personal opinion given the opinion of a well known, and respected, advocacy group that has done its homework, and believes there is sufficient, credible research indicating insufficient testing and data exists for flyers to have the conclusive proof they need, and indeed are entitled to have, in placing their, and their loved ones’ lives in the hands of our airlines and the leading aircraft manufacturers - especially when they seem to offer a bunch of excuses defending obsolete tests and criteria devised decades ago instead of simply proving any “doubting Thomas's” wrong by running updated tests to definitively prove their aircraft in these (despicable and shameful) densified configurations (airline executives NEVER seem to fly themselves) are, in fact, safe.

Which, by the way, and as already noted, is something a Federal court thus far, also agrees.

So, why not bring on the updated tests, and let’s clear the air on this matter?!?

That’s NOT fear mongering. It’s basic common sense - something that seems to be in short supply these days.

Whatever Delta’s reason(s) may be for eschewing the much loathed and reviled 10-abreast, 3-4-3 economy cabin configuration on their Boeing 777s, we should be happy and not look the proverbial “gift horse in the mouth”!

That, or maybe someone at Delta high enough up in management has either flown, or understands from basic decency and common sense, that the densified configuration on 777s for ULH missions is sadistic and impractical - say unlike Dougie at American who admits he doesn’t fly his airline’s horrible and crappy densified new 737-8 MAXes, and has yet to be seen seated among the unwashed masses in the economy sections of any of his airline’s increasingly crappier (even dilapidated) planes!

Not only will I NOT book any flights on those atrocious, “densified” flying abominations for myself, I’ve already booked six family members (with several more possible) on Delta’s trans-Pacific alliance partner, Korean Airlines, specifically to ensure they AVOID the despicable and immoral 10-abreast 777 economy cabins to/from Manila later this year.

I have yet to fly a densified 777 in economy - and won’t. Especially after flights aboard a densified, nine abreast 787 earlier this year. It’s a horrible configuration for 2-3 hours, let alone many more than that, with aisles so ridiculously narrow that even when carefully trying to avoid others’ feet, legs, elbows, shoulders, or even heads, while walking theough the aisles to use the loo or simply stretch my legs (as one should) it still was impossible to avoid unpleasant and undesired contact with many other passengers.

The 787 is a “dream” ONLY when one is a premium cabin, and a Nightmare if it’s a “densified” one with the hated and reviled 9-abreast economy section.

The same applies to the 777 if it’s a 10-abreast, “densified” beast!

I’ve been aboard a 9-abreast 777, and those awesome versions of the 777 in economy ARE a “dream” even if it doesn’t have the sexy, cool, but alas, VERY misleading marketing moniker (“Dreamliner”) behind it that Boeing uses for its so NOT a dream if in economy 787s! ;)