# Why not make passenger planes wider? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 5, 2007, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571 "2007-10-05T00:33:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/81 "2007-10-06T00:48:39Z")
[QUOTE=aruvqan] Most people can afford $300 for a flight to a job interview or funeral, I could probably scrounge it if I absolutely had to but it would probably mean shorting a few bills for that month. Very few people can randomly decide to spend $1000 when they can just barely afford $300. And dont give me crap about if they cant afford it they shouldnt go. My parents are both 84. Every chance I get to see them I take because it may be my last. I get to see them once a year. Every year the odds increase that there will not be a next year. [/QUOTE] We need to stop referring to that statement by **gazpacho** which you quote. Mangeorge never said or inferred anything to prompt such a statement. I think maybe was referring to something imagined. Mangeorge asked why airlines don’t make planes wider. In fact, mangeorge hasn’t really even complained too bitterly about the crowded seats in coach. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/82 "2007-10-06T01:05:43Z")
[QUOTE=Atrael] It would be different if the price upgrade were reasonable. I’d pay 50% more in price if it got me 50% more in seat. In fact that is one of the reasons that I fly Airtran all the time. They give you the option for upgrading to first class for between $40 to $60 per leg of the trip. It’s well worth it to me. On my last trip a few weeks ago, US Airways offered me a $50 upgrade to business on check in. Which I took in a heart beat. So if all upgrades or better seating were in that price range, then perhaps more people would think about it. But to also semi-addres your OP, as shown [here](http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_lopas.html), the Boeing 737-600 has 17 rows in coach. Say they eliminated on seat from each row to make more room. I’m going to do a low guess here and say that an average airfare is around $250 (that’s a low guess obviously). But that right there is $4250 that the airline will lose **each and every** flight. If they’re already operating at margin in a lot of cases, they can’t afford to do that. And sure you can say that they could raise the price for the other seats, but then nobody would fly them because people want the absolute lowest price available. [/QUOTE] Again, removing seats is you guys’ idea. Making the jet wider would be a one-time thing, and if pro-rated over all the many millions of passenger miles the plane would eventually fly probably wouldn’t amount to a lot. All that’s left to be an ongoing cost is increased fuel cost. How much, I ask, could that be. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/83 "2007-10-06T01:09:23Z")
[QUOTE=mangeorge] \*\* Mangeorge\*\* never said or inferred anything to prompt such a statement. I think maybe was referring to something imagined. **Mangeorge** asked why airlines don’t make planes wider. In fact, **mangeorge** hasn’t really even complained too bitterly about the crowded seats in coach. [/QUOTE] I don’t know why you insist on speaking about the motivations for **mangeorge**'s OP. **mangeorge** simply wondered about why jets aren’t built wider to make more room. The question posed by **mangeorge** was mainly about engineering and manufacturing and it branched off into areas that were not in the scope of the **mangeorge** OP. I can see why **mangeorge** might not be happy with that. I bet if **Bob Dole** had been elected president then **Bob Dole** would have introduced some some regulations to address this **Bob Dole** style. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/84 "2007-10-06T01:51:11Z")
[QUOTE=mangeorge] Again, removing seats is you guys’ idea. Making the jet wider would be a one-time thing, and if pro-rated over all the many millions of passenger miles the plane would eventually fly probably wouldn’t amount to a lot. All that’s left to be an ongoing cost is increased fuel cost. How much, I ask, could that be. [/QUOTE] There are jets of various widths. A feature you will find in the wider bodied jets is that they put more seats side by side than the more narrow bodied jets. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/85 "2007-10-06T02:25:03Z")
[QUOTE=gazpacho] There are jets of various widths. A feature you will find in the wider bodied jets is that they put more seats side by side than the more narrow bodied jets. [/QUOTE] Are there jets 12" wider? Not enough for another row, but enough for another 2" per seat? I’m not being at all clear, am I? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/86 "2007-10-06T02:27:07Z")
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”] It’s not specific to the 727. I think it is inherant in aircraft design to some extent. You’re dealing with large aircraft able to take heavy loads and the main wheels must be relatively close to the centre of gravity so that the tail plane has enough authority to pitch the nose up when taking off. I’ve also seen light aircraft do it when the pilot gets out first before the passengers. [/QUOTE] Sure, and I’d expect this kind of compromise in light aircraft, where the operator is typically the owner (or leasee) and the scope of liability is limited. Ditto for military combat aircraft which are designed to operate in extremes and take off with the largest payload possible. With commercial aircraft, however, I’m surprised that the margins on loading are such that a non-fantastical loading can result in a gear failure on the ground; the liability if such a thing were to happen with passengers on board would seem outrageous and unacceptable to a commerical carrier. But I guess that’s an accepted risk in that industry, to be mitigated by procedures and training. Weird. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/87 "2007-10-06T03:23:54Z")
[QUOTE=mangeorge] Are there jets 12" wider? Not enough for another row, but enough for another 2" per seat? I’m not being at all clear, am I? [/QUOTE] What? A small sample of Boeing air craft 737 width 11 ft 6 in 747 width 20 ft 757 width 11 ft 7 in 767 width 15 ft 6 in What is the exact interior width you want? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/88 "2007-10-06T04:04:31Z")
[QUOTE=mangeorge] All that’s left to be an ongoing cost is increased fuel cost. How much, I ask, could that be. [/QUOTE] Lots. > **[The Seattle Times | Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment,...](https://www.seattletimes.com)** > > Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel, restaurants and opinion for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. > [@](#): > > Boeing’s performance engineers say a 2,500-pound weight reduction would cut a 777’s fuel burn by about 80 gallons on a transcontinental flight, saving just over $130 at current prices. Assuming a typical 600 flights per year, that could yield annual savings of about $80,000. > > … > > The importance of keeping weight down was underscored last week by Air Canada’s decision to strip the paint off an operating 767 to save just 360 pounds. It expects to save $20,000 annually in fuel, or $900,000 if applied to the airline’s entire fleet of 767s. Those were 2005 prices, which have increased considerably since then. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/89 "2007-10-06T04:20:12Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] Lots. [/QUOTE] Well…yes and no. Per my admittedly (very) dodgy estimate widening a 737 to allow another 2" per seat would increase that plane’s weight by 6,000 pounds. If we go with your article let’s call that $400 more fuel per flight at today’s prices. The plane I cited I think carries 108 paying passengers. Spread across all passengers their ticket price would increase by $3.70. I think most people would be happy to suck that up. Of course this ignores many other factors such as cost of redesigning the plane so dramatically, higher purchase cost and so on that would need to be accounted for. But for strictly operating cost that is not so bad. ---
**Author:** ![racer72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/racer72/32/3075_2.png) [@racer72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racer72)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/90 "2007-10-06T04:26:10Z")
The seats of every 737 built since the late 80’s is a bit wider than the older models. Up till then, each 737 was required to have a 24 inch wide aisle and the outboard seat encroachment (the distance between the seat structure and fuselage frame structure was 5 inches. Part of the design process of the 737-500 was a narrower aisle of 22 inches and 4 inches of seat encroachment. This extra 4 inches of width was added to the seats. The only reason I remember this is I had a custom made ladder that was 23 inches wide that allowed me to do my work on the 737. My ladder would not work on the narrow aisle airplanes. As far as tipping airplanes back on their tails, I have seen it twice in the 737 assembly plant. The first time a mechanic was changing a schrader valve on a landing gear strut and attempted to jack just the left side of the airplane. Just about the time the left landing gear tires came off the floor, the airplane rolled back towards the tail. The only thing that kept if from going all the way was the front service door caught the forward entry stand. The second time was caused by the failure of a tail jack due to improper jacking. The jack failed and the airplane rolled back on the wing jacks pushing the tail jack till it caught the left hand stabilizer. The jack tore through the lower stab skin again keeping the airplande from roll over onto it’s tail. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/91 "2007-10-06T04:35:15Z")
Let’s see; 130 dollars split among 300 passengers? $0.43 each per 2500 lbs. I don’t know how much the extra 2 inches/passenger would weigh. I also don’t know how far a transcontinental is, but I think I’d pay that. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/92 "2007-10-06T04:43:40Z")
[QUOTE=gazpacho] What? A small sample of Boeing air craft 737 width 11 ft 6 in 747 width 20 ft 757 width 11 ft 7 in 767 width 15 ft 6 in What is the exact interior width you want? [/QUOTE] 737 new width = 12 ft. 6 in. 747 " " = 21 ft. 757 " " = 12 ft. 7 in. 767 " " = 16 ft. 6 in. Of course these don’t all have six seats across, but you can get the idea. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/93 "2007-10-06T05:47:18Z")
[QUOTE=mangeorge] 737 new width = 12 ft. 6 in. 747 " " = 21 ft. 757 " " = 12 ft. 7 in. 767 " " = 16 ft. 6 in. Of course these don’t all have six seats across, but you can get the idea. [/QUOTE] I have a theory about why the airplane industry does not consult you about the width of planes. It is because they know there is no pleasing you and it is best that they just get on with selling planes. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/94 "2007-10-06T06:40:55Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] If we go with your article let’s call that $400 more fuel per flight at today’s prices. The plane I cited I think carries 108 paying passengers. Spread across all passengers their ticket price would increase by $3.70. I think most people would be happy to suck that up. [/QUOTE] But let’s say you search for flights on Travelocity and came up with two choices, priced $198 and $201.70. Do you look up the seat width of each plane to see if the $201.70 flight offers more room, or just choose the $198 flight? ---
**Author:** ![LiveOnAPlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@LiveOnAPlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveOnAPlane)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/95 "2007-10-06T06:47:36Z")
I am sorry, but you are ALL missing the point. If they made the seats a lot wider, then everyone would be enjoying the same comfort that frequent flyers (like I used to be) get when they get upgraded for free into the elite seats. Were I still flying like I did for 11 years, I simply could not handle not being, well…you know, _special_! Definitely would transfer my alliance to an airline that _appreciated_ me. BTW: 🙂🙂🙂 and 😛 ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/96 "2007-10-06T07:14:39Z")
Another consideration is construction. Boeing builds fuselages for the 737 in the midwest (Kansas?) and ships them [by rail](http://www.mtnwestrail.com/montana/nimrod2.jpg) for final assembly in Seattle. Any wider and they would have to rethink the whole process. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/97 "2007-10-06T13:26:11Z")
Back to the OP’s point about just a little extra wdith: The 1950’s era 707 set a width standard that Boeing has followed exactly through the 727 and 737 & 757. As **racer72** pointed out, there have been changes in interior arrangement over the years to try to squeeze a few extra inches into the seats. The Airbus A318/19/20/21 series which over its lifecycle has competed with the 727, 737, & 757 series (only the 737 remains in production) is in fact slightly wider outside & inside. Per [Airbus A320 family - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320) the fuelsage width is 13’, which is ~18" wider than the Boeing standard. Not enough for a whole extra seat (or else one would be there), but still some extra width. Boeing’s seat width has been constrained by design decisions made in the 1950s (737) and 1970s (767). Airbus’ current competitive products came along in the the '80s & 90s respectively and are slightly wider. Another effect is that for narrowbody aircraft which only seat 6, the minimum increment/decrement in seat count vs seat width is a large percentage. As the airplane gets wider, you can adjust in smaller increments. Imagine an airplane that could hold either 20 or 21 seats abreast. That marketing decision would involve seat width vs. body count increments of 5%, not 20%. That sounds good from a customer point of view, but what it really means is that by shaving just an inch off the seat width they could stick another seat in the row. So with that physics in mind, let’s see what’s happening in the industry today: Later this year Boeing will fly the first 787, the replacement for the 767 medium wide-body. Meanwhile, Airbus is designing their response, the A350XWB where XWB stands for “extra wide body”. With the 787 & A350, the manufacturers had the opportunity to choose seat width based on 1990s-sized Americans. And then to choose fuselage widh accordingly. So what did they do? From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_787:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787:) (footnotes removed & paragraph breaks inserted) > [@](#): > > The 787 will seat 240 in two-class domestic configuration, with 46 in (116.8 cm) first-class pitch and 34 in (86.4 cm) coach class. 296 passengers can be seated in a high density 3+2+3 coach arrangement with 36 in (91.4 cm) Business and 32 in (81.3 cm) Coach pitch. Up to 234 passengers may be seated in a three-class setup that uses 61 in (154.9 cm) pitch in First Class (2+2+2 or 2+1+2), 39 in (99 cm) pitch for Business (2+3+2 or 2+2+2) and 32 in (81.3 cm) for Coach (2+4+2). > > Cabin interior width is approximately 18 feet (547 cm) at armrest, and was increased by 1 inch (2.5 cm) over what was originally planned. The 787’s interior cabin width is a full 15 in (38 cm) greater than that of the Airbus A330 and A340, but 5 in (13 cm) narrower than the proposed A350-800 XWB. > > For economy class in 2+4+2 or 3+2+3 arrangements, seat-bottom widths will be 18.5 in (47 cm), comparable to that found on the Boeing 777. For 3+3+3 seating, the seat widths would be approximately 17.2 in (43.7 cm), the same as those found on the Boeing 737. The vast majority of airlines are expected to select the 3+3+3 configuration on the 787. Read the final paragraph carefully: The new-and-improved wider cabin can accomodate 9 narrow seats or 8 wider ones. The airlines believe people will not pay the extra 12.5% to have the wider seats. So they intend to install the narrow ones. So back to the OP & the bottom line: Once we get to medium wide-bodies (or bigger), there is almost no way to make the airplane “a little bit” wider & have that reflect into seat width. Any extra fuselage width can be parlayed into an extra seat in the row by artful shaving of the other seats & aisles. For narrow bodies it is possible to make a fuselage _just_ wider enough that an extra adult-sized seat won’t fit & the extra width almost has to end up in wider seats or aisles. Airbus chose that direction with its A320 series. Now for some new horror in the future: We know the seats on today’s RJs are even narrower than those on today’s 737s. Boeing & Airbus are both in the early concept stages of their replacements for the 737 & A320 series. There is no expectation that Boeing will stick with the structural design or tooling from the 707. IOW, they’re really starting with a clean sheet of paper. Whch means fuselage diameter is 100% an open decision. Will they plan on an airplane slightly wider than a 737 and stuff _seven_ RJ-sized seats into it? I certainly don’t know, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/98 "2007-10-06T13:42:31Z")
Where is this cheap air fare that everyone is talking about? We are flying Denver to Pittsburgh for $450 apiece. Coach of course. And then the bastards turned our non-stop flight on the way back to a stop and change of planes in Philly. Turned a 3 hour trip into a 7 hour one. ---
**Author:** ![racer72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/racer72/32/3075_2.png) [@racer72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racer72)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/99 "2007-10-06T13:56:25Z")
[QUOTE=lawoot] Another consideration is construction. Boeing builds fuselages for the 737 in the midwest (Kansas?) and ships them [by rail](http://www.mtnwestrail.com/montana/nimrod2.jpg) for final assembly in Seattle. Any wider and they would have to rethink the whole process. [/QUOTE] It’s in Wichita by a company called Spirit Aviation, Boeing sold off this part of the assembly process about 5 years ago. The planes are not built in Seattle, it’s Renton. Boeing actually hasn’t built an airplane in Seattle since the early 60’s when 707 production was moved to Renton. The 727, 737 and 757 are or were built in Renton, the 747, 767, 777 and 787 are built in Everett, which is about 30 miles north of Seattle. ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571/100 "2007-10-06T19:27:16Z")
Well aware of where the planes are assembled. It’s just easier, when talking to a world-wide audience, to say ‘Seattle’. For example, I tell folks that I live ‘near Seattle’, when it’s over an hour away (by either boat or car). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-make-passenger-planes-wider/421571.md?page=6)