PITCH vs. WIDTH

[Travel Guru]

I don't fly much Y aside from domestic these days (thank God!), so thought others might be able to shed more light on this question my sister put to me with regards to a Y trip to UK she's planning.

Disregarding any opinions on service, is it better to go for more Pitch and less Width or Less Pitch and more width?

The reason I ask is that MH offer a 34" Pitch with a 17" Width in Cattle, whereas SQ offer a 32" Pitch with a 19" Width.

Now I know you all have opinions on which airline is better, but strictly from a seat perspective can anyone shed some light on which is the better to go for for an average size male and female?

TG

[NM]

I think the answer depends on your personal body shape. Tall slender people will appreciate more pitch and can cope with reduced width. The more portly and altitudinally challenged amongst us will appreciate the extra width.

[2muchplastic]

My folks came over from the UK a few months ago on the SQ A380, and my father (only 5'10" tall but of a goodly width) complained bitterly about the seat pitch, his knees were pressed into the seat in front.

Not a pleasant way to spend 14 hours!

[dajop]

At 6'0" I will take seat pitch over width for long haul flights anyday. For short haul, if I want to get some work done on the laptop, my preference would reverse, but for long flights, once the person in front's seat goes back, an extra 2" makes a difference.

[odysseus]

The reason I ask is that MH offer a 34" Pitch with a 17" Width in Cattle, whereas SQ offer a 32" Pitch with a 19" Width.

Now I know you all have opinions on which airline is better, but strictly from a seat perspective can anyone shed some light on which is the better to go for for an average size male and female?

Definitely pitch for an average person. Even if they don't need the extra pitch or width of themselves, they'll gain from the pitch both:
1) by having less impact if the passenger in front of them decides to recline
2) If they, or whoever is in the window seat needs to get out, the extra space will help.

Extra width won't really help in any way, and actually makes the passing process more difficult as there's further that you have to squeeze past.

[brissyflyer]

I would choose pitch over width (unless width was really bad).

With MH the 772 has more width than the 744 and still has 34" pitch.

Peter

[Evan]

At 6ft or so but a bit wider i prefer width within reason, but if you simply don't have anough pitch you are in trouble and it will be a lot worse than enough width.

If you talking about the SQ 77W's then i think they are great, A380 i am not sure and 747 i avoid just because they are nasty old interiors.

MH 777, They still have 9 accross right ? in which case even though its advertised at 17" there should be decent isle and elbow room. 34" is nice pitch But my memory is too bad to remember what they are really like but i recall it being fine, nothing to complain about.

E

[anat0l]

My pref goes to pitch. I'm quite plump but I fit into most aircraft seats, so width is not an issue here.

I do often squeeze up a bit to avoid the confrontation on the arm rest. But seriously, your being squashed on the sides can't be as bad as being squashed up front with your legs and feet - particularly as that's where the blood flow will be needed to be regulated the most.

[JohnK]

At 5'9" and overweight, OK obese, I would take width over pitch anyday. Width of 17" sounds way too tight for my comfort.

I have absolutely no issue with pitch, rumoured to be 31" or 32", sitting in QF 747's or A330's seats in WHY but have occasionally struggled with width at exit rows and bulkheads with fixed arm rests due to tray table or IFE.

I have only been on SE Asian carriers a few times, back when I was a little younger and slimmer, and struggled with the width of the seat. The same can be said for Swiss Air A340.

[stryker]

At 5'9" and overweight, OK obese

John, you do surprise me (but that's life I guess).

Having seen the recent announcements from UA, I suggest you stay away from them.