Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

9-10 Hour long Narrow Body Flights coming soon! Will you mind?

9-10 Hour long Narrow Body Flights coming soon! Will you mind?

Old Jul 11, 19, 4:33 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K
Posts: 730
If seat width/pitch and all other things like lavatory/passenger ratio as well as the size of the lavatory are the same, why would I care? Likely the lavatory and window seats will have a bit less simply curvature of the design, I'm sure they round down on everything not up on other things so it will be worse, but for the convenience of more frequent flights or new direct to direct w/o a connect I'd take that if I get that advantage
chipmaster is offline  
Old Jul 11, 19, 5:23 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 138
Personally, I feel that 2 aisles makes a huge difference in the feeling of space and enjoyment of the flight. A single aisle flight would be claustrophobic for me on an extended length flight. I especially like the 767's 2-3-2 layout for long flights in coach.
trooper and milski like this.
pfreet is online now  
Old Jul 11, 19, 6:31 pm
  #33  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,127
FWIW, the A321XLR, which its the impetus for this conversation, publishes a 4700 nautical miles (~5400 statute miles) but most airlines expect it to fly less than that owing to winds and such. So 10+ hour flights aren't really going to be the way it goes, but 8+ certainly will.

And passengers will line up when they get non-stop flights bypassing hubs or cheaper fares as a result. We've seen that over and over again throughout the industry and time.

There are two main drawbacks the A321XLR has relative to modern twin-aisle aircraft: environmental factors and lav space. Cabin pressure will be lower (~8000 feet rather than ~6000 feet on newer composite frames) as will humidity. Both of these impact the onset of jetlag for travelers. Twin-aisle aircraft are required by law (in many/most jurisdictions) to have an accessible lav on board; single-aisle are not because when the rules were written they didn't fly that far. With that changing it will be interesting to see if the rules follow.

And then there are the myriad configuration choices that the airlines make when configuring the aircraft. For example, the brand new AirAsiaX A330neo is not going to be a particularly comfortable ride for long-haul flights in the back, even with two aisles. I sat in the seats (I'm on the left). The 3-3-3 layout is not nice.
The_Bouncer, magnus.ant and 2sk21 like this.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Jul 11, 19, 9:11 pm
  #34  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E75K 2MM former 14-year SE; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 28,133
Anything longer than a NA transcon for me and I will always choose a widebody and sit in J.
Anything NA transcon or shorter, I'm fine with a narrowbody in any cabin.
yyznomad is offline  
Old Jul 12, 19, 6:02 am
  #35  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of London.
Programs: Delta SE, Marriott Silver, Omni Select Plat
Posts: 12,725
I'll avoid narrow bodies on medium haul travel unless the economics really make sense.
milski likes this.
USA_flyer is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 8:28 am
  #36  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 46,741
I'm going to admit it: as much as I like talking about which types I like and don't like, it almost never affects which flight I actually book. If it's 10 hours, there's a good chance I'm looking for award space in J and accepting whatever aircraft type I get.

If I'm buying a coach ticket, then I'm more concerned about the seat dimensions and my probability of at least finding myself into an extra-legroom seat or, better yet, a true premium economy seat.

The only time I actually look closely at the aircraft type is when I'm buying paid J for long-haul work trips. Then, because the fares are often the same for a bunch of flight combinations in our corporate booking engine, I'll drill into the routing and types. In most cases, it's MCI-XXX-DXB-Destination, so I do look for the A380 on the XXX-DXB part. This route obviously has no narrowbodies (the other choice is a 777), but if I flew a route with a choice I'd probably opt for the bigger plane, assuming the J seats were considered roughly equal.
pinniped is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 8:43 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 3,583
Originally Posted by chipmaster View Post
...but for the convenience of more frequent flights or new direct to direct w/o a connect I'd take that if I get that advantage
That's a good point, but for the level of cabin (dis)comfort I can imagine here, it better be door to door service and come pick me up from my house...
nk15 is offline  
Old Jul 14, 19, 1:32 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 54
I usually doze off right after take off (I rarely miss!) so I usually don't mind being in a narrow plane. My claustrophobic wife would of course have a different take. And where she'll be--that's where you'll find me too. LOL
jamcoley is offline  
Old Jul 15, 19, 5:24 am
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Massachusetts, USA; AA Plat (2.90MM), DL GM and Flying Colonel (1.04MM); Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 21,992
After a six-hour flight from Massachusetts to Florida in a paratroop-rigged C-47 (military version of DC-3), "seats" were rows of webbing along the sides, and nothing blocking the open door but a few strips of webbing whose strength nobody wanted to test, I'll take a jet with real seats, pressurization, lavatories, food/beverage service and 500-mph ground speed any day. The seat matters to me. The food/beverage service matters to me. How many aisles? Meh.
moondog and nancypants like this.
Efrem is offline  
Old Jul 15, 19, 8:32 am
  #40  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 46,741
Originally Posted by Efrem View Post
After a six-hour flight from Massachusetts to Florida in a paratroop-rigged C-47 (military version of DC-3), "seats" were rows of webbing along the sides, and nothing blocking the open door but a few strips of webbing whose strength nobody wanted to test, I'll take a jet with real seats, pressurization, lavatories, food/beverage service and 500-mph ground speed any day. The seat matters to me. The food/beverage service matters to me. How many aisles? Meh.
My first trip to Hawaii was in a C-130 sitting on the webbed seats. 8 hours from an airfield near Sacramento to HNL. Fortunately that's a pretty roomy ride for 50-60 people, and we had coolers full of sandwiches and drinks.
Spanish likes this.
pinniped is offline  
Old Jul 15, 19, 2:28 pm
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Back home in the REAL Washington (SEA); still working occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.3MM; AS MVPG 75K
Posts: 13,067
Originally Posted by pinniped View Post
My first trip to Hawaii was in a C-130 sitting on the webbed seats. 8 hours from an airfield near Sacramento to HNL. Fortunately that's a pretty roomy ride for 50-60 people, and we had coolers full of sandwiches and drinks.
yep, been there: Aug 1977, Van Nuys to HNL, droning along at 23000 ft or so for 8+45 in a Lockheed Converter ("It converts Jet A into noise, smoke, and vibration") just like the one you mention
nancypants likes this.
jrl767 is offline  
Old Jul 15, 19, 6:28 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Programs: NZ *G
Posts: 5,728
Originally Posted by Efrem View Post
After a six-hour flight from Massachusetts to Florida in a paratroop-rigged C-47 (military version of DC-3), "seats" were rows of webbing along the sides, and nothing blocking the open door but a few strips of webbing whose strength nobody wanted to test, I'll take a jet with real seats, pressurization, lavatories, food/beverage service and 500-mph ground speed any day. The seat matters to me. The food/beverage service matters to me. How many aisles? Meh.
Ahh..but every seat had aisle access!!!!
magnus.ant likes this.
trooper is offline  
Old Jul 15, 19, 7:26 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 2,276
Originally Posted by kochleffel View Post
To my mind, some widebody aircraft are no more comfortable than single-aisle planes. Although the A330 is my first choice for TATL, I have not found an A340 or a 777 (in Y) any more comfortable than a 757.
I agree. To me, the only difference between a widebody and a single-aisle is that there are more of my preferred seat (aisles). Otherwise, I don't see any positives/negatives in either type of plane (assuming they both have the same seats in terms of width and pitch).
writerguyfl is offline  
Old Jul 17, 19, 12:39 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/WN/ex-UA elite
Posts: 5,714
Originally Posted by Narrow Seat View Post
The GOOD THING about the new technology that allows narrow-body planes to fly up to 5000 miles is it opens all kinds of non-stop flights on international destinations. But I still maintain that psychologically I feel less claustrophobic on a wide body plane for long flights.

Because my grandparents used to fly a narrow body 707 flight to Europe 40 years ago is not really important in the discussion about today.
A six-across economy seat on a 707 in the 1970's or earlier would mean excellent in-flight service and plenty of legroom. I would happily take that over a widebody with cramped legroom, nickel-and-diming, and a decent chance of rude staff.
tentseller and Spanish like this.
Kevin AA is offline  
Old Jul 19, 19, 3:19 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: DL Plat; SPG Plat
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Narrow Seat View Post
I think even if you are in the same type of seat, being in a wide body plane has advantages for 9-10 hour flights. Here is why:

I feel less claustrophobic for some reason because the plane is wider.
The ride seems less bumpy in a wide body.
I think it is easier to get up and walk around.
It seems easier for the flight attendants to service the passengers.
There are fewer passengers per bathroom and if you want to upgrade to economy plus or business class the seats are much better than business class in a narrow body plane.
Just flew BOS->LIS on Delta narrowbody and that's about a 6.5hr flight. It was rather uncomfortable for many of the reasons you mentioned above, especially with a 3 month old and 2 year old in tow. The bathroom situation was really not good. On a 6+ hour flight many more people will use the bathroom many more times than on, say, a 3 hour flight where some might avoid using the bathroom at all. The lines were constantly long and the bathroom immediately filthy.

(The other reasons the flight was uncomfortable had more to do with the DL cabin crew than the plane itself...they rarely came through the cabin to collect trash or service items, they did not offer water or beverage service except at meal time and when I went to the back to ask for some water (I was breastfeeding and therefore extra thirsty) I was given the stink eye)

In the future I would consider other routing options from the US to Europe that involve a wide body
emkn45 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread