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 19, 19, 5:56 pm
  #46  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Programs: BA executive Club - Silver and Altitude 35K
Posts: 272
I wondered whether this thread was serious initially and I apologise for not taking it seriously

Albeit it east coast US and Canada, the legacy carriers have flown 757s over the pond for decades. Now AC files a MAX (well will do again) from Montreal, Halifax and Toronto to Europe. I don't think those in big cities and hubs should sneer at the smaller aircraft doing point to point and making it viable where the link is valuable to smaller cities.
I've done Concorde (albeit only 3 hours in a 2 x 2 config and the BA1 A318 from LCY to JFK where you really feel like you're on a private jet. - neither felt bad though I admit the level of service may have diverted any anxiety i had! Currently to fill the MAX void - AC is doing Toronto to Seattle on an E190 at over 4 hours. Actually as a weekly user of this aircraft, I like the E190 with the 2 x 2 and 32/33 seat pitch. Being guaranteed a window or aisle is no bad thing. Four across in the middle is a creation of satan! I hear there is talk of 5 across.

I feel no more safe on a wide bodied aircraft. I find the service faster on a narrow body and with faster boarding and de-boarding.

With the enhancements from BA -they are removing bathrooms from wide (777s) and narrow body (A319s and A321s)and so the narrow / wide body argument for loos's erroneous.

The argument used to be - would you fly on an aircraft with 2 engines and not four? This was a way more relevant question then when there was genuine concern around only 2 engines holding you up. The duplicitous argument was fuelled by Virgin Atlantic who on the side of their aircraft had a slogan (and it's from memory here) - four engines good, two engines bad (until they got their own A330s and dream liners where their dislike had a miracle cure!!
QANTAS have recently cracked this argument with a 16 hour flight from Perth to London where duration appears not to be an issue (so long as the zzzz's, booze and food keep coming!)

So long as the pitch was ok and the width no worse, then I'd fly on a narrow body on a longer flight with no issues. Having recently done Vancouver to Sydney on a 15 hour flight on a 777-200LR in PE, the width became irrelevant as boredom and thrombosis were the main issues.

The likes of Aer Lingus due soon to fly A321LRs to east coast from Dublin / Shannon and it will be a nice change to say the MAX. At least there is a feeling of space around length if not width. Having done AC MAX flights from Toronto to SFO, it is no fun for even 5 hours. Westjet currently operate a 737-700 (in the absence of a MAX) from Halifax to Dublin, Glasgow and London with full loads.

If airlines could just try and avoid the 30/31 inch seat pitch - it may make it liveable. My journey on a 9 across dreamliner on AC in coach this week was no fun - and no sense of width could detract from that fact of narrow seats and no leg room.

The reality is that smaller cities which are now connected and enjoy links previously not viable would not think twice about getting on a MAX/ 757 / A321 (other products are available). To hub via a major gateway only to enjoy a wide body (and two engines) seems a tad snobby, un-green or unjustifiable. If you're interested in the carbon footprint for your trip -an energy efficient aircraft from your home location is not to be sniffed at!

And as my mother once said to me -its not the width or length - it's what you do with it!!
belfordrocks likes this.

Last edited by Mikey Mike Mike; Jul 21, 19 at 9:32 am Reason: concorde seating incorrect (typo)
Mikey Mike Mike is offline  
Old Jul 19, 19, 7:22 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Tacoma, WA
Programs: Delta Gold Medallion, United Premier Gold, Bonvoy Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 144
Eh, for me it depends on the TYPE of narrow body as well as operator and class of service. The 757-200 is my all-time favorite plane and I've done dozens of 6+ hour transcons on the type. The A321 is also pretty comfy on longer flights, whereas even a 3 or 4-hour ride on any 737 is absolutely miserable to me. I've got a 6-hour SEA-LIH flight next month on a 752, with seats in domestic FC. I don't think having the same flight in a 763 or domestic 772 would be any better or more comfortable.
Daitheflu84 is offline  
Old Jul 19, 19, 9:37 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: UA lifetime gold; Hilton Gold; Marriott/SPG Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,859
I have to argue that a proper bed in business class is better when the cabin has 16 of them vs 50 seats
I think business class is all about the bed and the quiet cabin.
Smaller cabin in business means faster service, possibly no carts and less noise
In coach I don't think there is much difference. Once you are cramped in a lousy coach seat, I don't care if there are 300 or us or just 150; I could care less if there is one aisle or two. Either way, either both aisles are free or both are occupied by service carts.
EWR-DUB a couple of times in exit row coach 757-200 on United was as good as a coach trip can get.
keisari is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 1:48 am
  #49  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: AVV
Programs: QF, HH, LH M&M
Posts: 1,004
Sure, on a night flight or when I'm trying to sleep.

Otherwise I'm the sort who likes to get up and walk around every 2-3 hours or so. Can't quite do that the same on a single narrow-bodied aircraft.
Catweazle is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 4:57 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Manchester, UK
Programs: AA/DL/UA/Etihad
Posts: 374
I'd echo the sentiments of others above. From a seat comfort perspective, economy seats are much of a muchness; they're narrow and uncomfortable no matter what airline you're on. Having flown 757s from MAN-EWR and MAN-ORD (and vice versa) several times over the years, there was a noticeable lack of room to move around, very limited overhead space and longer queues for the toilets.

I now actively avoid long haul widebody flights.
Y29M is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 7:03 am
  #51  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: Gold: A3, KL Silver: AZ, BA
Posts: 23,951
Originally Posted by nk15 View Post
Definitely more claustrophobic and cramped, and it also takes some of the magic of a long haul trip away.
(Note, nk15, this is not specifically directed at you, but rather a general observation on many of the sentiments expressed in this thread)

The mind really is an unusual thing.

On those widebodies, passengers often seek to seat themselves in the "mini cabins" to obtain the feeling of being in a smaller space, and airlines frequently "break up" the space so that the passengers are not confronted with the vista of row after row after row after row of fellow passengers, which pax on widebodies dislike (To the extent that economy class "mini-cabins" are frequenty reserved for status customers or else attract a hefty seat fee for selection) .

Apparently, other people will find the mere knowledge of having a smaller cabin, and only one aisle, to be "claustrophobic", despite having the same personal space on the narrow body that they would have on the widebody. Perhaps the airlines are missing a trick, and should introduce seat fees for such customers so that they can select the "desirable" economy seats in large cabins, where they have hundreds of fellow passengers ahead of and behind them to satisfy their longing for wide open space!!!

Or maybe it's just a case of faraway hills are greener. If you're on a narrowbody, you long for the "freedom" of the wide open spaces of a widebody (not that you actually have much more usable personal space). If you're on a widebody, you long for the "exclusivity" of a smaller cabin.
irishguy28 is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 9:17 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 86
Angry Narrow body for 9 hour flight

anyone who thinks the airlines are concerned with your comfort inflight is sadly mistaken
horseymike is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 11:25 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 728
It depends on the pax to lav ratio!
glob99 is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 6:09 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/WN/ex-UA elite
Posts: 5,728
Originally Posted by irishguy28 View Post
(Note, nk15, this is not specifically directed at you, but rather a general observation on many of the sentiments expressed in this thread)

The mind really is an unusual thing.

On those widebodies, passengers often seek to seat themselves in the "mini cabins" to obtain the feeling of being in a smaller space, and airlines frequently "break up" the space so that the passengers are not confronted with the vista of row after row after row after row of fellow passengers, which pax on widebodies dislike (To the extent that economy class "mini-cabins" are frequenty reserved for status customers or else attract a hefty seat fee for selection) .

Apparently, other people will find the mere knowledge of having a smaller cabin, and only one aisle, to be "claustrophobic", despite having the same personal space on the narrow body that they would have on the widebody. Perhaps the airlines are missing a trick, and should introduce seat fees for such customers so that they can select the "desirable" economy seats in large cabins, where they have hundreds of fellow passengers ahead of and behind them to satisfy their longing for wide open space!!!

Or maybe it's just a case of faraway hills are greener. If you're on a narrowbody, you long for the "freedom" of the wide open spaces of a widebody (not that you actually have much more usable personal space). If you're on a widebody, you long for the "exclusivity" of a smaller cabin.
I must be in the minority as I like seeing lots of space. A few years ago I had to sit in the middle seat of the middle section near the back of a 767, which sucks of course, except that I had a nice view of lots of space in front of me. Many years ago, I sat in the middle section of an L-1011, and it felt like I was in a gymnasium!
Kevin AA is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 1:49 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle Earth, and often worse
Programs: BAEC Silver, A3 Gold
Posts: 1,728
In 1971 I flew YVR-Tokyo (airport code ?) in a stretch DC-8 in Economy. Plane had about 30 pax so curled up for a nice nap. A year later, I flew SYD-YVR for 20 hours in a FULL B707, including 2 refuel stops. Economy was tough - because of no legroom (I am 6'5"). The Canadian Pacific flight ran out of beer between Hawaii and YVR, because "the Aussies drank it all" - and it was $1 a can back in 1972!

Economy is still tough, so I now fly PE or Business - for the comfort and better seat pitch. Narrow body, single isle would be fine by me in PE or Business on a TATL / TPAC flight.

Last edited by tmac100; Jul 22, 19 at 1:56 am
tmac100 is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 4:00 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 1,777
I've flown in a C-47 many times...but they've all been very short flights and I've never landed in one;-)

That being said, I think that the issue isn't whether you're on a narrowbody or a widebody but what the hard product actually looks like. A long-range of the BA LCY-JFK all-business-class flights is a far different story than an all-28-inch-seat-pitch flights.
GrayAnderson is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 6:46 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Texas
Programs: Many, slipping beneath the horizon
Posts: 9,151
I must admit that my only modern era TATL in a 757 felt a bit cramped, but memories from 1965, a 707 from Rota to McGuire, seemed clearly acceptable & comfortable. I suspect that seat pitch & total "souls on board" would make a substantial difference.

Horror story: August,1962, TATL in a C130, "wide aisles" since the seating was paratrooper benches folding down from the sides with pallets of tank ammo for the Berlin garrison & other high priority cargo.in the middle 1 only restroom for aircrew & pax. Few amenities, no wine, beer or booze, self service coffee & water from urns, box lunch, contents equivalent in taste to the box. Route: McGuire, Gander, Goose, Thule, Keyflavik, Prestwick, Rhein Main (Frankfurt), All night & most of the next day. Most of the stops were little more than courier deliveries or dropping off high priority personnel. The "Berlin Crisis" still loomed, but I was bound for a ship in Med.
TMOliver is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 8:25 am
  #58  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MSY
Programs: AA Plat Pro, UA Plat, SPG/Marriott Plat, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by Mikey Mike Mike View Post
The argument used to be - would you fly on an aircraft with 2 engines and not four? This was a way more relevant question then when there was genuine concern around only 2 engines holding you up. The duplicitous argument was fuelled by Virgin Atlantic who on the side of their aircraft had a slogan (and it's from memory here) - four engines good, two engines bad (until they got their own A330s and dream liners where their dislike had a miracle cure!!
I don't think Branson would be oblivious enough quote Orwell on the side of his planes. As I recall, it was "4 engines 4 long haul", and it was an Airbus slogan on their A340s.
aroundtheworld76 likes this.
oopsz is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 8:58 am
  #59  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NRT / HND
Programs: UA 1K, DL PM
Posts: 4,241
I always think the argument that a widebody is preferable to a narrowbody because the drink carts are more likely to not be in the way is laughable beyond belief. In many years of flying at 100k miles a year for most of those, I have never once seen FA's stagger service to keep one aisle clear while the other is doing service. Lavs are blocked off just as much on a 77W as they are on a 737, if you really have to go then you'll have to negotiate with the FA to get around the cart (I've done that plenty of times when they are working slowly, it's a non-issue).

So how about UA's 767-300 in the new configuration? Being a widebody, it still has one of the longest walks to the lav from the front of Y that I've ever seen on a plane, whoever thought that was a good design should be knocked upside the head good and hard.
dvs7310 is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 9:52 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: Hilton Diamond, Delta Silver
Posts: 1,431
Never again

Did my first TATL in a DL 757 back in March from Lisbon to JFK. Never again. I had an exit row near the mid-cabin Lav, but it still felt very cramped. I like to get up and walk around multiple times during a long flight. This one came in close to nine hours due to strong headwinds. Was probably the most uncomfortable long-haul flight I have ever been on. Flown every aircraft flying today in long-haul and the narrow-body is by far the worst option. Only as a very last resort if nothing else is available will I subject myself to that again.
divrdrew is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread