9-10 Hour long Narrow Body Flights coming soon! Will you mind?
Jul 10, 2019, 11:24 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,410
Thanks for referring me back to thr article.
I think those numbers alone demonstrate a difference in what was and what will be.
It's not the size of the plane, per se. It's how many people are in the plane. I say that for this size plane, anything over 220 is pressurizing the systems, the workers, and the passengers. I'd say 300 passengers in a narrow body for 10 hours is way beyond the tipping point. 6 hours? Maybe...but
I wouldn't take that flight expecting anything but misery in Y or dissatisfaction in a premium cabin.
Versions of the [B707] have a capacity from 140 to 219 passengers...
The highest seating capacity of a narrow-body aircraft is 295 passengers in the Boeing 757–300...
The highest seating capacity of a narrow-body aircraft is 295 passengers in the Boeing 757–300...
It's not the size of the plane, per se. It's how many people are in the plane. I say that for this size plane, anything over 220 is pressurizing the systems, the workers, and the passengers. I'd say 300 passengers in a narrow body for 10 hours is way beyond the tipping point. 6 hours? Maybe...but
I wouldn't take that flight expecting anything but misery in Y or dissatisfaction in a premium cabin.
Jul 11, 2019, 1:16 am
#18
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere between AMS and ANR
Programs: Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, United Platinum Premier, AF/KLM Platinum
Posts: 266
Anything over 4 hours on a narrowbody is straight torture nowadays 
. I'd go out of my way to fly widebodies, as the double aisles help with reaching the toilet, cabin pressure is better and there's an increased chance that there are some empty seats remaining when flying widebodies.
. I'd go out of my way to fly widebodies, as the double aisles help with reaching the toilet, cabin pressure is better and there's an increased chance that there are some empty seats remaining when flying widebodies.
Jul 11, 2019, 1:44 am
#19
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Programs: A3*G, LH FTL, VS Red, Avis Preferred, Hertz President's Circle, (RIP Diamond Club)
Posts: 2,364
I regularly fly MAN-EWR in Y with UA to get in and out of the US. The seats are fine for Y and I find sharing the cabin with fewer people to be more agreeable. A modern version of the B757 would suit me down to the ground.
Jul 11, 2019, 3:38 am
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,527
Correct, we did. And I would much rather not go back to those days, when lav access was a PITA.
Jul 11, 2019, 6:03 am
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2019
Programs: AA, UA
Posts: 117
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.
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.
Jul 11, 2019, 9:07 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,647
Definitely more claustrophobic and cramped, and it also takes some of the magic of a long haul trip away.
The other thing that concerns me is the lavs, hopefully are a bit larger (not domestic size), and in sufficient numbers. If one is clogged in an 9-hour flight it will be way more inconvenient and dangerous.
In any case, 9 hours TATL in packed narrow body won't be fun. Hopefully nobody looses it and starts peeing on their fellow passengers, lol...
The other thing that concerns me is the lavs, hopefully are a bit larger (not domestic size), and in sufficient numbers. If one is clogged in an 9-hour flight it will be way more inconvenient and dangerous.
In any case, 9 hours TATL in packed narrow body won't be fun. Hopefully nobody looses it and starts peeing on their fellow passengers, lol...
Jul 11, 2019, 9:48 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,647
Jul 11, 2019, 10:00 am
#27
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Programs: A3*G, LH FTL, VS Red, Avis Preferred, Hertz President's Circle, (RIP Diamond Club)
Posts: 2,364
Jul 11, 2019, 10:40 am
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,900
Up front, the cabin is outfitted like any other business class cabin, in economy it's frankly no more or less cramped that the INTL two-aisle birds. It's going to be miserable no matter what, and I don' really think that a single aisle adds to that misery.
Jul 11, 2019, 11:01 am
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,220
Agreed. The second aisle really doesn't make any difference - during meal service both aisles are blocked, at other times they are not. Of course, I'd rather have more space than less but a 10 across 777 (becoming standard) is worse in my book than a 6 across A321. And, if travelling in economy, I've already said that price matters.
Jul 11, 2019, 12:44 pm
#30
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: PHX, SEA
Programs: Avis President's Club, Global Entry, Hilton/Marriott Gold. No more DL/AA status.
Posts: 4,421
Probably, because with one aisle and fewer lavs the queues might be worse and more bothersome, not to mention the cart blocking. From a snobby business class passenger standpoint, I'd worry that they may not restrict the forward lav for the cabin. And not all narrowbodies are currently configured to hold meals for the entire Y cabin.