FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   TravelBuzz (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/)
-   -   9-10 Hour long Narrow Body Flights coming soon! Will you mind? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/1977590-9-10-hour-long-narrow-body-flights-coming-soon-will-you-mind.html)

Narrow Seat Jul 10, 19 2:31 pm

9-10 Hour long Narrow Body Flights coming soon! Will you mind?
 
I was reading that new technology will allow flights up to 5000 miles to be flown on Narrow Body Planes. This would allow a narrow body plane to be used on flights from JFK to Madrid, Rome, Paris, and Munich. Many of these flights are 9 hours long going from Europe to the United States.

Narrow Body flights are allowing airlines to offer nonstop flights to many smaller cities in western Europe that does not have enough passengers to allow for widebody flights.

I asked some friends about this and some thought a 9-10 hour flight on a narrow body plane was not a big deal. The seat would be the same with its uncomfortable 31-inch pitch and narrow 17-inch width. So the seat you sit in economy class will be the same.

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.

What do you think, would you mind flying in a narrow body plane in a 9-10 hour 5000-mile flight?

obscure2k Jul 10, 19 2:38 pm

It will remind me of my earliest transatlantic flights on TWA, PanAM, SAS . Of course, the Concorde was a very narrow plane. Loved that plane, but the flights were only a little more than 3 hours.

BearX220 Jul 10, 19 5:02 pm

I flew single-aisle aircraft across the pond until the mid-1970s and began flying 757s transatlantic in, I think, the mid-to-late '90s, so from my perspective the insistence than only twin-aisle planes can possibly do is kind of odd.

garykung Jul 10, 19 5:16 pm


Originally Posted by Narrow Seat (Post 31290221)
What do you think, would you mind flying in a narrow body plane in a 9-10 hour 5000-mile flight?

I have once stuck in the same 757 for about 13 hours for LAS-EWR-SJU-EWR.

I have once traveled in a 757 for 6 hours TATL.

It is not a question if you mind or not, but a question of if you have the choice.

kennycrudup Jul 10, 19 5:25 pm

Ever get stuck in steerage on a TPAC Screamliner?

NEVER
AGAIN

I'll walk first

OskiBear Jul 10, 19 5:34 pm

It's not ideal if for nothing than the inconvenience of a single aisle being used for passengers and crew to access lavs and galleys. However, growing up, we used to fly TPAC and hop across the ocean on 707s before 747s were commonly deployed on those routes.

TuxTom Jul 10, 19 6:24 pm

Long-haul in a narrow body isn't new by any means, but it's looking like it may have a resurgence with the A321XLR. I will certainly try to avoid it as much as possible though, as I generally find wide bodies to be more comfortable even if the stated seat measurements are the same. On a 4 hour flight I usually don't get up at all, but on a longer flight where I'm going to need to get up I certainly want to be able to move around for a minute or two and have access to the lav. One aisle means you're often blocked by the cart.

kochleffel Jul 10, 19 7:36 pm


Originally Posted by BearX220 (Post 31290692)
I flew single-aisle aircraft across the pond until the mid-1970s and began flying 757s transatlantic in, I think, the mid-to-late '90s, so from my perspective the insistence than only twin-aisle planes can possibly do is kind of odd.

My thought as well. I flew TATL in a 757 as recently as 2008, but it was PHL-LGW, not as far as some of the routes now being mentioned. On the other hand, I recently flew ARN-EWR, and while I was on SAS in an A330, I noticed that United flies the route with a 752, and the block time is more than 8 hours.

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.

BuildingMyBento Jul 10, 19 9:41 pm

UA will be flying those 757s to Gander even after BER opens.

trooper Jul 10, 19 9:52 pm

PR operate narrowbodies SYD-MNL which is a bit over 8 hours. I was VERY glad to see the flights I needed in November were going to be on the A330 instead.... The seats may be the same (PR's long haul narrowbodies actually have lie flats in J, not that Im flying up front this time.... lol) but the general feeling of space and aisle access are two things I really like about widebodies.

Mwenenzi Jul 10, 19 9:59 pm


Originally Posted by OskiBear (Post 31290771)
It's not ideal if for nothing than the inconvenience of a single aisle being used for passengers and crew to access lavs and galleys.

However, growing up, we used to fly TPAC and hop across the ocean on 707s before 747s were commonly deployed on those routes.

B707's have the same cross section as a current B737. DC8's about the same.
Until 1969 when the B747, was introduced, most long haul was in what today would be considered "narrow body" . Passengers of the day survived to see the sun rise the next day. Much ado about nothing

Edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrow-body_aircraft

trooper Jul 10, 19 10:05 pm


Originally Posted by Mwenenzi (Post 31291296)
B707's have almost same cross section as a current B737. DC8's about the same.
Until 1969 when the B747, was introduced, most long haul was in what today would be considered "narrow body" . Passengers of the day survived to see the sun rise the next day. Much ado about nothing

True! But.... Things that folks like, and are accustomed to, can assumean importance that may objectively be out of proportion......:D

rickg523 Jul 10, 19 10:34 pm

What was the seat pitch and width on those old 707s?
How many seats were there in those economy cabins? How many lavs?

nk15 Jul 10, 19 10:41 pm

Imagine it overnight in January in winderstorms on both sides of the Atlantic...

Mwenenzi Jul 10, 19 10:46 pm


Originally Posted by rickg523 (Post 31291343)
What was the seat pitch and width on those old 707s?
How many seats were there in those economy cabins? How many lavs?

B707 is same width as B737. Both 3 x 3 in economy
Seat pitch was better. And it was better 5, 10, 15 years ago. Over the years seat pitch has decreased and seat thicknesses deceased (~increasing leg room)

The wikipedia link above has an indication of seat numbers


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:34 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.