Enjoy this, on Lockheed Constellation! This is how a plane could and should be equipped!
http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/burt/images/paa9z.jpg

This is on a scheduled, ticketed airliner.

Note that while I cannot find actual images of two adults sharing this kind of bed, it has been tried and said to be perfectly comfortable.

DC-6 has beds, too:
http://www.ovi.ch/b377/articles/SuperLiners/
Looking down, the beds are 102 cm wide.

Already the DC-3 was designed as Douglas Sleeper Transport. The lower beds were 91 cm wide, the upper berths 76 cm.

Observe that while Boeing 377 or DC-6 or Constellation were called big at the time, their size is not all that impressive. DC-3 is smaller than CRJ.
Show a scheduled CRJ ticket for an 91 cm wide bed!

Constellation, DC-6, DC-7 and Boeing 377 were slightly bigger, but still small. Maximum of 5 seats abreast in Economy... about the width of DC-9, much smaller than Boeing 737.

The longhaul jets are wider. Even on the smallest widebody 767 there is a plenty of width for, say, two aisles and 4 90-cm-wide beds... 4 abreast, every seat with aisle access, is not uncommon on First Class, whether A340 or B777 or rear of B747 nosecone.

But the First Class seats are usually advertised as having 50...60 cm seat width.

Help! Where does the space go? Why cannot a modern plane have beds with 90...100+ cm mattress width comfortable for two?

What is the Virgin Upper Class like? Still just 56 cm...

Traveling back then took much longer to go the same distance. Also, airfare was easily more than twice a first class ticket now.

I obviously didn't travel back then, but I traveled in the 70's in economy class, and the tickets were more expensive (inflation adjusted) than the first or business class tickets I buy now. I also had to stop at many different airports and change airlines to get anywhere.

goalie-dad flew on a twa connie when he emmigrated to the u.s. back in 1948. he was cai-ath-rome*-london*-yqx-bos and it took 3+ days but he said as a 16 year old kid, it was a fantastic experience as it was all f/c service all the way.

*not sure what rome and london's airports were called way back then

Yes, but if you were going from, say, New York to LA, and you wanted to stop in Las Vegas on your way out, it didn't cost any extra.

It is true that prices have been held down by deregulation and competition... but I don't think that is/was very good in the long run. Competition based on price led to reduced services, narrower seats and less legroom.

If they'd charge more for each seat... let's say 20% more, and improve the overall experience then people might learn to love to fly again. But that will never happen because the airlines compete for the vacation traffic instead of the regular/business passengers.

Rita

There were several lines which operated a/c with "sleeper" accommodations, originally in transcontinental service, later transoceanic flights.

The DC-3, the mainstay of air travel for years, was configured with beds, not unlike a RR Pullman car, by a couple of lines, but with capacity much reduced from the original 21 pax (1/2 config) and later 28 pax models (2/2) in standard service. Physically "bigger" (and heavier) than the RJs, the day's technology limited the weight and number of pax it could carry.

The most spacious of the piston engine passenger a/c "across the oceans" was the Boeing Stratocruiser, developed from the US B-29 and a civilian version the C-97/KC-97. One of the airlines actually had a cocktail lounge on the small lower deck ahead of the freight/baggage holds.

Only the advent of the "Super Connie" and the DC-7C guarnteed "real" nonstop Transatlantic service, especially Westbound "into the wind". One of my first transatlantic flights involved a military flight, McGuire (NJ)/Goose Bay/Thule/Keyflavik/Prestwick/Rhein Main, a long time aloft in the back of a C-130 hauling priority cargo - no insulation, cold, noisy and "paratroop" canvas benches.

Of course, passenger loads were much smaller even in jets, with the original 707 in non-stop Transatlantic service carrying 80 or so, IIRC.

"Love to fly?" Even when amenities were great, and service exemplary, the horribly expensive 15 hours or so from IDL to London, was dull, loud, uncomfortable, and not near as good as a dozen ocean liners offered in 5 day transits. The only folks who flew were those who could afford it, and time and convenience dictated their choice. The "extras" were there only to make the flights bearable - and because the folks who flew or their employers were willing to pay for them. Pretty soon, nobody boarded the ocean liners.

For most of us, either military service or the day Icelandic changed the world by offering a fares that literally revolutionized scheduled air travel to Europe are moments we remember.

Rita, the number of regular airline pax todays is many thousands of times higher than had ever been aboard an a/c 60 years ago. An airplane is a method, today the most effective method, of traveling several hundred miles or more. The airlines, after many feints and fumbles, determined that price and convenience are the factors which best move prospective passengers thru a/c doors. There's "premium service for those willing to pay (or exchange ff miles or loyalty) for it, but for the average traveler, the back of the bus, an accasional soda pop, and 6-9 hours of boredom are exchangeable for affordable fares.

If it's the illusion of crystal wine glasses and white gloves you're after, I know this old PanAm stewardess who will (for a price) come to your house and make you feel washed in luxury once more, but it never really was as good as the legends make it out to be, especially in the back rows of a DC-6 in Wnter storm with one third of the folks puking and another third having nothing left to puke. Being in the non-puking third was only marginally preferable, and no matter how much you liked the Bordeaux for dinner, even the best of vintages tastes a bit sour when it returns to the back of your throat.

TMOliver,
I'm not disputing that early planes had their limitations. Matter of fact, I was noticing on my recent flight to Argentina how very quiet the plane was, overall, considering how loud they used to be.

However, what I'm saying is that I would bet that most people would still fly even if the price was up a bit... if that increase meant fewer seats per plane (i.e. more legroom), better food and service.

Rather, now we're wedged in like sardines, made to buy a bag of peanuts if we want to be fed, and expected to be grateful because the flight attendants are there to protect us (not serve us).

And that, dear friend, is why I obsess over ff points, so I can save them for business/first class travel on longer flights. And on the shorter ones I am of the notion that it's okay to drink bloody mary's at $5 a pop. It's noon somewhere!

I also pay for an AMEX Platinum just so I can utilize the club rooms. Silly? To some, yes, but to me, nope!
Rita

But not much longer in total.

Douglas Sleeper Transport could have cruised at, say, 275 km/h and thus taken 6 hours to fly 1650 km (while a modern jet does it in 2 hours), but it would then have flown 6 hours in total, and most widebodies can fly longer. Transatlantic flight may have taken 15 hours by propliner and just 6-9 hours by jet, but surely there are jets, like B747-400, A340 or B77-300ER, which can fly 15 hours and more at a time, while getting much further than transatlantic, with less noise and turbulence. So what is the service like in a 777-300ER?